ARM Mac coming in first half of 2021, says Ming-Chi Kuo
Apple is continuing to work on a self-designed processor for use in a future Mac, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, with the first possible release using an ARM-based chip instead of an Intel processor likely to arrive in the first half of 2021.
MacBook Air, a likely candidate for an ARM processor
Rumors of an ARM-based Mac or MacBook have surfaced in a while, with the general theme of Apple moving away from its reliance on Intel Core processors in favor of its own silicon. According to TF Securities' Ming-Chi Kuo, this could happen sooner than people may think.
In a note to investors seen by AppleInsider, Kuo forecasts that Apple will be using a 5-nanometer process at the core of its new products 12 to 18 months' time. As part of this, Kuo believes there will be a "new 1H21 Mac equipped with the own-design processor."
The creation of its own processor would, most likely, lean on Apple's extensive knowledge of chip design for the iPhone, iPad, and other devices that use the A-series chips, as well as other periphery silicon of its own devising. This would enable it to use designs it created to help reduce the amount of power the chip consumed, for example, as it did with the A13 Bionic.
A move to its own chips would also mean it wouldn't be bound to the limitations of Intel's designs. If Apple wanted to introduce new features or believed it could implement a processing technique in a better way than Intel, it would be free to do so under its own steam.
Shifting over to an ARM-based chip would also give some context to Apple's decision to move away from supporting 32-bit apps in macOS Catalina, as well as Apple's work on Catalyst. In theory, this could allow Apple to use the same chips in the Mac as it does in iPhones and iPads, reducing its overall costs and enabling apps to be more usable throughout the entire Apple ecosystem.
Kuo's nearer-term proposed uses of 5-nanometer chips by Apple also includes the "iPhone 12" as well a refreshed iPad for the second half of 2020 equipped with mini LED.
MacBook Air, a likely candidate for an ARM processor
Rumors of an ARM-based Mac or MacBook have surfaced in a while, with the general theme of Apple moving away from its reliance on Intel Core processors in favor of its own silicon. According to TF Securities' Ming-Chi Kuo, this could happen sooner than people may think.
In a note to investors seen by AppleInsider, Kuo forecasts that Apple will be using a 5-nanometer process at the core of its new products 12 to 18 months' time. As part of this, Kuo believes there will be a "new 1H21 Mac equipped with the own-design processor."
The creation of its own processor would, most likely, lean on Apple's extensive knowledge of chip design for the iPhone, iPad, and other devices that use the A-series chips, as well as other periphery silicon of its own devising. This would enable it to use designs it created to help reduce the amount of power the chip consumed, for example, as it did with the A13 Bionic.
A move to its own chips would also mean it wouldn't be bound to the limitations of Intel's designs. If Apple wanted to introduce new features or believed it could implement a processing technique in a better way than Intel, it would be free to do so under its own steam.
Shifting over to an ARM-based chip would also give some context to Apple's decision to move away from supporting 32-bit apps in macOS Catalina, as well as Apple's work on Catalyst. In theory, this could allow Apple to use the same chips in the Mac as it does in iPhones and iPads, reducing its overall costs and enabling apps to be more usable throughout the entire Apple ecosystem.
Kuo's nearer-term proposed uses of 5-nanometer chips by Apple also includes the "iPhone 12" as well a refreshed iPad for the second half of 2020 equipped with mini LED.
Comments
A Rosetta-like framework is the most likely.
1. Apps using Apple’s frameworks and Xcode will mostly be a recompile
2. Apps that mostly use Apple’s frameworks, but not Xcode, or use 3rd party libraries, will use a binary translator like Rosetta (switching x86 instructions with ARM instructions at runtime)
3. Apps that only work with macOS/x86 with 3rd party x86 libraries will need to be run in a macOS/x86 VM a la classic. If Apple provides it, presumably, apps can be overlapped, and it won’t be macOS run inside a window.
And once again, the single biggest impediment to success will be Microsoft and Adobe moving their apps to macOS/ARM. If that doesn’t happen, macOS/x86 won’t be successful. Presumably, Apple will just do the work to bring FCPX and LPX over. Plugins may need to use Rosetta for awhile before they are moved over.
Assuming some meaure of accuracy in the report, of course.
Batteries in the MBP are 2-2.5x the size of iPad Pros. Plus the thermal envelope of the MBPs are much greater. It will allow Apple to dramatically increase the number of cores plus boost the clock frequency. It is going to be something to behold
This is the laptop I want
While I'm sure that some code will have to be emulated, I bet a lot won't need to be thanks to (1) use of Apple frameworks that will be ARM-native and (2) easy-peasy recompilation of lots and lots of code.
The big question is whether Intel will delay 7nm. They keep saying they're on track, but we've heard that before.
OS 9 -> OS X
Carbon
PPC -> Intel
Rosetta
32-bit -> 64-bit
Universal
macOS -> iOS (simulator)
etc...
At this point I am sure they will have the heralded,
"Just click to compile for ARM (button)" farily ready to go...
So waiting!
If there is a lot of work to be done by the developers, it’s game over. This is why Carbon worked while the previous Rhapsody strategy was doomed to failure.
If they ship Intel and ARM PCs simultaneously, especially in the same product category, for a long time, all they are doing is delaying or decreasing the amount of 3rd party application support for their ARM personal computers.
im not saying it can’t be done, because obviously it can. But if Apple is really going to release a device next year, there will either be significant limitations, or they’ve figured out a way around them. My suggestion, which no one here has ever commented on, from my memory, is to add a dozen x86 instructions to the chip. It’s been found that 80% of the slowdown between chip families is from about a dozen instructions. The chip, or OS, could hand that over to those when native x86 software needs them. Individual instructions aren’t patented, or copyrighted, as far as I know. If true, that would give Apple a way around the problem.
Microsoft’s solution requires a software rewrite, and a recompile. It’s not a “real” solution. A Rosetta solution is just a quick, temporary hack, in the hope that developers will quickly move to new native apps, and a total rewrite of their old ones, and the expectation that newer hardware will be faster, and allow the Rosetta solution, which is half as fast, on an equivalent chip, to become less of a drag on performance. I remember all of Apple’s changeovers, and they were all pretty slow for about three years, when the new CPU’s caught up, and native software also took over.
what’s been questioned about Apple making another changeover now, is whether major producers will again follow along. Anyone who says they will is just guessing, because they don’t know. I see moving to iOS, because of the number of devices out there, but Mac growth has stalled at just over 100 million installations around the world. Small developers might jump in, but large ones? It’s not a sure thing.
what makes it more iffy is the way Apple will need to do this. They can just put their toe in the water, they can’t just jump in. So there will, at first, be no machines out there. Developers are reluctant to develop for what will be at first, a non existent market. They will wait. This is one of the reasons Windows phone died. Developers waited to see if it would sell in large numbers, and oeople would buy until the apps they wanted were there. Microsoft ended up paying developers to write for it, but it didn’t work.
Assumptions:
- Half of Macs use internally developed Apple CPU: 10M/yr (the other half stays on Intel)
- Current cost Apple pays per Intel chip: $200 (likely higher)
- Cost to Apple to manufacture new chip at TMSC: $30 (likely lower)
- Dedicated Apple CPU chip employees and cost: 300 employees x $400K/yr fully weighted cost = $120M
Total Intel Cost: 10M x $180 = $2B
Total internal Apple Cost: 10M x $30 = $300M + $120M = $420M
Total Annual Savings: $2B - $420M = $1.6 Billion
It would be $3.2 Billion if Apple were to move it all internal. That would increase overall gross margin of the company by ~ 1%. It would be a huge financial win. But more importantly, it gets Apple untangled from the mess that is Intel
Not included here is the massive R&D effort/spend to get to launch. Maybe this is one of the driver's of Apple R&D spend exploding over the last 5 years