ARMacs prices?

Detnator

macrumors 6502
Nov 25, 2011
383
332
Lol, nice try, your quote was "People who complain about Apple’s base model specs: What’s the problem?" hence why i brought up the HD issue. Which IS A BASE MODEL spec. The main advantage of being able to mess with hardware in my eyes (and many others) is the ability update or fix things once the hardware starts acting up. Like the mentioned HD that slows down the computer for a TON of users. If you get a base model with limited ram, and you decide you need more for whatever reason, is it more desirable for the user to buy some more ram for their machine, or to go and buy a brand new computer? Sure some people could care less about tweaking their hardware, but to state that it's an advantage that Apple glues everything shut and makes things inaccessible is just silly.
Nice try yourself. Way to totally miss the point, and as I said, deflect. But regardless my point still stands. Yes, I said it might be a good argument but I was trying to be nice. It’s not a good argument.

A 5400 drive is significantly cheaper than a SSD. For someone who is price conscious and values storage space over speed, why are you so determined to deny them that option? Why should they be forced to pay for an SSD when a much larger HDD for less $ would better suit some of those users? If that 5400 drive was the only option you’d have a case. But it’s not. It’s a choice.

So stop deflecting and answer the question. What is wrong with having those choices??

As for the hardware upgrading, you and some others think one way - the way you described. I and the vast majority of Apple’s target market think otherwise. Apple chooses to target those people.

Soldering RAM and storage reduces points of failure. Soldering RAM and storage in laptops saves space and makes room for better cooling, more battery, and other things. Your argument about things acting up, or wanting more functionality later?
1. Buy AppleCare to cover things acting up within three years.
2. Buy what you need within that timeframe so you don’t need to upgrade it.
3. when you need more, sell it for good resale value, or trade it in to Apple, and buy another one - upgrade everything at once.

Why? Because Apple doesn’t make computers made up of parts that end users cobble together. Apple makes a package, an entire experience. Buy that, use it, don’t mess with it, and then replace it with a newer one when technology moves on.

That’s how Apple works now and it’s how Steve always wanted Apple to work, but it was a bit before his time, until he pulled out the iPhone. No one cares that they can’t upgrade the RAM in their iPhone or iPad. And the people in Apple’s target market for Macs feel the same way about their Macs. Bend it by way you want, but the vast majority of Apple’s target market do not want to mess with their hardware, and do not want to lose the benefits, some of which I mentioned above, that we’d lose for Apple to cater to people who do want to mess with their hardware, when there’s a world of options available for those people outside the Apple garden.

I get it. You do want to mess with your hardware. That’s ok. But Apple is not interested in catering to you and those like you, any more than BMW or Mercedes are interested in catering to the average Honda buyer, at the expense of the experience for the rest of us who do not want to mess with our hardware. PCs and Windows cater to you. This is all partly the very reason Apple exists.

Apple tried doing it the PC way in the 90’s and nearly went bankrupt. Apple’s “package” mentality is partly why Apple’s products stand apart. For some, like me, that standing apart is what makes them better. For others, like you, that makes them worse.

So guess what? You don’t have to buy a Mac!! You have other options that do cater to you!! If you want to mess with your hardware buy a PC and go to town with it. Apple will never cater to you and the rest of us in Apple’s target market would like please to keep it that way.
 

LeeW

macrumors 65816
Feb 5, 2017
1,415
2,137
Glasgow, Scotland
A 5400 drive is significantly cheaper than a SSD. For someone who is price conscious and values storage space over speed, why are you so determined to deny them that option? Why should they be forced to pay for an SSD when a much larger HDD for less $ would better suit some of those users? If that 5400 drive was the only option you’d have a case. But it’s not. It’s a choice.
Probably not the case these days, as the cost of SSD has dropped the cost of producing older tech like a 5400 drive goes up. Plus there is a real estate issue, taking up extra space with a 5400 reduces opportunities elsewhere.

Whilst I get your overall point, I don't think there is a 'significantly cheaper' argument to 5400 drives anymore.
 

Falhófnir

macrumors 601
Aug 19, 2017
4,559
5,032
I like your thinking. Not sure about all the prices but the principles are good.Though I seriously doubt they’ll make a 15” Air. I think they’ll bring back the 12, and replace the 13 with 14, for the Airs. Then like you said, 14 and 16 for the Pros.

I and at least a few others really like the 12. It’s perfect for my wife and my son. It was too expensive for its market but with AS in 12/14 MBAs for $899/$999 or maybe $999/$1099 - super thin & light, and fanless like the 12 was, I think they’d be much loved like the 2014 11/13 Airs were before they got old. I really hope they’ll do that.
Yeah I see the 12" returning, though I think they will shrink the bezels so you'll end up with a 12.8"-13.0", which can replace the traditional 11.6" and 13.3" sizes in one. A larger one of some sort makes sense, it seems that people want larger screens and that's what Apple are doing across their other lineups. Somewhere between 14.0" and 15.0" seems likely, I thought 13.0" and 15.0" sounded nice if they're making iPad-like custom round-corner panels anyway to use up every inch of the front panel they reasonably can.
 

Puonti

macrumors 6502a
Mar 14, 2011
861
388
As for storage, if Universal binaries are simply going to get bigger thanks to having to provide Intel and ARM versions of the executable in one file then more storage seems to be a given and probably wouldn't cost too much for Apple to introduce given their economies of scale over time.
iOS has had App Thinning since iOS 9, I imagine it or a a similar system will make sure Intel and Apple Silicon Macs running Big Sur and beyond only download that portion of a universal app they need.

 

groove-agent

macrumors 65816
Jan 13, 2006
1,142
856
My prediction is the prices will drop a bit given the chips are developed in-house, and they don't have to give money to Intel. Who knows though, the chips they develop for the Mac might be much more sophisticated than the ones used in the phones.
 

-LikesMac-

macrumors 6502
Jun 20, 2010
429
22
Here's my thoughts:
- Prices will drop a bit due to in-house development.
- Prices will still be such that Apple can maintain the brand premium and profit margin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jorbanead

sublunar

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2007
1,330
779
iOS has had App Thinning since iOS 9, I imagine it or a a similar system will make sure Intel and Apple Silicon Macs running Big Sur and beyond only download that portion of a universal app they need.

Good catch there, I guess there's scope for a budget 8/256 configuration then.

Would make sense for a Road Warrior base spec. Apple could test the water with a 12" ArmBook/iBook. Surely if the top end CPU makes for a portable video editing machine it would be a sure-fire hit with the differentiator being successive screen size to upsell people to 14" and 16" variants in the future.
- - Post merged: - -

Yeah I see the 12" returning, though I think they will shrink the bezels so you'll end up with a 12.8"-13.0", which can replace the traditional 11.6" and 13.3" sizes in one. A larger one of some sort makes sense, it seems that people want larger screens and that's what Apple are doing across their other lineups. Somewhere between 14.0" and 15.0" seems likely, I thought 13.0" and 15.0" sounded nice if they're making iPad-like custom round-corner panels anyway to use up every inch of the front panel they reasonably can.
12" and 15" would make logical screen sizes if the Intel Macs were to stay as 13" and 16" even though my supposition from before would involve a 14" to replace the 13" Intel machine.

It would make the most sense as far as I'm concerned to differentiate the ARM Macs by not using the same screen sizes as their Intel counterparts.

So we arrive at the 24" ARM iMac, and consequently ask a question about the 27" 5k screen in the Intel Macs...

Do Apple then go for a 30-32 inch panel to attract the 27" buyers?
 

MyopicPaideia

macrumors 68000
Mar 19, 2011
1,987
762
Sweden
Aren’t we all forgetting that an iPhone 11 Pro starts at $999 these days? 12.9” iPad Pro also starts at $999.

Don’t expect Apple Silicon Macs to be cheaper, expect them to be around the same price, but more powerful and feature rich due to the vertical integration of the entire Apple ecosystem platform of hardware and software. The machines are going to be really great IMHO, but not cheaper.
 

nihil0

macrumors 6502
May 19, 2016
338
231
I have to side with people who claim that there will be no price drops but the performance gain will make it worth
 

Tech198

macrumors G5
Mar 21, 2011
14,824
1,898
Australia, Perth
If i had a time machine, i'd go into the future and tell you ,, buy i don't .......(yet)

I rekon there would be a price drop... maybe not by much.. but if Apple are making these things 'in-house', they have to give some incentive apart from performance right? It wouldn't be much for a price drop, but they would have do do it to get people interested.
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,951
3,849
what do you think about ARMacs future prices? I assume that should be cheaper to produce as I expect everything to be integrated, non user replaceable memory nor disk. And they could reuse a lot of its current infrastructure for the mobile devices. The other thing is if Apple wants to reflect this on final prices...
I would expect all models are replaced by more powerful and more battery saving models at the same price.
- - Post merged: - -

256 GB isn’t reasonable for internal storage? Unless you’re a professional, why would you need more space than that?

And it’s still a great value with the 16 GB RAM upgrade.
And there are different professionals. A professional lawyer will need less space than an amateur taking lots of videos. I need a lot more storage on my private use Mac than on my professional Mac.
- - Post merged: - -

Sigh. Another idiotic “it’s 20NN and they’re still doing X? Pathetic.” Argument. Why should I be forced to pay for more than 256GB for my son’s entry level Mac when he does not need it??!!
Some people have no problem spending other people's money. In my next MacBook I'd love a cheap fusion drive (128GB SSD + 2TB hard drive). Not that I expect it :-(
 
Last edited:

tdar

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2003
1,109
568
Alpharetta GA.
I must point out an important principle from marketing that applies to our discussion here. Prices are not set by costs. Prices are set by value. That's where the expression "get all that the market will bear "comes from. These new Macs are going to be the same price as the current ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Detnator

Supra Mac

macrumors regular
Jan 5, 2012
165
21
Texas
Some more fun in speculation. Two 13" MacBook Pro models.

They will play down the 10th Gen Intel model as base performance, 2 thunderbolt
i5/8/256 at $1299

Up sell Apple Silicon as high performance, 4 thunderbolt
AXX/16/512 at $1799
 

Spock

macrumors 68000
Jan 6, 2002
1,993
1,246
Vulcan
Considering the 256 gig iPad Pro with Magic keyboard is over $1400, it is unlikely that a ARM MacBook will be much less.
 

TheFluffyDuck

macrumors 6502a
Jul 26, 2012
543
1,459
We are talking about a company that marketed Intel integrated graphics cards as a "pro" computer. This new silicon could cost 5cents and you would still be thousands for a machine.
- - Post merged: - -

 

dgdosen

macrumors 68000
Dec 13, 2003
1,694
414
Seattle
I think pricing will more be a function of capacity and yields at TSMC. Apple would want to maximize profit from the chips and I'd doubt they'd say no to getting more chips from TSMC, especially if these 'incredible' chips are a generation or two ahead of the CISC world. They could probably use the same chips (binned) across a few product lines. Just like with the A12X/Z, maybe an A14 with 4-8 working cores can go towards a macbook air, but 8-12 can slot into a macbook pro.

Once they know the yields, they'll want to sell as many as they can. In the near term, I'd bet they're dreaming of boosting their macos market share back closer to 10%, and to do that, they'll need high-volumes...

Here's to hoping TSMC gives them lots of capacity. That might help with supply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macsplusmacs

Waragainstsleep

macrumors regular
Oct 15, 2003
244
31
UK
Don’t remember 25% cheaper Macs on the PPC->Intel transition
Because Intel chips probably cost more than IBM.

Its certainly an interesting question. My gut feeling is these Macs will be spectacularly good and Apple will just keep its price points and bask in the extra margins. Having said that the iPhone and iPad are much closer in price to their competitors than Macs have ever been so if Apple has any ambition for increasing their market share beyond 5% or whatever it is these days, that gonna be how you do it. A fast, secure, reliable but no-frills box you can run MS Office on for $500-750 is going to tempt a lot of small business admin type users and probably a few much bigger ones too.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.