During Apple’s 2020 WWDC keynote, Apple made a major announcement that had a lot more to do with hardware than software: Apple is moving away from Intel’s chips and switching to Apple Silicon. For most techies, this is big news, but for more casual users, this might sound like white noise; what is “Apple Silicon” and what does it have to do with your devices?
Apple Silicon, a name that will most likely change by the time it’s released, refers to custom system-on-a-chips from Apple. A system-on-a-chip (SoC) is the engine that powers your computer. It consists of the CPU (where computing happens), the GPU (where your computer’s graphics are generated and processed), the RAM, and more.
Since 2005, Apple has relied on Intel to provide SoCs, a decision that made sense at the time. Apple didn’t have the experience to create SoCs of their own, and Intel was leading the silicon industry at the time.
Today, however, is a much different story.
Why Apple is switching from Intel to ARM
There are several reasons for the decision to switch from Intel, some of which were covered during the WWDC20 keynote, such as better optimization. However, there’s a bit more behind Apple’s decision that is sure to play a major role in the future of the Mac.
Problems with Intel’s Skylake
Skylake was the chip Intel released in 2015, and though it has since been succeeded by newer chips, Skylake is where the story of the Apple-Intel split begins.
According to an Intel engineer, it was right around the release of Skylake when the relationship between Apple and Intel began to sour. Intel was dealing with changes in high-level staff and internal disagreements when the first complaints about Skylake started to come in. Bugs and issues were being found regularly, which is a serious problem when you’re the largest chip provider in the world.
A significant portion of these complaints were being filed by Apple, and according to Intel engineer François Piednoël, Apple was finding more bugs in Skylake than Intel was. For those outside of the tech industry, a customer finding more bugs than you is known as a “very not good” situation.
This was only the starting point for the problems at Intel. New chips weren’t providing the same return on performance, product releases weren’t happening on time, and reliability was decreasing. Though Apple was sure to have been thinking of switching to custom chips before this happened (the move to Intel was never intended to be permanent), this more than likely became the tipping point for Apple and started its journey towards chip independence.
Apple’s ARM chips are best in class
In contrast to Intel’s declining performance, Apple has become one of the leading developers of ARM chips – though they’re all used in-house. Apple’s A Series of chips, such as the A11, A12, and A13, are used in iPhones, iPads, and iPad Pros, and are one of the reasons other tablets and even some laptops have a hard time competing with Apple’s iPads.
When you consider this same level of optimization being applied to something with the specs and capabilities of a laptop or desktop, the possibilities become exciting. Computers can hold more hardware internals than mobile devices and host more sophisticated thermal architecture (the hardware that keeps your computer from overheating), which means that Apple Silicon could make an even bigger impact on Apple’s Mac lineup than it has on its mobile devices.
At WWDC20, Apple demoed games like Tomb Raider (gaming has historically been bad on Macs) and apps like Final Cut Pro performing impressive feats with Apple Silicon. Additionally, it looks like Apple is hoping to reach a universal App Store, where all of the apps that run on your iPad or iPhone will also be able to run on your Mac. By running everything on Apple Silicon, Apple can shorten the path to completely universal apps.
End-to-end control
Finally, whether you’re a fan of Apple or not, you likely have an opinion on Apple’s obsession with end-to-end control. It’s why Apple can lead the tech industry in areas like privacy and ecosystem features, and it’s also one of the reasons why Apple doesn’t let users repair their own devices or customize their home screens.
It’s safe to say that a big motivation for Apple becoming Intel-independent lies in that second word: Independence. By not relying on Intel to produce Apple’s chips, Apple can release new Macs on a more regular schedule, achieve greater performance, and have total control over the hardware and software in its products.
How will Apple’s new chips affect compatibility?
So far, we’ve just focused on all the good that’s sure to come from Apple’s new chips. While all of this is true, there’s a bit more to the equation than just the good. Like any transition, there’s going to be a cost to Apple ditching Intel, and that cost will largely be on users and developers.
To be more specific, the cost of transitioning from Intel chips to Apple chips will be compatibility. When an app is programmed, it’s generally written with specific hardware in mind. Even when it’s released on different platforms, it’s usually optimized to work best on a specific piece of hardware. You can see this most clearly in the gaming industry, where the same game will perform better on different consoles.
What makes this confusing for Mac users is that you’ll have this issue – varying performance on different devices – but with devices under the same name. Some Macs will run certain apps better than other Macs, depending on whether or not it’s an Apple ARM Mac or an Intel Mac. For power users and especially developers, this is a bit of concern.
But it’s not the first time Apple has been down this road.
The PowerPC-Intel Transition: The last time Apple switched chips
As mentioned earlier, Apple didn’t make the switch to Intel until 2005. Before that, Apple was using PowerPC chips, a type of microprocessor that is now most often found in vehicles and communication devices.
At the time, there were similar concerns over compatibility, with some reports claiming that Apple themselves wanted to put off switching to Intel to avoid compatibility problems. According to IBM, Apple was worried that the transition would be slow and drawn out, confusing their product line and customers.
But as time went on, it became clear that moving to Intel was the right move for Apple. So, to address compatibility concerns and to speed up the transition, Apple created various apps and services to smooth the transition, including Rosetta and Universal. The result was a transition that happened in less than two years with little to no problems for anyone involved.
How Apple is helping developers transition away from Intel
Although the PowerPC to Intel transition took place 15 years ago, Apple is using a very similar approach to transition away from Intel chips. Apple has even revived Universal and Rosetta in the form of Universal 2 and Rosetta 2, and they’ve added features to Xcode 12 that should allow most developers to optimize their apps for Apple Silicon in “a matter of days”.
Xcode 12
In macOS Big Sur, the upcoming release of macOS, Apple is including Xcode 12, Apple’s tools for software developers. Because of the ARM transition, Apple has included several apps and features, like Universal 2 and Rosetta 2, to allow apps made for Intel to run on Apple processors.
Universal 2
Universal is an app that has its roots in NeXT, the computer company founded by Steve Jobs in the 1980s and eventually purchased by Apple. It uses a “fat binary”, which allows it to interpret requests from multiple instruction sets. In this case, that’s Intel’s x86-64 processors and Apple’s upcoming ARM processors.
In essence, the Universal 2 app will allow developers to create apps that run on any Mac, regardless of which processor it uses. Developers can also migrate their apps to Apple Silicon architecture using Universal 2.
Rosetta 2
For apps whose developers don’t take advantage of Universal 2, there’s Rosetta 2. Rosetta 2 will take Intel-based applications, translate their requests into instructions that Apple Silicon can understand, and then pass that onto the upcoming Apple ARM chips.
The result is that Mac users will still be able to use old Intel-based apps for as long as Rosetta 2 is supported. This will give developers ample time to use Universal 2 to move their apps to the new system.
The Quick Start Program
For larger developers that want their apps to run natively on Apple Silicon as soon as it’s available, there’s Apple’s Quick Start Program. Priced at $500 and limited to accepted applicants only, the Quick Start Program gives developers a kit that they can use to quickly adopt Apple’s ARM architecture before the public has access to it. This should cover most major app suites, like Adobe, Microsoft, and others, so that your most-used apps are transitioned without a hitch.
What can users expect during the Intel-ARM Transition?
As an Apple user, you probably shouldn’t notice too much during the Apple-Intel transition. Apple’s goal is to make the transition as boring as possible for the average user. Unless you’re a developer, you probably won’t noticing anything different.
That said, there are some things to look out for. First, if you’re already a Mac owner, you should expect your Intel Mac to become obsolete a bit faster than it normally would. Apple might cut updates to your device a few years earlier than normal, but you can still expect another 3-4 years before that starts to take effect.
Second, if you plan on buying a new Mac anytime soon, then it’s in your best interest to wait until the end of this year and probably early next year. By that time, Apple should have released at least one, possibly two, Macs with Apple Silicon. That’ll put you on the right track to avoid any hiccups.
Thirdly, power users with lots of third-party apps and customizations may lose a few of these apps during the transition after Rosetta’s support ends if those developers don’t translate their app with Universal 2. But as this is such a big transition, you probably won’t lose much.
The future of the Mac
While it may be a bit of a rocky future over the next two years, it’s an exciting time to be a Mac user. Apple Silicon means more app interoperability between mobile and desktop devices, better performance, and potentially faster Mac releases. Though it’s hard to know exactly what Apple has in store for its Mac lineup, you can rest assured that it’s going to be interesting.
Right. Soft coat this as much as possible but sliding the “well your system might become obsolete a few years earlier…” as if it’s the user’s responsibility to take the hit on the chin while Apple figures out whether it will ever let us upgrade our machines again or not –– because we’re just so generous and forgiving that way.
To be honest, this is precisely the reason why I put my credit card back in my wallet the day the iMac M3 was announced in October. No user upgradability unless you do it at the time of purchase and for Apple’s premium of $200 per upgrade per step up? Then to make sure the stab in the back was twisted Apple goes on to declare that all upgrades can only be done at the time of purchase BY APPLE. Beyond that neither the purchaser nor Apple (meaning no Apple Stores) will be able to upgrade the machine in the future. It’s a completely closed system. A giant calculator on crack. That’s absurd.
What really pissed me off was Apple’s suggestion that we anticipate just how much hardware we will need over the next three or four years and upgrade accordingly… And that was when I read between the lines. Apple already knows just about how long they’re going to support these machines. Sorry, $2,000 or more for a machine that will obsolete in less than four years is a piece of garbage. I don’t care how many colors it comes in, or if it is built to withstand a nuclear blast or a four-year-old toddler.
First, the premium costs are outrageous considering that at 256G SSD, its’ going to cost at least another. $400 or more to get it to 1T. Then an additional $200 to go from 8 to 16G RAM, and another $200 to go to 24G and another and another. While us dutifully Apple devotees are expected to continue to sit quietly aside and accept the fact that in less than four years, that $2,500 piece of junk will no longer be supported by Apple? I already have one of those crap boxes now. My bad, not knowing that it couldn’t be upgraded by the user after purchase when I bought it. I’m not repeating that mistake again. Frankly, I don’t care if it is built so thin that a slight breeze can blow it from my desk. It’s a computer, not a vase. Computer’s compute…. vases vase. If it’s too thin to allow for upgrades, then stop. Give the space it needs, and stop being ridiculous about it. That’s what tablets are for anyway.
But what is so eerily unreal is the virtual silence on this subject across the web? Even the reviews I’ve read about the iMac M3 was all about how many colors it came in, and its thinness before anything else. That spoke volumes to me. It wasn’t about how fast it was, how much internal storage you got for your buck, etc., It was how pretty it looked in your living room that became the selling point. Just as it appears on the Apple Store website. Is the current generation of Apple Stepford Wives so under Apple’s butt that they’ll accept anything Apple tosses their way, and then charge them extra for it? Frankly after thirty years of being an Apple fanboy, I don’t even remember our generation being so ridiculously accepting. Heck that was why Apple started to die in the 90s in the first place. We loved the thing, but the company sucked, and they weren’t giving us what we needed. And had Jobs not agreed to return, Apple would not even be here today. So, what’s with today’s mindless tribe?
I’m sick of the bs. I don’t care what the reasons, if you can’t put a machine together than at least takes into consideration some basic fundamentals of computing – upgradability than you’re failing. The M3 isn’t even the fastest processor compared to recent speed tests in current reviews either. That’s in the same class in comparison to its competitor PCs! Everything Apple has been doing these past ten years is to push its apologists into becoming monthly subscription holders for this or that anyway. Even going as far as no longer allowed iBooks/Books maintain its library on an external, then moving audiobooks to its library thus further causing problems. Thanks Catalina.
What better way to force Apple users into subscribing for more iCloud space, than by offering base internal drives at 256G and then telling them they have to either use and external (while cheaping out on the number of ports offered) or subscribe to more iCloud space because there’s no way you can keep a large audiobook library on a 256 G SSD. It’s not 1995 anymore. PCs offer 1T to 2T internal SSDs as base amounts and have been for quite some time now, why not Apple? And don’t feed me the garbage that it’s because SSDs are sooooo expensive. No, they’re not. And they haven’t been for years. In fact, they’re about the same amount now per megabyte as the old disk hard drives used to be.
These are only a very few of the reasons why after waiting for the M3 to come out in October with credit card in hand, I put it right back in my wallet. I looked at the specs of the machine, read that there was no possible way to upgrade the machine unless I was willing to toss another $1,000 on top of the base price and knew immediately, I was being railroaded. I then proceeded to start looking at PCs for the first time in my life only to discover there are name brand PCs out there faster than the M3 Pro, come with 1T or 2T SSD standard, and 16G RAM amongst other things, completely upgradeable and for less. As much as I dislike Windows, well… Sometimes it’s time to grow up and stop believing in fantasies, heroes, and that corporations are your best buddy. Apple can keep on living on a reputation that it earned long ago and truly once deserved, but that Apple died with its founder along with all his ideals and this time he’s never coming back. No matter how hard they beg.
Right. Soft coat this as much as possible but sliding the “well your system might become obsolete a few years earlier…” as if it’s the user’s responsibility to take the hit on the chin while Apple figures out whether it will ever let us upgrade our machines again or not –– because we’re just so generous and forgiving that way.
To be honest, this is precisely the reason why I put my credit card back in my wallet the day the iMac M3 was announced in October. No user upgradability unless you do it at the time of purchase and for Apple’s premium of $200 per upgrade per step up? Then to make sure the stab in the back was twisted Apple goes on to declare that all upgrades can only be done at the time of purchase BY APPLE. Beyond that neither the purchaser nor Apple (meaning no Apple Stores) will be able to upgrade the machine in the future. It’s a completely closed system. A giant calculator on crack. That’s absurd.
What really pissed me off was Apple’s suggestion that we anticipate just how much hardware we will need over the next three or four years and upgrade accordingly… And that was when I read between the lines. Apple already knows just about how long they’re going to support these machines. Sorry, $2,000 or more for a machine that will obsolete in less than four years is a piece of garbage. I don’t care how many colors it comes in, or if it is built to withstand a nuclear blast or a four-year-old toddler.
First, the premium costs are outrageous considering that at 256G SSD, its’ going to cost at least another. $400 or more to get it to 1T. Then an additional $200 to go from 8 to 16G RAM, and another $200 to go to 24G and another and another. While us dutifully Apple devotees are expected to continue to sit quietly aside and accept the fact that in less than four years, that $2,500 piece of junk will no longer be supported by Apple? I already have one of those crap boxes now. My bad, not knowing that it couldn’t be upgraded by the user after purchase when I bought it. I’m not repeating that mistake again. Frankly, I don’t care if it is built so thin that a slight breeze can blow it from my desk. It’s a computer, not a vase. Computer’s compute…. vases vase. If it’s too thin to allow for upgrades, then stop. Give the space it needs, and stop being ridiculous about it. That’s what tablets are for anyway.
But what is so eerily unreal is the virtual silence on this subject across the web? Even the reviews I’ve read about the iMac M3 was all about how many colors it came in, and its thinness before anything else. That spoke volumes to me. It wasn’t about how fast it was, how much internal storage you got for your buck, etc., It was how pretty it looked in your living room that became the selling point. Just as it appears on the Apple Store website. Is the current generation of Apple Stepford Wives so under Apple’s butt that they’ll accept anything Apple tosses their way, and then charge them extra for it? Frankly after thirty years of being an Apple fanboy, I don’t even remember our generation being so ridiculously accepting. Heck that was why Apple started to die in the 90s in the first place. We loved the thing, but the company sucked, and they weren’t giving us what we needed. And had Jobs not agreed to return, Apple would not even be here today. So, what’s with today’s mindless tribe?
I’m sick of the bs. I don’t care what the reasons, if you can’t put a machine together than at least takes into consideration some basic fundamentals of computing – upgradability than you’re failing. The M3 isn’t even the fastest processor compared to recent speed tests in current reviews either. That’s in the same class in comparison to its competitor PCs! Everything Apple has been doing these past ten years is to push its apologists into becoming monthly subscription holders for this or that anyway. Even going as far as no longer allowed iBooks/Books maintain its library on an external, then moving audiobooks to its library thus further causing problems. Thanks Catalina.
What better way to force Apple users into subscribing for more iCloud space, than by offering base internal drives at 256G and then telling them they have to either use and external (while cheaping out on the number of ports offered) or subscribe to more iCloud space because there’s no way you can keep a large audiobook library on a 256 G SSD. It’s not 1995 anymore. PCs offer 1T to 2T internal SSDs as base amounts and have been for quite some time now, why not Apple? And don’t feed me the garbage that it’s because SSDs are sooooo expensive. No, they’re not. And they haven’t been for years. In fact, they’re about the same amount now per megabyte as the old disk hard drives used to be.
These are only a very few of the reasons why after waiting for the M3 to come out in October with credit card in hand, I put it right back in my wallet. I looked at the specs of the machine, read that there was no possible way to upgrade the machine unless I was willing to toss another $1,000 on top of the base price and knew immediately, I was being railroaded. I then proceeded to start looking at PCs for the first time in my life only to discover there are name brand PCs out there faster than the M3 Pro, come with 1T or 2T SSD standard, and 16G RAM amongst other things, completely upgradeable and for less. As much as I dislike Windows, well… Sometimes it’s time to grow up and stop believing in fantasies, heroes, and that corporations are your best buddy. Apple can keep on living on a reputation that it earned long ago and truly once deserved, but that Apple died with its founder along with all his ideals and this time he’s never coming back. No matter how hard they beg.