For a long time now, Apple has stood alone among major computer and smartphone manufacturers
in using their own operating systems developed in-house rather than licensing Windows or Android.
So it's probably not super surprising that they've recently announced
they're going to start using their own processors in iMacs and MacBooks.
But after using Intel chips for the past 15 years, why are they making this change
and what exactly can we expect from Apple's attempt to strike out on their own?
To answer, let's first look at a bit of Apple's history,
because this isn't the first time they've gone against the grain
in terms of what kind of silicon lies at the heart of their computers.
Prior to 2005, Apple used a series of processors branded as PowerPC,
which was a non-x86 architecture that arose from a joint venture between Apple,
IBM, and Motorola as a way to counter the dominance of Intel-based PCs running Windows.
However, Apple made the switch to Intel because it was becoming difficult for IBM and Motorola
to manufacture chips that could compete with Intel in terms of performance.
And of course, a lot of this came down to cost.
You see, unlike Intel, who was primarily in the business of chip making
and could crank out tons of CPUs, very cost-effectively,
Motorola and IBM had lots of other operations and simply couldn't operate their chip making
at the same scale as Intel. Then you had the fact that Apple didn't control as much of the home computer market,
and IBM and Motorola didn't want to keep pouring money into making processors for a computer
manufacturer that was still dwarfed by companies making wind-tell machines.
This is especially true, given that Apple was dividing up the money they were spending on CPUs
between the two companies, hurting both IBM and Motorola's bottom lines even more.
Ironically, cost is once again a big factor in Apple's decision to transition away from Intel
and put its own processors inside its PCs.
One analyst estimates that Apple could save between $100 and $150
for every system they build with one of their own CPUs.
Although, given Apple's track record, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to pass the savings along
to their fans. Of course, though, there are many other considerations that would have gone into this decision.
One is that Apple was reportedly unhappy with Intel's quality control for some time,
but even aside from that, Apple also seems to believe that they can save significantly
on power consumption. Now, Intel obviously does have CPUs built for very low-power applications,
such as their Y-Series that go into laptops designed for long battery life.
But the ARM architecture in Apple's chips could lead to even greater power savings.
Unlike Intel's x86 architecture, ARM is an example of a reduced instruction set or
risk architecture, meaning that CPU instructions are intended to be executed
in just one cycle, as opposed to over multiple cycles.
Oftentimes, the result of using risk is greater power efficiency,
meaning that ARM chips have been used extensively in tablets, smartphones, and even smart watches,
which need to extend their battery life as much as possible.
But don't think that low power consumption automatically means lower performance.
That old PowerPC architecture that we mentioned earlier, that Apple used in its older desktops
and laptops, those were actually risk chips as well, and there are even supercomputers
that use risk. Not to mention that even Intel's modern x86 processors
have elements of risk computing baked into them. But it was hard not to notice that Apple's announcement at WWDC
was rather short on specific details about performance.
While it is true that the A13 ARM chips found in the iPhone 11 series
are significantly ahead of competing mobile products from Qualcomm,
it isn't quite clear yet how Apple's new silicon will fare against Intel
in a desktop or laptop environment. Regardless, the new chips will at the very least allow both iOS apps and macOS programs
to natively run side-by-side on the same machine,
making things easier not only for your average home user,
but also for developers who will no longer have to code for two different platforms.
Apple's also providing tools to developers to port their x86 applications over to the new Macs,
though it remains to be seen how much performance will or won't suffer,
especially for programs that will need emulation for the time being,
which introduces inherent performance overhead as it translates from x86 to ARM.
So it looks like we'll have to be patient in order to find out exactly how Apple's
homemade chips stack up to the competition, as they still apparently have plans to release new Intel-based Macs
for two more years before switching over to their own silicon completely.
In any case, the longer battery life will be welcome,
as will being able to swipe through Tinder without having to open a web browser.
John Scripps, they've always got those Tinder references.
Thanks for watching guys, like, dislike, check out our other videos,
leave a comment if you have a suggestion for a future, fast as possible,
and don't forget to subscribe, or your mother will call you up and she'll be like,
hey, why don't you watch more Tech Quicky?
You don't want that.