New Apple Silicon Macs

[abacus]

Hauptwerk is popular on a Mac as well as Windows; however Apple is moving the Mac over to their own Apple silicon chip, (Improved versions of the chips used in iPads and iPhones which will not support Boot camp) with complete transition of all Macs in about 2 1/2 years.
Is anybody that uses a VPO worried about this, or do you think manufactures will be able to adapt their VPOs to the new chips which have a completely different architecture. (NOTE: the Intel chip Macs will be supported for quite a few years after transition)

Bill

[quantum]

If you are using a dedicated Mac only for VPO usage, and don't plan to upgrade your software too frequently, then I think you could expect a reasonable amount of usage from a current Intel Mac. Maybe in 5 to 10 years you may seek the need for a hardware upgrade, and by that time software developers would have had a chance to work with the new processor architecture.

Another thing to consider is whether you want to be installing new samplesets. These new samplesets may require new versions of software.

The question to ask yourself likely is: will the reasonable life of your current Intel Mac be within the support window Apple is giving Intel Macs?


I'm not particularly worried as my VPO runs in Windows, and can also run in Linux. However, I do understand the concern as one would like an investment such as a VPO computer to last for a reasonable amount of time, especially if you got that computer for the specific purpose of running a VPO.

There are many people that use Macs in a professional environment, so I think this type of discussion will be taking place in many different disciplines. It is something to watch out for, and see how others that depend on Macs move forward with the transition.

[rjsilva]

It's not something you need to worry about. Apple switched from 68000-series processors to IBM PowerPC in the 90's and then later to Intel x86 in the 2000's. I suspect their switch to their own architecture will be near ‘invisible' for users.

Apple's development tools abstract developers from processor specific code, and it's very unusual nowadays to use programming conventions which are processor specific anyway. Supporting Apple's CPUs in Macs will be a non-issue for developers. In fact the vast majority of developers nowadays know next to nothing about differences in processors (from a development standpoint).

Additionally, Rosetta will enable the new CPUs to run software compiled for Intel CPUs. When Apple switched to Intel professors Rosetta was used to run PowerPC apps and the performance was very good, certainly good enough to run a VPO such as GrandOrgue which isn't especially processor intensive (and which will like not see a timely update for the new CPUs).

I say these things with confidence because I was actively using Macs (as a ‘power' user and developer) through their last two processor changes. And I can only imagine this latest one will be even easier.

[quantum]

There is going to be a Rosetta 2 (at least that is what it is being referred to in online discussions).

[myorgan]

Let's hope it works as well and as reasonably as Rosetta 1.;-) Apple has not been known for their continued support of older products/software.

Michael

[rjsilva]

Yes, Rosetta 2, sorry I didn't specify. I think there's plenty of reason to think it will work well.

While I'd say that Apple can be fickle at times, I'd disagree that they don't support older hardware. They provide the latest OS updates for their phones longer than most companies (iOS 13 runs on the iPhone 5s just fine which was released in 2013), and even my late-2014 MacbookPro is still receiving the latest macOS releases (including the one to be released this year).

[Admin]

I would say the future remains to be seen. If a software developer re-compiles their code for the new architecture then there should be no issue whatsoever. As for emulating Intel architecture, certainly possible, but there's always a performance hit that's more likely to problematical for programs operating in real time, such as VPOs. There is also the issue of code optimization. Developers of real time applications often drop down to assembly level coding in order to optimize performance. The advantage of this code might be lost in emulation, impacting performance.

It is true that Apple has a big presence in the professional A/V market and serving that existing customer base will certainly be the goal of Apple and its software partners. Given the often four figure+ cost of pro editing software, a new architecture could prove to provide a new revenue stream for these developers. But whether developers of small-market, niche products, have the incentive and desire to support another platform and immediately jump on the new code bandwagon is an unanswered question.

Due to the installed base, developers will continue to support Intel Macs for years to come, but I wouldn't invest in a Mac with Apple silicon any time soon with the assumption that my current software won't require an update or new version. This question will be better addressed once these new machines start appearing in the real world. Stay tuned.

[myorgan]

I always waited to adopt Apple's new technology until the other tech coordinators ironed out the issues and Apple responded or coordinators found work-arounds. When it was safe, then I'd upgrade ours. I'm trying to remember the first Apples I used in the classroom, and think it was the LC-II and one generation earlier. I think we used Microsoft Works back then.

It's been a L-O-N-G time!;-)

Michael

[lizny]

I installed a brand new Mac Mini into my organ, and gave it a lifetime license for HW5 with a physical iLok key. When the time comes that I can't update the OS without breaking HW, I'm prepared to take it off the network. Possibly I'll upgrade HW if there is a compelling reason, but I have positioned myself to have a standalone organ that will just keep running as long as I want it to, so I'm not forced into anything.

[abacus]

Rosetta 2 will be included with the next OS update Big Sur arriving later this year which is designed to work with both Intel and Apple Silicon. (The first Apple Silicon Macs are due later this year)

Bill

[abacus]

Apple WWDC 2020

The New Mac OS starts at 1:08:00 & Apple Silicon at 1:25:57

Enjoy

Bill

[myorgan]

In response to the video, the essential question is, How do I turn all that *rap off?!!! Facial recognition and synchronization of my location, *Phone, *Pad, automobile, and *Mac is of absolutely no interest to me. What a wealth of information for a hacker to access!

I guess I've seen one too many of these "new release" videos to be impressed. I listen for what they're not saying more than what they're saying. A VPO has no need of all those "features."

Michael

P.S. OK, perhaps Rosetta 2 is useful to VPOs.:o

[AllenAnalog]

It seems like Apple is making decisions on products and marketing that run contrary to the goals of many formerly loyal developers and users. I find this concurrent thread on here to be relevant to the discussion:

https://organforum.com/forums/forum/...gy-dumps-apple

[Admin]

Apple and Google are now being sued by Epic Games, the developer of the Fortnite game and the Unreal Engine that is used in many video games by numerous game developers. They accuse Apple and Google of operating their Play Stores in a monopolistic manner, requiring them to pay, in Apple's case, 30% of sales made through the store, while making it virtually impossible for them to distribute their software to devices or offer payment services other than through those stores.

When Epic updated Fortnite with the ability to make in-app purchases at a lower price by bypassing the Apple and Google stores, Apple and Google removed their apps from the stores. After Epic filed suit, Apple pulled its developer license and tools from Epic in retaliation. Epic contends that the "30% tax" imposed by these companies is unfair because this fee is not imposed on online merchants, such as Amazon and Uber, who also distribute their apps through these stores.

The music service Spotify sued Apple in Europe last year over the same issue, claiming that the 30% cut taken by Apple makes it impossible for them to compete against Apple's music service, Apple Music.

[rjsilva]

Your description is factually true Admin, but whether you mean to or not your description implies Epic as a sort of victim. Epic knew exactly what would happen when they tried to sidestep the policies they legally agreed to. It was their plan from their very first action. And they most certainly are not wanting ‘fair' pricing. Their agenda is much bigger.

Apple's and Google's supposedly greedy app stores have somehow allowed countless independent developers to be able to sell their apps in ways never before possible and make lots of money—including Epic. They do not owe anyone access to the devices they make, but in a mutually beneficial business opportunity they provide sophisticated development tools and resources for pittance and provide free access to their safe and secure store for apps where they handle literally everything, including tools to vet apps for security for the sake of end users (and many other things).

I'm not an Apple or Google fanboy, but I know childish entitlement when I see it, and Epic is reeking of it.

[Admin]

I have to disagree with the notion that Google and Apple have the right to dictate what software I run on a device I paid for, whatever their true justification.

The fact is that the relationship between software and hardware is symbiotic. If every publisher pulled their wares from these stores, hardware sales would plummet. No software, no hardware market. A 30% tax on all my sales for the life of the product doesn't translate to "developer tools for a pittance" in my opinion.
.
Google and Apple are not being altruistic, or even consistent, in their policies. Sure, they trot out how they are a being a protective Big Brother protecting the community by curating what's available in their stores, but, seriously, it's about the money, isn't it? That's all well and good. That's capitalism, but the question is whether these practices are monopolistic. We'll see what the courts say.

[Admin]

Here's what Martin Dyde, Hauptwerk author and developer said on the Hauptwerk Forum

The current version of Hauptwerk (v5) certainly *doesn't* support ARM CPUs (at least, not officially). Apple only announced that they were moving to ARM CPUs a few days ago. Porting Hauptwerk to them may well involve a large amount of work, and we'd also need to await compatibility being added to the third-party platforms that Hauptwerk relies upon (development libraries, such as Qt, iLok, the installer development platform, etc.). Hence it would almost certainly need to be a medium/longer-term project, and we'll just have to see what would be involved over time. There's some possibility that Hauptwerk might just work anyway under Apple's Intel-on-ARM 'Rosetta' emulator (although whether performance would be acceptable would also remain to be seen, and Rosetta doesn't support AVX code, so it would be restricted to using SSE).

http://forum.hauptwerk.com/viewtopic...=18807#p141605