Kuo: Apple to Launch Several Macs With Arm-Based Processors in 2021, USB4 Support Coming to Macs in 2022

[Falhófnir]

The cost on ARM-based Macs is a lot less than x86-Macs and it can really help double the annual sales of mac if the overall price is lower.

It would certainly be an option to lower the price if the chip itself is overall cheaper (including the production and design costs here, it might not be as much as we think, though) plus they can remove the fan, and have a smaller battery for the same/ better battery life. I guess it depends on whether knocking $100 or $200 off the price would drive enough extra sales to make up for the revenue hit/ unit? As things stand the current model is already good value for a Mac though.

 

[arvinsim]

Nah. I think people are hugely overstating this.

I've just had a look at the installed apps on my iPhone..

Spotify
Youtube
Gmail
Instagram
Slack
Audible
Overcast
Dropbox
Amazon
Paypal
Twitter

... are pretty much the most used outside of the system apps messages, reminders etc which are already on the Mac anyway. Pretty much all of them can be used on the web and/or already have a desktop app or some sort.

I'm just using my iOS usage as an example but if you look at the most popular apps on iOS they almost all have some web or desktop version.

What are these iOS apps that people are crying out for on the Mac? I don't think there are anywhere near as many as you think ..

I agree. I am curious as to which iOS apps that are being "held" back because they are in iOS.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Not a good idea
ARM processor are not magically superior to x86 ones
Current macbook just need more storage and ram

I’m sure that some users would love 128GB RAM and 16TB SSD but it’s overkill for most.

 

[code-m]

You're the one who literally said:


Which is it? Be hopeful, or they aren't improving it?



For Office on Windows? It's the same Windows APIs just running on a different CPU architecture. Why would you not expect them to compile it natively for the processor it's going to run on, sometime in the decade they've been releasing Windows on Arm?


.... I don't even know what you're trying to say here. But hey you do you.

Be hopeful yes, it’s Microsoft decision if their want parity between 365 and the native iOS or Mac OS app. Microsoft could easily decide that the next version of Office for Windows, MacOS and iOS are extremely limited or discontinued. In that case they made a business decision not to improve any version other than 365 which is promoted as a benefit presently.

Because for Microsoft present business model having a subscription is beneficial to them and brings security and feature benefits for the end-user in a timely manner.

If you have not understood what using Apple devices are about, that is your problem.

 

[chucker23n1]

Could it be an hybrid system which uses Arm for basic use such as Facebook or small office and Intel chips or X86 for Pro sessions ?

Could be, but that's much harder to do in practice than what the current T1/T2 chips do. (They run bridgeOS, which among other things drivers the display of the Touch Bar.) You'd have two completely different CPUs competing for taking keyboard input, displaying stuff on the same display. You'd need processes to communicate across them.

The architectural complexity and error-proneness of that approach may not be worth it for Apple, especially if it's only supposed to be a stop-gap.
[automerge]1585407770[/automerge]

The cost on ARM-based Macs is a lot less than x86-Macs

Given that there isn't a single ARM-based Mac for sale, I would love to know what makes you come to this conclusion.

and it can really help double the annual sales of mac if the overall price is lower.

So Apple can sell more stuff if they reduce their margin? Sure. But sounds like a pyrrhic victory.
[automerge]1585407861[/automerge]

If that is your definition of hardcore, but why the labels. It was in response to another user way to take it out of context.

No, it wasn't. You were the one who started it with "You must be new to Apple".

iMac Pro does not have adequate cooling for the processor it houses,

It doesn't? On the contrary, I always hear people gushing over how nicely quiet it is even under significant load.
[automerge]1585407984[/automerge]

It would certainly be an option to lower the price if the chip itself is overall cheaper (including the production and design costs here, it might not be as much as we think, though) plus they can remove the fan, and have a smaller battery for the same/ better battery life. I guess it depends on whether knocking $100 or $200 off the price would drive enough extra sales to make up for the revenue hit/ unit? As things stand the current model is already good value for a Mac though.

They could do all that, or they could simply leave prices as is and enjoy the higher margins.

All of this seems to hinge on the presupposition that Apple is unhappy with Mac sales volume, and… I'm not sure they are?

 

[Stephen.R]

If you have not understood what using Apple devices are about, that is your problem.

... Apparently it is my problem. I missed the secret squirrels meeting to come up with a singular definition of "what using Apple devices is about" .. or are.. about.. but that doesn't make sense grammatically so I assume you meant "is". Did you attend? Was there pizza? Did you take notes?


Or.. And I know this sounds ****ing crazy.. But might it just be that people use computers how it fits their needs best, and thus put different priorities on different features? I mean.. nah, that can't be it. That's just ****ing stupid right. Everybody uses computers exactly the same way, as the lord and savour PCB Jones laid out all those years ago.



Your posts are approaching Poes Law mate.

 

[chucker23n1]

I’m sure that some users would love 128GB RAM and 16TB SSD but it’s overkill for most.

Speak for yourself. Eleventy ziggibytes or bust!

 

[ChromeCloud]

Whatever "magical math"😀 you do on the iPad Pro numbers, you have to do the exact same math on the MacBook Pro numbers, otherwise those numbers cannot be compared to each other!

The math is needed because Apple doesn't officially report the TDP of its ARM processors, so you have to estimate it by measuring the difference between the consumption of the iPad at idle and at full load.

If you are fond of car analogies, it would be like estimating the power of the engine of a car by measuring the torque at the wheels.

There is no need to apply such calculations to a MacBook Pro when Intel itself declares the TDP in the specs sheet of the processor. We don't need to guess, we have the official data in our hands already. If anything, we would find the number reported by Intel to be lower than the real one so that their offering can look a bit better than it actually is.

The Apple A12X is just a really impressive processor. Estimated numbers are also in line with the fact that you can run that CPU inside an iPad Pro indefinitely at full blast, without any cooling except the passive cooling capacity of the aluminum case of the iPad, and never get thermal throttling.

 

[Falhófnir]

I’m sure that some users would love 128GB RAM and 16TB SSD but it’s overkill for most.

And you know there would be people on here recommending it to someone who wants a Facebook and Netflix machine - y'know future proofing and all that.

 

[code-m]

No, it wasn't. You were the one who started it with "You must be new to Apple".



It doesn't? On the contrary, I always hear people gushing over how nicely quiet it is even under significant load.

Sarcasm lost

Anecdotal.

 

[chucker23n1]

The math is needed because Apple doesn't officially report the TDP of its ARM processors, so you have to estimate it by measuring the difference between the consumption of the iPad at idle and at full load.

[..]

There is no need to apply such calculations to a MacBook Pro when Intel itself declares the TDP in the specs sheet of the processor.

Yes there is, unless you're positive that your method is identical to the one Intel applies.

 

[ingambe]

I’m sure that some users would love 128GB RAM and 16TB SSD but it’s overkill for most.

What about 16GB RAM and 256GB storage as base storage? At least for the pro model...
8GB and 126GB SSD on a PRO model is just a pure joke

 

[fbr$]

Let's review together the data they gathered measuring the actual power consumption (you can do this if you have a USB charger that tells you how much power is being drawn at any given time):

There is no need to apply such calculations to a MacBook Pro when Intel itself declares the TDP in the specs sheet of the processor. We don't need to guess, we have the official data in our hands already. If anything, we would find the number reported by Intel to be lower than the real one so that their offering can look a bit better than it actually is.

I understand your point of view, but for your numbers to be valid you need to apply the exact same method to both iPad and MacBook.

 

[PickUrPoison]

What about 16GB RAM and 256GB storage as base storage? At least for the pro model...
8GB and 126GB SSD on a PRO model is just a pure joke

Well if you want the $1,299 entry level two TB3 model to increase to $1,499, and the $1,799 base four TB3 model to increase to $1,999, sure.

Base spec 256GB SSD will very likely arrive with the 14.1” MBP. But customers buy a ton of the 8GB models, are you sure everyone wants/needs 16GB?

 

[ian87w]

So Macs will be behind again. Windows PCs will have USB-4 beginning at the end of 2020 / beginning of 2021, but Macs will have it in 2022. Perfect.

Do really you think so? Considering that many laptops today are still sporting USB-A and non-thunderbolt USB-C, imo it's not going to be a real issue other than "bragging rights" for youtubers. Whether it's 2022 or 2021, actual consumers probably won't be bothered.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I'd be surprised if Intel aren't at least mulling this over behind the scenes, and testing and developing their own line of Arm based chips.

Agreed. And, should they ever decide to do so, it’ll be interesting to see how they productize it.

Bootcamp as you know it, will be affected very heavily, if it even continues to exist.

Personally, I think Bootcamp will not continue to exist. However, the question was ”Does anyone know if this will affect Bootcamp?” and no one does. It’s all good speculation, though

There is no reason to believe that a hypothetical Office for macOS on ARM would be particularly limited.

And, when Microsoft sees corporate contracts drying up because offices are buying the new ARMacs and if Office doesn’t work on them, they don’t renew their contracts, they will have QUITE the incentive to get that ARM Office version out quickly! I’d be surprised if they weren’t one of the ones touting “We were able to get up and running in two weeks”.

 

[ingambe]

Well if you want the $1,299 entry level two TB3 model to increase to $1,499, and the $1,799 base four TB3 model to increase to $1,999, sure.

Base spec 256GB SSD will very likely arrive with the 14.1” MBP. But customers buy a ton of the 8GB models, are you sure everyone wants/needs 16GB?

People buy the entry level model because they are short on money and the price of extra storage is really costly

 

[ChromeCloud]

Yes there is, unless you're positive that your method is identical to the one Intel applies.

It turns out Intel is probably underestimating the power consumption of their CPUs (or at least not defining TDP in the same way as I defined it to rate the A12X).

Using the same method (tests are performed by the same online magazine while reviewing the MacBook Pro 13-inch 2019)...

It turns out that the 28W CPU in the MacBook Pro 13-inch (Intel i5-8279U) actually consumes much more than we expected.

Using the same formula as we used to estimate the A12X power consumption (minus the standby because when a Mac is in standby the CPU is actually not powered) ...

Load Maximum - Idle Average = 63.9W - 7.2W = 56.7W !!

Even if you account for the consumption of the separate RAM modules (which in the case of the A12X are part of the CPU) you are left with at least 45W of power consumed by the CPU alone. A 28W Intel CPU actually consumes around 45W on full load.

So here you have it. Final comparison: A12X consumes 7W while delivering the same performance of the Intel CPU that consumes around 45W (if not more). A12X is around 6 times more efficient than Intel processors currently inside MacBook Pros.

The more we dig into details, the more my initial figures look conservative. The new MacBooks will FLY when executing apps recompiled for ARM and they will be possibly even marginally faster than current MacBooks when executing x86 apps.

 

[chucker23n1]

People buy the entry level model because they are short on money and the price of extra storage is really costly

Doesn't change anything about their answer. Yeah, the next MBP is likely to start at 256 GB. But that's about it.

 

[ingambe]

Doesn't change anything about their answer. Yeah, the next MBP is likely to start at 256 GB. But that's about it.

Having an extra 8GB of RAM doesn’t cost 200$

And also the point of my post is that ARM is not what Macs need, but more ram and storage

 

[chucker23n1]

Having an extra 8GB of RAM doesn’t cost 200$

And also the point of my post is that ARM is not what Macs need, but more ram and storage

I mean, cool, but this story is about ARM-based Macs (assuming they are a thing), and as long as Apple can charge millions of people $200 for 8 GB of RAM, and those people happily buy, they will continue to do so.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Having an extra 8GB of RAM doesn’t cost 200$

And also the point of my post is that ARM is not what Macs need, but more ram and storage

No, it doesn’t cost $200. Apple does price it at $200 though.

Based on Apple’s average net profit, Apple’s cost is about $160 and net profit is around $40.

 

[chucker23n1]

No, it doesn’t cost $200. Apple does price it at $200 though.

Based on Apple’s average net profit, Apple’s cost is about $160 and net profit is around $40.

Well, they almost certainly use BTO upgrades to subsidizes items with lower margins.

Something like maybe a 10-15% margin on the iPad Pro LiDAR, and some of the AirPods components — but then a 40%+ margin on BTO upgrades (and probably more like 75% on the RAM in particular, TBH).

 

[Falhófnir]

No, it doesn’t cost $200. Apple does price it at $200 though.

Based on Apple’s average net profit, Apple’s cost is about $160 and net profit is around $40.

Wait, what, you think Apple are paying $160 for an 8GB RAM chip? 8GB DDR4 retails for less than half that... Even if LPDDR4X is slightly more expensive, no way is that what Apple is paying for it. Or if they are Tim Cook needs to take personal control of supply chain sourcing again!

 

[retta283]

I see an ARM switch as conflicting with some of Apple's recent moves. They came out with the iMac Pro, then the Mac Pro and XDR display. All of these are targeted at the "pro" market, which need strong horsepower and app support. As it stands, ARM simply cannot put out the power that these machines can.

Now, the rumor has it that this will start at the low-end, with MacBooks. This will present a huge mess, if they are planning to transition over the course of multiple years. They'll have to built 10.16/10.17 on x86 and ARM, as both will be current products. This is just going to make the buggy state of the OS even worse. App developers will also be in a weird spot, having to build universal apps again. Sure, it can be done, but some won't find the extra effort worthwhile. Steam will probably go away.

Unless I am mistaken, and the A14 will be as powerful as a high-end iMac or even a Mac Pro, it's not going to be simple. But, considering how persistent this rumor has been, it is looking more likely. Intel surely has become lazy and complacent, so I can understand Apple's desire to take control of it. AMD could be an option, although I think it unlikely Apple will go to AMD before ARM. We'll see how this plays out.