My thoughts exactly. The MacBook would essentially be an iPad without the touch screen and associated components. A $799-899 starting price should be doable.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
LEAK: ARM MacBook 12” Silicon reportedly costs just $799. Also have 15-20 hour battery life 😱
- Thread starter flibberti-gibbeti
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My thoughts exactly. The MacBook would essentially be an iPad without the touch screen and associated components. A $799-899 starting price should be doable.
2 ports... FaceID... proMotion screen... scissor keyboard... 1080p camera... Now you’ve got a laptop.
This tweet has been popping up all over the place and getting some traction but so far there’s nobody with a proven track record for leaks saying anything about it. Has anybody tweeted Mr Prosser?!
This tweet has been popping up all over the place and getting some traction but so far there’s nobody with a proven track record for leaks saying anything about it. Has anybody tweeted Mr Prosser?!
Last edited:
The first ARM laptop will not be 800 bucks. It'll be more like 1500$ as Apple has to recoup development costs then increase the margin per unit sold. Apple doesn't do cheap.
Well, but Apple also has to get people on board with these new macs, otherwise people will continue purchasing old intel-based macs and this will make the transition harder. I am not sure if I expect Apple to go for a lower price on these macs, but I feel very confident when I say they won't make it more expensive than the current ones.
If that’s the case, RIP Apple’s market share for Macs. You’d need to be a complete fool to pay that kind of a premium.
Because they didn’t do it right. The 12” was under powered, and lacked thunderbolt. Which would’ve been okay had it included more than one port.
If they do another 12” the way they did the 12” PowerBook and iBook G4 line, it would sell.
It’s also asinine to have the “Air” name following what is the regular MacBook replacement. But have a smaller MacBook under the “MacBook” nameplate and not air. Never understood who’s bright idea that was.
I am more than sure that Apple Silicon Macs are going to be cheaper than the Intel ones. Forget the R&D costs, those will be amortized by the total revenue. The manufacturing costs of new Macs is most likely going to be lower - less chips, no middleman, reduced logic board complexity.
Then you’d be more than wrong. There may be benefits to Apple silicon but cost isn’t one of them.
The main concern is still will it run any software that’s considered essential besides apple’s garbage or iPad apps. Not anytime soon. Apple silicon is a bust til then.
If you take R&D into account, then no, Apple Silicon is not cheaper. Manufacturing cost alone - since it’s less chips and no middlemen, those are going to be cheaper. And I doubt that Apple will try to recoup R&D from Mac sales alone - the most reasonable strategy is to use their insane cash reserves to pay for them.
Not sure why you thing so. Big popular apps are already ported. Stuff that’s not ported will run through Rosetta. Some narrow special cases excluded, I expect Apple Silicon Macs to be fully usable from the start. Personally, I will wait some time before getting one as my main work tool is open source scientific computing, and these will probably take a while longer to adapt.
Since Apple in the last decade started to offer a cheaper iphone in the line, an cheaper ipad in the line...now with AS will offer a cheaper mac in the line..this is how apple does bussiness
Think about a mac mini or an entry level macbook air...starting around 699$ the cheapest mac now is the mac mini at 799$
Again dont think about top of the art compoenents...we will have a retina no p3 gamut,350 nits display. Base AS cpu, 8 gb ram, 256 ssd
Think about a mac mini or an entry level macbook air...starting around 699$ the cheapest mac now is the mac mini at 799$
Again dont think about top of the art compoenents...we will have a retina no p3 gamut,350 nits display. Base AS cpu, 8 gb ram, 256 ssd
I’m sure the base 12” (if there is one) will be under $999, but
Surely cost will be one of the benefits of Apple Silicon?? 🤔
For this theoretical 12” laptop, I’m sure a big part of the audience will need very few apps other than those “garbage” ones their laptops come with, Chrome and MS Office. Not to mention all the apps which they’ll be able to download from the App Store - I’m guessing quite a few devs will be tweaking apps to offer a Big Sur version.
Surely cost will be one of the benefits of Apple Silicon?? 🤔
For this theoretical 12” laptop, I’m sure a big part of the audience will need very few apps other than those “garbage” ones their laptops come with, Chrome and MS Office. Not to mention all the apps which they’ll be able to download from the App Store - I’m guessing quite a few devs will be tweaking apps to offer a Big Sur version.
The vast majority of the R&D costs will be covered by the volume of the iPhone, which is driving the constant need for improvement. The only R&D costs for the Mac SoC will be Mac specific blocks. The base SoC sections (CPU, GPU, Security, camera controller, Face ID controller, that type of thing) will get verified once for the iPhone, and reused as building blocks for the Mac SoC. The only real things that would need to be designed and verified would be things like the TB4/USB4 controller.All the remaining blocks are already designed, tested, and verified for the iPhone/iPad. AS SoCs will be cheaper than an Intel based solution because of that, and it will be significantly cheaper, even with R&D taken into account. Those 200M iPhones/year go a long way to making R&D cost per SoC reasonable.
The board cost will be cheaper, too, as lower chip count; and at the system level, no need for extensive cooling (i.e. fewer, or no, fans), and possibly a smaller battery (with increased battery life) can also take costs out of the BOM.
The board cost will be cheaper, too, as lower chip count; and at the system level, no need for extensive cooling (i.e. fewer, or no, fans), and possibly a smaller battery (with increased battery life) can also take costs out of the BOM.
The fact that he said A14X should tell you it's bs. A more reliable leaker is sure, and it also makes sense, that the ARM chips in Macs will be a different generation, more powerful than A14X. The "A" category is for iPhones and iPads.
But see here is the thing, if you are aiming to create a new 12" successor you are still limited to about 7-10 watts TDP due to passive cooling. That's an identical issue that exists in the iPad.
So with that said, it makes sense to me to have an A14X processor in the 12" (especially if you are not worried about thunderbolt and intend for this machine to be an entry level cost effective machine) and the have your Mac specific architecture for higher TDP machines like the Air and Pro.
Since when does Apple pass on savings in manufacturing to consumers? Apple knows cheaper = inferior in people’s minds. They won’t be cheaper.
Since they want to assert the ARM Mac superiority
I think that slightly reducing the price to give users incentive to switch to new arch could be a nice marketing strategy. But we will see.
They were happy to pass on savings on the MacBook Air 2 years in a row (1199 -> 1099 -> 999), happy to pass on savings from XR to 11 (749 -> 699), happy to pass on savings on storage upgrades on the 2020 iPad Pro (can't really remember the price decreases right now), and even reducing XR further than they usually would as the 'old' phone (150 vs usual 100). They could do the same for a Mac.
Also right now the Mac is the only product out of their main lines that doesn't have a viable, 'lesser' product at a more reasonable cost. The iPhone has the SE (+ XR), iPad has the iPad (+ mini, Air), watch has the Series 3. They could do the same for the Mac.
Also right now the Mac is the only product out of their main lines that doesn't have a viable, 'lesser' product at a more reasonable cost. The iPhone has the SE (+ XR), iPad has the iPad (+ mini, Air), watch has the Series 3. They could do the same for the Mac.
The chip will be somewhat different to whatever will be used in the next iPad(Pro) and Apple will for sure label it different, but in the end they will feature the same cores (maybe just a different number/clock) and have some semi-random marketing inspired name.
Last edited:
This whole "apple silicon is cheaper" meme got debunked a while ago. It would actually be cheaper for Apple to just stick Snapdragons in their iPhones and iPads. But it would not provide the speed or the customized experience Apple is selling so they have designed their own SOC from the ground up.
Chip wise it is a whole different setup. No dGPU, only the Thunderbolt, RAM and the storage need any sort of lanes. In essence the logic board will bear a closer resemblance to iPad Pro (but not an exact copy).
Chip wise it is a whole different setup. No dGPU, only the Thunderbolt, RAM and the storage need any sort of lanes. In essence the logic board will bear a closer resemblance to iPad Pro (but not an exact copy).
I do not know if the rumors are real or fake, but base of my own opinion, there is only 3 route apple will take that will benefit them if apple silicon is indeed cheaper..
1) price the same - change nothing, only replace intel with apple silicon.. increase profit margin.. consumer will be angry and they can only bet on their current loyal consumer to upgrade every year..
2) reduce price - change nothing, only replace intel with apple silicon.. maintain profit margin.. consumer are happy hence see better value and in return possibility of increasing market share and developer will see incentive to develop app in mac world..
3) maintain price - putting in new stuff like maybe mini led or face id or hbm2e.. i used the word or and not and depending on cost.. maintain profit margin.. consumer happy by seeing better value of mac even though price not reduce.. hence increasing market share and developer see incentive to develop app for mac world..
all these 3 option will benefit apple and none will be on a losing end for apple.. base on the rumors.. seems like the 1st batch of of aplle silicon will be macbook air and same design mbp 13.. this will take on option 2.. and rumor for next year redesign mbp 13 and 16.. will take on option 3..
as for initial up front R&D cost.. i agree with leman that it will probably be amortised.. many have been saying have to add back R&D cost so apple silicon is not anywhere cheaper than intel.. im curious about the fact that do intel not add in the cost of R&D into their chip when selling it to apple..? I will be more incline to believe that R&D cost will be amortised as it is a semiconductor pricing strategy..
And to be honest.. seeing that iphone se has boost apple quarter 2 earning.. it does make sense that option 1 is not the best route to go..
1) price the same - change nothing, only replace intel with apple silicon.. increase profit margin.. consumer will be angry and they can only bet on their current loyal consumer to upgrade every year..
2) reduce price - change nothing, only replace intel with apple silicon.. maintain profit margin.. consumer are happy hence see better value and in return possibility of increasing market share and developer will see incentive to develop app in mac world..
3) maintain price - putting in new stuff like maybe mini led or face id or hbm2e.. i used the word or and not and depending on cost.. maintain profit margin.. consumer happy by seeing better value of mac even though price not reduce.. hence increasing market share and developer see incentive to develop app for mac world..
all these 3 option will benefit apple and none will be on a losing end for apple.. base on the rumors.. seems like the 1st batch of of aplle silicon will be macbook air and same design mbp 13.. this will take on option 2.. and rumor for next year redesign mbp 13 and 16.. will take on option 3..
as for initial up front R&D cost.. i agree with leman that it will probably be amortised.. many have been saying have to add back R&D cost so apple silicon is not anywhere cheaper than intel.. im curious about the fact that do intel not add in the cost of R&D into their chip when selling it to apple..? I will be more incline to believe that R&D cost will be amortised as it is a semiconductor pricing strategy..
And to be honest.. seeing that iphone se has boost apple quarter 2 earning.. it does make sense that option 1 is not the best route to go..
Last edited:
There are two ways to pay for the significant investment in Apple silicon. Keep machines expensive and recoup more cost per unit, OR sell a lot at a cheaper price and recoup costs over more units.
I think Apple wants (needs?) a bigger share of the pc market, and their assumed (we don't have released products yet) performance edge over Intel might be fleeting. If they have a temporary advantage over the competition, I'd think they'd want to get more market adoption at a reasonable price. I expect prices to come down a little, with still sweeter margins than they have in intel macs... and I expect Apple to closely watch other retailers as they experiment with discounts. Plus pandemic.
iPad Pro doesn’t have keyboard or trackpad. To get that costs $1098.
I don’t agree with that. Two entirely seperate scenarios, in two entirely seperate application areas (smartphones vs. Laptops, and Qualcomm vs. Intel).
There is a world of difference between the reasons for each. Apple went with its own designs for the iPhones because they couldn’t find what they wanted if the shelf. They wanted to add dedicated accelerators for various things like cameras, secure enclave, Face UD, as well as getting the fastest possible CPUs.
The AS SoCs for the Mac are being forced by other factors, the major one being Intel’s repeated failure to deliver on process improvements, and unavailability of volume (as was alluded to in last week’s Analyst’s/Earnings meeting). Add to that, the A series SoCs finally getting to the point where acceptable performance under MacOS was achievable. There was no real intent to reduce parts cost, it just happened out of the need to get away from Intel as a supplier (and that Intel charged Apple a very premium price for CPUs) due to non delivery on Intel’s own timeline, and the relentless improvement in A series SoCs.
The A series SoCs are more expensive than the Qualcom, or for that matter, Samsung Exynos type parts. But Apple gains some functionality that they want and is unavailable in off the shelf parts.
The Mac SoCs will be cheaper, overall, than the Intel parts. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, Intel was charging a lot of money for CPUs (I have heard at least $300) plus more for the accompanying chipset. No external chipset with an SoC. Secondly, the R&D for the basic building blocks, CPUs, GPUs and common accelerators will be spread ocer not just the 4-5M Macs sold each quarter, but 10M iPads, and 50M+ iPhones as well.
There will be a net BOM cost reduction, and more to be saved in manufacturing, from simpler and easier to manufacture logic boards, to reduced cooling requiremts (fewer fans) and maybe smaller/cheaper batteries in the laptops.
There is a world of difference between the reasons for each. Apple went with its own designs for the iPhones because they couldn’t find what they wanted if the shelf. They wanted to add dedicated accelerators for various things like cameras, secure enclave, Face UD, as well as getting the fastest possible CPUs.
The AS SoCs for the Mac are being forced by other factors, the major one being Intel’s repeated failure to deliver on process improvements, and unavailability of volume (as was alluded to in last week’s Analyst’s/Earnings meeting). Add to that, the A series SoCs finally getting to the point where acceptable performance under MacOS was achievable. There was no real intent to reduce parts cost, it just happened out of the need to get away from Intel as a supplier (and that Intel charged Apple a very premium price for CPUs) due to non delivery on Intel’s own timeline, and the relentless improvement in A series SoCs.
The A series SoCs are more expensive than the Qualcom, or for that matter, Samsung Exynos type parts. But Apple gains some functionality that they want and is unavailable in off the shelf parts.
The Mac SoCs will be cheaper, overall, than the Intel parts. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, Intel was charging a lot of money for CPUs (I have heard at least $300) plus more for the accompanying chipset. No external chipset with an SoC. Secondly, the R&D for the basic building blocks, CPUs, GPUs and common accelerators will be spread ocer not just the 4-5M Macs sold each quarter, but 10M iPads, and 50M+ iPhones as well.
There will be a net BOM cost reduction, and more to be saved in manufacturing, from simpler and easier to manufacture logic boards, to reduced cooling requiremts (fewer fans) and maybe smaller/cheaper batteries in the laptops.
Last edited:
iPad Pro has ProMotion display, camera array among other things. These are way more expensive than a keyboard and trackpad....
