Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
These rumours are just weird.

Apple has just released the first Silicon chip, the low-end M1. Apple has updated three low-end Macs by replacing the Intel processors with the low-end M1 chip. The logical next step is going through the product line and replacing some more processors with M1. The obvious candidates are the low-end 21" iMacs with dual core and quad core processor, and _maybe_ the cheapest of the 27" iMacs with quad core processor. That's what I expect, and I expect it this year or in January.

The next step, and that will take as long as it takes, is creating a mid-end processor with 8 performance cores, likely 4 power saving cores, likely 12 or 16 GPU cores, 16 or 32 GB RAM, and more ports / support for more monitors. And then two rounds of replacing all Intel processors with up to 12 cores because they are not needed anymore. That will be all the Mac minis, all MacBooks, all iMacs except high end iMac Pro's replaced.

Except for fanboys being fanboys, there is no need for any design changes.
not a fan boy since i used linux, windows and mac for work. Too many saying m1 is superb , ryzen is good(bought one) . Ryzen powerfull but still ram is my main issue and soldered to make it portable like macbook .

Will buy mac mini soon and give real review instead bored video editing 8k , web browser so on.
 
These rumours are just weird.

Apple has just released the first Silicon chip, the low-end M1. Apple has updated three low-end Macs by replacing the Intel processors with the low-end M1 chip. The logical next step is going through the product line and replacing some more processors with M1. The obvious candidates are the low-end 21" iMacs with dual core and quad core processor, and _maybe_ the cheapest of the 27" iMacs with quad core processor. That's what I expect, and I expect it this year or in January.

The next step, and that will take as long as it takes, is creating a mid-end processor with 8 performance cores, likely 4 power saving cores, likely 12 or 16 GPU cores, 16 or 32 GB RAM, and more ports / support for more monitors. And then two rounds of replacing all Intel processors with up to 12 cores because they are not needed anymore. That will be all the Mac minis, all MacBooks, all iMacs except high end iMac Pro's replaced.

Except for fanboys being fanboys, there is no need for any design changes.
Re-using the M1 for too many devices would be a horrible mistake, they have to differentiate the devices as they roll them out. They first did the entry-level machines with the M1 but the M1 has many limitations around total bandwidth that would be required for the real MacBook Pro lines and they (i.e. 4 USB4/TB ports would be the minimum), with support for more monitors and higher speed ethernet options (10GB) as the same chip would likely make it into the Mac Mini space gray (Pro) line. Additionally, Apple still has to prove itself over and over on the initial computer rollout -- so they have to outperform existing hardware and Windows computers on the high-end. While the M1 way outperforms other entry-level machines it has too many deficiencies to fit the bill on the MacBook Pro line (they need more GPU power and more CPU power, as well as more memory options). That chip could then also probably be used in low-end iMac devices at that point. The next step would be to build the fully desktop class performance chip that would be the basis of both the high-end iMac (Pro) and Mac Pro Mini.... That would only leave the Mac Pro line (enterprise Pro studio) where you would again have to have more bandwidth for input output and expansion. Apple cannot slack off at this point as the whole transition will be watched closely.

The way Apple does transitions is typically gen 1 tends to reuse existing form factors as there are benefits not having too many changing parts and it then focuses attention on the differences and benefits of what is on the inside of the computer. Gen 2 must have a redesign for both marketing purposes (instantly recognizable as new devices). They don't regularly change the look of the devices because of need, they do it because they want to have the new versions instantly recognizable as to drive market demand in having new devices as well for others that see them.

This is a proven path for Apple and I see no reason to deviate from it now.
 
I hope They FINALLY include a touch screen?
Lazy APPLE. No touch screen when Surface by Microsoft has had it for years
Whats a iPad Pro M1 aka MacBook M1 without a touch screen?
wanna run iPad and iPhone apps on your Mac ? You need a touch screen!

You don't seem to know anything about Apple. Apple does not care how many years X or Y company has been using X or Y technology. If they think that the technology is not ready or it does not offer any benefits /usability, they simply won't do it. They are not your typical copy-cat company racing to be the first. They take their time to be the first to do it right. That's what makes them special.
 
Re-using the M1 for too many devices would be a horrible mistake, they have to differentiate the devices as they roll them out. They first did the entry-level machines with the M1 but the M1 has many limitations around total bandwidth that would be required for the real MacBook Pro lines...
You realise that Apple is selling a dual core Intel iMac right now as the low end machine? So what would you do with that? Keep selling it with a dual core Intel processor, or upgrading it to an M1 processor? That absolutely doesn't make sense at all.
 
You realise that Apple is selling a dual core Intel iMac right now as the low end machine? So what would you do with that? Keep selling it with a dual core Intel processor, or upgrading it to an M1 processor? That absolutely doesn't make sense at all.
Keep selling it until they have exactly the right machine they want for that slot. They were selling the 2013 Mac Pro machine for 5 years after it was past it's prime - while they tried to figure out what to do with it. Doing a quick update in the short term, then replacing it in 6 months when the ideal processor is ready only angers people that bought too early. It is not like they are going to lose those sales to a Windows computer in the short-term (and if they were - they likely were already leaving anyway).
 
Re-using the M1 for too many devices would be a horrible mistake, they have to differentiate the devices as they roll them out. They first did the entry-level machines with the M1 but the M1 has many limitations around total bandwidth that would be required for the real MacBook Pro lines and they (i.e. 4 USB4/TB ports would be the minimum), with support for more monitors and higher speed ethernet options (10GB) as the same chip would likely make it into the Mac Mini space gray (Pro) line. Additionally, Apple still has to prove itself over and over on the initial computer rollout -- so they have to outperform existing hardware and Windows computers on the high-end. While the M1 way outperforms other entry-level machines it has too many deficiencies to fit the bill on the MacBook Pro line (they need more GPU power and more CPU power, as well as more memory options). That chip could then also probably be used in low-end iMac devices at that point. The next step would be to build the fully desktop class performance chip that would be the basis of both the high-end iMac (Pro) and Mac Pro Mini.... That would only leave the Mac Pro line (enterprise Pro studio) where you would again have to have more bandwidth for input output and expansion. Apple cannot slack off at this point as the whole transition will be watched closely.

The way Apple does transitions is typically gen 1 tends to reuse existing form factors as there are benefits not having too many changing parts and it then focuses attention on the differences and benefits of what is on the inside of the computer. Gen 2 must have a redesign for both marketing purposes (instantly recognizable as new devices). They don't regularly change the look of the devices because of need, they do it because they want to have the new versions instantly recognizable as to drive market demand in having new devices as well for others that see them.

This is a proven path for Apple and I see no reason to deviate from it now.
The lowest end iMac has a 5th Gen dual core CPU and 1080p display. I’m not sure who the intended market is since for $200 more they sell an 8th Gen quad core model with a 4K display and 2 TB ports. The M1 would work in that model.
 
I hope They FINALLY include a touch screen?
Lazy APPLE. No touch screen when Surface by Microsoft has had it for years
Whats a iPad Pro M1 aka MacBook M1 without a touch screen?
wanna run iPad and iPhone apps on your Mac ? You need a touch screen!
After using an iPad with keyboard and touchpad I have to say I would love this functionality on a Mac. It would definitely not be the default way to operate the computer, but would facilitate many tasks.
 
The lowest end iMac has a 5th Gen dual core CPU and 1080p display. I’m not sure who the intended market is since for $200 more they sell an 8th Gen quad core model with a 4K display and 2 TB ports. The M1 would work in that model.
As I said basically above, Apple knows what chip they are going to put in each of the machines they are transitioning. It is just better to leave existing stock in place and let it hold the place in the lineup and let it act as a placeholder until the final machine that Apple has plans for is ready. It likely will only be 6 to 8 months gap in the lineup and it is best not to rush to fill a slot that will then be filled again in 6 months... in the long run, they will make more or less the same amount - with likely less bad press from people upset at finding that waiting 6 months was a much better computer for the same price slot.

I do notice something suspicious though all the iMac ship dates (except for the lowest end one) is actually quite long...
 
Last edited:
"We've done tons of user testing on this… and it turns out it doesn't work. Touch surfaces don't want to be vertical. It gives great demo, but after a short period of time you start to fatigue, and after an extended period of time, your arm wants to fall off."
— Steve Jobs (2010)
"You can't get your hand around it, but no one's going to buy that!"
- Steve Jobs (2010) on big phones



I mean, I am not in favor of introducing a touch-screen-only way of operating a mac, as the keyboard and the trackpad are here to stay, but this would be useful to have, nonetheless, I only have positive experiences with the combo iPad-keyboard-trackpad, definitely an efficiency boost.
 
I disagree, the issue with the Surface and Windows is they try to force everyone into one UI blended for both but not great for either. I think Apple can do better, and I think there is a long-term roadmap that will bring both the iPad Pro and macOS devices into one umbrella of devices. It does not mean that you will lose macOS on the desktop or iPadOS on the tablet, it will just allow a spectrum of devices to exist where it makes sense. Effectively you could have an iPad Pro that has one kernel (it likely is mostly one kernel but with unmerged differences between the two) and two or more UI options on top of that. On the desktop you would have fully macOS interface, on the consumption focused (without keyboard) iPad you would get iPadOS optimized for touch interface... but in the middle you could effectively have two different optimized interfaces depending on how the device is used (i.e. iPadOS UI for tablet use, and optionally a more macOS UI for power functionality when docked with a keyboard).

All these moves we have seen over the last few years I think all sort of fit into one master plan....

On the iPad Pro side:
  • Separate iPadOS from iOS early so that it can in the future move closer to macOS.
  • Introduce Keypad and trackpad for iPad Pro.
  • encourage development of a unified application that works both on an iPad with an iPadOS UI and a macOS UI within the same application.
And on the mac roadmap side:
  • Move the UI to be more unified in design language with iPad OS
  • Move macOS platform to same SoC/CPU as iPad Pro
  • Refresh UI to be able to handle touch in the future when the roadmap allows for introduction of touch.
  • Allow for iPad Apps to run in the platform and encourage the apps to implement both iPadOS UI elements and macOS elements depending on which platform it runs on.
Often we see the moves in the current and don't see the pattern or reason for it until further down the Apple roadmap, but this is how I view it developing.

I don't see it as a bad thing -- as long as you don't try to make all the hammer square pegs into round holes as Microsoft tried to do with Microsoft Windows 8. (i.e. make a UI worse for one use case or the other -- or more commonly both).

I think the thing people overlook (which Apple obviously don't) is the wider implications of what happens if you integrate touch input into Mac OS.

It's not a case of just adding some minimal touch support in a limited way, so certain things can be operated that way if it makes sense. That's already what they've tried with the Touch Bar. If you bring it to Mac OS, then you are bringing an entirely new dimension of multitouch input to Mac OS, irrevocably.

"Yeah but what's the downside?", I hear so many people saying. After all, if it's there it's just there, doesn't mean you have to use it, right? Not so fast. By incorporating multitouch input as a core fundamental to Mac OS, you put all developers in a mess of a situation. They have to make a call, over time, as to how much they make multitouch input a core UI feature. Before you know it, you could end up with apps that really favour or even _expect_ touch input. You can't expect every developer to have the skill and design elegance to truly make their apps a sleek and equal experience for both keyboard/mouse/trackpad and multitouch. Pretty soon we'd all end up with a far cry from the "well it's just an optional thing if people want to use it or not" claim.

Then even putting aside the (legitimate) silliness of poking at a wobbly laptop screen which you'd eventually start using your other hand to stabilise, while getting more and more annoyed all the time... what happens with Macs that _don't_ have a display at all? Mac Mini's, Mac Pros and whatever other desktops with no display are going to be in a right pickle of a situation then. Suddenly you have an ecosystem of Mac OS apps all depending heavily on multitouch input. So what do you do about that? Sell a range of multitouch-capable displays, and annoy your entire desktop user base because they can't just buy whatever display they want?

Even if somehow they managed to find a balance between traditional keyboard/mouse/trackpad input and some degree of touch - and that's a big if, because you will inevitably have people who complain Apple have neutered touch input if it's only allowed for limited things. Even then, you still end up with a messy and fractured Mac OS experience. Just think of how many typical computer users today switch between a laptop and a desktop just in their regular way of working. How unpleasant would it be to have all kinds of multitouch interaction with your apps burned into your muscle memory from using your MacBook Pro, which then all disappear when you go to do some work on your Mac Pro.

Apple are right to see this as a huge, messy can of worms that brings less actual benefit than people think.
 
"We've done tons of user testing on this… and it turns out it doesn't work. Touch surfaces don't want to be vertical. It gives great demo, but after a short period of time you start to fatigue, and after an extended period of time, your arm wants to fall off."
— Steve Jobs (2010)
Apple will deny until they implement a feature, and they won't implement that feature until they are ready. They don't like having potential future features. You will remember the pencil was was also - we have done tons of user testing and we will never implement it as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _karrol
The current design is pretty solid, the only improvements I can imagine:

Camera
  • Dual 720p cameras (enables parallax, photogrammetry, FaceID-lite, super-resolution, Facetime effects, AR-lite (leap-motion), probably a macos API for other apps/webpages to leverage it) So easy, so many use-cases.
  • FaceID system from iPhone instead of dual cameras (same benefits as above)
  • HDR maybe? Would help with glare/shadows.
Trackpad
  • Apple Pencil support on trackpad (cursor would change to mini-pencil that reflects pencil orientation; cues for color, pressure, etc)
Touchbar
  • Possibly very thin F1-9 keys above the touchbar (it's not going away)
  • Haptic Feedback (PLEASE!) (Customizable per touch key)
Keyboard
  • Customizable colored backlighting (gimmick but easy)
  • Fully developed dust/waterproof membrane (seriously)
Screen
  • 3D Parallax Effect (like on iOS but based on gaze relative to camera; easy to do)
    • Has decent application for the small price of moving your head side-to-side when relevant, or roll the screen via trackpad with x fingers.
Other
  • Open lid on double-tap (heat sensor behind the camera pops the lid. Worth the battery life imho)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ModusOperandi
Yea, no one is buying Surface or that many touchsreen WIN laptops. It's one of those random things stupid say they want but when it comes to buying it, they avoid it. Yea, only a moron wants a touchscreen Mac. want touchscreen PC, buy the Surface. Apple smarter than nitwits. Totally agree.
Touch screens are such a useless gimmick. I have had the Surface Pro 2 and Surface Laptop 2 in the past. The only time I used the touchscreen was when I first got it just to see, and someone asking if its touch screen. Keyboard/mouse are still miles ahead for long time productivity. I don't want my hand in the air for 8 hours every single day.
 
I think the thing people overlook (which Apple obviously don't) is the wider implications of what happens if you integrate touch input into Mac OS.

It's not a case of just adding some minimal touch support in a limited way, so certain things can be operated that way if it makes sense. That's already what they've tried with the Touch Bar. If you bring it to Mac OS, then you are bringing an entirely new dimension of multitouch input to Mac OS, irrevocably.

"Yeah but what's the downside?", I hear so many people saying. After all, if it's there it's just there, doesn't mean you have to use it, right? Not so fast. By incorporating multitouch input as a core fundamental to Mac OS, you put all developers in a mess of a situation. They have to make a call, over time, as to how much they make multitouch input a core UI feature. Before you know it, you could end up with apps that really favour or even _expect_ touch input. You can't expect every developer to have the skill and design elegance to truly make their apps a sleek and equal experience for both keyboard/mouse/trackpad and multitouch. Pretty soon we'd all end up with a far cry from the "well it's just an optional thing if people want to use it or not" claim.

Then even putting aside the (legitimate) silliness of poking at a wobbly laptop screen which you'd eventually start using your other hand to stabilise, while getting more and more annoyed all the time... what happens with Macs that _don't_ have a display at all? Mac Mini's, Mac Pros and whatever other desktops with no display are going to be in a right pickle of a situation then. Suddenly you have an ecosystem of Mac OS apps all depending heavily on multitouch input. So what do you do about that? Sell a range of multitouch-capable displays, and annoy your entire desktop user base because they can't just buy whatever display they want?

Even if somehow they managed to find a balance between traditional keyboard/mouse/trackpad input and some degree of touch - and that's a big if, because you will inevitably have people who complain Apple have neutered touch input if it's only allowed for limited things. Even then, you still end up with a messy and fractured Mac OS experience. Just think of how many typical computer users today switch between a laptop and a desktop just in their regular way of working. How unpleasant would it be to have all kinds of multitouch interaction with your apps burned into your muscle memory from using your MacBook Pro, which then all disappear when you go to do some work on your Mac Pro.

Apple are right to see this as a huge, messy can of worms that brings less actual benefit than people think.
It is never as simple as, the simple part is the last step before it becomes a feature. Often something starts out as a roadmap internally of how do we not only provide that feature, but what migrations do we need to do over a period of time before you even get to the point where the feature is ready to be introduced. Case in point, the M1 transition would have started 5+ years ago - each year they replaced or removed old functionality - each year having small pain points... but necessary for something we as the public only see the final results of long after they started the process. You have to look at changes Apple is making over a 2 - 5 year period and try to see what the benefit is. The spacing out of the menu bar is unlikely to be purely cosmetic since in doing so they were already causing issues for many where the bar on laptops was now pushing overtop of the menu items themselves. Therefore therefore IMHO opinion there has to be more to it... but we may not see the final reason for 2+ years.
 
People requesting a touchscreen mac always gets the problem wrong. People do not feel the need to reach out and touch the screen, people hardly have the strength to reach for the touch bar. This is why leap motion failed, this is why the surface is a failure and why minority report interfaces will never be successful and why everyone hates the touch bar.

What IS interesting is to have a dockable iPad into a laptop just to reduce the number of devices you need to carry. So you have your MacBook set up at your work desk and you have to run for a meeting you just pick up the screen from the base and go, hand-off is seamless and the os switches to "portable/iPadOS" mode. Once you dock it you are back into macOS. Now that would make sense, but if you cannot get people to use the touch bar how on earth would you make them use the whole screen?
LOL How much market research have you personally done on this? It would be great to have a convertible like you've imagined, but the price point might be out of reach for some time. This is Apple!

One day touch support will come to MacOS. It's inevitable. The rest of the market has been doing it for years now. The M1, iOS apps on Mac, and the Big Sur redesign are setting the stage.
 
I really don't get the hate on the touch bar. There may be people out there that just type like robots and have a keyboard shortcut even for drinking water, but for the rest of us it's just faster sometimes. I use screenshots a lot, I select with one hand on the trackpad and touch options with the other. Screen brightness and volume are faster on the TB, I missed it on my older MBP. In docs I can select text on the trackpad and make it bold or a different color with my left hand with just a touch. Other apps just offer one touch actions instead of using both hands for keyboard shortcuts. It adds functionality even if it's not something you couldn't do before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnmarki
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.