What to Expect in the Third Generation MacBook

[bill-p]

Interesting, what are your thoughts on TouchID coming to the 12" MacBook?

Unlikely. Apple is lazy enough that Touch ID is controlled by the same SoC that they're using on their mobile devices (so they don't have to rewrite a bunch of things). That's actually one of the reasons for the touch bar IMO.

Seeing as Touch Bar and Touch ID are still one tier above a base 13" MacBook Pro, unless Apple drops that MacBook Pro this year altogether, I don't see we'll see either of those things coming to the 12" MacBook.

Also, regarding the newer Intel processors, they've already been in non-Mac laptops for a while now. They came out around late last year. That's how we know they're incremental (<10% improvement for everything, and no Thunderbolt 3.0). Essentially, the only change now is that the Core m5/m7 designations have been switched over to i5/i7.

If you need specifics, here are the i7 Kaby Lake and m7 Skylake processors:
https://ark.intel.com/products/95441/Intel-Core-i7-7Y75-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz
https://ark.intel.com/products/88199/Intel-Core-m7-6Y75-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

As said, "you can't will the industry forward" here. Everything thus far has pointed to a "pointless" update, so I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple decides to skip until the end of this year when the next generation of Intel chips come that hopefully will provide more of an upgrade.

But knowing them, I would say they might still do a "silent upgrade" before WWDC for the MacBook, just because they can. The main thing here is probably to replace the m3 configuration with an i5 to improve baseline performance. While the m5 and m7 will see marginal improvements (if any), the m3 baseline stands to gain as much as 25% performance improvement.

 

[Mac 128]

The 2nd USB-C port won't come. The hardware underneath does not have the bandwidth to sustain 2 USB-C ports with the same functionality (meaning either one can be used for connecting an external display + maintain USB 3.1/3.0 transfer speed).

So it won't come due to hardware limitations more so than anything that has to do with "predictability".

And unless Intel can stuff a Thunderbolt 3.0 controller into Cannon Lake or whatever that comes in 2018, the situation will remain the same by then as well: single USB-C port.

It's clear how they are positioning the MacBook. If you need more ports (or more than one, that is), the MacBook Pro is the way to go.

I understand the current port is incapable of providing T3 speeds, much less two ports at those speeds. But you're saying that the current MB hardware won't support USB 3.1 speeds via two ports simultaneously? If so, it's the first time that's been said in this thread, which would have shut that discussion down completely. That said, Apple currently offers a MBP that doesn't supportT3 speeds on all four USB-C ports, so I wouldn't think this would be a problem, especially if the second port is solely there to replace the headphone jack, and charging. I would think anyone plugging in a display would be using a hub anyway in order to power the MB, rather than doing high speed transfers with a desktop display on the battery, so again not likely an issue for most target customers.

But if this is correct, it definitely makes a good point for delaying adding a second port until the hardware can support two full simultaneous 3.1 connections, if not T3, which is something that might happen at a coffee shop, unplugged.

 

[tommyhobbes]

Unlikely. Apple is lazy enough that Touch ID is controlled by the same SoC that they're using on their mobile devices (so they don't have to rewrite a bunch of things). That's actually one of the reasons for the touch bar IMO.

Seeing as Touch Bar and Touch ID are still one tier above a base 13" MacBook Pro, unless Apple drops that MacBook Pro this year altogether, I don't see we'll see either of those things coming to the 12" MacBook.

Also, regarding the newer Intel processors, they've already been in non-Mac laptops for a while now. They came out around late last year. That's how we know they're incremental (<10% improvement for everything, and no Thunderbolt 3.0). Essentially, the only change now is that the Core m5/m7 designations have been switched over to i5/i7.

If you need specifics, here are the i7 Kaby Lake and m7 Skylake processors:
https://ark.intel.com/products/95441/Intel-Core-i7-7Y75-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz
https://ark.intel.com/products/88199/Intel-Core-m7-6Y75-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

As said, "you can't will the industry forward" here. Everything thus far has pointed to a "pointless" update, so I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple decides to skip until the end of this year when the next generation of Intel chips come that hopefully will provide more of an upgrade.

But knowing them, I would say they might still do a "silent upgrade" before WWDC for the MacBook, just because they can. The main thing here is probably to replace the m3 configuration with an i5 to improve baseline performance. While the m5 and m7 will see marginal improvements (if any), the m3 baseline stands to gain as much as 25% performance improvement.

Really good, logical insights. It seems like the 2017 update may be coming up sometime this 2nd quarter but won't include any additional ports, touchID, or significant (15%+) improvements in performance or battery life. In that case I will probably start shopping for good deals on a 2016 m5/512GB model. Thank you.

 

[bill-p]

I understand the current port is incapable of providing T3 speeds, much less two ports at those speeds. But you're saying that the current MB hardware won't support USB 3.1 speeds via two ports simultaneously? If so, it's the first time that's been said in this thread, which would have shut that discussion down completely. That said, Apple currently offers a MBP that doesn't supportT3 speeds on all four USB-C ports, so I wouldn't think this would be a problem, especially if the second port is solely there to replace the headphone jack, and charging. I would think anyone plugging in a display would be using a hub anyway in order to power the MB, rather than doing high speed transfers with a desktop display on the battery, so again not likely an issue for most target customers.

But if this is correct, it definitely makes a good point for delaying adding a second port until the hardware can support two full simultaneous 3.1 connections, if not T3, which is something that might happen at a coffee shop, unplugged.

Technically, what the MacBook has is barely enough for one USB 3.1 port along with a DisplayPort connector. So both ports can be used at the same time for connecting a display and one USB 3.1 device, but as soon as you connect 2, only 1 can use the full USB 3.1 bandwidth. Imagine the confusion when someone tries to connect 2 external USB 3.1 storage devices to transfer data and 1 of them is super slow.

The MBP, on the other hand, can sustain USB 3.1 on all ports, even though not all of them are Thunderbolt 3. So in that case, it's less confusing.

Had Intel designed the chips with Thunderbolt 3 support, then the MacBook would have been able to do the same thing.

And there is no standard for getting audio output (analog out) out of USB-C yet. Most of the pins are either doing digital data transfer (USB or DisplayPort or Thunderbolt) or they are for power.

The reason why Lightning supports audio output is actually not because the headphones themselves have digital decoders built in, but actually because there are hidden protocols to get analog audio output out of Lightning. Lightning isn't a pure digital connector, contrary to what Apple keeps telling the masses.

So fundamentally, USB-C and Lightning are different, beyond the fact that Apple themselves cannot decide on the supported standards (they only own Lightning, but they have to answer to the USB-C committee if they would like to propose a new standard). For this reason, it is also not possible for Lightning headphones to work with USB-C devices, yet.

^ and that's why you do not see so many Lightning-capable headphones. Also why Apple themselves are "side-tracking" this issue by introducing and pushing wireless headphones. The Airpods are not just a novelty idea. They are a necessity.

It's a cluster****. The move to ditch the audio port in iPhones was, for lack of a polite way to put it, stupid, and the move to USB-C ports only was also stupid.

 

[JMacHack]

Unlikely. Apple is lazy enough that Touch ID is controlled by the same SoC that they're using on their mobile devices (so they don't have to rewrite a bunch of things). That's actually one of the reasons for the touch bar IMO.

I dunno if I'd call that laziness, considering the "laziest" thing they could've done is leave the function keys alone (and create a lot less controversy to boot).

Which begs the question, assuming they move to make all of their keyboards touch-id compliant in the same way the new MBP is, will they essentially have gimped iPhone chips as well?

Will the next "Magic Keyboard" have the same SoC? And if so, imagine the possibilities.
[doublepost=1490907823][/doublepost]

The move to ditch the audio port in iPhones was, for lack of a polite way to put it, stupid, and the move to USB-C ports only was also stupid.

If they moved everything to USB-C at the same time, it wouldn't have been stupid.

 

[intervenient]

What's the chances of an upgraded webcam?

 

[bigjnyc]

What's the chances of an upgraded webcam?

From what I've been reading, if they keep the same exact form factor the module for an upgraded camera will not fit.

 

[Mac 128]

Technically, what the MacBook has is barely enough for one USB 3.1 port along with a DisplayPort connector. So both ports can be used at the same time for connecting a display and one USB 3.1 device, but as soon as you connect 2, only 1 can use the full USB 3.1 bandwidth. Imagine the confusion when someone tries to connect 2 external USB 3.1 storage devices to transfer data and 1 of them is super slow.

The MBP, on the other hand, can sustain USB 3.1 on all ports, even though not all of them are Thunderbolt 3. So in that case, it's less confusing.

Had Intel designed the chips with Thunderbolt 3 support, then the MacBook would have been able to do the same thing.

And there is no standard for getting audio output (analog out) out of USB-C yet. Most of the pins are either doing digital data transfer (USB or DisplayPort or Thunderbolt) or they are for power.

The reason why Lightning supports audio output is actually not because the headphones themselves have digital decoders built in, but actually because there are hidden protocols to get analog audio output out of Lightning. Lightning isn't a pure digital connector, contrary to what Apple keeps telling the masses.

So fundamentally, USB-C and Lightning are different, beyond the fact that Apple themselves cannot decide on the supported standards (they only own Lightning, but they have to answer to the USB-C committee if they would like to propose a new standard). For this reason, it is also not possible for Lightning headphones to work with USB-C devices, yet.

^ and that's why you do not see so many Lightning-capable headphones. Also why Apple themselves are "side-tracking" this issue by introducing and pushing wireless headphones. The Airpods are not just a novelty idea. They are a necessity.

It's a cluster****. The move to ditch the audio port in iPhones was, for lack of a polite way to put it, stupid, and the move to USB-C ports only was also stupid.

I'm not really sure I follow -- the included Lightning headphones have a DAC and amp built into them in the plug, so Lightning is outputting a digital signal to them. Maybe you're discussing the Lightning protocol that the Lightning interface in the headphones decodes for the DAC? I'm certain that you are right in that regard and there is no translated protocol between USB-C and Lightning, which is why we haven't seen anyone create an adapter for the Lightning headphones yet.

Either way, if Apple can't add the hardware to support dual 3.1 without a new CPU, then the possibility always exists that they might add Lightning to support that protocol across all products, unless Apple plans to dump Lightning altogether in the not to distant future, except as a charging port as we see on all the of the iOS & Mac peripherals. That said, they could do a lot worse than free up the 1 USB-C port from being needed to be used as a charging port.

 

[curmudgeonette]

Technically, what the MacBook has is barely enough for one USB 3.1 port along with a DisplayPort connector. So both ports can be used at the same time for connecting a display and one USB 3.1 device, but as soon as you connect 2, only 1 can use the full USB 3.1 bandwidth. Imagine the confusion when someone tries to connect 2 external USB 3.1 storage devices to transfer data and 1 of them is super slow.

Either way, if Apple can't add the hardware to support dual 3.1 without a new CPU, ...

The Core-m CPU in the 2016 MacBook supports 2 to 4 USB3 ports. Two are always available, and two share pins with two PCIe lanes. Because the 12 PCIe lanes are under subscribed in the MB, there would be no problem losing two of them to gain extra USB3 ports.

So - there's no technical reason limiting the MacBook to one USB port. Whether or not it can run both ports at full speed at the same time is a different debate. However, at minimum, it certainly should be able to run either of two ports individually just as well as a single port.

Also FYI, this CPU also supports three displays. One must be a built-in display, but the other two can be regular DisplayPort outputs. Thus, a hypothetical MacBook could have two USB-C ports with both ports able to run a monitor, though perhaps with overall system limits on the pixel count.

 

[purfledspruce]

But knowing them, I would say they might still do a "silent upgrade" before WWDC for the MacBook, just because they can. The main thing here is probably to replace the m3 configuration with an i5 to improve baseline performance. While the m5 and m7 will see marginal improvements (if any), the m3 baseline stands to gain as much as 25% performance improvement.

All I want from apple is the m5 with its onboard upgraded graphics capabilities in the baseline model and a $100 price drop. And I think even that is probably more than they will give with this update!

 

[mcmul]

Removed.

 

[c0ppo]

Toyed with the idea of buying a 12-inch MacBook since its initial release. I think this may be the year I buy one. There is just one thing I would really, really like: 16GB memory. How likely do you think this is?

I intend to use it as my main personal machine. I use lots of Linux and Windows laptops and servers for work (I do consulting with large enterprises), but need a main personal machine that is both very light for hotels and travelling, and powerful enough to handle my personal workloads: the usual admin (office, expenses, etc.) and web browsing, media in hotels whilst on the road (I refuse to buy an iPad), personal projects, and work stuff for when it's too heavy/cumbersome (usually involves virtual machines and remote servers). I can cope without the brute CPU power but the 8GB memory is a serious sticking point.

Well, for those needs, 8GB is an overkill. I'm using my rMB for development (.NET, Unity and Corona SDK), and it works like a charm. Sometimes a little slow when I load up Win Server combined with Unity on macOS, but nothing dramatic.

I really love this device

 

[bigjnyc]

Apple released spec bumps on the Mac Pro today, hopefully macbook to follow in the next few days (fingers crossed)

 

[bill-p]

I'm not really sure I follow -- the included Lightning headphones have a DAC and amp built into them in the plug, so Lightning is outputting a digital signal to them.

Nope. Some of them don't. Lightning has analog audio output pins. Accessory makers and audio companies have figured this out. In fact, it was one specific audio company that makes in-ear headphones that alerted me to this fact. I never knew Lightning had analog audio output pins, but it actually does.

Consider that for a moment and you will understand why I said that USB-C and Lightning are not very comparable.

The Core-m CPU in the 2016 MacBook supports 2 to 4 USB3 ports. Two are always available, and two share pins with two PCIe lanes. Because the 12 PCIe lanes are under subscribed in the MB, there would be no problem losing two of them to gain extra USB3 ports.

So - there's no technical reason limiting the MacBook to one USB port. Whether or not it can run both ports at full speed at the same time is a different debate. However, at minimum, it certainly should be able to run either of two ports individually just as well as a single port.

Also FYI, this CPU also supports three displays. One must be a built-in display, but the other two can be regular DisplayPort outputs. Thus, a hypothetical MacBook could have two USB-C ports with both ports able to run a monitor, though perhaps with overall system limits on the pixel count.

I'll just say this to all of the above: Intel lied. Or otherwise their specifications are mostly just marketing speech:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10610...six-notebook-skus-desktop-coming-in-january/2

Of note:

For anyone playing along at home, you may remember that during testing of a Skylake-Y NUC, we found that the PCIe 3.0 x4 slot for M.2 drives was actually limited to PCIe 2.0 x4, effectively reducing the peak bandwidth. At the time we probed Intel and our data sheets to find out that it was actually a limitation imposed by Intel on the CPU which wasn’t obvious from the original launch materials. The interconnect between the CPU cores/system agent and the integrated chipset, what we normally call DMI on a desktop platform but is called OPI on an SoC, was fixed at PCIe 2.0 speeds.

We asked about why this was the case, and we were told that the system actually can support PCIe 3.0 x4 speeds, and the system even tests this on startup, but for stability PCIe 2.0 is chosen. This made the marketing of the NUC a little confusing, especially as PCIe 3.0 x4 for storage was listed as a feature. Working with Intel, they pushed through a new BIOS for the NUC that kept the OPI at PCIe 3.0 x4 speeds, and we were able to get peak bandwidth from our storage devices. However, that BIOS update was limited to one mini-PC from one vendor, leaving all the other vendors to do their own thing.

That was just one Skylake setup. You can imagine the situation extends a bit further than that. Someone just has to probe.

And whether or not the MacBook can run both ports at full speed at the same time is NOT a different debate because that's the whole point here. Your average MacBook user will complain if their brand spanking new $1000+ MacBook for some reason does not allow them to use both ports the same way, even though they both look the same.

 

[Mac 128]

Nope. Some of them don't. Lightning has analog audio output pins. Accessory makers and audio companies have figured this out. In fact, it was one specific audio company that makes in-ear headphones that alerted me to this fact. I never knew Lightning had analog audio output pins, but it actually does.

Consider that for a moment and you will understand why I said that USB-C and Lightning are not very comparable.

Sorry no, that's not even remotely true, or possible as I understand it. Lightning does not supply Analogue audio, it's 100% digital. There's no way for it to route analogue audio through the Lightning bus. If we were only talking about 7, then maybe there might be some room to discuss hardware changes Apple made to the Lightning controller, but we're talking about all Lightning devices that have published specs and there's no path for analogue audio to be passed through it, from what I've read.

If there's any truth to this, then those specs would be published all over the internet, indeed your contact could tell you which pins deliver the analogue signal, and we could all build our own.

Add to that, why would Apple go to the trouble to include a DAC in their EarPods, when they could go analogue? Why subsidize a $9 DAC to analogue adapter, included free with over 200 million iPhones, when they could charge the same amount for a Lightning analogue to analogue adapter and make a much larger profit?

And if this were the case, your conclusion makes absolutely no sense -- USB-C can output an analogue signal. If Lightning output an analogue signal as you say it does, then there's no compatibility problem at all. Manufacturers would have already been offering USB-C to Lightning adapters for all of their Lightning headphones they're manufacturing. But that's not happening.

Sorry, but you're going to have to offer more than something a single audio manufacture told you, as proof of this support.

 

[bill-p]

How about measured difference when the supposed "Lightning adapter with a built-in DAC/amp" is plugged into different Lightning devices? iPad gives higher voltage and higher output impedance with this "adapter" than iPhone, which makes no sense:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/apples-lightning-headphone-adapter-analog-or-digital

And the audio company I mentioned has already built a cable of their own. It's not just something they "told me":
https://nobleaudio.com/en/shop/accessories/

Look, "Noble Lightning Cable".

You're forgetting something else: Apple is selling the Lightning -> 3.5mm adapter for only $9.

Please find any DAC/amp unit on any platform that's only $9. Hell, Apple's Lightning cable (just a straight cable) is more expensive than that. You're telling me you don't find it weird that a DAC/amp chip is even cheaper to produce than a plain cable?

Before you cite iFixit's statements, please do read them more carefully to understand that even iFixit is not very sure if the cable itself does contain a DAC/amp chip:
http://ifixit.org/blog/8448/apple-audio-adapter-teardown/

And you will see the different measurements again on iFixit's page as well. It's not a coincidence.

Last but not least, there is no standard for USB-C to output analog yet (if ever), so currently, it will act very different compared to Lightning.

 

[Mac 128]

How about measured difference when the supposed "Lightning adapter with a built-in DAC/amp" is plugged into different Lightning devices? iPad gives higher voltage and higher output impedance with this "adapter" than iPhone, which makes no sense:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/apples-lightning-headphone-adapter-analog-or-digital

And the audio company I mentioned has already built a cable of their own. It's not just something they "told me":
https://nobleaudio.com/en/shop/accessories/

Look, "Noble Lightning Cable".

You're forgetting something else: Apple is selling the Lightning -> 3.5mm adapter for only $9.

Please find any DAC/amp unit on any platform that's only $9. Hell, Apple's Lightning cable (just a straight cable) is more expensive than that. You're telling me you don't find it weird that a DAC/amp chip is even cheaper to produce than a plain cable?

Before you cite iFixit's statements, please do read them more carefully to understand that even iFixit is not very sure if the cable itself does contain a DAC/amp chip:
http://ifixit.org/blog/8448/apple-audio-adapter-teardown/

And you will see the different measurements again on iFixit's page as well. It's not a coincidence.

Last but not least, there is no standard for USB-C to output analog yet (if ever), so currently, it will act very different compared to Lightning.

I don't even know what product that Nobel Lightning Cable is used on, or whether it has a DAC in the plug or not.

Sorry. I still have to say you're wrong. You've offered no proof of anything here.

 

[bill-p]

So you'll just conveniently ignore the fact that the Lightning adapter acts differently when it's plugged into an iPad versus an iPhone?

Way to debate.

I'm not sure why you are so fixed on Lightning, but the bottom line is still that I don't think Apple will bring it over to desktops, and I don't think they are pushing that hard for Lightning-capable headphones or equipment either.

They seem very dead set on going wireless, and I would not be surprised if the next iPhone that comes out this year offers wireless charging as well, which will essentially allow them to kill off Lightning altogether.

 

[Mac 128]

So you'll just conveniently ignore the fact that the Lightning adapter acts differently when it's plugged into an iPad versus an iPhone?

Way to debate.

I'm not sure why you are so fixed on Lightning, but the bottom line is still that I don't think Apple will bring it over to desktops, and I don't think they are pushing that hard for Lightning-capable headphones or equipment either.

They seem very dead set on going wireless, and I would not be surprised if the next iPhone that comes out this year offers wireless charging as well, which will essentially allow them to kill off Lightning altogether.

No. I'm ignoring that you posted a link to one blog entry on the internet, by a guy who concludes from it that his analysis supports both hypothesis, and you presenting your bias for an unsubstantiated outcome as fact. Unlike congress, I'm not going to waste my time investigating every wild uncorroborated speculation presented for my disproval. You made the accusation -- prove it.

The only thing we agree on is that it seems apparent that Apple does not intend to support Lightning audio in its push for wireless, and wireless charging, to replace any ports on iOS devices. Each MacBook update that ignores the audio/headphone jack situation further reinforces it. Regardless there is a need for higher quality wired audio applications on both iOS devices and the Mac, yet there does not seem to be indication about how Apple intends to support that, especially once the Lightning port is eliminated. Until we see something concrete, then all speculation is fair game as far as Apple is concerned.

 

[bill-p]

Uh, no? Did you also miss the link to the iFixit blog post with the same objective measurements and inconclusive analysis?

Since it seems I'm not making it clear enough, here's a summary of all of the evidences that support my claim:

1) The Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter acts differently on iPad versus iPhone. If it was a purely digital device, it should NOT do this. Source:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/apples-lightning-headphone-adapter-analog-or-digital
http://ifixit.org/blog/8448/apple-audio-adapter-teardown/

2) One audio manufacturer has claimed that Apple's Lightning port can carry analog audio and has made a cable for their in-ear headphones to prove it. Source:
https://nobleaudio.com/en/shop/accessories/

3) Even when Cirrus Logic designs a DAC/amp combo chip, it's much bigger than what can fit into the Lightning plug, which further substantiates #1. Source:
https://www.cirrus.com/company/medi...-design-of-lightning-based-audio-accessories/

4) $9 for a miniaturized DAC/Amp module in a Lightning Adapter versus $19 for the cheapest plain Lightning cable. Source:
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MD818AM/A/lightning-to-usb-cable-1-m?fnode=97

Hope that's enough?

This is not speculation. It's been there this entire time. Whether you agree with me or not does not change the fact that Apple did not work magic. In the end, because Apple had full control over the Lightning port and its specifications, they could always "adapt" it to their own needs.

My point after all of this is: this won't happen to USB-C. Apple does not have full control over USB-C and its specifications, and therefore they cannot just simply "adapt" it like they adapted Lightning. Apple is at the mercy of other industry leaders when it comes to USB-C.

Beyond that, I don't think there is a necessity to maintain a wired audio solution if a wireless solution can be introduced that sufficiently satisfies in terms of performance and quality. This is one thing Apple is pushing that I can appreciate. Audio has stagnated since 1990. It needs to move forward.

 

[Mac 128]

Uh, no? Did you also miss the link to the iFixit blog post with the same objective measurements and inconclusive analysis?

Since it seems I'm not making it clear enough, here's a summary of all of the evidences that support my claim:

1) The Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter acts differently on iPad versus iPhone. If it was a purely digital device, it should NOT do this. Source:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/apples-lightning-headphone-adapter-analog-or-digital
http://ifixit.org/blog/8448/apple-audio-adapter-teardown/

2) One audio manufacturer has claimed that Apple's Lightning port can carry analog audio and has made a cable for their in-ear headphones to prove it. Source:
https://nobleaudio.com/en/shop/accessories/

3) Even when Cirrus Logic designs a DAC/amp combo chip, it's much bigger than what can fit into the Lightning plug, which further substantiates #1. Source:
https://www.cirrus.com/company/medi...-design-of-lightning-based-audio-accessories/

4) $9 for a miniaturized DAC/Amp module in a Lightning Adapter versus $19 for the cheapest plain Lightning cable. Source:
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MD818AM/A/lightning-to-usb-cable-1-m?fnode=97

Hope that's enough?

This is not speculation. It's been there this entire time. Whether you agree with me or not does not change the fact that Apple did not work magic. In the end, because Apple had full control over the Lightning port and its specifications, they could always "adapt" it to their own needs.

My point after all of this is: this won't happen to USB-C. Apple does not have full control over USB-C and its specifications, and therefore they cannot just simply "adapt" it like they adapted Lightning. Apple is at the mercy of other industry leaders when it comes to USB-C.

Beyond that, I don't think there is a necessity to maintain a wired audio solution if a wireless solution can be introduced that sufficiently satisfies in terms of performance and quality. This is one thing Apple is pushing that I can appreciate. Audio has stagnated since 1990. It needs to move forward.

This is all pure, unsubstantiated speculation on your part, based on pure unsubstantiated speculation -- no proof. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[bill-p]

Well, as I said, ignore the facts all you want. They are still there.

In any case, I'll stop as it seems you'll just continue to ignore everything that does not agree with your viewpoint. I have written all that needed to be written on that subject. Other folks can view it and decide for themselves if I'm just speculating. Plus this doesn't even pertain to the MacBook anymore.

What does pertain to the MacBook, though, is this:
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/05/apple-no-plans-for-touchscreen-or-arm-based-macs/

...so probably no touchscreen MacBook for now, or ever. Or at least nothing like Microsoft's Surface products.

And the "silent refresh" of the Mac Pro that happened just a few days ago. But yet the MacBook didn't get the "silent refresh" treatment.

At this rate, I feel like Apple is most likely going to wait for the next generation altogether.

 

[Mac 128]

Well, as I said, ignore the facts all you want. They are still there.

In any case, I'll stop as it seems you'll just continue to ignore everything that does not agree with your viewpoint. I have written all that needed to be written on that subject. Other folks can view it and decide for themselves if I'm just speculating. Plus this doesn't even pertain to the MacBook anymore.

What does pertain to the MacBook, though, is this:
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/05/apple-no-plans-for-touchscreen-or-arm-based-macs/

...so probably no touchscreen MacBook for now, or ever. Or at least nothing like Microsoft's Surface products.

And the "silent refresh" of the Mac Pro that happened just a few days ago. But yet the MacBook didn't get the "silent refresh" treatment.

At this rate, I feel like Apple is most likely going to wait for the next generation altogether.

Yup, and I'm happy to repost the unsubstantiated sources of your specious reasoning so they're easy to find:

1) The Lightning-to-3.5mm adapter acts differently on iPad versus iPhone. If it was a purely digital device, it should NOT do this. Source:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/apples-lightning-headphone-adapter-analog-or-digital
http://ifixit.org/blog/8448/apple-audio-adapter-teardown/

2) One audio manufacturer has claimed that Apple's Lightning port can carry analog audio and has made a cable for their in-ear headphones to prove it. Source:
https://nobleaudio.com/en/shop/accessories/

3) Even when Cirrus Logic designs a DAC/amp combo chip, it's much bigger than what can fit into the Lightning plug, which further substantiates #1. Source:
https://www.cirrus.com/company/medi...-design-of-lightning-based-audio-accessories/

4) $9 for a miniaturized DAC/Amp module in a Lightning Adapter versus $19 for the cheapest plain Lightning cable. Source:
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MD818AM/A/lightning-to-usb-cable-1-m?fnode=97

1) One unsubstantiated blogger doing original research, engaging in pure speculation using one data set without any any controls, or corroborating sources, and admittedly concludes the data support both conclusions.

2) A Lightning cable with no description of any kind, including whether or not it includes a DAC in a connector -- which is larger than Apple's adapter -- nor a link to what product it's designed for use with. I also don't see a MFi certification either. It's plain that even if Apple isn't using a DAC, it's still a proprietary custom chip third parties would have to license requiring certification.

3) Apple routinely designs custom chips that are not off-the-shelf standard. You realize the AirPods contain transducers, radios, microphones, antennas, 5 hour batteries, custom chips, amps, and yet somehow squeeze in a DAC too?

4) Apple had no choice but to subsidize the Lightning to 3.5mm adapter because they took away the headphone jack which they knew customers were using -- which is why they gave one away for free in the box (something Apple NEVER does, unless they do). Apple routinely prices their products with arbitrary value with respect to cost, so this is evidence of nothing more than their mercurial nature.

There are logical explanations for all of this, yet you apply your specious reasoning without any concrete proof one way or the other, to support your preferred explanation.

 

[bill-p]

Edit: you know what, it's not even worth derailing the thread anymore. I'm throwing in the towel. Believe what you will.

We should get back to discussing the MacBook.

 

[navaira]

What Apple actually did with Mac Pro was make the higher end model the lower end model and the BTO the high end model. Analogous "refresh" would be getting rid of the m3 model of rMB 2016, making m5/512 cost €1449 and m7 €1799 or however much m5 is now.

I paid €1391 for my m5/512 open box, so as long as they don't lower the prices even further I wouldn't mind too much. My fear is that one day after my return window of 30 days closes they will update the rMB with an amazing GPU solution of some sort and put out a 13"/14" model.