Better than some boring, static keys.I must be the only one who doesn't mind the Touch Bar.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikkei: Apple Aiming to Produce 2.5 Million Apple Silicon MacBooks by February 2021
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They used to own the company that developed ARM chips. Sold of to stave off bankruptcy before SG returned. Now they only own a share. It’s a company you’d be happy to own a piece of and has been giving all chip makers a run for their money.
I doubt Apple will be using a chip specifically designed for phones and tablets into the Macs (probably in some new 12inch Macbooks at most). For MBPs and desktop Macs, I would expect Apple to release a brand new line up of ARM processors specifically designed for these machines e.g. B1, B1X, etc that have more cores, increased size, more cache, significantly more powerful graphics, and other bells and whistles that are more appropirate for this form factor.So a variation of the A14 chip inside a Mac
Apple Silicon should have completly new branding to diferentiate it from A-class mobile processors. Otherwise, the the reviews headlines for these machines would be "iPhone processor put into a Mac". Apple cant allow this happening.
Yeah, it would be soooo boring if I could actually use the keyboard without looking at it, and regardless whether I am on the go or docked at a desk.
I'm in need of a new MacBook Pro and hope the design doesn't change. Too many rumors about a return to butterfly keyboard makes me scared and I would much rather it launch with the magic keyboard so I can throw my 2016 15" in the dumpster (the keyboard has been replaced 3 times).
Intel designs and manufacture chips. Apple has secured a deal with TSMC to manufacture the new ARM processors on a significantly more advanced fabrication node than Intel's current best fab. So, Apple already won Intel in this regard. Bear in mind that Nvidia has been negotiating with TSMC to use their 5nm fabrication for the Ampere but finally, they had to go with Samsung. Everyone wants TSMC to build their chips. In a summary, whoever get a good deal with TSMC, would be the one having the most advanced chips on the market. The only thing that remains for Apple is to build a better architecture which is something yet to be seen. If AMD can do it, I doubt that Apple will not.
I noticed the first gen Intel MB only got three OS X revision (Tiger), Leopard and Snow Leopard. Of course with the introduction of Core 2 Duo which is 64 bit that likely made Lion and later required. All Apple Silicon Macs will be 64 out the gate, so, I don’t any technical limitations preventing Apple from providing years of OS support.
Also based on how iOS devices are supported for with new revisions, it could be a similar benefit with Apple Silicon Macs. Intel Macs on the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if after the 2 year transition, (which is likely to be under promise and over deliver), will be shafted.
My Intel 2015 13 inch MBP has gotten a good run of os releases; originally came with Yosemite and will get Big Sur. Still can’t beat Windows 10 though which even runs on the old Core 2 Duo Optiplexes at work.
I find it interesting how I personally used to get really excited for each new iPhone launch, because the performance increase each year addressed issues that I wanted solved (screen tech, speed, battery life, etc.). But since the 11 Pro Max, as an upgrade to my previous X (which clearly had multiple performance issues), I’m less excited about the 12 Pro’s, other than the return to the squared edge designs.
What I am excited about, is the Apple Silicon Macs and what I believe will be the jump in performance and efficiency. It would certainly be nice if Apple is able to make some form factor changes too, but there would be benefits to using the existing cases for initial MacBook products, as they would be able to maintain battery size, which should translate to longer daily use.
What I am excited about, is the Apple Silicon Macs and what I believe will be the jump in performance and efficiency. It would certainly be nice if Apple is able to make some form factor changes too, but there would be benefits to using the existing cases for initial MacBook products, as they would be able to maintain battery size, which should translate to longer daily use.
Stale design? What's so stale about it? And please tell me what's so amazing and innovative about other laptops such as Dell, HP and that boring Lenovo Thinkpad that overshadow that beauty of the MacBook?
I love the TouchBar! It's so handy when it comes to video and photo editing. When I hop off my MacBook Pro with the TouchBar and jump on my iMac that doesn't have the TouchBar I get so lost looking for the extra convenience of having the TouchBar. I really hope Apple extends the TouchBar to all their Mac keyboards.I must be the only one who doesn't mind the Touch Bar.
Because using a computer while blindfolded makes so much sense.
finally someone who agrees with me! I have been saying this ever since I got my 2019 MacBook Pro! The Touchbar is great for video and photo editing. Final Cut Pro X saves so much time using the Touch Bar.
I doubt it. 120hz is a battery drain. I can definitely see why they haven’t put it into the iPhones this year.
Oh really that much, didn't think about it, but maybe if the chip is more power efficient there might be scope to intro it sooner rather than later. If the iPad Pro can have it, why not a MacBook, with in theory a smaller screen and pixel count an potential space for more battery.
if Apple couldn’t figure it out on the iPhones this year (it was rumoured that they scrapped 120hz for this years iPhones after it failed battery tests) I don’t think they would put it on Macs. I could be wrong tho, we will see soon enough.
120hz is a BIG battery drain, I recently purchased a Note 20 Ultra to try out, i turned off 120hz after it drained my battery a lot (but that is in the uk with the Exynos so I guess that hasn’t helped).
People outside the industry always think that the big guys (Cisco, Intel) know what they're doing. It's amusing...and it's exactly what Nokia said when the iPhone 1 came out. Apple crushed them.
The fact is, Apple chips benchmark faster than mainstream Intel chips and use less power. Apple's actually sold hundreds of millions of it's A-series chips, so it's not like this is something new for Apple.
And in fact, AMD has been eating Intel's lunch lately. And ARM is slowly starting to eat away at the data center, both of which are starting to threaten Intel's high-margin products.
In any case the risk is getting stuck behind someone else's marketing plan, which is what's been happening to Apple. It's hard to differentiate yourself with Intel's marketing cadence, because Intel is never going to put out something an order of magnitude better than current chips unless it's way expensive...which makes it difficult to differentiate. This is the problem in a commodity market. In fact, the main difference between PC vendors is sales/service/support, for the most part - including the enterprise players.
So really, I'd worry more about Apple executing after the first generation of PA Semi guys leave. The good thing is that Apple does attract talent, and seems to be OK at grooming the next generation. As long as they don't lose their focus on the customer they'll be OK.
I'm expecting at most a 10% underpricing relative to the current models. Historically transition machines haven't been any cheaper than the parallel model, just faster when benchmarked with native apps.
Well, and I'm 99% sure the size requirements are the reason smaller iPhones don't have that camera yet.
Yes, they can out-do the largest CPU maker...because they've proven through their chip-design division.
The primary reason why it appeared...oh, just three years or so ago (up until the course-correction with the "come-to-Jesus" meeting with the five Apple tech reporters) that Apple didn't want to make computers anymore was due to Intel not being able to meet Apple's demands for low-power, high-efficiency and fast CPUs. Intel consistently missed its targets on die-shrinks.
On top of that, the products Intel made available were a mismatch for the vision that they had for their desktops and laptops—Intel's inability to meet Apple's needs in types of CPUs made Apple look bad with the products that they had (all of those running hot videos) and that (imo) is the primary reason so many products went so long without updates.
Apple made a decision that they could do it better themselves. I'm inclined to believe they're likely right, at least over the next 3-5 years.