Another Apple switch

I can still remember way back when Steve Jobs announced that Apple is transitioning from the PowerPC to Intel processors. Back in 2005, I wasn’t quite the Apple product evangelist as I am now, so my initial reaction was one of fancying the idea that I can finally run Windows on a Mac. Even in those days, Apple had the edge over PC makers in terms of aesthetics and build quality (titanium Powerbook, anyone?), but the Mac lineup was woefully underpowered compared to the PCs I can build running on Pentium processors. The switch to Intel allowed me to finally seek out a Mac computer, and during my second year of college in 2007, I bought my first Macbook.

Funny enough, to this day I’ve yet to run an instance of Windows on any of my Apple computers. I didn’t know it in 2005, but MacOS (or OS X as it was then called) offers a vastly superior experience to the Microsoft operating system.

These days, strong rumors are circling around that during this year’s WWDC, Apple will announce a transition to the ARM architecture for its Mac, a seismic shift similar to the change to Intel some 15 years ago. Who could’ve thought that Intel will suffer the same fate as the PowerPC, and become abandoned by Apple because of failure to innovate at as quickly as Apple wants. Apple’s engineering on the ARM processor for its illustrious iPhones and iPads have so surpassed Intel’s development on their own chips that Apple seems to have finally pulled the plug on the partnership - it sees no future with the chipmaking icon.

Especially not when Apple’s own A series chips are soundly beating Intel processors in synthetic benchmarks, and for a fraction of the costs, one presumes (vertical integration and whatnot).

What a time to be alive that I get to witness another revolutionary switch to the Mac architecture. It will be interesting to see how Apple will handle the change from the x86 instruction set to ARM. If history is anything go by (hello, headphone jack), legacy apps are going to get swiftly left behind with no mercy. However, I reckon software makers are quite ready for the transition, because so many are already used to coding for the iPhone platform that’s been on the ARM architecture for over a decade. Surely Apple will do the most to help make the conversion to ARM as quick as possible. I bet when the first Mac is released with Apple chips, there won’t be an emulator for x86 apps in MacOS.

MacOS running on ARM; imagine that!

View fullsize

Rural Chinese village life.

Apple's sneaky fix for its butterfly keyboard

Last week Apple (finally) updated the internals of their Macbook Pro line with the latest Intel processors, among other improvements (optional 32GB of ram!). The news however was overshadowed because all focus was on whether or not Apple has fixed the issues with their butterfly-switch keyboards. The greatest laptop in the world would be quite useless if mere grains of sand can render keys wholly inoperative. Bold move indeed if Apple kept the same keyboard in the new refresh. 

The good news is Apple did update the keyboard in the new Macbook Pros, calling it their third generation butterfly mechanism. Missing from the PR literature however is any mention of fix for sticking and unresponsive keys. With multiple lawsuits in preparation against it, Apple is likely not at liberty to openly admit any faults innate to prior generation butterfly keyboards. Therefore the official company line is that the gen-three butterfly keys are quieter than the previous versions. 

Journalists who’ve had a first-hand look have found this to be true.   

The team at iFixit did their usual diligence and tore open a brand new 2018 Macbook Pro. They found that underneath each key-cap is a silicone membrane/gasket covering the butterfly mechanism. The new part appears to be what’s damping the clicking noise (ergo quieter as Apple says), though it also functions to prevent small dust particles from seeping in further underneath the key-caps - a de-facto remedy for the malfunctioning keys problem. 

So it seems Apple did fix the issues of the old butterfly keyboards; they just won’t say so officially, again probably due to the pending lawsuits. A PR move dictated by the needs of the lawyering brigade.

Nevertheless, owners of Mac laptops outfitted with the first or second generation butterfly mechanism ought to demand that Apple retrofit this rubber gasket solution onto their Macbooks. On the other hand I wouldn’t buy a Mac laptop that hasn’t got the gen-three butterfly keys; Apple needs to update the rest of its laptop lineup quickly.  

Apple should also continue to work on its 'Portrait Mode' algorithms. The blur on the stem as it meets the flower head is horrendous. 

Apple will make its own chips for the Mac

Bloomberg dropped a news bomb yesterday saying Apple will soon transition away from Intel chips in its line of computers and will instead manufacture its own processors. Intel stockholders were not amused as the chipmaker's stock dropped 7% immediately after rumor surfaced. 

It's been over a decade since Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel. At the time Motorolla was unable to produce PowerPC processors suitable to Apple's demands of ever increasing power and efficiency. The lineup has stagnated; the dreams of a G5 in a notebook never materialized. 

It somewhat parallels Apple's current relationship with Intel. Fans like to harp at Apple for being infamously slow to update the internal hardware in its Mac line (the guts in the Mac Mini dates back to 2014), but a big contributing factor is Intel's horribly delayed release schedules. Team blue seems to have hit a wall: the 'Core' processors have been stuck on the 14nm process for years. The significant step-increases between each generation early in the Core era are no more: Intel has abandoned the "tick-tock" cadence. 

Meanwhile Apple have reached performance breakthrough after breakthrough with its mobile A-series chips. In benchmarks the latest A11 Bionic chip is shown to outclass even a base Macbook Pro. Vertical integration of chip, hardware, and operating system have allowed Apple to produce mobile products unrivaled in computing power and efficiency. The iPhone is often criticized for having less RAM than its competition but in truth the iPhone can do the same/more with less memory than any Android unit. 

With Intel in a stagnant position and itself having great success at making mobile chips, Apple's obvious next step is to migrate that expertise to the Macintosh. A Macbook running a bespoke integrated A-series style chip would have performance and battery efficiency not possible with the Intel partnership. 

Not to mention MacOS itself: iOS have rightly gotten the bulk of engineering time ever since the first iPhone. Because of that MacOS is in sort of a limbo mode. It has converted to a yearly release cadence to match its mobile sibling, but the attention to detail in the recent releases have been sorely lacking. MacOS, while still immensely powerful, doesn't have a truly "next-gen" feel like iOS does. Perhaps syncing the processing architecture between desktop and mobile would then allow Apple to reimagine MacOS into a proper desktop facsimile of iOS.   

While the initial stock price shock may suggest otherwise, I wouldn't worry too much about Intel just yet. Even if Apple quit cold-turkey on Team Blue's processors, Intel would only be out 5% of its chip revenue. However, I don't think Intel will take this news lightly because while 5% is small, actions have subsequent reactions, and no one can predict what kind of change Apple ditching Intel can affect in the market. What if Google follows suit with its popular Chromebooks? Microsoft is already working with Qualcomm to have Windows run on ARM. 

For the near future I think Intel will still carry the mid to upper tier market for the Mac because Apple hasn't yet shown it can (though I'm sure it ultimately can) produce a chip capable of professional desktop-class work (or games). What we can expect real soon are entry-level Mac computers running Apple-made chips, and that's an exciting prospect indeed.