Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It really is a silly thing some people won't let go of. They wishcast that Apple would do it, then decide that since Apple isn't doing it, that must mean there's some arcane technical limitation Apple can't figure out.

The truth is that it's absolutely possible, on a technical level, but unlike this faction of iPad users, Apple doesn't want to put full macOS on an iPad. So they don't.
I think the limitation is they can't make a nice seamless switch from iPadOS when no external keyboard attached to macOS when attached. And using macOS with touch is probably not very good.
 
I posted this in the Apple's Upcoming Macs Listed in New Report news thread, but it belongs here.

You can draw your own conclusions. I think Marko's source is off on J704, which seems sure to be M5 MacBook Pro 14" if the patterns hold, which is his whole premise. As you can see, I believe it will be Mac17,2. The "Mac" firmware identifiers (e.g., "Mac17,1") vary in ways that aren't really predictable, as many of you here know, but you get the idea.

As you can see, my prediction for the fifth generation leaves open the possibility that the iMac and the base Mini won't get M5 (the tilde ~ in front means it's not on Marko's list), but if they do, then those are likely to be the Apple silicon "J" identifiers for them (as far as I am aware, the "J" identifiers do not exist prior to Apple silicon for macOS).

Finally, take note -- the lede is buried here -- those Apple silicon "K" identifiers are the first of their kind. That's got to be something big, maybe the rumor about TSMC-SoIC is off by a generation, and it won't happen until M6 Pro/Max in 2026?

First generation

J273 = A12Z Mac mini
J274 = M1 Mac mini

J293 = M1 MacBook Pro 13"
J313 = M1 MacBook Air

J314s = M1 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J314c = M1 Max MacBook Pro 14"

J316s = M1 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J316c = M1 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J456 = M1 iMac (Two ports)
J457 = M1 iMac (Four ports)

J375c = Mac13,1 :: M1 Max Mac Studio
J375d = Mac13,2 :: M1 Ultra Mac Studio

Second generation

J413 = Mac14,2 :: M2 MacBook Air 13"
J415 = Mac14,15 :: M2 MacBook Air 15"

J473 = Mac14,3 :: M2 Mac mini
J474s = Mac14,12 :: M2 Pro Mac mini

J414s = Mac14,5 :: M2 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J414c = Mac14,9 :: M2 Max MacBook Pro 14"

J416s = Mac14,6 :: M2 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J416c = Mac14,10 :: M2 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J493 = Mac14,7 :: M2 MacBook Pro 13"

J180d = Mac14,8 :: M2 Ultra Mac Pro

J475c = Mac14,13 :: M2 Max Mac Studio
J475d = Mac14,14 :: M2 Ultra Mac Studio

Third generation

J504 = Mac15,3 :: M3 MacBook Pro 14"

J433 = Mac15,4 :: M3 iMac (Two ports)
J434 = Mac15,5 :: M3 iMac (Four ports)

J514s = Mac15,6 :: M3 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J514c = Mac15,8 :: M3 Max (14/30) MacBook Pro 14"
J514m = Mac15,10 :: M3 Max (16/40) MacBook Pro 14"

J516s = Mac15,7 :: M3 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J516c = Mac15,9 :: M3 Max (14/30) MacBook Pro 16"
J516m = Mac15,11 :: M3 Max (16/40) MacBook Pro 16"

J613 = Mac15,12 :: M3 MacBook Air 13"
J615 = Mac15,13 :: M3 MacBook Air 15"

J575d = Mac15,14 :: M3 Ultra Mac Studio

Fourth generation

J604 = Mac16,1 :: M4 MacBook Pro 14"

J623 = Mac16,2 :: M4 iMac (Two ports)
J624 = Mac16,3 :: M4 iMac (Four ports)

J614s = Mac16,8 :: M4 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J614c = Mac16,6 :: M4 Max MacBook Pro 14"

J616s = Mac16,7 :: M4 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J616c = Mac16,5 :: M4 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J575c = Mac16,9 :: M4 Max Mac Studio

J773g = Mac16,10 :: M4 Mac mini
J773s = Mac16,11 :: M4 Pro Mac mini

J713 = Mac16,12 :: M4 MacBook Air 13"
J715 = Mac16,13 :: M4 MacBook Air 15"

Fifth generation (projected)

J700 = Mac17,1 :: A18 Pro MacBook 12"
J704 = Mac 17,2 :: M5 MacBook Pro 14"

~J723 = Mac17,3 :: M5 iMac 24" (Two ports)
~J724 = Mac17,4 :: M5 iMac 24" (Four ports)

J714s = Mac17,5 :: M5 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
J714c = Mac17,7 :: M5 Max MacBook Pro 14"
J716s = Mac17,6 :: M5 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
J716c = Mac17,8 :: M5 Max MacBook Pro 16"

J775c = Mac17,9 :: M5 Max Mac Studio
J775d = Mac17,10 :: M5 Ultra Mac Studio

J813 = Mac17,11 :: M5 MacBook Air 13"
J815 = Mac17,12 :: M5 MacBook Air 15"

~J873g = Mac17,13 :: M5 Mac mini
J873s = Mac17,14 :: M5 Pro Mac mini

J833ct = Mac17,15 :: Mac Pro? iMac Pro?

Sixth generation (projected)

J804 = Mac 18,1 :: M6 MacBook Pro 14" (SoC)

K114s = Mac 18,5 :: M6 Pro MacBook Pro 14" (SoIC)
K114c = Mac 18,7 :: M6 Max MacBook Pro 14" (SoIC)
K116s = Mac 18,6 :: M6 Pro MacBook Pro 16" (SoIC)
K116c = Mac 18,8 :: M6 Max MacBook Pro 16" (SoIC)
Please update the list to include J581 and J582 models. Macrumor still don't get it: they thought it refers to two storage sizes....hoho. As I speculated it is referring to two display sizes: 11" and 13". Mark Gurman mention that low-cost iPad will get faster SoC, that would be A18. What SoC is rumored to powered 13-inch device again? Think guys...

And no mention of low-cost Macbook from Mark Gurman. Why? :p

If Apple is indeed launching only M5-iPad Pro by the end of the year; We might see M5-MBA earlier than MacBook Pro. Apple might delay M5 Pro and Max until WWDC 2026, again just my speculation with latest leaks.
 
Last edited:
Please update the list to include J581 and J582 models. Macrumor still don't get it: they thought it refers to two storage sizes....hoho. As I speculated it is referring to two display sizes: 11" and 13". Mark Gurman mention that low-cost iPad will get faster SoC, that would be A18. What SoC is rumored to powered 13-inch device again? Think guys...

And no mention of low-cost Macbook from Mark Gurman. Why? :p

If Apple is indeed launching only M5-iPad Pro by the end of the year; We might see M5-MBA earlier than MacBook Pro. Apple might delay M5 Pro and Max until WWDC 2026, again just my speculation with latest leaks.
Adding the iPads/iPhones to that list of Macs would be a lot of work. I'll let you know if I get around to it.

A18 Pro is the rumored SoC in a new 13" device, not A18.
 
Adding the iPads/iPhones to that list of Macs would be a lot of work. I'll let you know if I get around to it.
[NOTE: I've revised the Mac list in my earlier post to also include the Pro Display and Studio Display...]

Okay, thanks to AppleDB.dev, a list of the iPads since A12 was easy to compile.

One thing I wasn't aware of beforehand is the current system of Mac identifiers (which began with Mac13,1 and Mac13,2) is based on the iPad system. So Mac17,1 having A18 Pro and Mac 17,2 having M5 is not against the rules. Look at the iPad16 generation: it starts with A17 Pro, then gets M4, then (likely) A18. The iPad17 generation, in turn, will start with A18 Pro, then gets M5, and so on.

Thus, iPad17 and Mac17 are the same generation. Starting the Mac Studio out at Mac13 wasn't a happy accident. This was planned all along.

Transitional

A12X/A12Z


J317 = iPad8,1 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J317x = iPad8,2 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi (1 TB)
J318 = iPad8,3 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
J318x = iPad8,4 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular (1 TB)

J320 = iPad8,5 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J320x = iPad8,6 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi (1 TB)
J321 = iPad8,7 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular
J321x = iPad8,8 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular (1 TB)

J417 = iPad8,9 :: A12Z iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J418 = iPad8,10 :: A12Z iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular

J420 = iPad8,11 :: A12Z iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J421 = iPad8,12 :: A12Z iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular

A12

J210 = iPad11,1 :: A12 iPad mini WiFi
J211 = iPad11,2 :: A12 iPad mini WiFi + Cellular

J217 = iPad11,3 :: A12 iPad Air WiFi
J218 = iPad11,4 :: A12 iPad Air WiFi + Cellular

J171a = iPad11,6 :: A12 iPad WiFi
J172a = iPad11,7 :: A12 iPad WiFi + Cellular

A13

J181 = iPad12,1 :: A13 iPad WiFi
J182 = iPad12,2 :: A13 iPad WiFi + Cellular

J327 = AppleDisplay2,1 :: Studio Display 27" (A13)

First generation

A14/M1


J307 = iPad13,1 :: A14 iPad Air WiFi
J308 = iPad13,2 :: A14 iPad Air WiFi + Cellular

J517 = iPad13,4 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J517x = iPad13,5 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi (1 or 2 TB)
J518 = iPad13,6 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
J518x = iPad13,7 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular (1 or 2 TB)

J522 = iPad13,8 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J522x = iPad13,9 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi (1 or 2 TB)
J523 = iPad13,10 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular
J523x = iPad13,11 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular (1 or 2 TB)

J407 = iPad13,16 :: M1 iPad Air WiFi
J408 = iPad13,17 :: M1 iPad Air WiFi + Cellular

J271 = iPad13,18 :: A14 iPad WiFi
J272 = iPad13,19 :: A14 iPad WiFi + Cellular

Second generation

A15/M2


J310 = iPad14,1 :: A15 iPad mini WiFi
J311 = iPad14,2 :: A15 iPad mini WiFi + Cellular

J617 = iPad14,3 :: M2 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J618 = iPad14,4 :: M2 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular

J620 = iPad14,5 :: M2 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J621 = iPad14,6 :: M2 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular

J507 = iPad14,8 :: M2 iPad Air 11" WiFi
J508 = iPad14,9 :: M2 iPad Air 11" WiFi + Cellular

J537 = iPad14,10 :: M2 iPad Air 13" WiFi
J538 = iPad14,11 :: M2 iPad Air 13" WiFi + Cellular

Third generation

M3/A16


J607 = iPad15,3 :: M3 iPad Air 11" WiFi
J608 = iPad15,4 :: M3 iPad Air 11" WiFi + Cellular

J637 = iPad15,5 :: M3 iPad Air 13" WiFi
J638 = iPad15,6 :: M3 iPad Air 13" WiFi + Cellular

J481 = iPad15,7 :: A16 iPad WiFi
J482 = iPad15,8 :: A16 iPad WiFi + Cellular

~J427 = AppleDisplay3,1 :: Studio Display HDR 27" (A16, 75Hz)

Fourth generation

A17 Pro


J410 = iPad16,1 :: A17 Pro iPad mini WiFi
J411 = iPad16,2 :: A17 Pro iPad mini WiFi + Cellular

M4

J717 = iPad16,3 :: M4 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J718 = iPad16,4 :: M4 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular

J720 = iPad16,5 :: M4 iPad Pro 13" WiFi
J721 = iPad16,6 :: M4 iPad Pro 13" WiFi + Cellular

A18 (projected)

~J581 = iPad16,7 :: A18 iPad WiFi
~J582 = iPad16,8 :: A18 iPad WiFi + Cellular

Fifth generation (projected)

A18 Pro (projected)


~J510 = iPad17,1 :: A18 Pro iPad mini WiFi
~J511 = iPad17,2 :: A18 Pro iPad mini WiFi + Cellular

M5 (projected)

~J817 = iPad17,3 :: M5 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
~J818 = iPad17,4 :: M5 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular

~J820 = iPad17,5 :: M5 iPad Pro 13" WiFi
~J821 = iPad17,6 :: M5 iPad Pro 13" WiFi + Cellular
 
Last edited:
I think the limitation is they can't make a nice seamless switch from iPadOS when no external keyboard attached to macOS when attached. And using macOS with touch is probably not very good.
This. I would love it if my powerful M1 iPad could become a macOS laptop when I attach the keyboard. That’s very versatile, but probably very difficult to implement seamlessly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tenthousandthings
Any guesses on the codenames of upcoming chips?

source: https://asahilinux.org/docs/hw/soc/soc-codenames/#socs

MarketingInternalCodenameSoCP-CoreE-Core
M3 ProH15JLobosT6030EverestSawtooth
M3 MaxH15J/H15SPalmaT6031 / T6034EverestSawtooth
M4H16GDonanT8132
M4 ProH16SBrava ChopT6040
M4 MaxH16CBravaT6041
A18H17ATupaiT8140a
A18 ProH17PTahitiT8140
M5?Hidra
M5 Pro?Sotra_C
M5 Max?Sotra_S
M5 Ultra?Sotra_D
A19?Thera
M6?Komodo
A19 Pro?Tilos

"C" in "Sotra_C" seems to stand for "chop", "S" for "single", and "D" for "dual". The rest of them are my pure speculations.
Hidra is almost confirmed to be M5.


According to the article:

In the internal build of iOS 18, the codename "Hidra" appears alongside the identifier T8142, suggesting that this is more likely Apple's base M5 chip. For reference, the current base M4 chip bears the identifier T8132, while the M3 is known as the T8122, and the M2 was referred to as the T8112.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krell100
Hidra is almost confirmed to be M5.


According to the article:
Seems pretty definitive — looks like you were right! — if so, Gurman really botched Hidra. I think he mashes information from different sources together, so while it looked like Mac Pro = Hidra came from the same source that got the M4 Max/M3 Ultra Mac Studio correct, it probably wasn’t.
 
Updated codenames

Those with "?" are my personal speculation

MarketingInternalCodenameCPIDP-CoreE-Core
A16H15PCreteT8120EverestSawtooth
M3H15GIbizaT8122EverestSawtooth
M3 ProH15JLobosT6030EverestSawtooth
M3 MaxH15J/H15SPalmaT6031 / T6034EverestSawtooth
M3 UltraPalma 2C?T6032EverestSawtooth
A17 ProH16PCollT8130
M4H16GDonanT8132
M4 ProH16SBrava ChopT6040
M4 MaxH16CBravaT6041
A18H17ATupaiT8140a
A18 ProH17PTahitiT8140
M5H17G?HidraT8142
M5 ProH17S?Sotra_ST6050
M5 Max?H17C?Sotra_CT6051?
M5 Ultra?H17C?Sotra_DT6052?
A19?H18A?TilosT8150a?
A19 Pro?H18P?TheraT8150
M6?H18G?KomodoT8152?

sources:

We can also find some patterns in CPIDs:

Code:
A16     - M3 - M3 Pro - M3 Max: T8120 - T8122 - T6030 - T6031
A17 Pro - M4 - M4 Pro - M4 Max: T8130 - T8132 - T6040 - T6041
A18 Pro - M5 - M5 Pro         : T8140 - T8142 - T6050
 
Maybe there wont be Max and Ultra chips anymore, especially with their new tile system? Maybe main, Pro with top CPU and slightly more GPU cores and then a third, which is top CPU and ALL GPU cores.

So, a Max with more GPU cores than current gens and no Ultra with double CPU. Making the Max more affordable, with barely (or no) loss in GPU vs current Ultra and not sicko-much CPU in the Ultra.

Like Main, CPU-focused, CPU and GPU focused.
 
I can see the unveiling before me.


UltraFusion used to be for Ultra. Now it’s everywhere. It connects every package to each other. RAM, CPU and GPU. *smug happy Tim Apple face*
The M5 Max and Pro models are essentially SoCs with individual components. A motherboard that fits in the palm of your hand *holds up M5 Max chip*. And performance is phenomenal. *super smug happy face*
 
  • Haha
Reactions: krell100

M5+ Chip Generation - Speculation Megathread?​


It's surprising so little is known about the M5 considering we're only probably about three months before we see it debut in an iPad.
 
is there any indication that apple will solve the situation with underpowered GPUs? Having their highest end offering br at the level of a single 5060 (but with more mem) is limiting. Not to mention the lack of support for bf16/fp16 (well, you can use it, just that it runs slower then fp32)
For laptops i guess they have an acceptable balance, probably the best, but for desktop, they have scrappy stuff. If m5 is just m4 with some tweaks it will not change anything.
Is there nothing rumored on server grade chips? Something challenging nvidia?
 
is there any indication that apple will solve the situation with underpowered GPUs? Having their highest end offering br at the level of a single 5060 (but with more mem) is limiting. Not to mention the lack of support for bf16/fp16 (well, you can use it, just that it runs slower then fp32)
For laptops i guess they have an acceptable balance, probably the best, but for desktop, they have scrappy stuff. If m5 is just m4 with some tweaks it will not change anything.
Is there nothing rumored on server grade chips? Something challenging nvidia?

There are definitely indications of a stronger GPU effort, though nothing concrete on whether a “server-grade” chip (I assume you mean something akin to the fabled Extreme chip) will happen. Take a read through this thread if you haven’t

 
There are definitely indications of a stronger GPU effort
I don't know about the thread you linked too, looks like the typical fan stuff - high on wishlist/speculation and little actual information With that said, the biggest knock on Macs is their GPU performance.

Doing a bit of googling I see how the M4 stock models aligns with nvidia GPUs:
  • M4 is equivalent to the GTX 1650 - a 6 year old GPU
  • M4 Pro is equivalent is RTX 3050 - 3 year old card
  • M4 Max is equivalent is the RTX 4070 - 2 year old card.
My own personal experience with owning a M4 MAx has similar performance to that of the AMD RX 7800XT (a RTX 4070 class GPU).

Clearly Apple needs to address this situation, I'm not sure how/or what will happen, some of the speculation is possibly taking the GPU out of the Soc, not sure of that's actually going to happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: krell100
I don't know about the thread you linked too, looks like the typical fan stuff - high on wishlist/speculation and little actual information With that said, the biggest knock on Macs is their GPU performance.

Doing a bit of googling I see how the M4 stock models aligns with nvidia GPUs:
  • M4 is equivalent to the GTX 1650 - a 6 year old GPU
  • M4 Pro is equivalent is RTX 3050 - 3 year old card
  • M4 Max is equivalent is the RTX 4070 - 2 year old card.
My own personal experience with owning a M4 MAx has similar performance to that of the AMD RX 7800XT (a RTX 4070 class GPU).

Clearly Apple needs to address this situation, I'm not sure how/or what will happen, some of the speculation is possibly taking the GPU out of the Soc, not sure of that's actually going to happen
It should boil down to whether they are going to start taking gaming seriously (I think they should, money to be made) or not. For editing purposes and grading the Max is fine I believe?
 
Maybe there wont be Max and Ultra chips anymore, especially with their new tile system? Maybe main, Pro with top CPU and slightly more GPU cores and then a third, which is top CPU and ALL GPU cores.

So, a Max with more GPU cores than current gens and no Ultra with double CPU. Making the Max more affordable, with barely (or no) loss in GPU vs current Ultra and not sicko-much CPU in the Ultra.

Like Main, CPU-focused, CPU and GPU focused.
This.

An Apple disaggregated GPU design could unlock the 2 x Laptop ‘Max’ GPU performance to 3 or more GPU tiles; all without the high unit cost of a desktop-only SoC design.

(Speculation) A 10% bump in clock speed from moving to an improved 3 nm process couple with 15% architectural bump (perhaps adopting more ARM ISA) could see an impressive jump in base M5 single threaded performance.

It will be interesting to see if TSMC tile interconnect allows Apple to scale their offerings effectively, and with enough headroom in their thermal budget of their (guessing) M5 2026 desktops.

If a top end M5 Mac Studio ends up 2.5 times faster than a M4 Max - would there be any market left for a Mac Pro? I think not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krell100
I don't know about the thread you linked too, looks like the typical fan stuff - high on wishlist/speculation and little actual information
There's meaningful discussion in that thread regarding patents Apple has filed on GPU (or GPU-related at least) functionality. I feel it qualifies for @innerproduct's request for any indication that Apple is working on stronger GPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimusGrime
Is there nothing rumored on server grade chips? Something challenging nvidia?
I think it hinges on whether or not Apple is looking at TSMC A16 (with Super Power Rail) for server-grade silicon. There is even a code name for it, Baltra. Production on that node is set to begin 2H 2026, so the timing seems right for an M7 variant.

I don't know what to think of the Mac Pro, now that Hidra is likely to be M5. I'll guess the 2019 chassis will get M5 Ultra, and then be redesigned for the M7 variant.
 
It should boil down to whether they are going to start taking gaming seriously (I think they should, money to be made) or not. For editing purposes and grading the Max is fine I believe?
I don't think there's enough money to be made in gaming alone for Apple to justify a huge GPU improvement effort. IMHO the only way we'll see 5090-class performance before 2028 is if it's super-easy for them or if something else like Apple Intelligence is a big enough hit to require it.

<< bunch of math snipped out, see https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/gaming-pc-market-report and https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/aapl/metrics/revenue-by-segment/ for details)>>

If Apple matched the 5090, maybe 10% of gaming PC buyers would get Macs instead of Windows PCs. That's $6 billion per year, which is 20% of Mac revenue but only 1.5% of total Apple revenue. To me or you $6 billion is "money to be made" but to Apple it's the loose change under the sofa cushion.
 
I don't think there's enough money to be made in gaming alone for Apple to justify a huge GPU improvement effort. IMHO the only way we'll see 5090-class performance before 2028 is if it's super-easy for them or if something else like Apple Intelligence is a big enough hit to require it.

<< bunch of math snipped out, see https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/gaming-pc-market-report and https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/aapl/metrics/revenue-by-segment/ for details)>>

If Apple matched the 5090, maybe 10% of gaming PC buyers would get Macs instead of Windows PCs. That's $6 billion per year, which is 20% of Mac revenue but only 1.5% of total Apple revenue. To me or you $6 billion is "money to be made" but to Apple it's the loose change under the sofa cushion.

Technically speaking. isn't the M3 Ultra close to the RTX 4090? That 60-Core CPU/80-core GPU combo has to be worth something.
 
Technically speaking. isn't the M3 Ultra close to the RTX 4090? That 60-Core CPU/80-core GPU combo has to be worth something.

Not in anything I’ve seen other than local AI workloads that specifically need more memory than a single top-end 4090 can have.
 
I think it hinges on whether or not Apple is looking at TSMC A16 (with Super Power Rail) for server-grade silicon. There is even a code name for it, Baltra. Production on that node is set to begin 2H 2026, so the timing seems right for an M7 variant.
If they still use monolithic dies and reuse the one generation older Max design (as they did with M3 Ultra) they could redesign it for the A16 node while M7, M7 Pro, and M7 Max would get N2P.
TSMC is remarkably reluctant when it comes to A16 and mass production...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.