iPad Pro iPad Pro with Magic Keyboard makes me question ARM MacBooks

[Xeyad]

So now that the iPad Pro can be paired with a full featured Magic Keyboard case, and even cheaper iPads also have 'laptop-like' keyboard with trackpad cases, I must question the actual purpose of ARM-based MacBooks, which seem like coming sooner rather than later.

Of course we won't know until it comes out, but based on rumors, what is Apple's strategy here? Why does Apple want to sell customers on MacBooks that will probably be less capable than x86-based Macs (at the start), and less versatile than iPads?

Currently, the distinction is clear. iPads are for day-to-day tasks, and they're amazingly adaptable because of the Apple Pencil and keyboard cases, while the Mac is for heavier duty tasks and a more conventional setup.

Where does an ARM Macbook stand in the line-up? The iPad will be better for regular folks looking for a tablet that can do it all (which it can now), and a regular Mac will better for as well since it won't have any compatibility issues (hardware and software) and will be more powerful for the time being.

To sum up, I do not understand why Apple would want to take a huge and risky transition for the Mac, while at the same time keep advancing the iPad to make it fit more use cases and can replace a regular computer for most people. Blurring the lines will confuse customers in the end.

Again, we won't know until we see what they have in plan, but there's a missing link in this whole story.

Would love to hear your thoughts

 

[chabig]

I must question the actual purpose of ARM-based MacBooks

This is easy to answer. Apple has always stated that they want to control the fundamental technology in their products. The CPU counts as fundamental. Look how quickly Apple has been able to advance the power of their A-series processors. What has Intel done during that time?

Why does Apple want to sell customers on MacBooks that will probably be less capable than x86-based Macs (at the start), and less versatile than iPads?

You've made two assumptions in that sentence. The first, that ARM MacBooks will be less capable, may or may not be true but it's wrong to assume it will be so. Which X86 Macs are you referring to? I'd probably agree that the first ARM MacBooks will be less powerful than the Mac Pro, probably less powerful than the high end MacBook Pros, but not necessarily less powerful than the already shipping low end MacBooks. Furthermore, you used the word capable. I use the word powerful to mean how much work is done per unit of time. Suppose an X86 MacBook Pro can render a video in one minute while an ARM MacBook requires two minutes. I would argue that the ARM machine is equally capable.

Your second assumption, that an ARM MacBook will be less versatile than an iPad, is moot. MacBooks and iPads are different products. Neither is designed to replace the other.

Currently, the distinction is clear. iPads are for day-to-day tasks, and they're amazingly adaptable because of the Apple Pencil and keyboard cases, while the Mac is for heavier duty tasks

I don't agree with your distinction. It's up to each individual to decided which is the best tool for the task at hand.

Where does an ARM Macbook stand in the line-up?

Obviously, and ARM MacBook will stand where the current MacBook stands. A MacBook is defined more by its features and capabilities, not what CPU is inside. To a user, the machines will look and behave identically.

I do not understand why Apple would want to take a huge and risky transition for the Mac

Apple always advances technology and isn't afraid to cannibalize their own products. They know that if they don't, someone else will. If they can produce an ARM MacBook with 24 hour battery life, that will give them a competitive edge against all competitors stuck with Intel CPUs.

 

[Carole F Baskin]

Can you guys please explain to a thicko like me:

What difference ARM processors gonna bring to a regular user? Which are 98.3% of Apple customers.

 

[chabig]

Can you guys please explain to a thicko like me:

What difference ARM processors gonna bring to a regular user? Which are 98.3% of Apple customers.

Probably just one key difference--much longer battery life.

 

[Carole F Baskin]

Probably just one key difference--much longer battery life.

Sounds good. I‘m in.

 

[Xeyad]

You've made two assumptions in that sentence. The first, that ARM MacBooks will be less capable, may or may not be true but it's wrong to assume it will be so. Which X86 Macs are you referring to? I'd probably agree that the first ARM MacBooks will be less powerful than the Mac Pro, probably less powerful than the high end MacBook Pros, but not necessarily less powerful than the already shipping low end MacBooks. Furthermore, you used the word capable. I use the word powerful to mean how much work is done per unit of time. Suppose an X86 MacBook Pro can render a video in one minute while an ARM MacBook requires two minutes. I would argue that the ARM machine is equally capable.

Your second assumption, that an ARM MacBook will be less versatile than an iPad, is moot. MacBooks and iPads are different products. Neither is designed to replace the other.

MacBooks and iPads are different products that serve extremely similar purposes. iPads are getting more and more capable, and they're not far off now from a Mac. iPads now have almost 95% capability of the Mac, especially with USBC and of course the new Magic Keyboard. An ARM MacBook (assuming it has an A13 or A14 chip) would have similar power to the iPad, with very similar purpose and functionality, but it'll be less versatile as it won't be a lightweight tablet that has pencil support as well. Plus it'll face compatibility issues at the beginning so people will probably see the iPad as the more stable option.

What I'm trying to say is that transitions like this in the modern age of technology makes less sense than the past. The transition from PPC to Intel was obvious because Macs were hindered and it was Apple's main source of income. Today, iPhones and iPads make the big chunck of income, and the Mac is becoming less relevant to Apple, so why change it? ARM transitions have failed so far; Microsoft tried with the Surface RT and it failed, and it's trying it again with the Surface Pro X and it's not doing great either. An ARM MacBook will be targeted to the same audience who will also buy an iPad Pro, and that's the problem, because it'll be worse than an iPad and a regular Mac.

 

[AutomaticApple]

What has Intel done during that time?

Maybe they changed a thing or two, but that's about it... ?

 

[GrindedDown]

It makes so much business sense to make Mac arm based. They have proven they can develop heat-efficient, powerful chips with the Ax series. Imagine them developing them with cooling systems , larger die, and increased case capacity. They could be absolute powerhouses.

The business aspect is where it is interesting. They hinted at it with project Catalyst, where you can run ios apps on mac. By making mac arm based, cross compatibility becomes significantly easier to achieve. The ios store is a massive money maker for apple while the mac app store hasn’t had nearly the success. With easy cross compatibility, app sales on mac will increase significantly. This sets them up for a lifetime of additional revenue that as of right now, they just can’t get.

It’s just smart business and it just might be a better, more powerful solution than working with Intel.

 

[TheRealAlex]

So now that the iPad Pro can be paired with a full featured Magic Keyboard case, and even cheaper iPads also have 'laptop-like' keyboard with trackpad cases, I must question the actual purpose of ARM-based MacBooks, which seem like coming sooner rather than later.

Of course we won't know until it comes out, but based on rumors, what is Apple's strategy here? Why does Apple want to sell customers on MacBooks that will probably be less capable than x86-based Macs (at the start), and less versatile than iPads?

Currently, the distinction is clear. iPads are for day-to-day tasks, and they're amazingly adaptable because of the Apple Pencil and keyboard cases, while the Mac is for heavier duty tasks and a more conventional setup.

Where does an ARM Macbook stand in the line-up? The iPad will be better for regular folks looking for a tablet that can do it all (which it can now), and a regular Mac will better for as well since it won't have any compatibility issues (hardware and software) and will be more powerful for the time being.

To sum up, I do not understand why Apple would want to take a huge and risky transition for the Mac, while at the same time keep advancing the iPad to make it fit more use cases and can replace a regular computer for most people. Blurring the lines will confuse customers in the end.

Again, we won't know until we see what they have in plan, but there's a missing link in this whole story.

Would love to hear your thoughts

There is room for many different types of computers in the world just like there are many different types of vehicles. That’s basically from Steve Jobs book.
there will always be a need for a Cellphone, a laptop, a desktop, and a tablet. Just like there’s a need for a Motorcycle, a Garbage truck, and SUV, and a Passenger car. They do similar things all are “vehicles” But you don’t ask a passenger car to take on Garbage truck duties. Don’t ask a tablet to take on PC duties.

 

[Moonjumper]

MacBooks and iPads are different products that serve extremely similar purposes. iPads are getting more and more capable, and they're not far off now from a Mac. iPads now have almost 95% capability of the Mac, especially with USBC and of course the new Magic Keyboard. An ARM MacBook (assuming it has an A13 or A14 chip) would have similar power to the iPad, with very similar purpose and functionality, but it'll be less versatile as it won't be a lightweight tablet that has pencil support as well. Plus it'll face compatibility issues at the beginning so people will probably see the iPad as the more stable option.

What I'm trying to say is that transitions like this in the modern age of technology makes less sense than the past. The transition from PPC to Intel was obvious because Macs were hindered and it was Apple's main source of income. Today, iPhones and iPads make the big chunck of income, and the Mac is becoming less relevant to Apple, so why change it? ARM transitions have failed so far; Microsoft tried with the Surface RT and it failed, and it's trying it again with the Surface Pro X and it's not doing great either. An ARM MacBook will be targeted to the same audience who will also buy an iPad Pro, and that's the problem, because it'll be worse than an iPad and a regular Mac.

iPadOS and macOS have got closer, but there are still fundamental differences around input, file systems, and app eco systems. And the devices reflect that. Changing the processors to Arm makes no difference to that.

I think the assumption of an A13 or A14 chip is wrong. It will be a new range based around higher thermal envelopes and performance needs, and the range will have to be capable of spanning the entire Mac line eventually. I doubt Apple are going to release products weaker than the Intel equivalents.

Arm will allow Apple to bring processor development in-house, and will likely have cost benefits. Intel processors are expensive, and have not progressed much in the last few years, while Arm processors have advanced in leaps and bounds. There are many potential benefits, but also risks. Software compatibility being the main one, although more was probably lost in the switch to exclusively 64-bit (I’m still using Mojave because of that).

You talk about Arm failing with Microsoft. Exactly the same arguments were put forward when Apple released the iPad despite Microsoft tablet failures. Apple’s approach will be very different.