would be Apple interested in flooding the PC market with Macs?

[cocoua]

With 5nm AXX SoCs at 60USD matching in performance 14nm Intel chips at 550USD, Apple has started a move where Intel is going to be dead in some years, no matter Intel is making more money with servers, as this would have the same fate as consumers X86 chips sooner or later…

So, with so much margin on iDevices SoCs, we can spect similar margins on Macs SoCs, maybe not so drastic as Macs volume is far lower than iDevices market, but iPad market is not so big and margins are also hughes…

If an iMac top specs now is 4K and 600USD are for intel? do you think Apple would make their Macs so money-competitive against PC market?

Do you think Apple want, as they finally could have big margins while keeping price similar to PCs, lower their prices?

They want to keep the status of a premium product, and usually high price and quality are siblings, but if you can do something better than competition, at lower price…

I'm pretty sure this would make Macs market rise a lot, Apple would sell more, and would get more margins, more profit, but I'm wondering if this goes against the premium feeling about the brand.

(keep in mind outside USA Macs has a lower market share mainly because the price)

 

[Mohamed Kamal]

for the higher price segment, I don’t think prices will change much. People who pay $1.5K+ for a computer are probably professionals who need it for work. Those people will gladly buy macs at their current prices, and with the intel PCs performing considerably worse, they will have a strong incentive to buy a Mac.
now for the entry level MacBooks, this is a little bit different. Casual users and students don’t care that much about performance, so the better performance wouldn’t matter a lot here. Apple could still lure them in with longer battery life/less heat/less fan noise/lighter machine, but I don’t think that would be enough to convince someone who isn't willing to pay or simply doesn’t have the money. Outside the U.S. macs are not very popular, and that’s because of the price. If apple wants to dominate the student market, and increase their international market share, they have to drop the price. Maybe a MBA with the A12Z chip and the same chassis as the current MBA for 799$? I can see a machine like this dominating all colleges tbh.
now the question is, would apple do this? It’s uncharacteristic of them, but they did drop the price two years in a row with the MBA so who knows!

 

[nick9191]

I think more likely they will increase features and specs, coupled with a mild price decrease. As an example, the current baseline iMac is terrible value, partially due to its age, but with Apple silicon, a 4K panel, possible Face ID and 16GB/256GB for $1099 rather than the current $1199, would be very good value despite not being much cheaper.

 

[burgerrecords]

With 5nm AXX SoCs at 60USD matching in performance 14nm Intel chips at 550USD, Apple has started a move where Intel is going to be dead in some years, no matter Intel is making more money with servers, as this would have the same fate as consumers X86 chips sooner or later…

So, with so much margin on iDevices SoCs, we can spect similar margins on Macs SoCs, maybe not so drastic as Macs volume is far lower than iDevices market, but iPad market is not so big and margins are also hughes…

If an iMac top specs now is 4K and 600USD are for intel? do you think Apple would make their Macs so money-competitive against PC market?

Do you think Apple want, as they finally could have big margins while keeping price similar to PCs, lower their prices?

They want to keep the status of a premium product, and usually high price and quality are siblings, but if you can do something better than competition, at lower price…

I'm pretty sure this would make Macs market rise a lot, Apple would sell more, and would get more margins, more profit, but I'm wondering if this goes against the premium feeling about the brand.

(keep in mind outside USA Macs has a lower market share mainly because the price)

SoC is inevitable for almost all computing at some point in the future, and Apple silicon is a no brainer for consumer and student laptops, especially in context of apple ecosystem.

but Intel is not “dead.” That’s like saying internal combustion engine is “dead.” Many use cases for the most compatible, reliable and pervasive current professional desktop/workstation/server platform.

an inexpensive apple soc doesn’t run the software a coming $300 AMD 8 core 16 thread apu (if you're going to cherry pick a low value x86 I’ll pick a high value option) in fact Apple silicon may not even be as fast as that chip removing power constraints if it’s in a desktop.

if you have software you to need to run on x86 (as many companies seem to do) the question is will that software be rewritten for Apple, or can it be run via a Chrome browser (remotely run on x86 on a server and just rendered locally on arm)

As to the product cost delta, I expect Apple is going to keep the profits just as they do on mobile (high end android hardware uses more expensive components but Apple charges the same because the end result is actually better on Apple. )

Plus Apple laptops aren’t really overpriced seeming anyway like the pro desktop stuff is.

 

[Danny82]

I hope Apple silicon Mac will be like iPhone where there is a model maybe the air for mass market which uses future ipad chip so they can save money and a pro model maybe the pro in the same current premium price but give us more features like HBM2e, mini led @ 120hz, iPhone front facing camera with face ID to fight Microsoft hello..

Air for mass market as they really need to get more consumer into their market because only this way, the developers will have more motivation to develop apps for the new Apple silicon Mac..

Pro, I don't think Apple style is to keep reducing price as they like their premium status.. but I hope Apple use their saving from Intel to add more features and not increase profit margin..

 

[Tech198]

I doubt Apple can match the PC price... It's always about the pay for what you get.... That's why PC gaming servers there as costly..

Apple users are probably settled now on premium components which won't break..... They would end up having mire iMac's back in for repair because while users would be proud Mac's are competitive prices, the inconvenience of not using one, goes right up...

i.e a $600 PC desktop user ends up replacing the power supply when you load it to the max. with peripherals/video cards etc.. because manufacture want to save $$ by putting a cheaply 250w power supply in the case to begin with..


Why would Apple users feel ok with that?

 

[JPack]

With 5nm AXX SoCs at 60USD matching in performance 14nm Intel chips at 550USD

You're confusing silicon cost for Apple vs. list price for Intel. It's a common mistake.

When you factor in the amount of R&D Apple spends to develop their silicon, it's obviously not $60. Right now, those NRE costs are rolled into the price of the iPhone and iPad.

Intel's list price includes those NRE costs.

 

[leman]

I think Apple is comfortable with their sub 10% market share. They are not after the overall PC market, they are after premium PC market. And they seem to perform well there. With the move to Apple Silicon I’d expect them to grab even more of that market (as the value proposition and performance will most likely be unique).

 

[Danny82]

I think Apple is comfortable with their sub 10% market share. They are not after the overall PC market, they are after premium PC market. And they seem to perform well there. With the move to Apple Silicon I’d expect them to grab even more of that market (as the value proposition and performance will most likely be unique).

Yeah I kind of agree.. always having this thought of should I buy a premium windows laptop (dell xps range) or a macbook pro.. in this range I am seeing, windows laptop is only slightly cheaper.. mainly come down to do I want the nice macbook hardware (uniform metal) and software experience + security over windows do it all or run it all experience.. but now, apple create a a separation as arm vs Intel.. a really niche market per say.. all in all, I am really excited

 

[Waragainstsleep]

This is an interesting question indeed. The Mac has never really tried to compete on price but with potential savings of 20% per model at the low end, they could certainly consider making a bold move without losing any real margin at all. Its going to come down to whether they have the ambition to grow their user base for Macs or not.
With iDevices, they are highly competitive on price and have been since the days of the iPod. Macs have never tried this but if they can keep their margin, shave $200 off per unit but with industry leading performance and battery life as well as design and appeal, their market share will rocket fast. And that brings loyalty and revenue from services as well. iCloud, Apple Music, AppleTV, Apple Arcade plus their 30% on app store apps.

The price points of the entry level Apple Silicon iMac, MacBook/Air and Mac Mini will speak volumes as to their real ambitions for the Mac.

 

[laptech]

Apple have had every opportunity in the past to flood the PC market with Macs but they never have. Why? in my opinion it's because Apple see themselves as a premium brand and therefore their products are not for the mass market.

When little Tommy and Suzie want a computer so they can chat to their school friends on line and play games with their school friends online, what computers are their parents going to be looking at? $500-$700 PC's or $1500-$2000 Macs? It certainly wont be the Mac's.

I remember reading articles in tech journals where Steve Jobs, John Scully and Steve Woznaik gave interviews and from those articles it gave the impression that Apple did not want to be another IBM or Microsoft, where they just mass marketed their product to everyone, Apple wanted to be different and it appears they have stuck to that.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Steve wanted to make the best products possible and to change the world. You don't change much with 5% market share. Woz was always more into what was possible and I don't think Apple cares what Scully thinks and hasn't since before he left.
Apple wants to make money. If they weren't interested in mass market, they wouldn't have bothered doing what they have with iPod/Phone/Pad which are/were all market leaders in profit if not sales numbers. If there is scope to take the Mac there, they will do that too.
They used to be a much bigger deal in education too, especially in the US. That was until Microsoft managed to turn a huge antitrust fine into a multi-million captive audience of new customers.

 

[Fishrrman]

Fearless, fearless prediction:
Not. Gonna. Happen.

 

[burgerrecords]

Apple have had every opportunity in the past to flood the PC market with Macs but they never have. Why? in my opinion it's because Apple see themselves as a premium brand and therefore their products are not for the mass market.

When little Tommy and Suzie want a computer so they can chat to their school friends on line and play games with their school friends online, what computers are their parents going to be looking at? $500-$700 PC's or $1500-$2000 Macs? It certainly wont be the Mac's.

I remember reading articles in tech journals where Steve Jobs, John Scully and Steve Woznaik gave interviews and from those articles it gave the impression that Apple did not want to be another IBM or Microsoft, where they just mass marketed their product to everyone, Apple wanted to be different and it appears they have stuck to that.

what’s not mass market about the iPhone or Apple TV? Or the iPod for that matter?

They don’t compete exclusively on price but that’s the case with many mass market brands. is nike not mass market because they aren’t sold at Payless for example? Or Tide laundry soap for that matter.

Apples stock price assumes they are going to continue to grow substantially and keep margins similar - not just selling to well healed devotees only.

a lot of mac laptops are going to sell as essentially iPad pros and for any other mainstream consumer computing.

even Steve Jobs lamented Apple lack of market share when speaking from the outside in the 1990s

 

[burgerrecords]

Steve wanted to make the best products possible and to change the world. You don't change much with 5% market share. Woz was always more into what was possible and I don't think Apple cares what Scully thinks and hasn't since before he left.
Apple wants to make money. If they weren't interested in mass market, they wouldn't have bothered doing what they have with iPod/Phone/Pad which are/were all market leaders in profit if not sales numbers. If there is scope to take the Mac there, they will do that too.
They used to be a much bigger deal in education too, especially in the US. That was until Microsoft managed to turn a huge antitrust fine into a multi-million captive audience of new customers.

Apple will only be changing the world indirectly at this point. They innovate in a nurturing environment and then low cost third party implementations are what get actually used in developing countries.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

If everyone is copying you, you're changing the world.

 

[bousozoku]

Apple has always been happy with their exclusivity, but look at the Performa line to see if they would like to flood the market with lower cost machines.

The machines were not low cost, but lower cost versions of other Macs, usually with specialized processors, missing the math co-processor portion.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

Steve wanted to make the best products possible and to change the world. You don't change much with 5% market share.

Let's just remember what Apple's smartphone market share was in January 2007.

 

[Karnicopia]

I think they should do this, they have a chance to push the envelope at either end, drive down costs on the low end and create a easier bar to entry and they can push the performance high end by making better use of thermals. If they come out with really reasonable MacBook Air's and Minis there are a lot of people that just want simple and secure machines that they don't have to worry about but prefer the ergonomics of traditional computers. I think elderly and students are two really good potential areas here and the more people you can get on the platform the more developers are going to respect it.

I thnk this is really interesting idea and would make a lot of strategic sense. Maybe the dev kit is more than just a one time thing if they could just take the most recent iPad pro chip and put it in a MacBook Air or Mac Mini for entry level options it would give pretty good performance and allow Apple to just re-use the same chip across multiple product lines cutting production costs and R&D. That would make a pretty solid computer for what most people need to do.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Its one of those tricky ones. They could build something like the 12" MacBook, make it essential an iPad with a keyboard and trackpad. 128GB tops. Plays video at native display resolution, runs iWork well, Office adequately and does browsing, email and basic productivity for a school or office environment. Anything more fancy than that should be painfully slow.

Make them available in a dozen colours and sell them for $550/£500.They'd sell a boatload of them but how big a chunk do they take out of MacBook Air sales?
Maybe if they were Edu only?

 

[burgerrecords]

Its one of those tricky ones. They could build something like the 12" MacBook, make it essential an iPad with a keyboard and trackpad. 128GB tops. Plays video at native display resolution, runs iWork well, Office adequately and does browsing, email and basic productivity for a school or office environment. Anything more fancy than that should be painfully slow.

Make them available in a dozen colours and sell them for $550/£500.They'd sell a boatload of them but how big a chunk do they take out of MacBook Air sales?
Maybe if they were Edu only?

Why would it be cheaper than an iPad Pro? I guess if non-capacitive retina displays or may a few years down the road with today’s iPad Pro specs.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Why would it be cheaper than an iPad Pro? I guess if non-capacitive retina displays or may a few years down the road with today’s iPad Pro specs.

It could do what I listed with a less powerful (older) CPU. The profit margin on the iPad Pro must be gargantuan anyway.

 

[burgerrecords]

It could do what I listed with a less powerful (older) CPU. The profit margin on the iPad Pro must be gargantuan anyway.

It would be hard to see Apple selling a new computer that ships with 4 gb of ram to run a desktop os - the experience would be pretty poor. Those users would be to be very good about closing their browser tabs.

 

[Kostask]

Apple doesn"t chase market share. They build solid reliable products and don't cut corners. This is different from the Windows market, where the major differentiator is price. Apple costs the product, adds its margin, and that becomes the selling price.

The key to the above is he cost. If the Apple Silicon SOCS are going to end up cheaper than the equivalent parts used in the Intel based designs, the cost will go down. There may be some collateral cost increases, as in adding more RAM (because, in general, RISC machines need more RAM than CISC machines). There will be other savings (R&D cost shared more product lines) that may impact this. Overall, I can see a cost reduction, but not a major one. What will be major selling points will be cooler running, lighter weight, thinner dimensions, and increased battery life. So an $899-$799 base MacBook Air is possible, and likely. However, price matching with $500-600 PC laptops is NOT likely, because Apple really doesn't care to price match, and is unwilling to compromise design and quality to reach that price point.

I think Apple's strategy is to leverage its R&D capabilities in chip design into the laptop/desktop market. There is a new A series design chip with every iPhone release. And those releases happen like clockwork every September (with the possible exception being this year due to Coronavirus/Covid-19). Apple will now be designing "tiles" or "building blocks" of modules, then packaging them in various ways depending on their intended end use. iPhone CPU gets 2 CPU blocks, 4-5 GPU blocks, a few accelerator blocks (camera, fingerprint reader, face ID camera, etc), a machine learning block, and a few other ones. A laptop gets 6-10 CPU blocks (running at a higher clock speed), 8-10 GPU blocks, 2-3 machine learning blocks, a few accelerator blocks (for wired networking, Thunderbolt 3/4, USB 3/4, etc.) But, the iPhone's volume has paid for the R&D on the common blocks (CPU, GPU, Machine Learning, etc.) Apple will not only be launching new iPhones every year, they will also possibly be launching new Macs every year, as the iPhone CPUs are updated.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Apple doesn"t chase market share. They build solid reliable products and don't cut corners. This is different from the Windows market, where the major differentiator is price. Apple costs the product, adds its margin, and that becomes the selling price.

Apple has never chased market share for the Mac. iPhone an iPad have very good market share. iPhone is less than i once was but its still way ahead of the Mac.

The key to the above is he cost. If the Apple Silicon SOCS are going to end up cheaper than the equivalent parts used in the Intel based designs, the cost will go down.

Not necessarily. If Apple is happy with its price points they have no issues absorbing extra profits. They make out very nicely on exchange rates by refusing to alter prices often (if ever) so they over-egg foreign prices to allow for fluctuations. Its also likely that since the 2020 iPad Pro uses essentially the same chip as the 2018, the yields have improved sufficiently that the costs have dropped somewhat. They haven't eaten that cost.
Less true of some of the fancier new displays but Apple was shipping MacBooks with $60 LCD panels they were charging $600+ to replace years after the prices tanked on them. They never dropped the price points on those laptops to reflect the several hundred in saved costs.

There may be some collateral cost increases, as in adding more RAM (because, in general, RISC machines need more RAM than CISC machines).

Android phones and tablets typically have plenty more RAM than Apples and they consistently get beaten for performance despite this.

There will be other savings (R&D cost shared more product lines) that may impact this. Overall, I can see a cost reduction, but not a major one. What will be major selling points will be cooler running, lighter weight, thinner dimensions, and increased battery life. So an $899-$799 base MacBook Air is possible, and likely. However, price matching with $500-600 PC laptops is NOT likely, because Apple really doesn't care to price match, and is unwilling to compromise design and quality to reach that price point.

I think Apple's strategy is to leverage its R&D capabilities in chip design into the laptop/desktop market. There is a new A series design chip with every iPhone release. And those releases happen like clockwork every September (with the possible exception being this year due to Coronavirus/Covid-19). Apple will now be designing "tiles" or "building blocks" of modules, then packaging them in various ways depending on their intended end use. iPhone CPU gets 2 CPU blocks, 4-5 GPU blocks, a few accelerator blocks (camera, fingerprint reader, face ID camera, etc), a machine learning block, and a few other ones. A laptop gets 6-10 CPU blocks (running at a higher clock speed), 8-10 GPU blocks, 2-3 machine learning blocks, a few accelerator blocks (for wired networking, Thunderbolt 3/4, USB 3/4, etc.) But, the iPhone's volume has paid for the R&D on the common blocks (CPU, GPU, Machine Learning, etc.) Apple will not only be launching new iPhones every year, they will also possibly be launching new Macs every year, as the iPhone CPUs are updated.

I don't think my above description is remotely likely, only that if they did something like they'd multiple theirMacuser base by significant factor. We might see a small reduction in costs but if the performance is good enough, it wouldn't shock me if Apple pushed them upward a fraction either. Not the 16", those are already crazy.