New 2013 MacBook Air marks the beginning of end of Apple-Intel partnership

“Apple’s new MacBook Air showcases the new Intel Haswell microprocessor, but it marks the beginning of the end of the decade-long marriage between Apple and Intel,” Phil Moore writes for Stabley Times.

“Apple moved exclusively to Intel processors for its Mac computers when it first launched its MacBook lineup, and that arrangement is still in place to this day,” Moore writes. “But Apple bypassed Intel when it launched the iPad, initially using a competitor for low power mobile processors and since developing its own iPad chips in house.”

MacDailyNews Take: Actually, Apple asked Intel for a processor for iPhone, but Intel “ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how you want to view it.” That’s the biggest failure and/or mistake Intel ever made.

Moore writes, “Haswell sees Intel finally moving in a low power direction, but with Apple already in the chip business itself, it’s a matter of time before the MacBook Air shifts from Intel to the same chip architecture as the iPad.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Whoops! Intel’s Otellini passed on Apple’s iPhone – May 17, 2013
How long before Apple dumps Intel from MacBook Air? – June 26, 2013


    1. Ah yes, Stabley Times. That highly respected oracle of all knowledge about technology.

      Uh, by the way – who the f@*& is Stabley Times?

      I keep seeing this stupid rumor pop up every several months by know-nothings. There are significant differences between an Intel CPU and an ARM-based CPU. While X86-based CPUs have a long legacy and were never designed specifically for today’s portable device use, they are very powerful. They do things processing/multitasking-wise that would be a stretch at this point for ARM architecture.

      That’s hardly a knock on Apple’s A-series CPUs. They’re just different in their priority and focus. But that never prevented some blowhard from coming up with gems like the article cited above.

      This really is the silly season.

  1. Processor independence… you mean using architecture designed by ARM (and others) and being fabbed by Samsung (and others)? Apple only is involved in the middle there with the SoC design.

    Or relying on Intel who has been incredibly reliable for Apple?

    Does the author of this article not realize that Haswell is the beginning of the beginning? Meaning, Intel chips are going to continue to grow both in performance and efficiency at the rate they have been (if not more) for decades now. The only difference is the greater emphasis on efficiency, which we’ve seen the results of with Haswell.

    If anything, expect Intel to be more involved with Apple’s mobile architecture.

  2. I moved to the Mac after they adopted the Intel processor because it was possible to buy the computer I wanted and still run all the applications I need via a virtual machine. Breaking that link would be a catastrophe. Anyone who does not understand that should be reading rather than writing articles.

      1. Emulation was never viable really, if you remember the horrid VirtualPC days. These days through hypervisor tech, I can have multiple virtual machines running on a single Mac. Each will run near the full speed of the processor.

        Many of my clients were finally convinced to go to Macintosh with the assurance that if need be they could run that specific piece of software that only runs on Windows. Or if really necessary they can boot into bootcamp and run Windows only.

        Not to mention the fact that more and more people are asking to have Hackintoshes built. OS X running on Intel makes this possible.

        Let’s not forget that developers building apps are saved time by not having to deal with a completely foreign architecture on the Mac anymore. It makes it far more likely that popular software will be developed for the Mac.

        A software emulator on ARM or anything else will never cut it.

          1. Technically, Rosetta – the bridge that allowed PowerPC software to run on Intel Macs – was NOT an emulator. Arguably, it did something even more impressive – it provided on-the-fly translation of PPC binaries to executable code for Intel.

  3. Not Gonna Happen.

    Macs will obviously stay Intel. Macs are an entirely different niche platform what CANNOT run on mere ARM based processors.

    Not convinced? How many Mac apps REQUIRE technology built specifically into Intel CPUs, technology that is proprietary to Intel that will NEVER be incorporated into Apple’s ARM derived chips? Go on! Guess.

    Not Gonna Happen.

    Therefore, I have to once again vehemently exclaim:

    TechTard Journalism!!! 😛

    Stupid article. Tell them I said so.

  4. The thin little MacBook Air has 12+ hours of battery life with all the power a majority of people need. It’ll be the other way around if anything. Who knows where 12+ hours will be next year.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.