ARMacs prices?

[ian87w]

If you have been listing to Craig F. and company over the past few days, you have some clues. First there will not be a mac with the A12Z, they are doing a Mac only processor. The A12Z is 8 cores, the new Mac processor is rumored to be 12. I expect that the 2020 systems will be a Mac Mini and a MacBook Air. Since they are using the Mini as the developer system, just update the processor and go. They are going to want a low-cost laptop like the MacBook Air to show the power and the battery life you can get from Apple Silicon. 2021 will see an iMac and the MacBook Pro, leaving the Mac Pro for last.
All of these systems will be priced as they are now.

We will definitely see something more advance than the A12Z, considering the mac form factor have much higher headroom for thermal and physical space.

Looking back at the intel transition, Apple used the iMac and the Macbook Pro as their first intel models. Definitely to show their confidence in the new architecture. I would definitely expect the iMac being one of the first lineup receiving the ARM treatment.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I agree with people saying that the prices won't change.

That being said, if Apple decides that there is redundancy in their lineup (e.g. with 13.3" laptops and 27" desktops), it's possible that they may replace the lower-end of the two similar Intel machines with a single lower-end ARM Mac that has specs that rival or surpass even the higher-end of the Intel ones.

This may not be likely with the iMac Pro and the 27" iMac considering that these, under the hood, are two different classes of computers. But, for all we know, maybe the next Mac Pro brings the cost down to iMac Pro levels and cannibalizes the need for the iMac Pro. On the 13.3" laptop side of things: Considering the main difference between a MacBook Air and a 13.3" MacBook Pro, aside from a TouchBar and possibly two extra USB-C connectors, is a processor that needs a larger thermal envelope on the Pro and a weaker smaller one that can make do with less of one, it's completely possible that Apple will just merge the two laptops. If we got a MacBook Air form factor, with speeds on the Apple Silicon CPU that put every 13" MacBook Pro to shame, and all other 13" MacBook Pro features in tow, would we really get more out of having a separate model?

So, yeah, if they make a MacBook Air on ARM that handily eclipses both the Intel 13" MacBook Pro and the Intel MacBook Air and has the same ports and TouchBar, I could totally see that being sold at MacBook Air pricing (which is cheaper than 13" MacBook Pro pricing). Similarly, if an ARM Mac Pro brings the Mac Pro to iMac Pro pricing (because the Apple SoC is cheaper than the Behemoth Xeon processors), but is expandable, what need do we have for another iMac Pro? Or alternatively, if the next 27" iMac replacement bring the iMac to iMac Pro territory in terms of performance, why do we need two iMacs?

Apple has the ability to change the lineup throughout this transition much in the way that they did when moving to Intel (which saw the merger of the 12" and 14" iBook into the 13" Plastic MacBook, and the removal of the 12" PowerBook). They can totally do it again. But, barring things being incidentally more inexpensive, no, Apple's costs on things won't be cheaper.

 

[odonnelly99]

I think the entry level models will be much cheaper. I am sure when Apple moved to Intel, I upgraded from an iBook to a MacBook, and brand new it was like £700. Then very quickly over the coming years most of their products were back to being above £1000 - or am i looking back with rose tinted glasses?

The first intel white MacBook was my first ever Mac, and as far as US dollars, I remember paying $1,299 for it. The black MacBook, with its slightly larger HDD (80GB vs 60GB) was $1,399. I might be off by a hundred bucks in either direction.

I still have the huge box in my closet, wonder if the price is on it...

edit: I was wrong. base white MacBook was $1,099. BlackBook was $1,299.

 

[serpico007]

Just start saving because it will still be expensive in Canada

 

[hagjohn]

My heart tells me they will cut pricing a little to get people to switch over faster, but my brain tells me they wouldn't cut their Mom's a break in pricing, so no, I do not think they will be lower. They may be $100 higher to give the impression of "premium", even though we all know that's bs.

 

[bn-7bc]

I really doubt this. If Apple beats Intel at performance and energy efficiency, why would the MSRP go down? If it's cheaper to produce per unit, profits go up. Apple also needs to recoup billions of R&D expenses as quickly as possible. Long term, keeping the price the same or raising it allows them to make more profit. Do you think cutting prices takes precedence over profits??

Well unless the price drop puts the product under a cae magic level that suddenly increases volume rather significantly , and they use the increased volume to attract more devs, or just to speed up transition or maybe both

 

[ksec]

I think the price change will be gradual, and will likely only be fully rolled out by 2023. Since you are intermixing with x86 Mac in between. But I think the lineup will look something like below by 2023.

$399 Mac mini / Nano. Most affordable Mac in Apple history ( previous lowest price was $499 Mac mini ). A12Z, 8GB RAM, 256GB.
$599. A14X or basically a better CPU, 16GB and 512GB SSD.

$799 12" Macbook ( SE? ), 8GB RAM Fanless Design, older gen CPU. Touch ID.

$999. 12" MacBook Air, 16GB RAM
$1099 14" MacBook Air

$1499 14" MacBook Pro, 16GB RAM, dGPU,
$1699 16" MacBook Pro

All the above are within Apple's standard 60% margin. I have no idea how Apple will go about the Desktop series given how the chips differs a lot in TDP profile. The MacBook Pro line also assumes the same SoC being used. Bumping up TDP cooling design.

I didn't read the full 7 pages but from a few summarise post there is this idea Apple wont lower price.

Apple went to Intel and Mac's price across the line were cheaper than its G5 era. It is not that Apple dont lower price. They dont lower *margins*. Unless there are some additional cost involves, for example Desktop Class TDP CPU that are spread only among the Mac models, Apple will just charge their margin and move as much product as possible.

 

[Detnator]

The same, pure and simple. Apple's mantra is premium products and pricing, they recently doubled the price of ram on the 13" MBP, and they have a thunderbolt cable priced at 129. This is not a company that prices its products under what they perceive as premium or as I put it exorbitant

Some people say the stupidest things here.

“Doubled the price” of the RAM on that machine is click-bait and meaningless as an argument for your point.

They put the price back up to what it is on every other Mac after what was arguably a mistake having it $100 less than every othe Mac.

Yes, your point is valid - Apple prices are premium, but it’s for good reason and not greed or whatever else. You lose credibility when you try to make your point with misrepresented information.
[automerge]1593358914[/automerge]

Yeah I gotta say that $129 2m TB3 cable’s pricing shocked me. It must entail more than a length of wire and two connectors though, right? Right?!? There better be some kind of silicon embedded in that wire.

It’s a fancy braided much higher quality than normal thunderbolt cable. But it’s not like they’ve taken away the choice to buy a cheaper standard one. And yes Thinderbolt cables (well, the connectors) do have “some kind of silicon” in them.
[automerge]1593359107[/automerge]

intel charges $300-$500 (volume price) for CPUs that Apple uses. The iPad Pro — with a faster CPU and GPU — is sold for $799, and that includes everything else. I suppose you can imagine how much money Apple would be saving per unit. I suppose they will be able to increase their margins while simultaneously dropping the price by $200 or so...

And I predict that’s exactly what they’ll do. With one exception. I think their plan is to pile more into these things. So a mild reduction in price for a lot more value. That’s my best guess, but, I guess we’ll see.

 

[Detnator]

I really doubt this. If Apple beats Intel at performance and energy efficiency, why would the MSRP go down? If it's cheaper to produce per unit, profits go up. Apple also needs to recoup billions of R&D expenses as quickly as possible. Long term, keeping the price the same or raising it allows them to make more profit. Do you think cutting prices takes precedence over profits??

What’s most important to the bean counters and shareholders is overall long term profit. Profit per unit is only a small part of that.

For one, they consider their values and the value each unit brings. They’re not going to compromise their stance on privacy, security, and other things that are almost uniquely Apple in today’s market, for short term profit because those values bring a long term loyal customer base that in turn brings long term profit.

They also consider market share - but not over-prioritize it at the expense of quality or overall profit. For the same unit profit if they sell more they make more money so they have to balance that out. Over-price too much and no one buys anything and you’re bankrupt. But there’s no point in selling twice as many at a third of the profit per unit (all else being equal)

Cutting prices increases market share - sometimes. Everyone benefits from that, to a point. But there’s no value for anyone in Apple’s target market in the “race to the bottom”.

 

[bn-7bc]

Well on the iPhone its easy, with falling sales, and market saturation they feel a vast market remains untapped with the SE.

As for the 10.2 iPad, I don't have enough knowledge to offer any opinion on that simply because I don't follow iPad news at all.

well ikf we ignore the clobal covid recession that wil shorly hiot, we have the transition to 5G over the next couple of years that wil probably be a sails driver for iPhones

 

[Zwhaler]

Well unless the price drop puts the product under a cae magic level that suddenly increases volume rather significantly , and they use the increased volume to attract more devs, or just to speed up transition or maybe both

I think that running Macs on the same architecture as iOS will bring in some PC iPhone users over time even at current prices. It's part of the ecosystem long game.

 

[Detnator]

Not if you spec with reasonable SSD and ram.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Not everyone needs 16GB of RAM. iPads run on less than that and sometimes do more than the entry level Mac users need.

And as someone else said, 256 GB storage isn’t enough (for the users it’s targeted at)? They’re doing email, browsing, WP, etc. Not everyone has thousands of photos and home movies to store.

People who complain about Apple’s base model specs: What’s the problem? Why not the choice? Why should I be forced to pay more for specs my wife or kid don’t need in Apple’s entry level Mac??

 

[robes1]

People who complain about Apple’s base model specs: What’s the problem? Why not the choice? Why should I be forced to pay more for specs my wife or kid don’t need in Apple’s entry level Mac??

Because fitting computers with 5400rpm hard drives in 2020 is nonsensical. This shouldn't even be a choice in 2020 given a) the better options commonly available for not much money b) the fact that it eventually really slows down the computer, even for casual users. Furthermore not allowing the user to upgrade these parts on their own adds further insult to injury.

 

[Detnator]

"Bragging" is a good point, but in a different way: they will continue to sell their machines as "faster than most laptops", but you can't compare them to PC/Intel notebooks any more as the CPU is different. That is possibly very welcome.

I'm not totally against those slogans and a very happy user of a 2020 iPad Pro with keyboard (apart from the fact that the MacBook is lighter than that combo), but it does make the comparison harder. Said iPad Pro was already marketed as "faster than most laptops"...

H.

Some good points (do we remember the MHz myth of the PPC era?) but we have things like geekbench now that can do performance comparisons. Sure they might not be “real world” but they’re a great starting point.

Then of course Apple could start doing the face-offs again in their keynotes or whatever.

But if these things are anything like twice as fast or more (in multiple areas not just CPU and GPU) in real world usage by real users, as other brand name PCs at similar prices with comparable features, then the market willsee that and figure it out for themselves.

Even more so if we have guys like Linus etc. doing comparisons and performance face-offs etc. independent of however Apple might be accused of rigging their face-offs.

Even today, comparing prices per specs is largely meaningless. MacOS and Windows handle the specs differently. Macs have other chips and tech in them doing some of the work that PCs have to do on the CPU or GPU. Spec comparisons are mostly pointless at best, otherwise misleading, in the real world. It’s just something nerds on here like to do to pick a fight. Apple switching to completely different architectures so those stupid spec comparisons are no longer even possible is a good thing for marketing as well as all the other reasons.

What matters is how well/fast it does photo editing, video editing, web page loading, large data transfers, data encryption/decryption, database processing, etc. etc.

“Specs” don’t tell you any of that, sensibly.

 

[sublunar]

What a ridiculous thing to say.

Not everyone needs 16GB of RAM. iPads run on less than that and sometimes do more than the entry level Mac users need.

And as someone else said, 256 GB storage isn’t enough (for the users it’s targeted at)? They’re doing email, browsing, WP, etc. Not everyone has thousands of photos and home movies to store.

People who complain about Apple’s base model specs: What’s the problem? Why not the choice? Why should I be forced to pay more for specs my wife or kid don’t need in Apple’s entry level Mac??

I think you'll need to remember that graphics memory will come out of system RAM and that 'proper' multitasking will be an expectation of ARM Macs over and above the 6Gb that the iPad has at the moment. Between the 2018 and 2020 iPad Pro models the system RAM went up from 4Gb to 6Gb, and it would make sense for a 2021 iPad Pro to have 8Gb of RAM if there's going to be higher resolution screens.

We're now getting to the stage on Intel machines where 16Gb of RAM is simply more future proof than 8Gb, especially when upwards of 2Gb of RAM is taken up as VRAM. If you want to keep your Mac for 5-6 years or more then 16Gb of RAM would simply be future proofing.

Bear in mind that if iPad mini and iPad Air are getting higher resolution screens their SoCs are likely to have more RAM than the 3Gb of the current models - 4Gb seems to be an obvious move.

As for storage, if Universal binaries are simply going to get bigger thanks to having to provide Intel and ARM versions of the executable in one file then more storage seems to be a given and probably wouldn't cost too much for Apple to introduce given their economies of scale over time.

 

[Detnator]

Because fitting computers with 5400rpm hard drives in 2020 is nonsensical. This shouldn't even be a choice in 2020 given a) the better options commonly available for not much money b) the fact that it eventually really slows down the computer, even for casual users. Furthermore not allowing the user to upgrade these parts on their own adds further insult to injury.

That 5400rpm drive might be the only reasonable “base model” spec complaint, and all rumors are pointing to that going away this year for good. But...

You’re deflecting. The post I was replying to was referring to 8GB RAM/256GB SSD not being enough.

“Furthermore...” you can regurgitate all the “not allowing the user to upgrade” rhetoric all you want, but the vast majority of Apple’s target market DO NOT WANT to mess with their hardware.

This is not just about Apple denying people the choice. Soldering and glueing everything has benefits that even if you can’t see or appreciate, are appreciated by the people Apple wants, and always has wanted, to target - the people that all the other companies don’t care for. The fact that some other people outside that target happen to also like Macs is a small bonus for Apple, but the two philosophies are mutually exclusive.

Call us Sheeple or whatever else you want, but some people - including myself - prefer Apple’s “lock everything down” philosophy - for good reasons, even if you can’t see or don’t agree with those reasons.

Apple is not going to take away from those people to cater to the “I want to mess with my hardware” crowd, when every other computer company caters to them perfectly well. Apple specifically and deliberately caters to the people that the others don’t. And those of us who are in that group appreciate it and are happy to spend more for it.

So for the love of... Let it go. You’re wasting your breath.

 

[Falhófnir]

I think the price change will be gradual, and will likely only be fully rolled out by 2023. Since you are intermixing with x86 Mac in between. But I think the lineup will look something like below by 2023.

$399 Mac mini / Nano. Most affordable Mac in Apple history ( previous lowest price was $499 Mac mini ). A12Z, 8GB RAM, 256GB.
$599. A14X or basically a better CPU, 16GB and 512GB SSD.

$799 12" Macbook ( SE? ), 8GB RAM Fanless Design, older gen CPU. Touch ID.

$999. 12" MacBook Air, 16GB RAM
$1099 14" MacBook Air

$1499 14" MacBook Pro, 16GB RAM, dGPU,
$1699 16" MacBook Pro

All the above are within Apple's standard 60% margin. I have no idea how Apple will go about the Desktop series given how the chips differs a lot in TDP profile. The MacBook Pro line also assumes the same SoC being used. Bumping up TDP cooling design.

I didn't read the full 7 pages but from a few summarise post there is this idea Apple wont lower price.

Apple went to Intel and Mac's price across the line were cheaper than its G5 era. It is not that Apple dont lower price. They dont lower *margins*. Unless there are some additional cost involves, for example Desktop Class TDP CPU that are spread only among the Mac models, Apple will just charge their margin and move as much product as possible.

I'll have a bit of a go with this, this lineup is probably a bit too neat and a lot I'm not sure of but I think something like this would be really good:

Airs get the Dell XPS treatment, super narrow bezels, probably rounded corners like the iPad Pro. New 13" takes on the price point of the 11" MacBook Air, 15" in at the current Air starting price, all with similar specs. This might be $100 too optimistic though. I'm saying they could share the vanilla iPad chip based on the competence of the A12Z but really not certain of that.

MacBook Air 13" (Approx size of 12" MacBook, no bezel display) - $899 (256GB/8GB/A14X 8 Core)
MacBook Air 15" (A little larger than 13" Air, no bezel display) - $999 (256GB/8GB/A14X 8 Core)

14" Pro takes over the current high end 13" Pro price point with similar specs. 16" Pro gets slightly cheaper, largely through deletion of dGPU and the cooling system for it. They use the rumoured 12 Core (8 Performance + 4 Efficiency) Mac chips.

MacBook Pro 14" - $1,799 (512GB/16GB/A14M 12 Core)
MacBook Pro 16" - $1,999 (512GB/16GB/A14M 12 Core)

iMacs really not sure on, tried to match the 24" to the MacBook Pro like the 21.5" currently sort of is, and a bit more oomph for the larger model. Keeping the user serviceable RAM on the larger model, though probably wishful thinking?

iMac 24" - $1,299 (256GB/8GB/A14M 12 Core)
iMac 32" - $1,799 (512GB/8GB/A14MX 16 Core + user serviceable RAM?)

 

[Detnator]

I think you'll need to remember that graphics memory will come out of system RAM and that 'proper' multitasking will be an expectation of ARM Macs over and above the 6Gb that the iPad has at the moment. Between the 2018 and 2020 iPad Pro models the system RAM went up from 6Gb to 8Gb, and it would make sense for a 2021 iPad Pro to have 8Gb of RAM if there's going to be higher resolution screens.

We're now getting to the stage on Intel machines where 16Gb of RAM is simply more future proof than 8Gb, especially when upwards of 2Gb of RAM is taken up as VRAM. If you want to keep your Mac for 5-6 years or more then 16Gb of RAM would simply be future proofing.

Bear in mind that if iPad mini and iPad Air are getting higher resolution screens their SoCs are likely to have more RAM than the 3Gb of the current models - 4Gb seems to be an obvious move.

As for storage, if Universal binaries are simply going to get bigger thanks to having to provide Intel and ARM versions of the executable in one file then more storage seems to be a given and probably wouldn't cost too much for Apple to introduce given their economies of scale over time.

All great points, for the users that the base model Macs are not meant for. But there are still plenty of people - my wife and son included - who do at most two things at once on their Macs, have no interest in external displays, and the base model MacBook and/or MacBook Air is already future prof enough.

So again, why is it bad for Apple to provide the option of 8/256 or whatever else their base model specs are, for the people who don’t need more than that, even for years into the future?

It’s just stupid for people to complain about having the choice.

 

[robes1]

That 5400rpm drive might be the only reasonable “base model” spec complaint, and all rumors are pointing to that going away this year for good. But...

You’re deflecting. The post I was replying to was referring to 8GB RAM/256GB SSD not being enough.

“Furthermore...” you can regurgitate all the “not allowing the user to upgrade” rhetoric all you want, but the vast majority of Apple’s target market DO NOT WANT to mess with their hardware.

This is not just about Apple denying people the choice. Soldering and glueing everything has benefits that even if you can’t see or appreciate, are appreciated by the people Apple wants, and always has wanted, to target - the people that all the other companies don’t care for. The fact that some other people outside that target happen to also like Macs is a small bonus for Apple, but the two philosophies are mutually exclusive.

Call us Sheeple or whatever else you want, but some people - including myself - prefer Apple’s “lock everything down” philosophy - for good reasons, even if you can’t see or don’t agree with those reasons.

Apple is not going to take away from those people to cater to the “I want to mess with my hardware” crowd, when every other computer company caters to them perfectly well. Apple specifically and deliberately caters to the people that the others don’t. And those of us who are in that group appreciate it and are happy to spend more for it.

So for the love of... Let it go. You’re wasting your breath.

Lol, nice try, your quote was "People who complain about Apple’s base model specs: What’s the problem?" hence why i brought up the HD issue. Which IS A BASE MODEL spec. The main advantage of being able to mess with hardware in my eyes (and many others) is the ability update or fix things once the hardware starts acting up. Like the mentioned HD that slows down the computer for a TON of users. If you get a base model with limited ram, and you decide you need more for whatever reason, is it more desirable for the user to buy some more ram for their machine, or to go and buy a brand new computer? Sure some people could care less about tweaking their hardware, but to state that it's an advantage that Apple glues everything shut and makes things inaccessible is just silly.

 

[Detnator]

mm nice point, but, which is the actual market equivalent for Arm-powered computers? None. Apple need to do a good marketing work to allow some comparison with other processors so you can know what you are buying. Maybe this is not important for people in the apple eco system but for the normal consumer it could be a bit confusing.

like I said above, specs are meaningless these days. Even the fact that Intel has called their chips the same thing (Core i3/5/7, etc.) for a decade means two chips named the same still deliver Vastly different performance. And already today Apple has some of their silicon in a Mac that takes some load off the CPU and GPU for some tasks.

Future comparisons will be based on geekbench for nerds and demonstrations of real world apps running and doing stuff for the rest.
[automerge]1593384014[/automerge]

I hope you missed the /s

It is 2020 - 256GB is pathetic for storage for a laptop. A 100% browser-based computer like a Chromebook, ok. But not a premium laptop that has any longevity.

Sigh. Another idiotic “it’s 20NN and they’re still doing X? Pathetic.” Argument. Why should I be forced to pay for more than 256GB for my son’s entry level Mac when he does not need it??!!

Get over yourself.
[automerge]1593384278[/automerge]

Knowing how greedy Apple is, they’ll launch 2 options for new models: one with Intel and one with ARM. They’ll definitely price the ARM option higher.

Omg you could not possibly be more wrong. You really don’t get what they’re doing here do you. Lol.

 

[SFjohn]

I think they will be comparably priced to similar Intel chip computers Apple sells, but they will be much faster, offer extra features, and provide much more battery life in laptops. I expect the Apple Silicon iMacs will be priced the same, but will sip energy and save over $100 on your electricity bill over the life of the new iMacs, while again adding features Intel Macs won’t have...

 

[Detnator]

I believe this question would be complicated to answer even if we had traveled back from the future where ARM-based Macs were already available.

There's a lot of assumptions that the product lines, form factors, etc will stay the same and that Apple will just sub out the Intel chipset for Apple/ARM.

What is more likely to happen, imo, is that the entire product range will change over the next ~3 years. Better differentiation between form factors (thin vs powerful/longer battery) - with different price points to match. I imagine the ASP of Macs won't change that much, with high-end price points still existing to cancel out the introduction of lower $799 entry level price points.

Gross margins for Mac will be higher, but entry price points will also be lower. Apple may also use some of the Intel cost savings to introduce higher cost materials, displays or designs. When the Aluminum unibody was introduced, it cost apple hundreds more. This would be a fantastic opportunity for Apple to come out with a new, more expensive, design that would be offset by lower chipset pricing.

A decade ago, a MacBook that was priced around $1100 or so to the consumer would cost Apple around $700 to make. An iPhone that sold for $650 would start off at a cost of around $350 at launch and then decrease over the course of 6 months to $250. Costs at launch are always higher.

There are so many possibilities here - hoping, and optimistic, for a creative Apple line-up with some new innovations.

This is quite possibly the most intelligent, sensible, comprehensive comment in any threadon this entire topic I’ve seen so far.

You, sir, get what Apple’s doing and why they are doing it, better than anyone else commenting here.

Well said.

 

[sublunar]

All great points, for the users that the base model Macs are not meant for. But there are still plenty of people - my wife and son included - who do at most two things at once on their Macs, have no interest in external displays, and the base model MacBook and/or MacBook Air is already future prof enough.

So again, why is it bad for Apple to provide the option of 8/256 or whatever else their base model specs are, for the people who don’t need more than that, even for years into the future?

It’s just stupid for people to complain about having the choice.

The point here is that Apple will want to keep price points stable to avoid implying that ARM Macs are 'cheaper' and 'less value' than an Intel Mac. We don't know how much engineering will cost them, especially when one of the new components of ARM Macs is likely to be mini LED displays which will have a detrimental effect on battery life and component cost.

Currently USB-C capable iPad Pros can mirror their displays to external monitors. It's a fair assumption that ARM Macs ought to be able to use external displays the same as their Intel counterparts: extend to second display, display second screen modem, mirror, or even perhaps daisy chain where applicable.

In this case, 8/256 might well be deemed sufficient for Apple within the context of parts budget given the likely context of differentiating an ARM Mac into something worth buying over an Intel Mac in a similar form factor and price point.

There's no way that Apple would say that an ARM Mac is 'cheaper' than an Intel Mac. They are going to say it's better value.

It might be because of the brighter screen (perhaps even higher density retina), better battery life, pro-motion, or something more tangible such as more base storage - because Apple's buying power is better - or more RAM than the base Intel models.

But they'll never draw your attention to it being cheaper than an Intel Mac because it would cheapen the brand.

 

[LeeW]

Apple already has its roadmap in place for ARM devices just like iPhone, iPad and so on.

The 1st device will be priced keenly to get people buying, they know they have to convince people to buy, it's not just as easy as here is another iMac or MBP so they will gift the 1st devices to users for prices that were not expected.

But again, they already have the ARM chip roadmap laid out, the 2nd generation chips are already going to have advantages in them they could have put in the 1st generation, but they won't do that because they can ease the price up on the 2nd gen on the basis of "OMG look what at how much better 2nd gen is".

By that point people will hopefully for Apple, have embraced ARM and be ready, willing and clambering to pay the increased price to upgrade.

 

[Detnator]

I'll have a bit of a go with this, this lineup is probably a bit too neat and a lot I'm not sure of but I think something like this would be really good:

Airs get the Dell XPS treatment, super narrow bezels, probably rounded corners like the iPad Pro. New 13" takes on the price point of the 11" MacBook Air, 15" in at the current Air starting price, all with similar specs. This might be $100 too optimistic though. I'm saying they could share the vanilla iPad chip based on the competence of the A12Z but really not certain of that.

MacBook Air 13" (Approx size of 12" MacBook, no bezel display) - $899 (256GB/8GB/A14X 8 Core)
MacBook Air 15" (A little larger than 13" Air, no bezel display) - $999 (256GB/8GB/A14X 8 Core)

14" Pro takes over the current high end 13" Pro price point with similar specs. 16" Pro gets slightly cheaper, largely through deletion of dGPU and the cooling system for it. They use the rumoured 12 Core (8 Performance + 4 Efficiency) Mac chips.

MacBook Pro 14" - $1,799 (512GB/16GB/A14M 12 Core)
MacBook Pro 16" - $1,999 (512GB/16GB/A14M 12 Core)

iMacs really not sure on, tried to match the 24" to the MacBook Pro like the 21.5" currently sort of is, and a bit more oomph for the larger model. Keeping the user serviceable RAM on the larger model, though probably wishful thinking?

iMac 24" - $1,299 (256GB/8GB/A14M 12 Core)
iMac 32" - $1,799 (512GB/8GB/A14MX 16 Core + user serviceable RAM?)

I like your thinking. Not sure about all the prices but the principles are good.Though I seriously doubt they’ll make a 15” Air. I think they’ll bring back the 12, and replace the 13 with 14, for the Airs. Then like you said, 14 and 16 for the Pros.

I and at least a few others really like the 12. It’s perfect for my wife and my son. It was too expensive for its market but with AS in 12/14 MBAs for $899/$999 or maybe $999/$1099 - super thin & light, and fanless like the 12 was, I think they’d be much loved like the 2014 11/13 Airs were before they got old. I really hope they’ll do that.