[wmf]

This sounds incredibly kludgey and at odds with Apple's de-investment in macOS. (As in "reduced investment", not "divestment".) Adding massive complexity to eke out another hour or two of battery life seems like a poor choice when there are so many things to be fixed in the OS.

[r00fus]

Why so? A Mac is a very high ASP item - why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS (using the ARM processor).

Ultimately, the 2016 MBPs are a great example of why Apple needs to divest from Intel. The poor timing for Kaby Lake mobile processors and lack of low-power RAM were both Apple's reasons stated when the topic of "the MBP isn't keeping up with the competition" arises.

And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS?

[scarface74]

Apple wouldn't need an ARM chip to allow iOS apps to run on Macs. I would think that all iOS apps are already compatible with x86. When a developer writes apps today using Xcode and runs the app in the simulator, they are running an x86 compiled version of their app linked against an x86 version of the iOS framework. It wouldn't be that much of a technical hurdle to polish the experience and officially support fat binaries that run on x86 and ARM.

[gcp]

Only in theory. In practice the existing base of software in the App Store would cause compatibility issues.

Intel based Android devices have an ARM emulator on board (libhoudini) and claim to be ARM when querying the store, in order to not have a software offering disadvantage.

[scarface74]

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but we are talking about Apple allowing IOS apps run natively on Macs. iOS apps are already running natively on macOS - but only if you have Xcode. Apple could really just include the x86 based iOS framework that it already has in the next version of macOS and tell developers if you want to run on Macs, just modify your UI to support a third target - you are already probably targeting iPhone and iPad - let Xcode bundle the x86 build its already doing while you're testing.

As far as Intel based phones, that's even easier, tell developers they are realeasing an x86 based phone in the next year, either you bundle an x86 version - again you're already testing an x86 build every time you run the emulator - or you'll lose compatibility. Apple has never been afraid to abandon apps when it transistioned processors.

The Android situation is different, if people have a choice between buying an Android device that is 70 percent compatible and one that is 100% compatible. The one that is 70 percent compatible is at a disadvantage. But if people want an iOS device and Apple switches to Intel and they lose some apps what choice do they have?

[r00fus]

I'd be amazed if Apple ever gave up ARM for x86. Has Intel improved that much in comparison to ARM for power efficiency?

[wmf]

why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS

That's not what the article is talking about and it's a bad idea for UX reasons (no touchscreen).

And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS?

Don't even go there; a vocal minority of Mac users including me do not want anything like that. And getting back to the article, if the OS is radically different then presumably it doesn't need both Intel and ARM processors.

[true_religion]

> That's not what the article is talking about and it's a bad idea for UX reasons (no touchscreen).

Windows 10 Apps seem to have bridged the divide between mobile and desktop, and run fine on both.

It wasn't instant, Windows has been trying to bring this divide closer since Windows 8... and after so long they're pretty much succeeded with the Surface tablet/laptop.

[r00fus]

> Don't even go there; a vocal minority of Mac users including me do not want anything like that.

I'm a Mac user too. Unfortunately, Apple is notorious for doing what they think is right, regardless of their user base. Need I say "lightning headphones" or "no magsafe, just USB-C"?

Both of these strike me as positioning for the future Apple wants despite the concerns the vocal parts of their userbase.

[X86BSD]

Skate where the puck will be, not where it is.

[roryisok]

No reason they couldn't put a touch screen on a MacBook or imac, though I guess they can't guarantee one on a mac pro

[__jal]

Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck. Holding your arm out screen operations for any length of time is awful, and wiping the prints off your screen on your pant leg doesn't work very well on a laptop.

That's not to say Apple doesn't release terrible things at times (hockey puck mouse[1]?), but I have trouble imagining Apple releasing one of those. (Laplet? tabletop?)

[1] I actually think that may have been calculated - it is impossible that Jobs didn't know it was a shitty mouse, but alongside the iMac, it got a ton of attention at the time Apple really needed it.

[scholia]

> Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck

They work perfectly well on desktops like the Surface Studio, where you can bring the screen down to a drawing board angle. They also work well with a "desktop OS" on convertible laptops and 2-in-1s with multiple use modes including "tent" and "tablet".

They're actually not too bad on real desktops with vertical screens, especially if you're standing up. (Try putting an all-in-one in your kitchen.)

It would be foolish to assume that just because you have a touch screen that you have to touch it all the time. You don't. You can still use a mouse, a pen, an air-mouse, a games controller, and several other things. Having a touch screen doesn't make you do anything you don't want to do, it just gives you an extra option.

It's a bit like claiming that if you use a mouse you can't use keyboard shortcuts. Really, that's not how it works....

[ScottBurson]

Except that a touch screen can't (reasonably) be optically coated to reduce reflected glare, because skin oils from fingerprints disable the effect, showing up as bright spots.

Those of us who are still bummed that we can't get a matte screen on a Mac laptop anymore will be triply upset if we can't even have an optical coating.

For the use cases of tablets/convertibles, it presumably doesn't matter so much, but for the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Okay -- Apple could have one touchscreen laptop model and leave the rest as they are, or make a touchscreen optional on the whole line. But I would never want to buy a touchscreen laptop.

[roryisok]

I have a hp spectre with a touch screen and windows 10, and it certainly doesn't suck. Great for sticking in tablet mode and browsing, organising photos etc.

[xbmcuser]

No touch screen at the moment. Apple could be looking at making a hybrid ipad/mac.

[amiga-workbench]

That would cannibalise sales of the iPad. Its why they have yet to release a proper iPad Pro, just a gigantic iPod touch with a stylus.

[scholia]

Macs cost more so why would that be a bad thing?

iPad sales were down by 22% in the last quarter and are roughly half what they were at the peak. As someone has pointed out, the iPad sales chart is looking like the iPod's, except it might be going down a little faster...

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-ipad-is-on-life-support/

Tim Cook's "why on earth would you buy a PC?" routine isn't looking quite as hot now iPads are the fourth ranked revenue earner at Apple, behind the iPhone, Macs, and Services.

[kobayashi]

>The poor timing for Kaby Lake mobile processors [was one of] Apple's reasons stated when the topic of "the MBP isn't keeping up with the competition" arises.

I've heard similar sentiments quite a few times. However, there's little reason to believe that Apple would have been able to meet their needs better than Intel could have. It's not like Intel's development schedule was misaligned with Apple. They just couldn't get the processor out in time.

[__jal]

> why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS

Never say never, but that is the sort of thing Apple would never do.

[rz2k]

I believe the Touch Bar on new MacBook Pros is a modularized component running a version of iOS on ARM.

[jolux]

It's running a stripped-down watchOS actually

[__jal]

Hadn't heard that, but I can believe it. It is also entirely different than users running Infinity Blade or whatever.

[throwaway91111]

Is apple divesting its mac offering? Sounds like FUD.

[santaclaus]

This seems... suspect. There are definitely serious concerns (see the Mac Pro), but given the continued yearly releases of macOS and and the (much maligned, but a company spanning effort) touchbar, it hardly seems like they have plans to divest.

[mortenjorck]

Divestment is an oversimplification of the direction Apple seems to be taking the Mac. Consolidation would be a better term: trying to prune the product line into a lineup of hits and nothing else, often to the exclusion of non-mainstream (professional) users.

So the test to apply is: will this enable a headline feature? In this case, if it lets Apple put a significantly bigger battery life number on the product page, I'd bet on it.

[throwaway91111]

I mean, I'm not a fan of the new MBP myself, but I don't think they're ignoring professional users. Didn't their MBP sales go UP?

[nordsieck]

"often to the exclusion of non-mainstream (professional) users"

The allusion is to the Mac Pro, not the Macbook Pro.

[scholia]

There was pent-up demand from people who had been holding off buying the old model....

[Tanegashima]

Because you can't buy something else from the PC industry?

If there is pent up demand, it's because Apple has been treating their costumeira much better than every other OEM.

[scholia]

> Because you can't buy something else from the PC industry?

You can, but it doesn't run MacOS or Final Cut Pro.

> If there is pent up demand, it's because Apple has been treating their costumeira much better than every other OEM

Or rather, it was by treating their customers worse than other OEMs by not updating their machines.

I didn't notice any other PC manufacturers where the buyer's guide said "Do not buy" for all but one machine (and the exception was the slowest MacBook).

[Tanegashima]

Proof?

[hinkley]

Apple has done many, many things to eke out a couple more hours of battery life. And there has always been a market for those improvements. Same with making thinner cases. it doesn't seem like much, but it sells.

[xenadu02]

> Apple's de-investment in macOS

Citation needed.

"We love the Mac and are as committed to it, in both desktops and notebooks, as we ever have been."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/fea...

[jsheard]

Actions speak louder than words, and it's been 3 years and 1 month since the Mac Pro saw any action.

[melling]

They upgrade macOS every year. New iMacs should be out in March or April. Sure, something is wrong with the Mac Pro, but the overall Mac investment is still strong, perhaps a little slow at the moment.

[Spooky23]

I think Ben Thompson had the best take on this. Something was fucked up bad in the product, and they aren't budgeted to make the necessary capital investment so soon to dig out a marginal product that nobody buys anyway.

[icanhackit]

> [...] to dig out a marginal product that nobody buys anyway

I wonder if they could expand the Pro desktop to be for serious gamers as well as dev's, videographers, animators etc. It'd be interesting to see what Razor and Alienware make on their systems - could it be enough to justify a presence in the high-end desktop market?

As for bringing gamers to the platform, Apple already has experience with this...from the losing side at least. Originally Halo was meant for the Mac however Microsoft purchased Bungie in 2000 and much like GoldenEye for the N64, Halo was the game that sold enough Xboxes to make the platform solid. Apple would similarly need some top-tier titles to encourage people to embrace an expensive desktop.

Apple's Anobit acquisition seems to be what's giving it the edge in the NVMe arena. They have experience with quiet cooling solutions. The touch bar would be good for key-mapping in games. Back-lit keyboards are their jam. They have a serious investment in Imagination Technologies Group who are behind the PowerVR architectures. Smaller, more reliable PSUs. Their austere industrial design is second to none and deeply contrasting to the garish Razor and Alienware designs.

It would come down to whether there's money to be made in the area, and I suspect most serious gamers build their own systems.

[scholia]

> It would come down to whether there's money to be made in the area, and I suspect most serious gamers build their own systems.

Spot on. The ultra-performance professionals and the big-spending gamers often do their own builds and then keep upgrading them.

Apple has always seen itself more of a sealed-box consumer appliance supplier, basically de-skilling computing.

[paulmd]

> The ultra-performance professionals ... often do their own builds and then keep upgrading them.

I think this claim stands in pretty stark contrast to the history of Apple products in the professional graphic/video sector.

Even for people doing stuff like CAD that is less sensitive to image quality and more performance-oriented - nobody at a company of any real size (say >25 users) assembles their own hardware. I'm sitting two feet from an HP Z400 workstation that my (architect) father-in-law snagged for me when his company upgraded their CAD workstations.

The reality is that assembling PCs, debugging them when hardware breaks, etc is not free. Once you approach a certain scale (I would imagine this is roughly around the point of a single tech) it starts becoming worthwhile to externalize the cost instead of hiding it in salaries. For a price, Dell or HP will make sure that you don't have to worry about your hardware. If you hire a bunch of new people, a bunch of new boxes will show up tomorrow. If you have a PC crap out, they'll get it back up tomorrow.

Of course they do charge for this, and they make a profit doing it (i.e. they charge more than it actually costs). Once you are at a really huge scale, it might be worthwhile to bring it back in-house and have someone do it full-time. But like any managed service, it's a viable proposition at certain scales. You buy Amazon AWS instead of running your own servers, a lot of businesses buy HP or Dell workstations instead of worrying about it themselves.

Power-gamers are pretty much always individuals, who (like tiny startups) are price-sensitive and build their own hardware. When you don't have an income stream tied to the product, it's worth spending an evening building it yourself. Although this still assumes a power-gamer with some decent knowledge of hardware. First-time builders have a bit of a hump to get over, and beige boxes sold for family PCs drastically outnumber the power-gamers.

Still though, to the more general point, Apple still has some pretty serious mind-share in the professional market, although it fades year over year especially when they're pushing shit like the trash-can Mac. I think it's premature to say that Apple can never succeed in the professional market, especially given their historic inroads in that market.

But again, they do themselves no favors by not upgrading their hardware. The current base model Mac Pro GPU uses the workstation version of the Radeon HD 7870. The high-end model uses the workstation version of the Radeon HD 7970. That's pretty ancient in tech terms, especially now that NVIDIA is moving away from Kepler. It's three generations old, they should have moved on to Fiji-based chips a year ago.

[sxcurry]

But the comment was about MacOS not the Mac Pro

[ScottBurson]

I've read that there is no longer a separate macOS development team; it's been folded in to the iOS team. I think that's a very bad idea.

[hvidgaard]

I don't think we'll see an Arm/x86 hybrid, that wouldn't make sense as they're completely different ISAs and they either need to cross translate between them, or dobble compile everything.

But a heterogenous CPU certainly does make sense. A super efficient, but not particular fast core for specific tasks that are more or less always running, and the beefy full core for regular work. If it eeks out another 2 hours of battery life, I can see Apple doing it when they're redoing a CPU from the ground up.

[nardi]

Too late, Apple already invented that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A10

The A10 is the new chip in the iPhone 7. It has two fast cores and two energy-efficient cores.

EDIT: Sorry, "invented" was the wrong word. Apple is already doing that. My point was that the parent's idea isn't new.

[gcp]

Apple already invented that

ARM already offered this (A7+A15|A17, A53+A57|A72|A73), and Android phones have been using the design for years.

[hvidgaard]

That is just an argument for them doing it for their laptop chips as well. It makes perfect sense from a battery life point of view.

[SkyMarshal]

Actually, eking out another hour or two of battery life at great difficulty sounds exactly like the kind of thing Apple, but few others, would do, if you think about it.

[Spooky23]

On the other hand, they're commoditizing Intel further and differentiating from the competition.

HP and Dell have gotten smarter and are making better devices. Apple has powerful resources in the ARM space that their competition cannot match -- they are 100% dependent on Intel, who are having issues shipping product.

[Tanegashima]

Either your prove that assertion of "reduced investment" or you retract your comment.

Apple haters...