Comment by happybuy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by happybuy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Currently Apple relies on Intel for a major component in a key product. Strategically, Apple doesn't like to have to rely on a single source or supplier for key products. Apple will do whatever is possible to remove this reliance.

Hence a prediction: within less than 5 years a Mac will be running on an Apple designed ARM processor.

How? By slowly, step by step, providing a way towards this.

Step 1. Migrate your OS to the new architecture (e.g. iOS already, OS X not far behind) - done

Step 2. Migrate your developer base onto developer tools which you control and can easily change the architecture it targets (e.g. Xcode and LLVM) - done

Step 3. Provide a space where problematic applications which use other VMs or rely directly on getting too close to the hardware are not welcome (e.g. a Mac App Store) - announced

Step 4. Change the marketplace behaviour so that you control how the majority of applications are distributed and can quickly provide updates without user intervention. Such as an App store.

Step 5. Release a new Macbook with an ARM processor, absolutely killing on form factor, price and battery performance that Intel cannot compete with. Encourage your Mac App Store developers to flick a switch in Xcode, to recompile and upload their new Universal (x86 & ARM) versions of their Apps to the Mac App Store.

Result: you now control the processor direction and application distribution mechanism for a key product and no longer rely upon the whims of Intel.

Apple is all about controlling an integrated experience for their customers. Currently Intel is getting in the way of this for the Mac product.

"Hence a prediction: within less than 5 years a Mac will be running on an Apple designed ARM processor."

That assertion presupposes that Apple will give up the professional content creation market entirely. If they've killed off Shake and curtailed developement on Final Cut Pro, then I'g guess that your theory has some merit.

The reason? The upcoming 2.5 GHz ARM core will most likely be performance competitive with today's x86, but by the time it comes to market, we'll most likely be looking at a Sandy Bridge refresh, and even the first Sandy Bridge processors will most likely smoke the best that ARM can throw at it.

The ARM will almost certainly continue to dominate the low-power markets though. I don't see a high likelihood of x86 making it there. I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that if Intel wanted to compete head-to-head with ARM, their best bet would be a low-power Itanium, since it's not saddled with x86 hardware any more, and therefore requires considerably less logic to match x86 performance with the same manufacturing technology.

And driving all your customers in design, media, print, video, music etc into the arms of Microsoft?

Or were they intending to pay to port Photoshop, Word, and a bunch of video and music editing apps to ARM?

Apple didn't pay Adobe or Microsoft to port any of their apps from PowerPC to x86, and yet it happened. So I don't see why they would pay them to port from x86 to ARM.

They'd either port and retain a large part of their market, or don't and leave an opening for competitors to take their customers.

Apple hadn't at that time just pissed Adobe off by banning flash, and MSFT didn't see Apple as a threat.

Thanks to the millions of Apple-loving creative types in the design industry, Adobe makes way too much money on the Mac to abandon it as a platform.

Just like with the PowerPC to x86 conversion, Apple will have an emulation layer when they ultimately add ARM support to OS X. It was all seamless to end users. Photoshop et al ran under emulation for years before they eventually made native apps.

I wouldn't be surprised if Lion contained ARM support courtesy of iOS. The "Back to the Mac" theme hinted at that.

How is intel in the way of "controlling an integrated experience for their customers"???

and apple never did #5. ever. well, maybe within their product line the new models are killers.

what they do is screw suppliers for price. just that.

They secure a great deal with companies that will go great lengths doing designs for them cheaply, in hopes that apple will be a recurring client. Hell, they even pulled that on IBM! They will probably pull that one on ARM too. Use the new arm design to exhaustion for a couple years, and then move back to whoever is willing to offer them a better price.

By not providing a version of their most recent processor that provides compatibility with OpenCL at a cost, performance and thermal heat envelope that would enable Apple to produce a notebook as thin and small as the Macbook Air.

The new Macbook Air uses older, slower Core 2 Duo processors with Nvidia chipsets and graphics specifically because Intels most recent chips (with integrated graphics) do not meet these requirements.

This has an affect on the customer experiences (and therefore products) Apple would like to be able to provide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com