Bitwig ARM Version if Apple leaves Intel?

[billcarroll]

The full transition to Apple Silicon will take years, and Intel will remain supported for quite some time.

Watching the WWDC, my impression is this is an incredibly smart move for Apple, and this will effective combine their iOS and OS into one and give them far more control. This move will very likely propel Apple forward even more than the 1st iPhone.

A few things I see in Apple's press release:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/ ... e-silicon/

Apple plans to ship the first Mac with Apple silicon by the end of the year and complete the transition in about two years. Apple will continue to support and release new versions of macOS for Intel-based Macs for years to come, and has exciting new Intel-based Macs in development. The transition to Apple silicon represents the biggest leap ever for the Mac.

The Bitwig team will probably be looking at the "DTK":

The DTK, which must be returned to Apple at the end of the program, consists of a Mac mini with Apple’s A12Z Bionic SoC inside and desktop specs, including 16GB of memory, a 512GB SSD, and a variety of Mac I/O ports. Developers can apply to the program at developer.apple.com, and the total cost of the program is $500.

This will definitely create some extra work for the Bitwig team.

[teilo]

Interesting rumour here - apparently during the transition to ARM Apple might move production of "their" Intel processors to TSMC, which would mean they're gonna be 5nm tech, instead of current 10nm. They're going with a bang!

That's not what this says at all. The rumor is that the new Apple ARM chips will be manufactured by TSMC using the 5nm process. The video simply says that a move to 5nm all by itself is a performance boost, NOT that TSMC is going to be producing X86 chips. They can't. They don't have the license to do so.

[antic604]

Interesting rumour here - apparently during the transition to ARM Apple might move production of "their" Intel processors to TSMC, which would mean they're gonna be 5nm tech, instead of current 10nm. They're going with a bang!

That's not what this says at all. The rumor is that the new Apple ARM chips will be manufactured by TSMC using the 5nm process. The video simply says that a move to 5nm all by itself is a performance boost, NOT that TSMC is going to be producing X86 chips. They can't. They don't have the license to do so.

You're right, sorry. Was watching at work and misinterpreted what he said

[stamp]

Macs will go from costing an arm and a leg to costing two arms and a leg...

[jarnold]

Thats just the price we pay for not having to deal with Windows

[docbot]

I'm sure they'll bring Bitwig to ARM, it's a great opportunity to increase revenue by being able to offer Bitwig on iPAD (they already have great Touch integration) and keeping Mac support, by essentially the same codebase and from what I've read it seams that ARM might not just be the future for Apple

[pdxindy]

I'm sure they'll bring Bitwig to ARM, it's a great opportunity to increase revenue by being able to offer Bitwig on iPAD (they already have great Touch integration) and keeping Mac support, by essentially the same codebase and from what I've read it seams that ARM might not just be the future for Apple

Bitwig would be great on iPad Pro! Insta-buy for me...

[Benutzername]

That's not what this says at all. The rumor is that the new Apple ARM chips will be manufactured by TSMC using the 5nm process. The video simply says that a move to 5nm all by itself is a performance boost, NOT that TSMC is going to be producing X86 chips. They can't. They don't have the license to do so.

TSMC actually builds all the new AMD x86 processors and Intel has nothing to compete against these CPUs. So they can if they want.

[docbot]

Macs will go from costing an arm and a leg to costing two arms and a leg...

unlikely, they will probably get cheaper or stay at the same price and offer more features (touch screen macbooks are bound to come along with the switch).

[apoclypse]

That's not what this says at all. The rumor is that the new Apple ARM chips will be manufactured by TSMC using the 5nm process. The video simply says that a move to 5nm all by itself is a performance boost, NOT that TSMC is going to be producing X86 chips. They can't. They don't have the license to do so.

TSMC actually builds all the new AMD x86 processors and Intel has nothing to compete against these CPUs. So they can if they want.

I think a more accurate thing to say is that Apple doesn't have the x86 license so they can't just have TSMC make some 5nm x86 chips for them. AMD has an x86 license and can do that. TSMC can manufacture the chip they design with no issues. Even Intel has some stuff being made by TSMC even though they have their own fabs.

Apple doesn't seem all that interested in x86 anyway. They can't make major changes to the ISA like they can with the ARM license they currently hold.

[apoclypse]

As for Bitwig moving to the new Apple chip. I'm not saying it's trivial but if I'm not mistaken Bitwig's audio engine and backend is written in C++, which can be highly portable unless there are platform specific optimizations. The UI and glue code is all Java. So in theory Bitwig should actually have a leg up compared to other DAWs when it comes to porting the DAW to Apple's new platform. The application on paper seems to be very portable.

Cubase, Studio One, possibly Ableton, on the other hand may be in for a rough time. Ableton if I'm not mistaken uses Qt since version 10, at least for the GUI. What does that mean for portability I'm not sure. But Apple has been "training" developers for years to not anything outside of their toolkits for development. That should make the transition a bit easier if developers have been following the "rules".

The issue is not DAWs, it's plugins. A lot of plugin developers are not going to update their software. Even months after Catalina was released I still have plugins that are broken because of the notarization thing. Now imagine what that looks like when moving to a completely different platform. The top players like Izotope, NI, Arturia etc will be fine. Smaller developers may find it very difficult. Things are going to be interesting for a while.

[machinesworking]

The issue is not DAWs, it's plugins. A lot of plugin developers are not going to update their software. Even months after Catalina was released I still have plugins that are broken because of the notarization thing. Now imagine what that looks like when moving to a completely different platform. The top players like Izotope, NI, Arturia etc will be fine. Smaller developers may find it very difficult. Things are going to be interesting for a while.

The huge red flag is VST2 to me, I don't see it surviving to Arm. VST3 is still a mess IMO, typically here on Mojave they tend to be far less stable than VST2.

Since Bitwig likes the platform independence of VST, it's a dicey thing to think about, badly ported VST3's badly ported to Arm.

[apoclypse]

The issue is not DAWs, it's plugins. A lot of plugin developers are not going to update their software. Even months after Catalina was released I still have plugins that are broken because of the notarization thing. Now imagine what that looks like when moving to a completely different platform. The top players like Izotope, NI, Arturia etc will be fine. Smaller developers may find it very difficult. Things are going to be interesting for a while.

The huge red flag is VST2 to me, I don't see it surviving to Arm. VST3 is still a mess IMO, typically here on Mojave they tend to be far less stable than VST2.

Since Bitwig likes the platform independence of VST, it's a dicey thing to think about, badly ported VST3's badly ported to Arm.

Yeah I suspect the situation won't be good for a while. The AU format is a bit nicer to work with and some developers already have their plugins on iOS devices now. I'm sure that's what Apple wants developers to use but I don't see that as a viable solution nor realistic. I do see things like JUCE getting more adoption though.

[machinesworking]

Yeah I suspect the situation won't be good for a while. The AU format is a bit nicer to work with and some developers already have their plugins on iOS devices now. I'm sure that's what Apple wants developers to use but I don't see that as a viable solution nor realistic. I do see things like JUCE getting more adoption though.

The is one forum OS X Audio used to be really busy around the time AU came out, developers haggled over AU, Urs loving it, Angus hating it. Lots of good points on both sides.

I suspect this is going to be an issue, VST 3 is either going to be ported or not, but I don't see how VST 2 makes it to Arm chips? Angus and FXpansion to this day are adamant about VST 3 being something they never will support.. so where does Cubase fit into this?

Meanwhile I've been using VST 2 in DP10 on OS X.. thinking it was the most portable. I guess it is if I break down and get a PC.

[teilo]

That's not what this says at all. The rumor is that the new Apple ARM chips will be manufactured by TSMC using the 5nm process. The video simply says that a move to 5nm all by itself is a performance boost, NOT that TSMC is going to be producing X86 chips. They can't. They don't have the license to do so.

TSMC actually builds all the new AMD x86 processors and Intel has nothing to compete against these CPUs. So they can if they want.

I think a more accurate thing to say is that Apple doesn't have the x86 license so they can't just have TSMC make some 5nm x86 chips for them. AMD has an x86 license and can do that. TSMC can manufacture the chip they design with no issues. Even Intel has some stuff being made by TSMC even though they have their own fabs.

Apple doesn't seem all that interested in x86 anyway. They can't make major changes to the ISA like they can with the ARM license they currently hold.

Yes, this is precisely it. Neither Apple nor TSMC has a license to create a new version of an x86-compatible chip. AMD has a perpetual license originating in the late 80s, that Intel would love to revoke were that a legal option. AMD is not the only ones with that license, but AMD used that license to develop x86_64, which Intel then was able to copy. This essentially means that unless both Intel and AMD see fit to license x86_64 architecture to 3rd parties, all other players are shut out from creating compatible silicon, and that includes Apple.