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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The amount of developers nowadays are also crazy.
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).
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.
Edit:
For example, how many times has Apple implemented a new keyboard on the Mac? And how many of those times they failed spectacularly?
"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.
IMO it encapsulated everything wrong about Apple's approach to laptops during these past 5-6 years like the butterfly keyboard.
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.
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...
The other one is the popularity of iOS.
Edit:
Also the departure of Forstall in 2013.
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.
https://mac-optimization.bestreviews.net/four-apfs-problems-...