Macbook 12" that uses iPhone chip?

[Digitalguy]

Lots of wrong assumptions in this thread.
The idea that a A series chip would be meaningfully cheaper than a M series is just not understanding how these chips are made.
Apple has shown that it can go as low as $499 for a Mac Mini M2 (education discount), which is a compelling entry point. I don't see them going any lower and the value is clearly already there. Laptops need higher (probably double) the price to maintain the high Apple margins without sacrificing quality.
The 12" MacBook (I have 2 of them, including a maxed out 2017 one) have never been about lower prices (Apple is not Microsoft, where smaller device = budget ones)
It was all about portabitily and that came at a premium, not at a discount.
I still think a M3 ultra-portable (2 pounds or lower) MacBook would have a market. It doesn't need to be 12", it could be 12.5" with less bezel or even 13" with a slightly larger body, as long as it's as light as the old 12". In the Windows world there are 13" laptops at that weight (including high end ones like my Thinkpad X1 nano).
I would expect such a device to be more expensive, not cheaper than the air.
It could easily replace the current pointless 13" MacBook pro with the old design.

 

[MacPoulet]

iPhone chips are cheaper to make and a bit lower end. Perfect for Macbook 12" and Mac nano.

The last 12” MacBook was a premium product placed higher than the Air.

And how much cheaper would an iPhone chip be over a base M2 or future M3? I don’t think it would be that much.

 

[sam_dean]

The last 12” MacBook was a premium product placed higher than the Air.

And how much cheaper would an iPhone chip be over a base M2 or future M3? I don’t think it would be that much.

Last Macbook 12" base model was priced $999.

When it was phased out MBA was pushed down to $999.

2022 Apple TV 4K based on 2021 iPhone 13 Pro 5nm chip sells for $149 for the 128GB model with Ethernet port.

Add more I/O ports for macOS & double memory & storage and it can be priced $299-399.

If M1 & M2 can be shoehorned to run iPadOS then no big deal to do so with the next iPhone chip to run macOS Ventura or later.

Back in the day Macbook 12" was positioned not to edit 4K video but the iPhones of late can easily do so on tinny tiny battery.

 

[Tagbert]

I think 12" laptops would just muddy the product line.

12" MBA (proposed)
13" MBA
13" MBP
14" MBP
15" MBA (rumored)
16" MBP

Seems overkill as it stands

I suspect that when the 15" MBA comes out, they will drop that 13" MBP. That would clean up that progression.

 

[sam_dean]

Bumping this up to say that Apple did use a iPhone chip-derived iPad Pro chip for the 2020 Developer Transition Kit.

So it is technically possible to run macOS on a iPhone chip to hopefully reach that form factor and price point.

 

[Tagbert]

Bumping this up to say that Apple did use a iPhone chip-derived iPad Pro chip for the 2020 Developer Transition Kit.

So it is technically possible to run macOS on a iPhone chip to hopefully reach that form factor and price point.

That A12z had 4 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores and 8 GPU cores. The A14 phone chip had 2 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores with 4 GPU cores. Yes, the A12z was derived from the A-series chips but it was beefed up significantly.

Since Apple has put the M1 in the iPad Air, I think they would be more likely to use an M# chip in a super-portable MacBook variant. I don’t see an advantage to using an A-series chip.

 

[sam_dean]

I don’t see an advantage to using an A-series chip.

Cost?

While being at the same process node as the latest iPhone?

 

[Tagbert]

Cost?

While being at the same process node as the latest iPhone?

I think the iPad Air is likely to be your best guide on what Apple might put in a minimal device and what it might charge as a minimum.

 

[leman]

Using an iPhone chip won’t be meaningfully cheaper. Unless it’s something like A12.

 

[senttoschool]

It's quite easy to calculate the cost of manufacturing an A series chip and M series chip.

Die-Per-Wafer Estimator

www.silicon-edge.co.uk

If we assume that the M1 is 12mm x 10mm, a single TSMC 5nm wafer yields 489 dies which would make the cost $34/SoC.

Given that M1 has 35% more transistors than the A14, the A14 would cost around $25. So the difference is roughly $9 between the M1 and the A14.

You can get a more accurate number by plugging in actual A14 die dimensions into the calculator but I doubt it'd be far off from the $9 difference.

So yea... it'd be pointless for Apple to spend engineering resources to make sure an A series chip can run macOS for a difference of $9. As a software engineer, it's almost never as simple as plug and play. macOS is probably optimized for an M1 chip and above. If you use an A series chip, you'd probably have to spend quite bit of time and resources to make sure it runs well and without bugs. It's simply not worth it for Apple to bother.

They literally gave the iPad Air an M1 chip. Why would they give a 12" Macbook an A series chip? Makes no sense.

The worst thing about making an A series run macOS is giving "Apple purists" ammunition to say all Apple products should be able to run macOS as a secondary OS. You're going to get silly internet people riled up about not being able to run macOS on their iPhone or cheap iPad.

 

[senttoschool]

3nm M3's a higher-end chip that uses more power as compared to a 3nm A17 if it ran macOS.

The purpose here is to create

- $699 Macbook 12" 8/256
- $299 Mac mini/nano 8/256 that uses a 2022 Apple TV 4K enclosure

They will not be as fast as a M3 but will run circles around any Intel Mac laptop from year 2006-2019.

You're mistaken. It typically costs more to build a smaller laptop than a larger one because you have to use smaller parts, which usually means more precision, lower power, and more space optimization.

This is why the Macbook 12" was marketed as a more premium device than the 13" Air.

Apple needs to make a Macbook SE based on the old Air design, not a 12" Macbook.

Remember that the 12" Macbook was released around the same time as the original iPad Pro in 2015. The iPad Pro vastly outsold the 12". Today, a 12" Macbook would do even worse because the iPad Pro/Air with a keyboard is just a much better device for what the original 12" Macbook was trying to do. Yes, you have some niche people out there who insist they need macOS and a 12" screen laptop. But these people will just have to use an iPad or buy a 13" Air.

So in conclusion, the cheapest Macbook can't be a 12". A 12" Macbook would not sell well today. If you want to make an inexpensive Macbook, use the old 13" Air as the chassis and make a Macbook SE.

 

[Zest28]

Huge difference in having having a powerful processor in a phone and being capable of being in a computer. Apple is a premium brand and having a low performing cheap computer would be a mistake. I also think the A17 will be a very poor option, because computer processors are capable of multitasking and the A series processors are not as equipped. The level of multitasking in the iphone and ipad are quite different then what a laptop can do.

Apple has proven over and over that they're not interested in growing marketshare by racing to the bottom. They're better off by providing a premium experience.

You are very wrong about that.

The 2018 iPad Pro was faster than the 13" MacBook Pro's at that time not only in single core but also in multi-core performance, which is what started Apple to think about putting iPad chips (which is what the M1 is) in the Mac's.

If a 2018 13" MacBook Pro can multi-task, so can the A12Z, A12X and M1 chips (which is basically the A14X from the iPad).

The A17 is fine really. The A16 even has a higher multi score than many of the past Intel MacBook Pro's.

 

[sam_dean]

You're mistaken. It typically costs more to build a smaller laptop than a larger one because you have to use smaller parts, which usually means more precision, lower power, and more space optimization.

This is why the Macbook 12" was marketed as a more premium device than the 13" Air.

Apple needs to make a Macbook SE based on the old Air design, not a 12" Macbook.

Remember that the 12" Macbook was released around the same time as the original iPad Pro in 2015. The iPad Pro vastly outsold the 12". Today, a 12" Macbook would do even worse because the iPad Pro/Air with a keyboard is just a much better device for what the original 12" Macbook was trying to do. Yes, you have some niche people out there who insist they need macOS and a 12" screen laptop. But these people will just have to use an iPad or buy a 13" Air.

So in conclusion, the cheapest Macbook can't be a 12". A 12" Macbook would not sell well today. If you want to make an inexpensive Macbook, use the old 13" Air as the chassis and make a Macbook SE.

I begrudgingly agree with you.

On a lighter note my brand new rugged SUPCASE arrived for my 2018 iPad Pro 11" A12X Bionic 7nm straight from China! I bought the same rugged case SKU as no other case sold today is better than this.

Just wish I took better care of my iPad by not allowing it to land display down on the tip of a metal faucet. Shattered the glass and a year later deactivated my Face ID. I tried to get an estimate to replace the glass and it costs as much as the latest cheapest iPad. I'll replace nearing 2028 when the final Security Update is sent.

 

[Ploki]

Original 2006-2012 Macbook 12" did that and it sold well.

Use case for such devices is not to edit multiple streams of 8K 120fps HDR video and expect 24 hours of battery life.

Wasn't 2006-2012 without any 12"?
There was a powerbook G4 12" and the MacBook 12" available 2015-2017.

 

[senttoschool]

I begrudgingly agree with you.

I get it. Some people loved their 12" Macbook and swear by it.

I'm in a similar boat with iPhones. I swear by the iPhone Mini even though it sells poorly.

 

[sam_dean]

The worst thing about making an A series run macOS is giving "Apple purists" ammunition to say all Apple products should be able to run macOS as a secondary OS. You're going to get silly internet people riled up about not being able to run macOS on their iPhone or cheap iPad.

Really?

My wish to run macOS on A chips can make conspiracy theorists who think I'm a misogynistic domestic terrorist because I asked volunteers to answer a poll which generation they belong to go bat sh_it crazy?

🤔🤔🤔

How about not changing the M1 chip design & layout but shrinking it from 5nm to 3nm? Performance should be ~100% of the 5nm but at ~30% die area smaller & ~30% of the power consumption?

 

[Ploki]

I get it. Some people loved their 12" Macbook and swear by it.

I'm in a similar boat with iPhones. I swear by the iPhone Mini even though it sells poorly.

Me but iPad Mini
with horrendous upgrade cycles

 

[senttoschool]

Me but iPad Mini
with horrendous upgrade cycles

What I would give to get an iPhone Mini Pro.

 

[sam_dean]

Wasn't 2006-2012 without any 12"?
There was a powerbook G4 12" and the MacBook 12" available 2015-2017.

You are correct. I was thinking of the 2015-2017 Macbook 12" 14nm

I was hoping that 2023 A17 Bionic 3nm could be shoehorned into one and give near 24hr battery life. Display bezel is reduced to <5mm so the Macbook becomes physically smaller and yet the display is still 12".

Powerful enough to do very basic 4K resolution editing.

Price point I wanted it to target was $699 so Mac marketshare expands beyond the top 20% to 30%?

 

[leman]

Powerful enough to do very basic 4K resolution editing.

Price point I wanted it to target was $699 so Mac marketshare expands beyond the top 20% to 30%?

The cost to manufacture an A-series chip and an M-series chip probably differ by less than $40. How do you imagine going from $999 to $699? And why would Apple want to increase the marketshare on these conditions? They want users who are willing to pay money for software and gadgets.

 

[senttoschool]

The cost to manufacture an A-series chip and an M-series chip probably differ by less than $40.

My rough estimate is $9 difference.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macbook-12-that-uses-iphone-chip.2377765/post-31961527

 

[Ploki]

I doubt apple will offer a sub 999$ laptop.

It could also eat into their iPad sales the way they're marketing it now.

 

[senttoschool]

Price point I wanted it to target was $699 so Mac marketshare expands beyond the top 20% to 30%?

$699 is not possible. Again, it'd cost more to make a 12" Macbook than a 13" Macbook Air due to smaller component requirements.

I'm with you. I think Apple should release an inexpensive, sub $900 Macbook.

I've advocated for a $750 Macbook SE based on the 13" M1 MacBook Air chassis since 2020. Check my post history. Now that inflation is so high, I think a Macbook SE for $850 - $899 is more reasonable in 2023 and beyond.

 

[thenewperson]

You're going to get silly internet people riled up about not being able to run macOS on their iPhone or cheap iPad.

The most annoying people in the Apple community right now.

 

[ArkSingularity]

The cost to manufacture an A-series chip and an M-series chip probably differ by less than $40. How do you imagine going from $999 to $699? And why would Apple want to increase the marketshare on these conditions? They want users who are willing to pay money for software and gadgets.

Yea, if they were to enter the laptop market at a $699 price point, they'd probably have to use the old 2017-style MacBook Air shell to avoid cannibalizing their existing MacBook Air line. I'm not really sure it'd actually expand market share much given that the M1 MacBook Air can already be found easily for $799 on a good sale.