Is it worth skipping the first generation ARM Mac?

[Jynto]

It's worth mentioning that I'm approaching my 28th birthday and I still use my first laptop. The 13" Macbook Pro I got as a Christmas present in 2009 has served me well for over 10 years, and I'd like to get a similar amount of longevity out of my next one, especially if I'm going to be spending in the range of £2500 since it can't be upgraded later.

Because of this, something jumped out at me from the Wikipedia article:

The very first model of Macbook Pro (early 2006 - the first Intel Mac) got two OS releases: Leopard and Snow Leopard, so it was only running the latest OS for 5½ years until Lion came out. The late 2006 models got Lion, which gave them a couple more months than their immediate predecessors, but the mid 2007 models went all the way up to El Capitan, so were able to run the latest OS until 2016.

9 years is quite an improvement on 5½.

It is a similar story for other early Intel Macs. Every 2006 iMac could only go as far as Snow Leopard (officially), whereas the mid 2007 models were supported until 2016. (Though it's worth mentioning that the mid 2007 Mac Mini was also stuck on Lion, so waiting a year to buy one would not have helped in that case.)

Then I decided to see what was the first Mac laptop after the 68k-to-PowerPC transition. And I almost wish I hadn't - the Powerbook 5300 seems like it might have been the worst laptop Apple's ever made.

Looking across some of Apple's other product lines (Apple Watch series 0 stuck on WatchOS 3, first gen iPad stuck on iOS 5, first gen iPhone stuck on iPhone OS 3), it appears that most first-generation products get fewer software releases, and this is simply the price of being an early adopter.

Can the first generation of ARM Macbook Pros expect to be supported longer than 2025?

 

[oneMadRssn]

Software support will be the least of the worry. First-generation anything will almost always have issues or major improvements very soon after - either of which will make you really want the next revision. I think a good rule of thumb is to avoid first-generation electronics unless you're an early-adopter who can afford to upgrade to the second- or third-generation stuff when it's out.

Now some people will claim that in this case getting a first-gen product will be fine. Apple has been making laptops for ages, and has been making ARM-powered tablets for a decade, so nothing in these new ARM Macs will actually be totally new for Apple. I'd still avoid it though, unless like I said above, you're an early-adopter with enough money to support the hobby.

Also, just historically, I think Apple really hits the sweet spot around the fourth revision of a product, give or take.
- 3rd/4th gen iPod
- 4th gen iPod Nano
- iPhone 4/4S/5/5S
- iPad Air/Air2 (they were technically the 5th and 6th generation iPads)
All of these were when Apple hit the mark in the product lines.

 

[MisterAndrew]

The first Intel Macs didn't support later OS releases because the CPUs were 32-bit only. I wouldn't expect something like that to happen again. The first Apple Silicon Macs will most likely be well supported for several years. However, they will of course improve as time goes on. Also, these CPUs are based on the ones that have been powering iPhones and iPads for many years so I wouldn't expect there to be that many major issues.

 

[Seanm87]

As others have mentioned its not really "first gen" in the way other apple products have been. The chips themselves have been used for years and apple have been making laptops for years so its just combining the 2 together.

I'm sure they'll be teething issues of course but I wouldn't avoid for that reason.

 

[JPack]

Everybody knew the first generation of Intel Core processors were 32-bit and wouldn't last long.

In 2006, Intel was pushing out a big architecture change to Core 2. Apple couldn't wait another 6 months for Core 2 because their PowerBooks were already so far behind.

 

[StellarVixen]

If you feel like, why not? I mean, there are still many years left for Intel Macs. You will have a lot of time to make your decision, if you are patient.

 

[petvas]

We don't even know what Apple is planing, how good the hardware will be, how buggy the OS will be. As long as we don't know, we cannot really answer the OP's question. I would love to be on the cutting edge, but since I got a 16" MBP this year, I will not getting anything till the second half of 2021. By that time Apple will probably have released the next macOS version and software will be much more readily available for Apple processors.

 

[sunapple]

I feel like you can’t do everything on the first release, that often means the first model is compromised in some ways.

Serious deal-breaking flaws though, I doubt it.

This time around it will be mostly about software, the chips have been in development for some time now. Software can be updated...

 

[MikhailT]

First of all, Apple Silicon Mac isn't just getting a new CPU, it's getting a new SoC that includes Apple's GPU, neural engine, ISP, and so much more. That's a lot of complexity that has to integrate with macOS, which isn't 100% the same as iOS on all levels (yes, they do share the same kernel and code history but we don't know how much changes over the years).

Look at the long history of T1/T2 issues (look up mac mini) and crash-prone BridgeOS, I returned my rMBP 16 because touchbar was crashing all the time (among other issues like accidental touchbar trigger and awful palm rejection on the too big trackpad).

One could say that T1/T2 was error-prone because of cross-talk with Intel CPU and simply removing it would stabilize the whole system. That's just more of the reason to wait.

 

[Ballis]

With a more than 10 year old Mac, I would definetly get the first gen ARM. I know I will.

 

[UnbreakableAlex]

I would wait until they bring out 120hz displays like on iPad Pro and until graphics support Raytracing. Everything before is just an inbetween step.

 

[KPOM]

ARM is on v8 of their architecture. V9 is set to be released soon. So it’s entirely possible history will repeat itself and the second generation Macs with Apple Silicon will last a lot longer. My advice is to buy what you need and not try to “future proof” if you go with a Mac with Apple Silicon In 2020/2021.

 

[jinnyman]

Unless you really need a Mac, why spend money for 1st gen where whole bunch of apps will be running through rosetta2? If you already own one of the later intel mac, keep using it. When things are in fruition.

 

[TiggrToo]

...where whole bunch of apps will be running through rosetta2?

And apparently running just fine if the keynote is any indication...

 

[jinnyman]

And apparently running just fine if the keynote is any indication...

It depends on how well runs. brief snippet shown in the keynote is not enough.
If you don't have computer or your computer is way old, why not? but I say if you have Macs since after 2017, you don't have to jump immediately. It all depends on what Apple's Silicone can offer though.

2x battery life AND 2x performance? yeah I will switch to 1st gen immediately. It's all dependent on what Apple can offer really.

 

[TiggrToo]

brief snippet shown in the keynote is not enough.

It wasn't just the Tomb Raider snippet.

And if a simple recompile in Xcode is all it takes to get started (and no, I'm not saying you just release and go - testing and rework will probably be required), I'm game.

 

[robbieduncan]

Looking back at the Intel transition the CoreSolo/CoreDuo machines were not a good bet compared to the Core2Duo machines that quickly followed them

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

As others have mentioned its not really "first gen" in the way other apple products have been. The chips themselves have been used for years and apple have been making laptops for years so its just combining the 2 together.

I absolutely disagree. Yes, they've used similar chips, but they haven't done so with active cooling, or in larger enclosures, that push the thermal limits a *lot*. Rumors have pointed to the first chips going to 12 cores, and we will likely see a much higher core number for the Pro machines, which they also haven't tested out large scale in public. They also haven't had the need to include multiple new controllers or hardware interfaces to those SOCs, which means their motherboards will look quite different from their current approach.

On top of that, Apple want them to look their best since they want to promote their new platform, which also likely also means new looks, which is expected for the MBP and iMac, and could also include the Mac Mini (despite the latter having a very nice design IMHO).