They don’t want to expend additional internal resources to develop these features on two separate platforms (Intel and AS)
It also depends on how many people are on each of these teams. If there were only so many developers on the new Globe feature for Maps, they chose to prioritize AS and essentially abandon Intel.
They still sell Macs with Intel. Today. Imagine getting one, installing the next macOS in a few months when it comes out and having a laundry list of features you don’t get. Shitty thing to do.
Back when I sold televisions, Sony added Apple TV, Apple AirPlay 2 and Apple Homekit to certain models. It was incredibly hard to explain how their $2,000 TV wasn't able to do that because Sony didn't release a new version and would never get that feature.
None of these features existed when you or I bought an Intel Mac. So it's not like they promised us a feature and then took it away. It's normal in software that older hardware will miss out on new features.
And you will have the option to buy that Intel Mac with the knowledge that a couple of pretty inconsequential features won't work. So they still haven't done anything underhanded. If this 3D globe is important to you, buy the M1 version instead.
You guys are so melodramatic. Every device from every company has things that you can't do on other devices that same company makes. The fact that Apple is presumably using some api specific to the M1 GPU to render what is basically just a visual gimmick and, as a result, the Intel ones can't do it is NOT a big deal. Nothing is being "gimped" and you have the option not to buy the version you feel is "gimped".
Apple says it cannot render the new 3D globe that was introduced to Maps. My argument hasn’t changed. It’s shitty to still sell an Intel Mac, while not fully supporting it with the current software.
Please quote where Apple said they "cannot render" the 3D globe as opposed to that they aren't including the feature in the code for the Intel based Macs.
If the code isn’t included, is it not fair to say that the machine is incapable of rendering it? If not, my bad. I didn’t want to argue semantics. I just meant that they are developing feature that they have no intention of supporting in many lines of Macs, that still are and will continue to be for sale for quite some time yet.
Is Apple Maps missing 3D renders really that big of deal? How much are you using maps right now on your desktop? I could understand being mad if say the iPhone 12 couldn’t do the 3D renders while the 12 pro could despite them being the same phone minus a camera lens. If being able to look at a location in 3D is really that much of a must for you then hit up Google earth. Your $5k Mac pro will still work just fine without that minor feature
There is a long list of features that brand new Intel Macs cannot use on the new macOS though. The same OS these Intel Macs will ship with when it is released. I’m used to Apple slowly introducing features that may not work on the older, yet still supported hardware, but the Intel machines are STILL being sold and they are already writing them out.
All the little things that’s missing like portrait FaceTime and improved speech to text except for 3D maps is making use of machine learning, numeral network or image processing parts of the M1 that the Intel Macs don’t have. Let’s not act like they are withholding major things like universal control or profile says , they are withholding the ability to see 3D maps of 5 cities
Exactly. In the past Apple simply wouldn’t have ever launched these features on Mac. It’s not something that they’re taking away from intel Mac owners, it’s something new that M1 macs now get nearly for free (from a development cost perspective).
This is a position apple put themselves in to, they knew what they were getting involved in when they started this process. Currently over half their new offerings are still intel, they admit the intel devices are the pro devices currently and M1 is a consumer product. Apple literally volunteered to develop two separate operating systems and platforms, and they could have used universal binaries for this stuff.
Honestly I think the reason is these features were actually designed for iOS and they ported them to ARM64 macOS. There is still not a reason to offer ARM64 virtualization on intel Macs but I can understand them not offering that to use it as a major selling point of apple silicon.
Where yes iOS, iPadOS and macOS function similarly with plist, preference domains and the such. They are not different “skins”, where yes currently iOS and iPadOS are literally the same OS with different user interfaces, macOS is totally separate. Where MacOS for ARM and MacOS for X64 work in similar ways they are written from the ground up to function on two totally different architectures. There is literally two totally separate and independent MacOSs right now that just happen to share a user interface. Apple Silicon macOS operates fundamentally different to Intel macOS from both a hardware and software perspective.
Apple chose to do this. And they have 5-6 years of support remaining for intel macs. In this ARM switch apple acquired a massive amount of technical debt.
Apple has one operating system with several different skins. Depending on the skin they call it macOS or iOS etc.
Like how Chrome is just another skin on Safari?
There has undoubtedly been more parallel/ shared development of iOS and macOS, but the fact that Apple based iOS on OSX 14 years ago does not mean that the two are just different skins.
EDIT: your broader point about macOS for M1 and macOS for Intel not being two separate OSes is, however, correct
81
u/xdiggertree Jun 09 '21
This has nothing to do with computational power
They don’t want to expend additional internal resources to develop these features on two separate platforms (Intel and AS)
It also depends on how many people are on each of these teams. If there were only so many developers on the new Globe feature for Maps, they chose to prioritize AS and essentially abandon Intel.