This is a good point. I don't know if it's the absence of Steve jobs, or what, but Apple does seem to be consistently botching important details whenever they try to make an significant change lately.
The biggest win around their 2020 lineup of macs is that they walked back the keyboard design and are offering a new version of the air that doesn't have the touchbar.
“I’m skeptical of a CPU change because of a bunch of things unrelated to CPU architectures”
Don’t forget Apple has done this twice already, and it’s the only company that has done this at this scale and succeeded. If there is a company in that can pull off a cpu architecture switch, it is Apple.
The question is not whether they can "technically" do it - of course they can, as they've already demonstrated. The question is whether they can make it work from a market perspective.
Last time they transitioned from a niche architecture to the architecture that was already mainstream - and happened to be faster and more power-efficient as well. That was basically a no-brainer, it could not fail from a market perspective (from a technical perspective however, it could), because it essentialy tore down previously-existing compatibility barriers between whatever software the mainstream of computer users used and what Mac users used. This time, they would transition AWAY from the mainstream laptop and desktop computing architecture to a niche architecture in that area, which, while still maybe being more power-efficient and maybe even faster (we'll just have to give them the benefit of the doubt there until we hold actual hardware in our hands), erects new compatibility barriers between the mainstream architecture and all people using software based on it and Apple's computer offerings.
This can only work from a market perspective if they either are big enough to drive such a momentum of customer and developer attention to this "new" platform that they essentially manage to make it successful all by themselves, or if they actually happen to be the harbinger of a future movement to ARM in desktop computing scenarios which will at some point in and out of itself be much larger than Apple's share of desktop computing space.
If either one of these happens to turn out to be true, they will be able to make that transition work. If none of these turn out to be true, they will fail (measured by falling Mac market- and mind-share), regardless of whether they execute the transition well from a technical standpoint, which I agree they will be very likely to do.
> This can only work from a market perspective if they either are big enough to drive such a momentum of customer...
It's Apple. Developers will make software releases in just months if they think the market will be there, and they will. Knowing that a new market is opening up that is not so crowded (like Nintendo Switch), will make developers very, very happy.
Even Palm Pilot succeeded. You just have to convince people that Mac-users are willing to pay for software, which seems to be the case.
AFAIK today Apple is the only big developer making exclusive macOS products. If you think about it the vast majority of big apps are crossplatform projects (Adobe, Autodesk, Microsoft, all browsers, audio, video editing, animation, 3d, etc).
Just like USB type C, headphone jack and adapters.
There are ARM servers, Apple processors may become server processors. They could run iPhone, iPod applications on Macbook. Full day on one charge. Linux works fine on ARM. x64 in VM for compatibility.
It is the best time - Intel is record low with vulnerabilities and process - switch to AMD or switch to ARM.
No, I'm skeptical because for years Apple has been distracted about the Mac. It's a very different situation now than when Apple switched to Motorola or Intel.
Edit:
For example, how many times has Apple implemented a new keyboard on the Mac? And how many of those times they failed spectacularly?
You’re forgetting the most underrated piece of hardware to come from Apple in the last couple of years, the 12” MacBook. The weight to capability ratio of that machine is off the charts and it’s the perfect encapsulation of what a portable Mac should be.
It was a nice computer, but it was essentially a netbook really. Browsing basic internet sites is about the limit of what it could manage, critically underpowered.
Even things like the Intercom web dashboard - a use-case you'd think a laptop like this would be ideal for with a customer support staff member - it simply couldn't manage comfortably. Though to be fair a high-spec £400 Chromebook couldn't comfortably run Intercom either...
In the end it could very well be the perfect demonstration of why a move to ARM would be worth it.
The main issue/downfall of the Macbook was the slowness and the heat. Those are also the two strengths of the A series of chips- performant w/o excess heat.
You take the exquisite form factor and marry it to Apple's chips, and you potentially have a drool worthy portable powerhouse, though the sticking point may be getting a magic keyboard in that form factor vs the butterfly.
Since everyone else is replying to hate on this machine, want to throw in that I loved it. My situation maybe wasn’t typical, but living on the road it was such a joy to have something that for all purposes disappeared into my pack and was totally capable for my basic needs. This style body w/ better arm chip is for sure future of “gen pop” Apple laptops.
I'm glad you like that machine, but I would not put it in the success camp. It was the start of the butterfly keyboard, and Apple ended up discontinuing it after just a few years.
"What a portable Mac should be" is going to mean different things to different people.
My perfect portable Mac (based on what's available) would be a 16" MBP, because I care about screen real estate first and foremost, followed by a desire to have a fast chip/gpu, battery life be damned. Other people prefer other models like the 13" MBP or the 13" Air for other reasons.
I have one, and I do a lot of programming on it, but it has serious overheating problems, even on things like video calls or driving a 4K screen (god forbid you try a video call on a 4K screen). It brings my colleagues great hilarity when I have to get up and get an ice pack in the middle of a call.
^ I really think this should be taken seriously. Yes, Apple has gone through architecture transitions before, and they were all mostly smooth. But that was a while ago, and Apple has been on a really bad streak with the Mac recently.
Frankly, if I had to point to one corollary between when the changes worked and when they did not, the most obvious would be that Steve Jobs is no longer around...
Scott Forestall is definitely another a big one. The timing aligns perfectly with when, in my view, the Mac platform officially went to crap, and it also apparently led to an internal restructuring where the Mac and iOS teams were less silo'd.
Maybe what happened is that Ive took over the reins and made the life of the engineering teams too difficult. I'm optimistic his departure will bring good things to the Mac. So far we've gotten a new keyboard.
I think you can add using the same 720p camera on the MacBook (Pro) line for the last n years. At the same time the iPhone's camera has seen dramatic updates almost continually. Heck, they could probably just replace the camera in any MacBook with the one out of the lowest priced iPhone and instantly have a better product. But they haven't.
For the last couple of years every time Apple has tried to do some acrobatics on the Mac platform it has failed miserably.
- Yosemite
- Butterfly keyboard
- Touchbar
- Catalina
I'm not much of a CPU guru but a switch to ARM seems like the most ambitious and risky of all these, by far.