[bazizbaziz]

One of the reasons to do this would precisely be to free up engineering talent that would otherwise have to be dedicated to developing specialized laptop logic board designs (and other specialized parts). If you can build a relatively flexible internal hardware platform that can handle laptop, tablet or phone use cases, then your production teams can focus on core problems for a specific product while borrowing whatever solutions they need from other teams. Apple already has similar chips and boards running iPads and iPhones, so why not consolidate laptops too?

For some evidence that this could be happening, look at ifixit's macbook teardown[0]. The logic board seems to be approaching the size of an iphone logic board [1]. Someone at Apple has to be asking a what-if question here when looking at this thing and thinking about how they could go all the way.

[0] https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Retina+MacBook+2016+Teardown... [1] http://www.cultofmac.com/315469/new-macbook-logic-board-is-o...

[hedgehog]

I've been following Apple and the rest of the industry since the mid 90's. Based on what I've seen I suspect that they already have built a handful of ARM Mac prototypes and maintain an ARM version of macOS, probably in a fairly serious way since the A7 shipped. macOS shares quite a bit of code with iOS and has been multi-architecture from the beginning. First bring-up was probably on actual iPhone or iPad dev hardware but they have the in-house fabrication capability to make machines that are visually the same as an existing model (probably 13" Air) with more or less the guts of an iPad. My guess is there are a small number of these floating around campus.

With those assumptions I still would bet against us seeing ARM Macs in the next couple years. There are a lot of advantages to keeping Macs single-architecture. Recent Intel CPUs are efficient enough that saving power there won't make a huge difference in user-available battery life (screen, DRAM, network, etc all use some too). Intel can price their CPUs aggressively enough to make cost not a major issue.

I do think it will eventually happen mainly because it will give them more control over their product line. Indicators of an upcoming shift will be if Intel screws up another generation of mobile CPU (it happened with Skylake, could happen again), Apple adds features like PCI-e for discrete GPU support (ok, they did in A9), and if Ax series performance starts to exceed corresponding Intel mobile parts by >50% (enough to compensate for the overhead of binary translation for legacy x86 apps).

[bazizbaziz]

> if Ax series performance starts to exceed corresponding Intel mobile parts by >50% (enough to compensate for the overhead of binary translation for legacy x86 apps).

Another milestone for an Ax laptop would be a good power efficiency story. If Apple can show an Ax based laptop with exceptional battery life under real working conditions that would be quite attractive to many people, even if translated programs experience a 50% drop in performance.

In addition to the Appstore bitcode stuff other comments mention, the Universal Binaries tools that were used for the mass powerpc->intel migration will also help to diminish the need for binary translation in many cases. UBs mean that you don't solely need to rely on Bitcode translation via the iOS/Appstore, either, so these fanciful Ax laptops could run all normal non-appstore apps quite easily.

[coldtea]

>Apple adds features like PCI-e for discrete GPU support (ok, they did in A9), and if Ax series performance starts to exceed corresponding Intel mobile parts by >50% (enough to compensate for the overhead of binary translation for legacy x86 apps).

When it happens, it might not need binary translation.

http://lowlevelbits.org/bitcode-demystified/

[pstuart]

If apps are delivered by the app store, the translation could happen there rather than at runtime.