It almost certainly is not. Odds are Apple will eventually remove Rosetta II, as they did Rosetta back in the days, once they consider the need for that bridge to be over (Rosetta was added in 2006 in 10.4, and removed in 2011 from 10.7).
> And I hope what is learned from it can be used to make a RISC-V version of it. translating native ARM to RISC-V should be much easier than x86 to ARM as I understand it, so one could conceivably do x86 -> ARM -> RISC-V.
That's not going to happen unless Apple decides to switch from ARM to RISC-V, and... why would they? They've got 15 years experience and essentially full control on ARM.
Different CEO as well. Jobs was more opinionated on “principles” - Cook is more than happy to sell what people will buy. I think Rosetta 2 will last.
It's basically only games and weird tiny niches, and Apple is pretty happy to abandon both those categories. The saving grace is that there's very few interesting Mac-exclusive games in the Intel era.
Well, the current "principle" is "iOS is enough, we're going to run iOS apps on MacOS, and that's it".
Rosetta isn't needed for that.
Yes, I'm sure Apple had no way of extending the license.
> Cook is more than happy to sell what people will buy. I think Rosetta 2 will last.
There's no "buy" here.
Rosetta is complexity to maintain, and an easy cut. It's not even part of the base system.
And “what people will buy” certainly didn’t prevent essentially removing support for non-hidpi displays from MacOS. Which is a lot more impactful than Rosetta as far as I’m concerned.
Did that really reduce sales? Consider that the wide availability of crappy low end hardware gave Windows laptops a terrible reputation. Eg https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/yof7va/frien...
Standard DPI displays are not "crappy low-end hardware"?
I don't think there's a single widescreen display which qualifies as hiDPI out there, that more or less doesn't exist: a 5K 34" is around 160 DPI (to say nothing of the downright pedestrian 5K 49" like the G9 or the AOC Agon).
A hidpi computer display is north of 200 (iMacs are a bit below 220, MacBooks a bit above).
A phone is north of 300 (iPhones have ranged from 324 to 476).
I agree it's kinda sad how few desktop monitors are high dpi. It gets even worse if you limit yourself to low latency monitors.
Anyway I haven't used macos in a while so I'm not sure what you mean by Apple not supporting non-hidpi
Two points here.
• First off, Apple developers are not binded to Apple. The knkwledge gained can be used elsewhere. See Rivos and Nuvia for example.
• Second, Apple reportedly has already ported many of it's secondary cores to RISC-V. It's not unreasonable that they will switch in 10 years or so.
Really? In current hardware or is this speculation?
That would all be a terrible idea if you were doing it for a core intended to run user applications, but that's not what Apple, Western Digital, NVidia are embracing RISC-V for embedded cores. If I were ARM I'd honestly be much more worried about RISC-V's threat to my R and M series cores than my A series cores.
[1] Explicitly testing that you don't implement total store ordering by default is one requirement I've heard people talk about to get a custom core licensed.
That [1] is wrong too. Tegra Xavier shipped with sequential consistency out of the box :)
So to answer your question, it is not in currently in hardware, but it is more than just speculation.
[0]https://www.semianalysis.com/p/sifive-powers-google-tpu-nasa...
You’ve not provided any rationale at all for why they should switch their application cores let alone on this specific timetable.
Switching is an expensive business and there has to be a major business benefit for Apple in return.
The difference is that Rosetta 1 was PPC → x86, so its purpose ended once PPC was a fond memory.
Today's Rosetta is a generalized x86 → ARM translation environment that isn't just for macOS apps. For example, it works with Apple's new virtualization framework to support running x86_64 Linux apps in ARM Linux VMs.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/run...
15? More than a quarter century. They were one of the original investors in ARM and have produced plenty of arm devices since then beyond the newton and the ipod.
I’d bet they use a bunch of risc v internally too if they just need a little cpu to manage something locally on some device and just want to avoid paying a tiny fee to ARM or just want some experience with it.
But RISC V as the main CPU? Yes, that’s a long way away, if ever. But apple is good at the long game. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Apple has iOS running on RISC V, but even something like the lightning-to-HDMI adapter runs IOS on ARM.
They didn't design their own chips for most of that time.
Apple invested in ARM and worked with ARM/Acorn on what would become ARM6, in the early 90s. The newton uses it (specifically the ARM610), it is a commercial failure, later models use updated ARM CPUs to which AFAIK Apple didn't contribute (DEC's StrongARM, and ARM's ARM710).
<15 years pass>
Apple starts working on bespoke designs again around the time they start working on the iPhone, or possibly after they realise it's succeeding.
That doesn't mean they stopped using ARM in the meantime (they certainly didn't).
The iPod's SoC was not even designed internally (it was contracted out to PortalPlayer, later generations were provided by Samsung). 15 times and the revolution of Jobs' return (and his immediate killing of the Newton) is a long time for an internal team of silicon designers.
Do they? ARM made it very clear that they consider all ARM cores their own[1]
[1]: https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/opinion_qualcomm_vs_a...
They do, yes. They were one of the founding 3 members of ARM itself, and the primary monetary contributor.
Through this they acquired privileges which remain extant: they can literally add custom instructions to the ISA (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798744), something there is no available license for.
> ARM made it very clear that they consider all ARM cores their own[1]
The Qualcomm situation is a breach of contract issue wrt Nuvia, it's a very different issue, and by an actor with very different privileges.
> I've never seen a valid source for this claim.
What is “a valid source”? The linked comment is from Hector Martin, the founder and lead of Asahi, who worked on and assisted with reversing various facets of Apple silicon, including the capabilities and extensions of the ISA.
that they have "essentially full control on ARM"
Having an ALA + some extras doesn't mean "full control."
he also says:
>And apparently in Apple's case, they get to be a little bit incompatible
So he doesn't seem to actually know the full extent to which Apple has more rights, even using the phrase "a little bit" — far from your claim. And he (and certainly you) has not read the license. Perhaps they have to pay for each core they release on the market that breaks compatabilty? Do you know? Of course not. A valid source would be a statement from someone who read the license or one of the companies. There is more to a core than just the ISA. If not, why is Apple porring cores to RISC-V? If they have so much control ?
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-seen-as-likely...
"ARM Chief Executive Warren East revealed on an earnings conference call on Wednesday that "a leading handset OEM," or original equipment manufacturer, has signed an architectural license with the company, forming ARM's most far-reaching license for its processor cores. East declined to elaborate on ARM's new partner, but EETimes' Peter Clarke could think of only one smartphone maker who would be that interested in shaping and controlling the direction of the silicon inside its phones: Apple."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silico...
"In 2008, Apple bought processor company P.A. Semi for US$278 million.[28][29] At the time, it was reported that Apple bought P.A. Semi for its intellectual property and engineering talent.[30] CEO Steve Jobs later claimed that P.A. Semi would develop system-on-chips for Apple's iPods and iPhones.[6] Following the acquisition, Apple signed a rare "Architecture license" with ARM, allowing the company to design its own core, using the ARM instruction set.[31] The first Apple-designed chip was the A4, released in 2010, which debuted in the first-generation iPad, then in the iPhone 4. Apple subsequently released a number of products with its own processors."
https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-h...
"Finally at the top of the pyramid is an ARM architecture license. Marvell, Apple and Qualcomm are some examples of the 15 companies that have this license."
That they had to specifically sign an architectural license in 2008 sounds like that is not at all true but that they are just another standard licensee (albeit one with very deep pockets).
Did you only start counting from 2007 when the iPhone was released? All the iPods prior to that were using ARM processors. The Apple Newton was using ARM processors.
Most of the original device was outsourced and contracted out (for reasons of time constraint and lack of internal expertise). PortalPlayer built the SoC and OS, not Apple. Later SoC were sourced from SigmaTel and Samsung, until the 3rd gen Touch.
> The Apple Newton was using ARM processors.
The Apple Newton was a completely different Apple, and there were several years' gap between Jobs killing the Newton and the birth of iPod, not to mention the completely different purpose and capabilities. There would be no newton-type project until the iPhone.
Which is also when Apple started working with silicon themselves: they acquired PA in 2008, Intrinsity in 2010, and Passif in 2013, released their first partially in-house SoC in 2010 (A4), and their first in-house core in 2013 (Cyclone, in the A7).