MacBook Ultra OLED Touch Panel to Be Exclusively Supplied by Samsung

[Tagbert]

I was thinking about this in the fast few month actually and tried to figure out if I would need or want a touchscreen on my Macbook. In my use cases I did not see many times where i was tempted to touch the screen. Also, the way I'm sitting at my notebook it would be cumbersome or strenuous to lift my arm and do some fine precise movements on the screen that also flexes back when you touch it. i usually have my notebook on a table or desk far back because i have a paper notebook in front of it. I also like to rest my arms fully on the desk when I type, hence the notebook is usually far back on the table and it's a weird reach to touch the screen. I'm much faster and more precise when i use the touchpad. And many times I have a larger external monitor plugged in, in that case the touchscreen becomes obsolete. I would like to hear from people how and why they would use touchscreen. Is it general use or only very specific tasks?

I keep my laptop close. It sits in front of a large external screen. I use the laptop keyboard as my main keyboard so the screen is within easy touch distance. i have used Windows laptops with touch screen before and I use an iPad in Magic Keyboard on a daily basis.

I often find myself unconsciously almost reaching out to the screen to do some thing. Zoom, pan, and tap a button are the most common things. It is the same things that I will use touch for on the iPad. Even on the iPad, I don’t use touch for extended actions. It is for short one-off actions where touch just seems more natural.

I do not expect touch to ever be the main interface on a Mac. It would always be an adjunct to other input methods. Just as the mouse/trackpad didn’t replace the keyboard, it just took over some functions and people regularly switch between them. Some people would never use the touch and that’s fine.

I do find that my hands feel a little less stress if I am mixing up the interactions rather than always repeating the same motions. Adding touch to the motion mix gives one more way to break a pattern of repetitive motion.

Since touch is not going to be the only or primary interaction method, I don’t see a reason why Mac OS would need to be redesigned. Users will naturally use touch where it is easy and switch to a cursor or keyboard where they need precise control.

 

[Tagbert]

Apple users are being fed with Samsung panels and google's AI, exactly what they were trained to fear for

Who feared this? We have had devices with Samsung panels for years. They don’t even come from the same division of the Samsung umbrella corporate as the phone division. Apple new AI was built by Apple using Google’s models to train an Apple model. Some process may run on private instances of Google servers. Apple has long used other companies servers to host iCloud. Data is encrypted and protected at all stages of the process.

There is no need to monger fear on these topics.

 

[Tagbert]

I kind of wonder if a touchscreen panel is partially a side effect of the PC industry offering touchscreens in laptops. What I mean is, maybe Apple (especially since we know Cook is a supply chain master and this happened under his reign) decided it was just cheaper due to an offer from Samsung etc to use a touchscreen panel because that simplifies supply chains and manufacturing lines on their side and resulted in a lower cost for Apple. Combine that with some people wanting a touchscreen Mac and then it suddenly looks like a 'well... we fought against it for years but we might as well just do it now' sort of situation.

I think it is more that a couple of generations have grown up using touch devices from Apple and now that laptop screens can feel broken when you are coming from an iPhone or iPad because they don’t respond when you touch them.

 

[goobot]

I really wanted this machine but the rumors of them using year old chips really is a bummer

 

[wcniedb]

On purely single threaded 'drag racing' apps perhaps. However, very few should by buying a Mn Pro/Max SoC in their device if 75+% of their workload is only single threaded apps. You buy those because substantially have multiple threaded apps to run. The number of GPU and CPU cores are just going to be higher on Pro/Max versions so it doesn't mean much if the individual cores are incrementally slower than a M6 versions. The plain M6 is also going to be capped on memory. If workload needed requires more than 32GB of RAM then the M6's is going to be outclassed. Data loaded from RAM is orders of magnitude faster than data loaded from NAND SSD.

If go over the x86-64 space the high core count server chips are all slower than the 'overclocking extreme' consumer stuff. Doesn't mean they don't have "big time workload' branding attached to them.

There was some additional upside to situations where the plain/Pro/Max options all have about the same single threaded performance. But the Pro/Max doesn't loose everything is there is a small gap. The Studio is at M4 Max and M3 Ultra. Again, if really deeply require what the Ulra provides it is a win'. But it isn't a 'bragging rights' option to buy.




Apple is going to 'gap' the MBP M6 from the MBP 14/16 M5 Pro/Max with more than just the SoC chip.
These hyper-unidimensional applications of "Ultra"/"Pro" distinction are overblown. Apple sells systems; not narrow chip features.

When I say "Ultra" I'm not talking about the SoC, I'm talking about the product name: MacBook Ultra. As opposed to MacBook Pro. I've read that the Ultra will be positioned between the MacBook and MacBook Pro in terms of performance. For example it's thinner/lighter than a MacBook Pro. Seems like strange branding since "Ultra" sounds more high end than "Pro" (especially looking at how they use those terms in their SoC).

 

[deconstruct60]

When I say "Ultra" I'm not talking about the SoC, I'm talking about the product name: MacBook Ultra. As opposed to MacBook Pro. I've read that the Ultra will be positioned between the MacBook and MacBook Pro in terms of performance.

It is not being positioned there. Someone may have written that, but that does not mean it is correct. There is lots of false narratives posted on macrumors. They are often repeated ad-nauseam, but that doesn't make them true.

At best it is a 'half truth'. On a sizable subset of generic tasks the M7 will probably 'beat' a M5 Pro/Max when it mostly involves single threaded computation. But the Ultra is not being positioned to primarily handle those tasks at all.

For example it's thinner/lighter than a MacBook Pro.

More like thinner/lighter than the previous MacBook Pro , but just as fast. Like most Apple updates it is primarily competing with its previous version on 'features'. Same performance had before, but not more portable with new capbilities. The "just as fast" is merely a timing issue for the SoC for minimally this iteration.

On next iteration if the ''plain" M7 is put in the Macbook Pro and M7 Pro/Max put into an "MBUltra" there is no gap even on single threaded stuff. There is zero indication that Apple is going to permanently run the Ultra one generation behind the MBP 14" forever going forward.

If going foward the Pro/Max variants don't come on a yearly basis then the 'Ultra' is also indicative that the SoC update frequency is going to be different also.

Seems like strange branding since "Ultra" sounds more high end than "Pro" (especially looking at how they use those terms in their SoC).

For workloads that actually task the SoC will computationally very difficult workloads it is higher. If just posing in a coffee shop running a web browser with lots of tab and a copy of Word and Excel then not 'high end' on workload either.

The Ultra SoC isn't going to come on every generation. The Pro/Max may fall into the same limitations over time. ( numbers not high enough to justify 'throwing away' a large package every 12 months. ) . The 'plain' Mn package gets moved off to other products even if churn it out of a MBA/MBP every 12 months. So the production run last much longer than 12 months. It drifts off to make another product 'new and improved'. (same thing with A-series... the SoCs are not being thrown in the trash can every 12 months. )

 

[MacMan988]

do you know the original iPhone used a Samsung processor and Steve literally brought up Google’s CEO at the time to talk about their partnership for Maps and Gmail?
In fact, Apple was using Samsung manufacturing process for processors until, like, the iPhone X I’m pretty sure.
Samsung is literally one of Apple’s oldest supply partners. Even before the iPhone Samsung was responsible for several components inside of the iPod, while producing competitive iPod knockoffs at the same time.
Literally at the same time as Apple being stuck in a lawsuit with Samsung over patent violations from Samsung towards Apple, Apple was still purchasing their OLED displays and making deals for iPhone production with that same company.

Of course they did. The first MacBook I bought had a Samsung panel.
That is how they profit from both sides.
They never had the technology or to invest to build their own infrastructure or develop their own panels, when they buy hardware /platform services from different vendors and glue them together to create the final product.
But they never stopped mongering fear either. Fear has always been their main marketing tool.
This is how they always remained to have high ROIs compared to their competitors.

 

[deconstruct60]

I kind of wonder if a touchscreen panel is partially a side effect of the PC industry offering touchscreens in laptops. What I mean is, maybe Apple (especially since we know Cook is a supply chain master and this happened under his reign) decided it was just cheaper due to an offer from Samsung etc to use a touchscreen panel because that simplifies supply chains

Pretty likely it is shared tech transfer with the iPad Pro that is the bigger driver. I suspect resolution and/or color reportudction wise Apple's screens will be slightly different than the mainstream PC computer ones . However, "touchscreen" being relatively widespread available is a contributing factor. If the touchscreen mechanism is more widely used than on just Apple products that will bring the costs down (economies of scale).

Similar to how the Samsung Fold 8 has a ceaseless screen with almost same specs as Apple's upcoming Fold. Apple's Fold would be even more expensive it basic panel tech wasn't be sold in other products (since Apple's will be so relatively very low volume selling product).

and manufacturing lines on their side and resulted in a lower cost for Apple. Combine that with some people wanting a touchscreen Mac and then it suddenly looks like a 'well... we fought against it for years but we might as well just do it now' sort of situation.

Again I suspect the arguments even internally must have been weak when Apple evaluated an iPad Pro with an attached keyboard and user interactions. As iPadOS got movable windows and an app menu bar at the bottom; the notion that can 'mix-and-match' a touchpad with a touchscreen kind of drifts away. Apple doesn't have to turn macOS into iPadOS. Control widgets are resizable through accessibility settings anyway. So making dynamic adjustments isn't a major change.

It isn't just Windows touch screen users. There are kids coming up these days who have been weaned on touch screens since they are very small infants. It is a very deeply build in 'muscle memory'.

 

[deconstruct60]

do you know the original iPhone used a Samsung processor and Steve literally brought up Google’s CEO at the time to talk about their partnership for Maps and Gmail?

'Brought up' Google's CEO? Eric Schmidt was on Apple's Board of Directors from 2006-2009 . (the original iPhone launched in 2007 ) . That was also as much about Job's "no recruiting at each other's company" policy as it was the iPhone. (Arthur Levinson was on Apple's and Google's board at the same around that time period also. ). A major portion of the Silicon Valley executives 'supervising' one another via cross board appointments.
[ And Google bought Android in 2005 before Jobs ever appointed Schmidt to the board. There is an element of 'hey you bought that but how about you ignore it because this means more immediate money' angle there also. ]

In part that early partnership was driven primarily because Jobs was so 'anti-apps' (and AppStore) on the iPhone initially.

Literally at the same time as Apple being stuck in a lawsuit with Samsung over patent violations from Samsung towards Apple, Apple was still purchasing their OLED displays and making deals for iPhone production with that same company.

Samsung is a large conglomerate. The display business in not 100% the phone business. Samsung can be a bit leaky across the silos, but it is structured to be siloed.