Apple announced MacOS will start shipping with Apple made processors.
Apple calls them Apple silicon.
This is not the first time Apple has changed his processors in its computer lineup.
Here are the top five things to expect from Apple silicon powered Macs.
Let's start with a positive one shall we expect Mac's to get updated much more frequently.
For the past 14 years, Mac's have been tied to Intel force processors.
That meant if Apple wanted a new processor for a Mac, they had to wait around for Intel.
Now Intel is no slouch when it comes to processors.
There was a very real reason why Apple switched from power PC to Intel back in the early 2000s.
Mac's were reaching their limits and Intel was the answer.
So fast forward to the recent past.
A former Intel engineer told PC gamers calm that Apple became dissatisfied with Intel chips back in 2015.
Particularly the engineer said quote, the quality assurance of Skylake.
Was more than a problem.
It was abnormally bad.
We were getting way too much citing for little things inside Skylake.
Basically, our buddies at Apple became the number one filer of problems in the architecture and that went really, really bad.
And quote, all that translates to Apple having issues.
With Intel's chips.
When the processors you depend on have lots of issues, that inhibits improvements on the software side, amongst other things.
So here's what we're looking at with Mac's powered by Apple silicon.
First up, we should be getting hardware changes on the same schedule as iPhones and iPads, maybe real power upgrades every two years or so.
Then we're talking about an improved Mac OS a faster pace.
Take a look at the example of iPhones and his iPads.
Apple writes its software to its own chips there.
For the most part, iOS runs better and better.
I think we'll get expect Mac OS To make bigger changes at a faster rate, since Apple can write to the specific hardware in a much more cohesive manner.
On to hardware changes, Apple will probably make a big splash.
With its Apple silicon powered Macs.
I bet you dollars to doughnuts Whatever that means that Apple does not want to confuse its users.
The new Macs that use Apple's own processors will probably look very different than the current lineup of Macs.
If you think about it, Apple has already built a full fledged Apple powered computer in the iPad Pro.
Now imagine what Apple could do if it's afforded even more space.
With the traditional laptop form, I think that that oddball Maxwell from 2015 might give us an idea.
It was a 12 inch MacBook.
It was really, really thin.
It gave them MacBook Air a run for its money in thinness.
One of the issues with that MacBook was its performance and battery life.
According to Dan Dan, the acronym Cnet.com Well, let's see that MacBook was running an Intel Core M processor.
That was not tremendously powerful.
And since it's from Intel, it usually means that the chips eat up battery life.
So what if Apple made the processors, we're probably looking at an even thinner and lighter future.
So Apple's portable machine.
I'm really hoping, just because Apple's started messing with totally different kinds of machines.
Steal a page from the Microsoft playbook.
A double-screen Mac that runs both Mac OS and iPad OS?
With full control of the hardware, Apple can really push it.
Push it real good.
Now onto a negative one.
Not every app written for Intel Mac's will work well on Apple silicon.
Back when Apple switched from power PC to Intel, Apple use a technology called Rosetta.
Rosetta allow power PC program to run on an Intel machine by translating on the fly.
So then the developers did not have to redo their whole programs right when Apple made the shift and users got to still use the program saying you.
Now Apple also had universal apps which meant that apps were essentially built for both power PC and Intel.
The performance of those universal apps would be very similar on either platform.
Now apps that relied on Rosetta was a Mixed Bag.
I know this because I ran a number of Rosetta apps on my first Intel Mac's for the most part apps works, but their performance was not always consistent.
So let's get to Rosetta two.
This will be the tech that allows existing Mac apps that have not been updated to run on Apple silicon to run on Apple's old compound Macs.
A big addition of Rosetta to is translating an app during the install That could be very useful for non optimized apps.
When Apple announced it was moving to Apple silicon.
Craig federighi tried to allay fears.
He said that the vast majority of Apple's own apps run natively on Apple silicon, Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro were on that list and they would be ready on day one.
Apple also announced Microsoft and Adobe were working on getting their apps Running on Apple silicon.
But if you use some older apps that don't see regular updates, you might want to hang on to your Intel based Mac for a bit.
And by the way, Apple does have a good track record of supporting older hardware even after the Intel transition.
Apple supported power PC based Macs for several years.
[SOUND] At number two is the invasion of the IApps.
That's right is is referring to iOS and iPad apps as IApps.
One of the major things that will help Apple with the transition to its own processors is leaning on existing apps..
From other app stores, the iPhone and iPad have been extremely successful.
apps for those devices were created using Apple's strict, strict guidelines.
That in turn meant that users of iOS stuff did not have a lot to learn from app to app to app.
If and when developers do not update your Mac apps.
Apple can rely on mobile apps To fill in the gaps.
I am curious how those apps will play in the windowed world of Mac OS.
on traditional desktops we usually have the power to resize windows have the interface scale properly.
I apps on Macs, you will pretend you're looking at two different interfaces.
Macs have had that menu bar at the top of the screen for pretty much forever.
iPad apps don't rely on the menu bar.
Look, I love Android and Chrome.
But running Android apps on a Chromebook is, how do I say this?
Less than elegant.
Let's go with that.
With the eye app invasion.
Here's hoping Apple figures out a unified way to reconcile I apps And Mac apps.
And the number one thing to expect the apple silicon powered Macs is the touchscreen Mac with iOS and iPad apps running natively on Macs.
It's only a matter of time before Apple decides to add a touchscreen to a Mac, maybe all the Macs.
Now Phil Schiller of Apple has famously said that would be absurd.
Tap touchscreens on Macs.
Then again, Steve Jobs made fun of the stylus for touch devices.
And we see where Apple went with that.
I expect Apple to allow people to interact with AIAPPS on Macs in the most natural way possible.
And that means touching the screen.
Touchscreen on a Mac does not mean the trackpad is dead.
I mean the iPad added the trackpad, you can have both touch and the cursor.
Windows machines have had both for years.
I think the touchscreen Mac poses its own degree of issues for Mac OS touchscreens demand bigger targets for your big fat fingers.
Meanwhile, traditional computers can have small targets because you're using a tiny pointer.
Apple, I know you're watching this.
So let's talk I have a couple of ideas for you.
When you inevitably go ahead with a touchscreen Mac, how about introducing different modes on the operating system level.
Perhaps when Mac OS recognizes a touch input on the screen.
Menu options increase spacing for touch when the trackpad is being used, go back to compact spacing, maybe even add an option on Mac OS setup.
Ask the user, will you be using touch as your primary?.
If you say no, then it defaults to small targets.
If you say yes, default is too big targets.
Also don't use my language on that option.
What's a more accurate way to put it?
How will you use your Mac?
Touch or trackpad that seems about right.
touchscreen on Macs, it's coming.
You heard it here first, or second or third, a hold of three fingers.
So one of those numbers.
So you might be wondering, should I even buy a Mac right now?
Check out this video here for your buying decisions.
I think Apple's moved to its own chips is crazy, but kind of awesome.
We have seen what Apple can do when it controls everything, thanks to the iPad and iPhone.
What do you think will change with these new Macs?
Let me know.
I'm Isaac Cardinal, see you online.