Apple walks Ars through the iPad Pro’s A12X system on a chip (opens in new tab)

Look up what Tim Cook thinks about convergence. That is not what an iPhone is for. Period. This gimmick is just a pipedream of us nerds. It won't have the slightest chance in the market and it would be a subpar product. Both Huawei and Samsung have implemented such a solution on their flagship smartphones since at least two years. They work as advertised, but nobody could give half a shit about them.

I think CarPlay is a test of this use. It's really similar, in that you connect your device to your car, and apps render a different view on a different form factor. You have a certification process so you know you have at least a chance of a good user experience. It's a subset of device functionality, instead of supporting more functionality.

If Apple invests in enhancing CarPlay, it might be a sign that they are scaling to a wider convergence market. If they don't invest or abandon it, then maybe convergence won't happen. They're famous for saying they're not working on projects that they are actually working on, so we have to read between the lines.

After upgrading from an iPhone 6 to an iPhone XR, I've been thinking how close the latest gen devices are to traditional computers anyway. The configuration/settings and features are so far beyond the first gen devices that I think convergence will happen, nobody knows what it will look like yet.

>>What not an iPhone with a desktop mode you can pair with a monitor, keyboard, and trackpad?

That sounds like the most un-apple thing I can possibly imagine. Their ethos was always to build a device that does something incredibly well - a phone that can be a phone but also a desktop computer is everything but this.

Personally I'd rather have a "2-in-1" style MacBook + iPad Pro. I'm almost always going want to bring the screen and keyboard with me anyway, but it would be nice to have something I can use for both "real" work and casual use on the couch etc.

Why sell us one device when they can sell us two or three? I own an iPhone and a MacBook Pro. Why would Apple want to leave all that money on the table by converging these two devices?

>What not an iPhone with a desktop mode you can pair with a monitor, keyboard, and trackpad?

Because that would mean Apple doesn’t get to sell you two devices.

iOS is too restrictive for a development/productivity machine since it doesn't allow to install software from outside the app store (something like homebrew would be a security nightmare). The UI model of iOS also is still too touch-centric (while touch input provides zero advantages for a command-line interface).

But attach a proper(!) keyboard with touchpad to an iPad Pro, put macOS on it instead of iOS, and there's your next MBP ;)

Because they want you to buy a phone, a tablet, a laptop, a pc.

Sure - one device could do everything, but that doesn't drive sales or profit.

I can see the iPad being used like a laptop but the iPhone ... the screen is a little small no - even the largest iPhones.

You just described the Samsung DeX.

This is all hidden tech, you and OP have very valid points, but who is the intended audience of this message?

In the Jobs' days they'd promote the practical value of a product. For example they might say how the new iPod can have 50k songs, not how big the storage is, let alone the storage type. They'd mention a smaller form factor or improved battery life, not about HDD to SSD.

So when they talk about SoCs, cores, GPUs, intel or anything else hidden, are they signaling to customers? Maybe its signaling to investors that apple is innovating and that ought translate to profits; maybe the inner geek in all of us?

The dirty trick with hidden tech's performance figures is that they don't directly translate to customer value. As you mentioned, you're dissuaded from buying because the new stuff will be so much better. Maybe it will but the old apple would tell you that the new macs can process video in final cut 10x faster, or you don't have to buy a separate gaming rig, i.e. you can do more stuff better.

The good part about focusing on what the products can do is that you can't fake it. You can't fake it to [geeks] like me, [non-geeks like] my mom, my kids, investors, etc.

Got any data on the SSD? I believe that consumer NVMe SSDs are all 2-3,000MB/s or more these days (for sequential reads which I believe is the "standard" benchmark people use for speed (ignoring iops))?

E.g. this from 2015 (!): https://www.anandtech.com/show/9396/samsung-sm951-nvme-256gb... This from this year: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13438/the-corsair-force-mp510...

> On the other, I remember the Power days. Having non Mac users “talk down” to me about using a different processor was beyond annoying.

Sample size of one and all that - but for me it was a selling point. The PowerPC G5 (PPC 970) was intriguing when it first came out. Having been with Intel, Cyrix and AMD systems since the 286 and used them since XT (Intel 8088) days, it was nice to muck around with something new and paired with OSX Tiger it was such a fun world to explore. The move to Intel felt like a bit of a letdown, but by that time I loved OSX and Snow Leopard cemented it as my OS of choice.

Apple desktops/laptops moving to custom silicon would excite the nerd in me. I want competition.

Moving to Intel chips did two or three things for Apple:

1. It helped them jump from a failing CPU platform to a non-failing CPU platform. PPC was not keeping up with x86 anymore and Apple's two PPC vendors were going in opposite directions because there wasn't enough of a market for CPU's for Macs. (There were even rumors of future Power Macs migrating to a full POWER CPU rather than PPC.)

2. It meant you could run Windows, and hence Windows apps, on your Mac if you wanted to, without CPU emulation. This is still a fairly important use case.

3. It may have also simplified matters even for Mac application development, since you didn't have to switch ISA's in addition to switching operating systems. Making matters worse, PowerPC defaults to big-endian and x86 is little-endian.

How does this apply to a potential ARM switch?

1. You can't really say x86 is "failing" if it's still the industry standard, but Apple might believe (rightly so, given the market size of iOS) that they finally have the ability to sustainably outperform the performance of x86 on their A-series chips.

Most of the PowerPC bet was that a newer and more elegant architecture would outperform x86 and provide Apple a competitive advantage, and while that may have occasionally been true sometimes, it was never a huge deciding factor. Intel and ARM kept up because they were able to make investments in keeping x86 afloat. Ironically, Intel themselves also bet that a newer, more elegant architecture would make x86 obsolete, namely Itanium, only for AMD to invent x86-64. Not even Intel themselves could stop the x86 train.

With the rise of mobile devices, ARM now has the same market power as x86, if not more, simply because there are many more ARM-based devices manufactured and sold than PC's. Apple in particular has been able to invest heavily in their A-series chips and has full control of their CPU roadmap and destiny. Perhaps this time, x86 may finally be rendered obsolete. Don't count on it, though.

2. This is really mostly dependent on Apple's strategic priorities. With more and more application functionality moving to mobile and the web, being able to run Windows is less and less important. At the same time, being able to run Linux is more important; for many developers, running a Linux VM in Vagrant or Docker lets us develop in a similar environment to the servers our code will eventually run on. Sure, you can run Linux itself on ARM, and perhaps there will be more Linux distros that support ARM when and if Apple switches the Mac, but it won't actually be the same as the server unless ARM makes serious inroads in the server market.

Maybe they're betting they can surpass x86 enough that they could emulate x86 at respectable speeds. Since they would be migrating CPUs again, they will probably provide a CPU emulation layer again, like they did when migrating from 68k to PowerPC and then from PowerPC to x86. Keeping this emulation layer around would have more of a benefit because, after awhile, nobody needed to run 68k or PowerPC code anymore. This has never been true for x86 code, and it won't be for a long time, so look for Macs to continue to run x86 even if Apple switches.

3. I think A-series is also little-endian by default, and for x86, see above. Maybe Apple is banking on getting more value by running cross-platform iOS/Mac apps than cross-platform Windows/Mac apps. This will probably impact Mac gaming the most, but that's never been a priority for Apple.

"The macbook modifying words have lost all meaning when systems labeled pro have major expansion and repair limitations, the device named air isn't the smallest or lightest and the model without a modifier isn't the cheapest."

This eloquently summarizes much of the disconnect customers have been feeling about the Mac product lineup. Jobs never would have allowed this to happen.

I think one thing you’re missing is how good Apple’s GPU have become (and will be in 1-2 years).

I’m thinking you’re going to have a hybrid architecture for MBP. The T2 will expand to support all of Apple’s own software plus all upgraded one sold through a revamped Mac Appstore (plus hopefully your own compiled stuff when security settings are off). This can power down (all but ~2 cores) and instead power up an x86 coprocessor that supports everything else. If Intel doesn’t deliver that, AMD will. For Macbook I think you’re on the right track, just that the Air will be replaced with a 13 inch Macbook model with the same architecture.

>The question is how much was that a negotiating ploy for better pricing/stock with intel.

From an Apple perspective you could easily justify the price for all the old Intel Chip. 1. Intel has a 2 years+ node advantage which you cant get anywhere even if you pay. 2. Intel has the best performance / watt CPU on the market, also highest performance Core on the market, you cant get it anywhere even if you pay. 3. x86 compatibility, which is more like a x86 tax. Although you could get it from AMD.

Now the first two is gone. TSMC has now edged Intel in node, Apple themselves has the best Pref / Watt work in A12X. AMD has proved to be very competitive at the high end. And Intel is still charging Apple the same when they have far less value.

Apple is now being hold up by Intel, but I don't think Apple could dump Intel just yet. There are two thing that is holding Apple up.

Thunderbolt - TB is currently still an Intel only technology. There are no other host controller on the market other than Intel's one. And they cost a fortune ( relatively speaking ) Apple has invested a lot into TB, but Intel is making all the same Firewire mistakes. May be Apple is working on a USB 4.0 solution, and they would dump TB once and for all in 2020. Intel promised to make TB as an open standard in 2018 but has yet to do so.

Modem - Apple relied on Intel Modem for iPhone, which is Apple's bread and butter. Before any move on the Mac side Apple will need to think about its consequences on Modem. In worst case Apple could switch away from x86 and Intel decide to hike the price of Intel Modem. I think the revenue of Modem is roughly the same as revenue of x86 from Mac. Intel 10nm isn't performing. And Apple is not happy with Intel on both front.

I really like and share your vision for the Mac line, but I doubt keeping two instruction sets simultaneously is the Apple way.

I hope I’m wrong though.

with the iPad line there is no reason to move the computer line to ARM. They would alienate a lot of the current user base who has software there are no Arm equivalents nor likely to ever be one.

while I have seen many laud the iPad Pro for its power I haven't see any mention of heat or how long it can sustain a workload. Personally I do not want to see the Mac line change processors again for two reasons, like I mentioned prior many of us have a lot invested in software that runs on OSX as well as Windows that these machines can run, second I don't need that wall to go any higher.

Just curious, but how would custom silicon work with something like gaming engines? I know there are engines out there that support an ARM architecture, but as it is currently, you can run a lot of games fairly easily on Macs. And with eGPUs being officially supported now, gaming on a Mac is not a terrible experience.

Would moving off of traditional desktop CPUs harm that? Is there a way to do compatibility at the OS level without sacrificing half of the performance gains?

So for the past few years we've been hearing time and time again how amazing these Apple chips are yet were is the software that actually pushes them?

Wheres the example of software that truly shines on these chips? Wheres the software like After Effects, Houdini, Octane Render that you can truly see the power of the machine rev up when on the right hardware.

They're wheeling Photoshop out as proof of this devices power yet as a designer I certainly don't consider Photoshop a heavy piece of software anymore and the only reason it ever chugs is it doesn't use the machines power effectively, mostly single core and disk speed constrained.

This power has been available to iPad developers for a few years now so shouldn't we be seeing truly powerful pro apps that take advantage of it emerging? Are these chips actually powerful for real world pro tasks or are they just talented at providing Geekbench scores.

> console-quality games

What console-quality games actually ship on the iPad?

The problem with games is that to actually match an Xbox One S's graphics you don't just need to match its 5 year old hardware in performance. You also need to have the capacity to actually fit the game & its textures. All 40-80GB of it.

Who is going to ship an actual console-quality game at console-quality sizes on a device whose base model can't even hold it?

And Apple is notoriously stingy with RAM. This new one bumps it up to 6GB, which is nice, but still less than the 8GB in an Xbox One S. How much does iOS reserve of that, and how much do the games actually get?

Yeah, Civilization VI is well known to respond well to having additional cores, so I expect the lags I see in late-stage games on large maps to not be as bad as they are on my 1st generation iPad Pro.

He's an Apple employee massaging our brains to be ready for the big message in 2019. It's all part of their master plan, the post you replied to has been crafted and trimmed to perfection by Jony Ive, Tim Cook and 26 lawyers.

> his role in Apple is to provide strategic direction and guidance

That's the feeling I got, as well as perhaps being a human abstraction layer between the engineers and the executives. If you can describe in relatively understandable terms something that is technically difficult to thousands of laypeople (well, that's unfair - Anandtech was for nerds but being a nerd doesn't make you an IC/EE engineer), you'd be an asset to both the corporate and engineering teams.

And that translation works both ways - understanding the direction of the company with regards to future products vs what you want to get out of your silicon teams (e.g. when Anand mentions thermal envelopes, that might include an understanding of the limitations stemming from the potential form/design and material of a future product).

Apple's track record of being able to switch architectures is absolutely incredible. If they want to switch, they can switch.

To think that deep in the Apple labs that don't already have A-X laptops running - and have for, for a while is not thinking like Apple would.

Aside from performance, a huge reason to abandon Intel is security. I don't see Apple keeping an Intel chip if they switch to the A-X series as this would defeat much of the point.

Anyways, Apple has never been one for smooth transitions. Their history is dotted with big, bold changes. If they kept x86 they would slow the adoption of their new architecture. Apple will likely take a "take it or leave it" attitude like they did with the CD drive and headphone jack.

The company that didn’t even keep a USB-A port on its first laptop with USB-C ports will absolutely never keep an x86 CPU in its first ARM laptop.

If dual chips is possible, it would probably slow down developer adoption.

I think Apple can and will justify it. If you think back to Steve's analogy about cars and trucks, there's still (obviously) a very healthy market for trucks.

Despite their ongoing efforts to make the iPad more capable, I think and hope they'll recognize the value in keeping it simple enough for anyone to use, and thus having a separate macOS experience with more tools/flexibility in a laptop/desktop form factor.

>Apple doesn't really care much about backwards compatibility

Depends on what you mean by "much". They have made good backwards compatibility an important part of every single architecture transition so far, and on the Mac there were good 3-4 year official transitions at least (the 68k emu still ran under Blue Box/Classic Environment so it lasted through 10.4 Tiger, Rosetta lasted through 10.6 Snow Leopard). And that's official, in practice there have continued to be longer last options.

It's certainly not the degree that Microsoft has traditionally cared, but it's not at all been blown off either.

> When you strip away all the stuff a laptop doesn't need, you're left with... an x86 chip!

You're left with an ARM chip

ISP is also used for the video, as in the front camera used for video meetings.

FaceID is not solely dependent on ML, it's also managed by the secure enclave co-processor which is also used for Touch ID which is available on Macs now. ML helps to reduce false positives.

Apple's T2 chip is an ARM-based processor that's already in almost all of the newest Macs, it is used as a storage controller (which allows Apple to encrypt the drive very fast and transparently), security enclave processing (touch ID on MBA), Siri processing, and more. Every year, more and more of the processing is moved to Apple's T series co-processor.

Apple's custom silicon allows them to integrate software and hardware on a deeper level. Intel develops CPU for the mass market. Apple develops for their own customers only.

> There's no FaceID (yet, maybe it's coming) on laptops, so we don't need the ML chip.

With Apple's focus on on-device ML, I would guess this will be the first part of the A-series trifecta (CPU, GPU, Neural) to be included on a Mac and exposed to developers. I can imagine a bunch of possibilities for such a chip, not just FaceID.

Exactly. Except all the discussion about the hardware power of this iPad is how it's comparable to a PC laptop.

But from a software usability standpoint, it's not.

Mouse support :)

Yeah, and Apple never turns around in a couple years and does what the CEO said they had no intention of doing. (Big phones, tablet stylus, ...)

Merging does not equal dual boot. They'd still be separate pieces of software, but the ability to run MacOS on iPad hardware would be huge.