Fascinating, but take it with a grain of salt. One anonymous poster didn't just violate, but shredded and used as hamster mulch, their NDA to report iPad-with-a-keyboard? It's plausible, but I think most of us here could have written that comment as a speculative exercise.
That AC could be both right and wrong. He could be totally right about the existence of those prototypes, and I bet it's true (it'd be more surprising if Apple didn't have prototype ARM laptops floating around). But it doesn't mean he knows anything about actual plans to get these out the door. There are HUGE barriers to that happening at the moment, the cost/benefit ratio is extremely high. It sounds to me like this AC is correctly reporting the facts but incorrectly extrapolating his own story out of it.
Makes sense. Allegedly they had pretty much every version OS X after Rhapsody continuing to run on x86 in some capacity until the x86 version of OS X finally came out. Keeping an ARM version around seems like a no brainer.
I suspect this isn't being held in case the Mac market falls apart, but in case the iPad market starts losing to Surface and friends.
Exactly, in fact there's even more to it then that. Particularly at Apple's scale, maintaining a codebase across multiple architectures internally, even if there is absolutely zero foreseeable intention to use them, offers significant value. Strategically of course it creates some hedge against over dependence on any single supplier, it's not just "the Mac market falling apart" so much as Intel/AMD dropping the ball or becoming unable to go in a direction Apple wanted (as happened with PowerPC). By the same token it helps maintain some level of economic negotiating position, even if Apple faces what is effectively right now a single key supplier situation. The mere fact that they could switch if absolutely forced to is of use.
Non-strategic value though is probably just as important as any of this stuff: as probably most of HN knows well, keeping a codebase portable can be quite helpful in terms of plain and simple quality. Obscure bugs or bad patterns that are hard to find on one architecture can be a lot easier to identify on another. It can help promote discipline and good practices. Portability I think is really a constant process rather then a goal or single thing, it's a lot easier to have worked on it all along for years before you need it then try to "port" something later because without the constant pressure of staying portable it's all too easy to start falling into dependence on features (or worse, quirks) of a single arch and build up more and more technical debt. Then when the "bill" (not necessarily just in terms of money but sheer developer hours) finally comes due it's effectively unpayable.
Since NeXTStep v3.0, mid-90s, the compiler toolchain had the ability to compile multiple-architecture binaries. Of course Apple bought NeXT and much of OS X is still based on it.
I forget the exact magic method, and don't know if it is still in shipping versions of OS X, but I would be surprised if at least internal-to-Apple versions of their compiler and toolchain didn't still have this available for use.
They better have ARM laptops done or nearly so. If they didn't, I would conclude that they have no idea what the fuck they're doing anymore.
Although if the software is through the Mac App Store only, then... well, it won't be a very useful device. I hope that they're looking to replace the Macbook with an ARM device, not create a new Chromebook.
I'm sure they will still have a compiler on the system -- it has to be possible to compile code for this machine from source and run it ...
As I think about it -- wouldn't app store (if well run, then it provides the best possible security for distribution of binaries without source code and the most consumer friendly commercial licensing model) + open source eco-system (self-compiled -- source only distribution) pretty much the best possible world for users? There is (kind of) an open-source argument for making binary distribution without source onerous or impossible...
Perhaps they'll bundle or distribute an official version of something like homebrew to make installing open-source software as easy as possible and maybe even provide a way for binaries generated from these packages to become signed and distributed as binaries as an optimization?
I don't think I would mind app-store being the only way to get pre-compiled binaries if augmented with a well-supported open-source ecosystem for utilities that need to venture beyond the capabilities of the app-store sandbox. There is a technical argument for making any software that needs to operate beyond the sandbox subject to source code auditing simply because of the potential attack surface ... I wouldn't necessarily mind if subscription pricing was the only business model for such sandbox-spanning utilities -- continuance maintenance (and ongoing revenue) for software that works beyond the sandbox is needed from a security perspective ...
If the future is supposedly going to be this locked down, I wonder what will happen to the internet when there is no hardware left where you can develop stuff like apache-httpd and php and mysqld.
Mac is dead for developers and pro users if this is the case. My current Mac will be my last, and I'll be happy to give my money to Dell instead and anyone else selling more open hardware.
One of our devs just got a new XPS 15. It's a gorgeous machine. Amazing. First time I've envied a non-Apple machine since the early 2000s. I still marginally prefer the Mac track pad but the rest is on par or better.
Nothing stopping you from installing Blink Shell or Prompt on your iPad-like device and connecting to a GCE instance or your own linux server to work on those things.
You have to live in the future to invent for the future. These are probably being used by product manager to see the deficiencies for the next feature upgrades to make it perfect.
An interesting product line split might be putting the Macbook line onto ARM for portability & battery life, and keeping the pro or air & pro line on Intel.
kstrauser|9 years ago
Analemma_|9 years ago
api|9 years ago
bsharitt|9 years ago
I suspect this isn't being held in case the Mac market falls apart, but in case the iPad market starts losing to Surface and friends.
xoa|9 years ago
Non-strategic value though is probably just as important as any of this stuff: as probably most of HN knows well, keeping a codebase portable can be quite helpful in terms of plain and simple quality. Obscure bugs or bad patterns that are hard to find on one architecture can be a lot easier to identify on another. It can help promote discipline and good practices. Portability I think is really a constant process rather then a goal or single thing, it's a lot easier to have worked on it all along for years before you need it then try to "port" something later because without the constant pressure of staying portable it's all too easy to start falling into dependence on features (or worse, quirks) of a single arch and build up more and more technical debt. Then when the "bill" (not necessarily just in terms of money but sheer developer hours) finally comes due it's effectively unpayable.
hyperpape|9 years ago
(That said, even on this account they had laptops running Intel for several years before the transition was decided upon).
patrickg_zill|9 years ago
I forget the exact magic method, and don't know if it is still in shipping versions of OS X, but I would be surprised if at least internal-to-Apple versions of their compiler and toolchain didn't still have this available for use.
watmough|9 years ago
Give me a foldable iPad that still has screen in both halves, but that is usable in landscape, and I will buy.
Appropriate haptics could make it work like a tiny laptop in portrait, but like a regular all-screen iPad in landscape.
mcphage|9 years ago
Although if the software is through the Mac App Store only, then... well, it won't be a very useful device. I hope that they're looking to replace the Macbook with an ARM device, not create a new Chromebook.
breatheoften|9 years ago
As I think about it -- wouldn't app store (if well run, then it provides the best possible security for distribution of binaries without source code and the most consumer friendly commercial licensing model) + open source eco-system (self-compiled -- source only distribution) pretty much the best possible world for users? There is (kind of) an open-source argument for making binary distribution without source onerous or impossible...
Perhaps they'll bundle or distribute an official version of something like homebrew to make installing open-source software as easy as possible and maybe even provide a way for binaries generated from these packages to become signed and distributed as binaries as an optimization?
I don't think I would mind app-store being the only way to get pre-compiled binaries if augmented with a well-supported open-source ecosystem for utilities that need to venture beyond the capabilities of the app-store sandbox. There is a technical argument for making any software that needs to operate beyond the sandbox subject to source code auditing simply because of the potential attack surface ... I wouldn't necessarily mind if subscription pricing was the only business model for such sandbox-spanning utilities -- continuance maintenance (and ongoing revenue) for software that works beyond the sandbox is needed from a security perspective ...
0x0|9 years ago
api|9 years ago
One of our devs just got a new XPS 15. It's a gorgeous machine. Amazing. First time I've envied a non-Apple machine since the early 2000s. I still marginally prefer the Mac track pad but the rest is on par or better.
wffurr|9 years ago
esturk|9 years ago
digikata|9 years ago
TazeTSchnitzel|9 years ago
dplgk|9 years ago
detaro|9 years ago
mahyarm|9 years ago
b1gtuna|9 years ago
allengeorge|9 years ago