One of the benefits of Apple’s transition to Intel silicon was the ability to run Windows. With Boot Camp, a user could run Windows natively on their Mac. This meant that even gamers could switch to a Mac. Sure, some of the graphics card options aren’t great, but throw a beefy GPU into an external Thunderbolt enclosure and you’ve got a Mac that can also play games. Of course, there are games for macOS, but nowhere near as many as there are for Windows. It also meant people with software for work could switch over without worrying about losing native support for Windows.
With Apple moving the Mac lineup to their own ARM-based silicon, Boot Camp will die. Apple’s chips won’t be compatible with any versions of Windows. If you want Windows, you’ll have to buy a PC.
So much for this commercial, part of the ad campaign that made the Mac popular again.
There’s also an ad about Vista costing users a large number of their old programs. That’s what is going to happen when Apple forces the shift to their silicon. Their Magsafe commercial also serves as criticism of modern MacBooks. Basically? If those commercials existed today, the modern Mac would lose to the mid 2000’s Macs, and things are about to get far worse.
A-Series Processors
The Developer Transition Kit, a Mac Mini with the A12Z processor from the iPad Pro. Photo: Axel Roest
Windows does run on ARM processors. Microsoft has had multiple editions of Windows for a long time, often a “Home” and a “Pro” model, as well as “Business” models and a variety of other editions. One of them is has been a tablet version. This was a less complete version of Windows that could only run certain apps from the Windows Store. However, modern implementations of ARM-based Windows function much in the same way Apple’s will. There is software virtualization that allows non-ARM apps to run on the ARM platform. It’s slower, they can’t run as many apps, and the ARM processors Windows laptops use are already slower than their Intel and AMD counterparts, but it allows these users to have the Windows experience in a slimmer, lighter, and more energy efficient package.
You might say, “Hey, why can’t we run Windows on Apple’s processors then?” First, Microsoft only licenses their ARM version of Windows for OEMs, meaning Apple would have to pre-install Windows on their Macs. That’s never going to happen.
Secondly, Apple’s processor architecture isn’t strictly the same as ARM. While the processors are ARM-based, computing tasks are split out. Different chips handle different things, and they often have their own graphics. Microsoft would have to make a version of Windows that ran natively on Apple’s hardware, otherwise it would have to be emulated. That is, there would have to be a software-based translations layer between Windows and the Apple hardware. This is what apps like VMWare Fusion, Parallels, and VirtualBox already do. They create an emulated environment where Windows can run. Developers of these virtualization apps will have to update them to take advantage of Apple’s new hardware. Likely due to performance issues, virtualization apps won’t be capable of Rosetta virtualization. That would be too many layers of translation software. It would run terribly, if it doesn’t already.
Dropping Software
“Windows on ARM still has unacceptable compromises for most users when it comes to software compatibility and expectations. I say this as a person who walked into those compromises eyes wide open, buying a Surface Pro X. I essentially use it as a glorified Chromebook and it’s very good at being that thing, but there’s no way Apple would want that for its Mac users.”
– Dieter Bohn, writing for The Verge
During the keynote, Apple showed a game running on an Apple Silicon Mac. They said the developers just had to do a few tweaks that took them a few days and re-release it. As a software engineer, I highly doubt this. Changing core parts of the entire engine that runs your game, like what silicon it compiles to, is not a small task. Could it be swapping out a few libraries? Potentially, yes. It’s unlikely, as game developers often use hardware-based optimizations to make their games perform better, but it’s possible that some games and applications will only need a few lines changed.
Once that’s done, however, you’d need rigorous testing. Testers would have to run through every aspect of the game, because what you just did, even if it seemed small, was a complete refactor. You did an engine swap on the car. You don’t know how your game will perform on new hardware. That means testers will have to run through every aspect of the game or app again. Often, after release, this isn’t something dev shops are prepared for. They’d likely have to hire contractors. Small indie developers won’t be able to do this. However, small indie developers have been keeping the Mac gaming ecosystem afloat.
Metal?
Another tidbit that dropped was the fact that the game in the demo was running using Apple’s Metal graphics. Metal is a proprietary graphics layer. Think of it like OpenGL or DirectX. It sits between the developer’s code and the graphics hardware so developers don’t have to code directly for a GPU. Since Apple owns it, they can simply make an ARM version that accepts the same code from developers, and translates it to Apple’s GPUs. All a developer would have to do is recompile to make a Universal 2 binary, one that can run on both Intel and Apple Silicon Macs.
However, many developers have not been using Metal. They used engines that aren’t or can’t be upgraded. Some apps, while recompiled for 64 bit, still have 32 bit dependencies, and therefore can’t run correctly on Apple’s Catalina operating system, which can’t run 32 bit apps. Basically put, by requiring developers update their software to run on Apple’s new ARM-based Macs, they’ll guarantee that some developers will never be able to update their apps or games. Furthermore, these developers may never make Mac software again. What’s the point when Apple cuts off your source of revenue on a whim?
Ain’t Gonna Happen
Is it me, or do the proportions of this box bother anyone else? Who designed this slide? Who drew this?
Without being able to look into the actual process of switching these apps over, it seems like something that could take a developer a month or more. Many game developers especially aren’t going to see the value in that. They often consider the Mac as an afterthought already. Updating older games when they’re working on new games would be, at best, a passion project. I mean, think about it, fellow software engineers, how often do you get to work on tech debt? I’ll answer that for non-developers: almost never.
Projects will march forward, and you’ll lose the ability to play the games you’ve purchased. Microsoft doesn’t do this to their customers. You don’t see console manufacturers disabling older games either. This is strictly an Apple occurrence. Does Apple really wonder why it’s so hard to convince developers to make anything for the Mac?
I’m still holding out hope that Apple only offers their own silicon in low-end Macs. I don’t know how, as a developer, I’ll be able to continue using the Mac if this transition happens. I fear that many people will be forced back to Windows, myself included. We’ll see how this plays out, and how third party software developers react, but I’m not hopeful. I’ll likely be using a PC for work in a few years if Apple doesn’t reconsider. Honestly? I’ll likely end up ditching the Mac platform altogether in a few years as a result.
Playing games on my computer again should be fun though.
Sources:
- Killian Bell, Cult of Mac
- Dieter Bohn, The Verge
- Tom Warren, The Verge
PS: You know things are bad when the writing of an Apple-focused tech blog is thinking about ditching the Mac.