Mixed feelings about the M1

[skaertus]

The M1 is really great. It is probably the greatest Apple's achievement under Tim Cook. It shows Tim Cook's mastery of efficiency in the production line. Apple was able to use the economics of scale of iPhone chip production to make a processor for the Mac which exceeds anything Intel could offer.

But, for all this mastery of the production line, there seems to be an indifference or perhaps even apprehension of excessively changing the product themselves.

I mean, when the M1 MacBook Air and Pro came out, my jaw just dropped. It looked exactly the same as previous models, but much faster and with much better battery life. Wow, just think of the possibilities! It was November 2020. It was just a matter of time before Apple could make a very impressive line-up of Macs.

In April 2021, more than five months later, Apple released new M1 products again, now the iMac and the iPad Pro.

The very same M1 was there inside the iMac, exactly as it was five months before. OK, it was still a great processor, although I was disappointed that Apple did not make it faster for a desktop-class computer. The performance gap between desktop Intel and Apple's M1 was not so great. Still, the new 24-inch iMac is very thin and impressive. Apple was off to a good, or at least decent, start.

The iPad Pro puzzled me. For some reason, Apple decided to put an M1 inside. Perhaps to justify the price tag. Great processor, lacking software. Apple will not make software to match the power of the M1 iPad Pro, it will just, as always, leave it to the world of unfulfilled possibilities of independent small developers. Instead of spending some hundreds of millions making software, Apple decided to put 6 billion to produce streaming content (which I cannot see how it can succeed).

It was still OK, though.

In October 2021, Apple released the long-awaited MacBook Pro. It came in two versions, 14 and 16-inch. Bigger screen, miniLED, ProMotion, additional ports, no TouchBar, better sound. More importantly, the M1 Pro and the M1 Max, beefed-up versions of the M1 processor. What else could one possibly want?

Now it is February 2022, and Apple is yet to release the M2. Which may take a little bit of time, provided how recent the M1 Pro and the M1 Max are. More importantly, the release of the M1 Pro and the M1 Max showed some things which somehow shattered my expectations:

The M1 was so fast compared to contemporary Intel processors so Apple could have a headstart. This headstart was so important because the timelines may differ. In November 2020, the M1 absolutely trounced the wide available 10th gen Intel processors. Now the 12th gen Intel processors may still not be quite there, but are much more on par with the M1.

Although the M1 was revolutionary, Apple did not care to change the composition of its MacBook Pro line-up. There is still a small model and a larger one. Apple is not willing to make a third MacBook Pro size, for instance.

When Apple started making its own chips, I thought cellular connectivity in Macs would be a given. I was wrong. I cannot understand why Apple would not provide 5G on the MacBook Pros, but the fact is that it is not available not even as an upgrade.

There are rumours about Apple keeping the MacBook Air and the low-end MacBook Pro as separate lines of products. This makes zero sense for me, and it a testament of Apple's reluctance to change its line-up.

If I were Apple's CEO and had the M1, I would be truly excited about the possibilities and how it could really revolutionize the line-up. Tim Cook did nothing of that. He gave customers what they wanted and was as conservative as possible in respect to the line-up. Perhaps this is the reason why he is the CEO and I am not. But I just think what Steve Jobs would have done if he had the M1.

 

[haralds]

Remember that chip development takes time. The M1 and its descendant were likely years in development.
There is also the issue that currently semiconductor fabs and supply lines are heavily impacted.
In regards to the iPad Pro using M1. Their positioning is Pro. Customers tend to use iPads for a longer lifecycle just like Macs, they are not like iPhones. Using M1 will keep them current with the demands on iPadOS two years down the line.
iPads continue to evolve into some of the macOS use cases. I just recently added an iPad Air to my mini and am surprised how well it works for writing tasks (with research etc.)

 

[robco74]

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to develop M1 for the Mac, and an A14X chip for iPad Pro. Apple likes to keep simple product lines. There were three sizes of pro laptops in the past, but the 15" was the sweet spot for most. Cellular connectivity for laptops is a giant bag of hurt due to patent licensing. The whole lawsuit between Apple and Qualcomm, settled at the last minute, was due to Apple finding the terms unfair. Instead of a flat fee, Qualcomm bases their fee on the final sale price. This is bad enough for the iPhone Pro/Max lineup, but imagine that extends to the 16" MBP M1M. Apple could offer it, but it would be an expensive option.

Bear in mind that we are still in the throes of a global pandemic, which has exacerbated chip, and other component shortages. Some products in the pipeline have likely been delayed, or perhaps even canceled because Apple can't get enough components to meet demand.

 

[MacsRgr8]

As I see it, M1 is a superb mobile CPU, which is now easily good enough for desktop purposes.
The M1 Pro and Max are excellent, and for notebooks these are simply awesome (Both CPU and GPU wise).

However, it looks like we will see M1 Pro and Max in the upcoming desktops, probably same as the ones used in the MacBook Pro’s (?).
Yes, performance is good, performance per watt great, but in a desktop I hope that Apple finds a way to improve performance, GPU specifically.
GPUs inside Macs were never the high-end stuff. And the fact that eGPU and/or 3rd party GPU hardware seems to be no option, I just hope that a 2022 Mac desktop enjoys some better performance than a 2021 nottebook. It kinda feels like old tech then reused in a new encolsure.
I expect a Mac mini m1 Max with 64 GB to be an expensive thing….

 

[Bodhitree]

Don’t forget about economies of scale, by putting M1 in a wide range of products they can just place an order for a very large batch at TSMC and just forget about a range of lesser chips.

For example, M1 in an Apple TV box makes for a powerful and affordable games console.

 

[JPack]

Design costs
It costs over $500 million to develop a 5nm chip and as a result, Apple will try to use that chip in as many products as possible. This is also why the lifecycle of the M-series chips will be 18-24 months. At 4nm, the cost to design will double.

M1 = A14X
If you see past the marketing name, Apple created a chip suitable for tablet and desktop computers. There are obvious tradeoffs with this strategy. You see the M1 iPad Pro as overpowered. I would suggest it's just right. In fact, it is the MacBook and iMac that are underpowered. The M1 only supports two Thunderbolt ports. It doesn't support more than one external monitor.

Third MacBook Pro size
You talk about a third size, but what would that be? On the PC side, the 14-inch models dominate for professional users. 15-inch models are largely for home users. 16-inch models have discrete video for professional users. Apple is correct to make only 14- and 16-inch models.

 

[Bodhitree]

You see the M1 iPad Pro as overpowered. I would suggest it's just right. In fact, it is the MacBook and iMac that are underpowered.

If you look at the Geekbench 5 scores of comparable PC products, the base M1 is in the right ballpark for a consumer iMac or a small MacBook Pro. It is significantly overpowered compared to other tablet processors or entry-level laptops.

For the iMac, it is not as comparable to the cutting edge of PC products in speed, that is certainly true. If you spec out a 2000 euro Dell machine you will get more graphics power, more CPU power, but also a less elegant machine, a more cluttered desktop, much greater electricity consumption and heat production, and Windows. With the iMac you get cutting edge, but more with a focus on the overall product.

 

[darngooddesign]

....But I just think what Steve Jobs would have done if he had the M1.

Steve Jobs would have done the same thing, because that's what he did in the past.

 

[robco74]

Steve wanted a fanless machine. He would have loved M1. That being said, he's also the one who killed off a lot of Apple's product line and simplified it. Apple used to make printers, cameras, PDAs and a host of other things that he killed off pretty quickly after he returned. Watch his past keynotes, especially around the iMac and iBook launches where he outlines the simplified product strategy with four quadrants: pro laptop, pro desktop, consumer laptop, consumer desktop. He knew what customers wanted, even if they didn't.

That being said, Tim made it so you could actually buy the products in a reasonable time frame. Apple used to have all kinds of supply chain issues, Tim sorted all of that as Apple's COO.

I imagine Apple would love to make an M1 Pro iMac or mini, but laptops are where the demand is. When you have limited resources, you have to make difficult decisions.

 

[skaertus]

Remember that chip development takes time. The M1 and its descendant were likely years in development.
There is also the issue that currently semiconductor fabs and supply lines are heavily impacted.
In regards to the iPad Pro using M1. Their positioning is Pro. Customers tend to use iPads for a longer lifecycle just like Macs, they are not like iPhones. Using M1 will keep them current with the demands on iPadOS two years down the line.
iPads continue to evolve into some of the macOS use cases. I just recently added an iPad Air to my mini and am surprised how well it works for writing tasks (with research etc.)

Honestly, I do not see all this demand for an M1 iPad Pro. In fact, I never came across anyone that really needed M1 performance on an iPad. Every iPad user I ever was perfectly satisfied with the A14 processor inside the iPad Air or even the A13 inside the regular iPad.

Everyone I know chooses the iPad based on the size of the screen and other features, such as ProMotion, which have nothing to do with processor speed. I realize that the iPad can be used to write and to research (by the way, which software do you use?). However, iPad uses are still limited, and I have never met someone that would use the power of an M1 processor inside such a device.

The way I see it, Apple put the M1 processor inside the iPad Pro to justify having the model in its line-up. It offers the big screen (which is the ultimate reason anyone would buy it) and justifies the high price tag with the M1.

Apple could just simplify the line-up and offer one or two iPad versions, which would satisfy almost every customer, but then it would miss on charging more.

 

[skaertus]

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to develop M1 for the Mac, and an A14X chip for iPad Pro. Apple likes to keep simple product lines. There were three sizes of pro laptops in the past, but the 15" was the sweet spot for most. Cellular connectivity for laptops is a giant bag of hurt due to patent licensing. The whole lawsuit between Apple and Qualcomm, settled at the last minute, was due to Apple finding the terms unfair. Instead of a flat fee, Qualcomm bases their fee on the final sale price. This is bad enough for the iPhone Pro/Max lineup, but imagine that extends to the 16" MBP M1M. Apple could offer it, but it would be an expensive option.

Bear in mind that we are still in the throes of a global pandemic, which has exacerbated chip, and other component shortages. Some products in the pipeline have likely been delayed, or perhaps even canceled because Apple can't get enough components to meet demand.

If the intention were to keep simple product lines, Apple could make fewer versions of the iPad. There is 10.2-inch budget iPad, 8.3-inch iPad mini, 10.9-inch iPad Air, 11-inch iPad Pro, and 12.9-inch iPad Pro. That is complicated. Including the M1 inside an iPad would not even be a possibility if Tim Cook's Apple did not have the urge to upsell everything.

As for licensing, I suppose Apple could make its own modems. It is a market too big for Qualcomm to navigate alone.

 

[skaertus]

As I see it, M1 is a superb mobile CPU, which is now easily good enough for desktop purposes.
The M1 Pro and Max are excellent, and for notebooks these are simply awesome (Both CPU and GPU wise).

However, it looks like we will see M1 Pro and Max in the upcoming desktops, probably same as the ones used in the MacBook Pro’s (?).
Yes, performance is good, performance per watt great, but in a desktop I hope that Apple finds a way to improve performance, GPU specifically.
GPUs inside Macs were never the high-end stuff. And the fact that eGPU and/or 3rd party GPU hardware seems to be no option, I just hope that a 2022 Mac desktop enjoys some better performance than a 2021 nottebook. It kinda feels like old tech then reused in a new encolsure.
I expect a Mac mini m1 Max with 64 GB to be an expensive thing….

Take the Mac mini for instance.

Apple released the M1 Mac mini to replace the lower-end versions. And the high-end Intel Mac mini is still for sale up to this day. When Apple released the M1, I supposed it would reset its products line-ups. What sense does it make to have Mac minis equipped with different processors if the intention is to simplify? Apple instead kept its line-up intact.

 

[jdb8167]

Honestly, I do not see all this demand for an M1 iPad Pro. In fact, I never came across anyone that really needed M1 performance on an iPad. Every iPad user I ever was perfectly satisfied with the A14 processor inside the iPad Air or even the A13 inside the regular iPad.

I don't really see a problem with going with the M1 on the iPad Pro. Since they are making them and it is the follow on to the A12Z it makes sense to use the next SoC. What I don't understand is why the went with 16 GB on the 1TB+ models. What possible use does anyone have for 16 GB of RAM on an iPad Pro? Until very recently apps couldn't even use half of that and now the apps have to have a special entitlement. Having 8 GB seems like a normal upgrade but 16 GB seems expensive and extravagant.

 

[cmaier]

I don't really see a problem with going with the M1 on the iPad Pro. Since they are making them and it is the follow on to the A12Z it makes sense to use the next SoC. What I don't understand is why the went with 16 GB on the 1TB+ models. What possible use does anyone have for 16 GB of RAM on an iPad Pro? Until very recently apps couldn't even use half of that and now the apps have to have a special entitlement. Having 8 GB seems like a normal upgrade but 16 GB seems expensive and extravagant.

Maybe we’ll learn more at WWDC. Future-proofing is never a bad thing.

 

[robco74]

If the intention were to keep simple product lines, Apple could make fewer versions of the iPad. There is 10.2-inch budget iPad, 8.3-inch iPad mini, 10.9-inch iPad Air, 11-inch iPad Pro, and 12.9-inch iPad Pro. That is complicated. Including the M1 inside an iPad would not even be a possibility if Tim Cook's Apple did not have the urge to upsell everything.

As for licensing, I suppose Apple could make its own modems. It is a market too big for Qualcomm to navigate alone.

Steve wasn't crazy about the mini, but customers wanted it and they sell quite a few. The base iPad is essentially for the education market, a bit like iMac vs eMac back in the day. But you could look at it as small consumer (mini), larger consumer (Air), smaller pro (11" Pro), larger pro (12.9" Pro). If there weren't a market for the iPad Pro, it would have been killed off already, but they appear to be selling enough to justify keeping it around.

Apple can make its own modems, but the underlying technology is patented, and many of those patents are owned by Qualcomm, so they get to collect royalties.

The hardware team at Apple is definitely firing on all cylinders. The Mac lineup is the best it's been in years and there is plenty of runway looking ahead. It's software and services that need a kick in the pants.

 

[MarkC426]

In regards to the iPad Pro using M1. Their positioning is Pro. Customers tend to use iPads for a longer lifecycle just like Macs, they are not like iPhones. Using M1 will keep them current with the demands on iPadOS two years down the line.

And the rest.....
I am still using my iPad Pro from 2015.
The great thing about them being overspecced, is that MUCH longer lifespan.

 

[JPack]

Take the Mac mini for instance.

Apple released the M1 Mac mini to replace the lower-end versions. And the high-end Intel Mac mini is still for sale up to this day. When Apple released the M1, I supposed it would reset its products line-ups. What sense does it make to have Mac minis equipped with different processors if the intention is to simplify? Apple instead kept its line-up intact.

Mac mini is a special product. If you look at Apple's marketing message, the Mac mini is targeted at developers, not just consumers. As a result, Apple still needs to carry the old product for that group. The M1 isn't better in all situations either: only 2 external monitors and 2 TB ports.

 

[skaertus]

Don’t forget about economies of scale, by putting M1 in a wide range of products they can just place an order for a very large batch at TSMC and just forget about a range of lesser chips.

For example, M1 in an Apple TV box makes for a powerful and affordable games console.

Well, that is what I am talking about.

Apple could release an M1 Apple TV. But it did not. Because Apple TV's purpose is to store and stream content. Tim Cook's Apple will not bear the risk of offering a lower-price product that could potentially cannibalize Macs or iPads. So, it does not release an M1 Apple TV, even though it could be a dream for some customers.

Apple could release an M1 Apple TV and be a contender with a powerful and affordable game console. The M1 offers that kind of potential. But Apple will not do it, probably because of the fear that some customers will migrate to it.

 

[skaertus]

And the rest.....
I am still using my iPad Pro from 2015.
The great thing about them being overspecced, is that MUCH longer lifespan.

I have an iPad Pro from 2016. That was no iPad Air at the time. And, the way I see it, there was no need to. Just one iPad was needed, either Air or Pro, but not a bunch of them.

 

[JPack]

I don't really see a problem with going with the M1 on the iPad Pro. Since they are making them and it is the follow on to the A12Z it makes sense to use the next SoC. What I don't understand is why the went with 16 GB on the 1TB+ models. What possible use does anyone have for 16 GB of RAM on an iPad Pro? Until very recently apps couldn't even use half of that and now the apps have to have a special entitlement. Having 8 GB seems like a normal upgrade but 16 GB seems expensive and extravagant.

It's the chicken and egg situation all over again. Will Apple or developers move first?

Some people didn't see the need for A12X iPad Pro because there was no LumaFusion or Photoshop available on iPad in the first place. With 16GB RAM, Apple signals to developers they're serious. This iPad Pro generation might be overkill, but upcoming generations should be able to take full advantage of the memory.

 

[robco74]

Wait, there are two Apple TV models, one for HD, the other for 4K - both cheaper than iPad. How would a faster TV cannibalize iPad sales? Apple has never been afraid to lose sales of current products to new ones. If that were the case, they would have kept making iPods and never released the iPhone.

M1's GPU is powerful for its size and power draw, but can't really compete with Xbox or PS. Apple tried a game console in the past, it didn't really work out. Apple can only get so many chips right now. It makes sense to use them in the most popular products. We may very well see a more powerful TV in the future, if/when supply chain issues are worked out.

We are little over a year into a planned two-year transition. They're not going to release everything right now. Apple plays their cards close to the vest. Few people, even among Apple employees, know for sure what is coming next.

 

[skaertus]

Steve Jobs would have done the same thing, because that's what he did in the past.

No, Steve Jobs simplified the line-up. Prior to the release of the iMac, the Mac line-up was convoluted. Steve Jobs had no problem in axing the old models and replacing them with a new line-up that made more sense.

Tim Cook, on the other hand, does not dare to touch the line-up. He just keeps adding new products and differentiating them with "Air", "Pro", and now "Max". I wonder when we will see the iPhone Air and the iPad Max.

 

[Stevenyo]

Well, that is what I am talking about.

Apple could release an M1 Apple TV. But it did not. Because Apple TV's purpose is to store and stream content. Tim Cook's Apple will not bear the risk of offering a lower-price product that could potentially cannibalize Macs or iPads. So, it does not release an M1 Apple TV, even though it could be a dream for some customers.

Apple could release an M1 Apple TV and be a contender with a powerful and affordable game console. The M1 offers that kind of potential. But Apple will not do it, probably because of the fear that some customers will migrate to it.

It would be insanely dumb for apple to release a game console. Compared to the base M1 Mac Mini, the Xbox and PS5 have more+faster storage, more+faster RAM, a larger die for the main SoC, beefy cooling and power delivery solutions, come with a controller, have a disk drive, and sell for less than the Mac Mini.

Why would apple ever make a $500 16GB/1TB game console with GPU power more like the M1 Max, when they can use every M1 they can make in devices that cost less to build and sell for a higher price?

It's not a risk, it's a bad business move. Apple lives on huge margins, why would the enter a low to no margin like video game consoles when they already own as much of the gaming market as Sony or Microsoft just by selling much higher margin iPhones and iPads?

 

[darngooddesign]

No, Steve Jobs simplified the line-up. Prior to the release of the iMac, the Mac line-up was convoluted. Steve Jobs had no problem in axing the old models and replacing them with a new line-up that made more sense.

Tim Cook, on the other hand, does not dare to touch the line-up. He just keeps adding new products and differentiating them with "Air", "Pro", and now "Max". I wonder when we will see the iPhone Air and the iPad Max.

iPod, iPod Mini, iPod Nano, iPod Touch, iPod Shuffle

Powerbook 12", PowerBook, 15", Powerbook 17"

iBook 12", iBook 14"

MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air

Steve Jobs ended up creating similar variations, he just didn't give them unique names.

 

[Larabee119]

Now it is February 2022, and Apple is yet to release the M2. Which may take a little bit of time, provided how recent the M1 Pro and the M1 Max are. More importantly, the release of the M1 Pro and the M1 Max showed some things which somehow shattered my expectations.

uhhh Have you heard about M2 leak that's gonna be released soon. Apple won't release anything in Jan and Feb consider the current chip / wafer shortages.

The M1 was so fast compared to contemporary Intel processors so Apple could have a headstart.

Not really. Intel properly has Alder Lake in the drawing long before M1 actually enter production. Intel just doesn't have the FAB to produce Alder Lake. So, the headstart means very little here in terms of chip design.

When Apple started making its own chips, I thought cellular connectivity in Macs would be a given. I was wrong. I cannot understand why Apple would not provide 5G on the MacBook Pros, but the fact is that it is not available not even as an upgrade.

Last time they tried, Qualcom started a lawsuit against them. That's why they moved back to Qualcom modem. Blah!
That's why Apple bought Intel Modem thingy.

There are rumours about Apple keeping the MacBook Air and the low-end MacBook Pro as separate lines of products. This makes zero sense for me, and it a testament of Apple's reluctance to change its line-up.

Further segmentation of the lower end product lines proves to increase profitability for Apple and lots of people prefer the no-fan Air.

Honestly, in my point of view, Tim did a great job as the CEO for the company profit while delivering good enough products that win consumer's hearts.