Mixed feelings about the M1

[GMShadow]

I'm not sure why you expected big changes on a CPU transition.

The MacBook Pros looked nearly identical to the PowerBooks they replaced.
The iMacs were the same.
The Mac Pro was basically the same.

The iBook > MacBook transition was as much 'change' as you saw, and it wasn't *that* different.

It wasn't until two years later that Apple started doing more serious chassis (unibody) or design (MBA) changes.

 

[MauiPa]

"Apple is not willing to make a third MacBook Pro size, for instance". 13, 14, 16.

"When Apple started making its own chips, I thought cellular connectivity in Macs would be a given." Had a bit of trouble there, yah. and it seems the mucked up patent system is a mess for cellular

"keeping the MacBook Air and the low-end MacBook Pro as separate lines of products. This makes zero sense for me, and it a testament of Apple's reluctance to change its line-up." MBA really skinny, lower end speakers, displays, passive cooling. MBP: better display, better speakers, active cooling, longer battery life. Makes perfect sense. some people really care about the few hundred dollars difference

 

[MauiPa]

Mac mini is a special product. If you look at Apple's marketing message, the Mac mini is targeted at developers, not just consumers. As a result, Apple still needs to carry the old product for that group. The M1 isn't better in all situations either: only 2 external monitors and 2 TB ports.

2 external monitors and an airplay monitor

 

[ouimetnick]

I am sure that the products are a commercial success, and that they have helped Apple reach a $3 trillion market cap. This is not the point.

I just have a personal feeling, which may or may not be shared by others, that the structure of the products line-up did not change after the transition to M1. Just look:

MacBook Air ------------------------------> M1 MacBook Air
Low-end 13-inch MacBook Pro ----------> M1 MacBook Pro
High-end 13-inch MacBook Pro ---------> 14-inch M1 Pro/Max MacBook Pro
16-inch MacBook Pro --------------------> 16-inch M1 Pro/Max MacBook Pro
Low-end Mac mini ------------------------> M1 Mac Mini
High-end Mac mini -----------------------> Yet to be released
21.5-inch iMac ----------------------------> 24-inch M1 iMac
27-inch iMac ------------------------------> Yet to be released
Mac Pro ------------------------------------> Yet to be released

So far, the products are evolutionary, not revolutionary as the transition to M1 might allow. Apple just made a beefed-up version of each product. It did not create a new product line.

Some customers went nuts about the new MacBook Pro. Apple just gave users what they wanted. That is great but not revolutionary. The MacBook Pro is a great laptop, but it looks like many others. It has the M1 Pro/Max, which is great, and unique to Apple. MiniLED, ProMotion, great sound system: everything is fine but nothing out of the expected.

I hope it changes in the future.

Apple could make a very thin and light laptop with 5G capability. Apple will eventually sort out issues with Qualcomm. Why can't it fight fiercely with Epic, Samsung, and even the FBI, to protect its "values" (not its money), but will not face Qualcomm?

Apple could make a 16-inch MacBook Air. An 18-inch MacBook Pro. A convertible. Something different instead of keeping the very same line-up and beefing it up.

Tim Cook's Apple did not take any risks in this respect, did not shake up things. Played safe.

During Tim Cook's tenure, other companies tried and made mistakes in respect to their computers. But at least they tried. Microsoft released the Surface Pro, the Surface Book, the Surface Studio, and the alcantara Surface Laptop. ASUS made dual-screen laptops. LG made its Gram line of extremely thin-and-light laptops of varied sizes. Some of these products were a fiasco, but some were successful. At least these companies are not playing safe.

Tim Cook's boldest moves were to release the retina MacBook Pros and the cylindrical Mac Pro. Both of which were probably designed during Steve Jobs' era. Jobs took a lot of risks during his time: the iMac, the MacBook Air, the Mac mini, the Mac Cube. Those computers were different from everything else that came before them and really left the past behind.

Tim Cook's Apple does not shake up the line-up not even when it has the best and most capable processor in the industry. What happened to the whole Apple's "Think Different" philosophy? That for me is disappointing.

Steve Jobs's Apple did not take any risks in this respect, did not shake up things. Played safe... not sure why you think Jobs would have done anything differently with the M1 transition here. Once everything is moved over, you'll probably see major redesigns in the future if the Intel transition is anything to go by.

 

[skaertus]

"Apple is not willing to make a third MacBook Pro size, for instance". 13, 14, 16.

"When Apple started making its own chips, I thought cellular connectivity in Macs would be a given." Had a bit of trouble there, yah. and it seems the mucked up patent system is a mess for cellular

"keeping the MacBook Air and the low-end MacBook Pro as separate lines of products. This makes zero sense for me, and it a testament of Apple's reluctance to change its line-up." MBA really skinny, lower end speakers, displays, passive cooling. MBP: better display, better speakers, active cooling, longer battery life. Makes perfect sense. some people really care about the few hundred dollars difference

It makes sense having the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro as different lines. What it does not make sense is having the current 13-inch models of each, which are so similar when equipped with the M1. The 14-inch model is a whole different story.

As for the sizes, Apple has not yet updated the MacBook Air and low-end Pro. The 13-inch design is five years old now. Apple may replace it with a 14-inch model, which it will probably do.

 

[skaertus]

Steve Jobs's Apple did not take any risks in this respect, did not shake up things. Played safe... not sure why you think Jobs would have done anything differently with the M1 transition here. Once everything is moved over, you'll probably see major redesigns in the future if the Intel transition is anything to go by.

Steve Jobs' Apple launched the MacBook Air, which was a thin-and-light design that did not fit in any existing category.

It also launched the iPad, a cheaper device that could well cannibalize the Mac.

Tim Cook's Apple plays safe. It does not run the risk of cannibalization. It launches products in existing categories and now and then makes an upscale version (iPad Pro, iPhone Pro, iMac Pro), to make the customer spend more.

I am not saying it is the wrong approach. It is not. Tim Cook's Apple is being incredibly successful. It is just that I personally expected more from the products equipped with such a revolutionary chip.

 

[skaertus]

NO! They name is dead with Mac Pro now that might be resigned a little smaller!

I still think the iMac Pro may be revived. Tim Cook's Apple loves to upsell everything. It will not lose the chance to charge a few bucks more by adding a Pro to the iMac name.

 

[dtm84]

Putting faster NVMe drives in all the computers would practically result in faster "feel" for 99% of users compared with a CPU/GPU upgrade.

 

[nastysailboat]

Me every time I see these posts

 

[darngooddesign]

Tim Cook's Apple loves to upsell everything...

So did Steve Jobs' Apple.

 

[DHagan4755]

There is some merit to the disillusionment, but by and large, it's inside baseball. To the average consumer, which is about 90% of people, they don't care. Sure, a snazzy new friendly, modernized design will be alluring to all of us. And it's coming. It's gonna be great. But for crying out loud, there's no need to sulk about the product lineup after transitioning to M1 when you look on the other side of the fence: Dell with its new XPS 13 Plus "touch capacitive function row," lack of headphone jack, or as-of-yet to be determined borderless trackpad; or MSI's MacBook Pro Max-killer...which is over an inch thick, 6lbs, has a 1080p screen, not to mention its battery life or performance while on battery. Do we talk about Samsung's new 14.6" tablet (with a notch!) or S22 phones? So to close this post out, we can get a little bored when we're zoomed into the the day-to-day. When it doubt, zoom out... as they say. Don't sweat the small stuff. It's all small stuff.

 

[Stevenyo]

A games console doesn‘t have to compete with Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5 to be successful, the Switch and the Wii were for their time significantly underpowered.

What Apple thrives on is unifying device categories. In the Apple TV they have one of the most expensive streaming boxes which struggles to justify its price compared to a Firestick or a Chromecast. By adding an M1 they could expand its range, without changing the price much, and have an entry into new markets. Makes a lot of sense to me.

The switch and Wii were/are successful due to the games the carry/carried. Nothing Apple can do hardware wise will bring Zelda and Mario to Apple TV (which, by the way, is already more powerful than the switch even with the current a12 SoC).

An M1 AppleTV would essentially be a slightly neutered Mac Mini, and would have to sell for north of $400, which puts it firmly in "current gen console" price range, all with performance that lands between the PS4/Xbone and PS4 Pro/ XoneX. What advantage would that cost doubling give if the only games will still be some iOS titles?

No one will ever buy an AppleTV without owning another Apple Device, likely at least an iPhone, which can play more games with better performance, and can airplay them to most TVs using the built in SmartTV hardware.

Apple's TV ambitions are mostly fulfilled through the AppleTV app that runs on almost every TV sold today out of the box. Apple's gaming ambitions are mostly fulfilled by selling you a high margin iPhone every couple years, letting you get hooked on candy crush, and collecting a cut of every extra life or whatever else you buy.

This might not be ideal or fun to 'serious' gamers, but it's seriously lucrative, so much so that mobile gaming rakes in more revenue than consoles, the lion's share of which passes through Apple and the App Store.

Where's the business case to invest heavily in getting AAA developers interested in your platform, spending R&D resources on developing a low to no margin console, etc. All just to enter a shrinking portion of the gaming market that is already smaller than the higher margin mobile gaming sector you already dominate?

If you want an M1 powered console, buy a base Mac Mini, install steam and run Big Picture mode. That's as close as you're going to get, for better or worse.

 

[mr_roboto]

So far, the products are evolutionary, not revolutionary as the transition to M1 might allow. Apple just made a beefed-up version of each product. It did not create a new product line.

I disagree that the M1 products aren't revolutionary. Performance and power efficiency are legitimate revolutions no matter how much you yearn for ill-defined revolutions you can't even fully describe.

The M1 Air is an especially stark contrast to its predecessor. They deleted the fan, yet in many cases it comes out ahead of a 16" Intel i9 MBP. It still has limits, but it truly redefined what you can do in a thin 3 pound computer.

Apple could make a very thin and light laptop with 5G capability. Apple will eventually sort out issues with Qualcomm. Why can't it fight fiercely with Epic, Samsung, and even the FBI, to protect its "values" (not its money), but will not face Qualcomm?

5G seems to be your one and only real concrete idea of how M1 could have revolutionized things, but the thing is, M1 has nothing to do with 5G. Apple did not have an internal cellular modem division when they started the M1 project. They have one now (acquired Intel's cellular radio division), but IMO we're not likely to see results for at least another year or two.

Most people don't actually need a cell modem integrated into their laptop either. Laptops are not frequently used in places where there isn't WiFi.

 

[JouniS]

But for crying out loud, there's no need to sulk about the product lineup after transitioning to M1 when you look on the other side of the fence: Dell with its new XPS 13 Plus "touch capacitive function row," lack of headphone jack, or as-of-yet to be determined borderless trackpad; or MSI's MacBook Pro Max-killer...which is over an inch thick, 6lbs, has a 1080p screen, not to mention its battery life or performance while on battery. Do we talk about Samsung's new 14.6" tablet (with a notch!) or S22 phones?

For premium laptops, Apple has no real competitors. With other hardware, the situation looks different.

Desktop Macs have long been weird compromises. Apple's obsession with thinness has made them noisier and less capable than the alternatives. Due to their questionable design practices, desktop Macs typically have only a few ports, and even those are hidden away in difficult-to-reach places. I come from a background where design is seen as a bridge between the engineering and artistic aspects of products. From that point of view, the people who design desktop Macs are not very good at design.

Phones reached the limits of their form factor a few years ago. They were powerful enough for what I used them for and had all the features I needed. Their tiny screens and touch screen UIs had become the limiting factors. My previous phone was a $300 Android, because flagship phones no longer offered anything of value beyond that. And I only replaced it because it stopped receiving security updates after 3 years. Even today, flagship phones are not really better than a $300 Android from 2018. (Except perhaps as hammers. Today's flagship phones are really heavy.)

I don't know anything about tablets, as I've never found a reason to buy one.

 

[Malus120]

Good to see people posting reasonable, rationale critiques of the roadmap. Honestly, even as someone who bought and loves the 14" MBP, I feel the same.

When the transition to Apple Silicon was first announced one of my biggest worries wasn't whether Apple would be able to design a product as fast or faster than "Intel," in 2020, it was whether or not Apple could truly iterate on the same timeline as the now very competitive x86 AND give the Mac the attention it needs to better compete.

In terms of iteration they've done ok. I definitely think they could've gone "wider" for the M1 Pro/Max (more cores) and I would've liked to see an M2 (pro/Max) already, but at the same time those designs (Pro/Max) definitely blew my expectations out of the water for the memory bandwidth/GPU/media encoders etc, so I think they're doing ok (solid B+)

But on the "giving the Mac the attention it needs to compete" side of things I'm less impressed. Putting the M1 in the 24" iMac was... less than impressive. The Mac Mini and Air not being refreshed for possibly up to 24 months is... concerning... The MBP is just flat out amazing (despite everyone wanting to whine about Alder Lake being more performant using 2x the power...,) but I'm not happy to see the Mac consistently one generation/One year (+) behind in terms of microarchitecture.

Finally in terms of design, I'm not sure we see eye to eye on what Apple should be doing but I'll agree that Steve Jobs would be doing something more... unique... than what Tim has chosen to do.

 

[Tagbert]

If the intention were to keep simple product lines, Apple could make fewer versions of the iPad. There is 10.2-inch budget iPad, 8.3-inch iPad mini, 10.9-inch iPad Air, 11-inch iPad Pro, and 12.9-inch iPad Pro. That is complicated. Including the M1 inside an iPad would not even be a possibility if Tim Cook's Apple did not have the urge to upsell everything.

As for licensing, I suppose Apple could make its own modems. It is a market too big for Qualcomm to navigate alone.

I don’t know that there is an intention to keep the product lines simple. Yes, early on Steve Jobs made a big deal about simplifying the Mac product line. That was when Mac sales were a much smaller market and when Apple was financially strapped. As the market for a product grows, you can elect to better meet the varied needs of customers by segmenting that market to match the customers. It is possible to overdue that, but when you get it right, you end up with more sales because of the different models. Right now, the iPad Air and 11” Pro are a little too close in some ways, but they sell at different price points and I can tell you as an 11” Pro user, I would not be satisfied with the Air And the 12.9” Pro is just too damn big. Once Apple puts the M1 in the 11” and upgrades the screen, it will again be enough better than the Air to be a pro segment model.

In the Mac line, the new models fit into a well defined product line. The Air and the 13” MBP are a little awkward since they are legacy machines in a lot of ways. I think once we get past the redesigns, it will make more sense at that lower end.

 

[Tagbert]

Take the Mac mini for instance.

Apple released the M1 Mac mini to replace the lower-end versions. And the high-end Intel Mac mini is still for sale up to this day. When Apple released the M1, I supposed it would reset its products line-ups. What sense does it make to have Mac minis equipped with different processors if the intention is to simplify? Apple instead kept its line-up intact.

That Intel version is an obvious transition model. The M1 cannot support the amount of RAM that that Intel Mini can do. They can’t get rid of that one until they can bring the M1 Pro/Max chips to the Mini. Same with the Intel 27” iMac and the Map Pro. They haven’t transition, yet.

Remember, right now all of Apples models are in transition. Many of them don’t fit together in a clear, simple product line because they represent different generations of products. This will make a lot more sense by the end of this year.

 

[exoticSpice]

The Mac Mini and Air not being refreshed for possibly up to 24 months is... concernin

Next refresh is coming later this year ie october or november.

 

[Tagbert]

They still might call it "iMac Pro" though, no?

That seems very likely from the way Apple has handled the MBP and iPhone lines

 

[Malus120]

Next refresh is coming later this year ie october or november.

Exactly and that's roughly a 24 month upgrade cycle which is IMHO less than ideal. I'm not saying it has to be every 12 months (although if i'm being honest I do think that should be the target), but at the very least I think these upgrades should really be coming in March/April/May, not Q4...
Thankfully for Apple, the M1's efficiency is still untouchable in that product class but I can't help but feel like they're giving the competition far too much time to catch up when they should be working on extending their lead.

 

[skaertus]

Good to see people posting reasonable, rationale critiques of the roadmap. Honestly, even as someone who bought and loves the 14" MBP, I feel the same.

When the transition to Apple Silicon was first announced one of my biggest worries wasn't whether Apple would be able to design a product as fast or faster than "Intel," in 2020, it was whether or not Apple could truly iterate on the same timeline as the now very competitive x86 AND give the Mac the attention it needs to better compete.

In terms of iteration they've done ok. I definitely think they could've gone "wider" for the M1 Pro/Max (more cores) and I would've liked to see an M2 (pro/Max) already, but at the same time those designs (Pro/Max) definitely blew my expectations out of the water for the memory bandwidth/GPU/media encoders etc, so I think they're doing ok (solid B+)

But on the "giving the Mac the attention it needs to compete" side of things I'm less impressed. Putting the M1 in the 24" iMac was... less than impressive. The Mac Mini and Air not being refreshed for possibly up to 24 months is... concerning... The MBP is just flat out amazing (despite everyone wanting to whine about Alder Lake being more performant using 2x the power...,) but I'm not happy to see the Mac consistently one generation/One year (+) behind in terms of microarchitecture.

Finally in terms of design, I'm not sure we see eye to eye on what Apple should be doing but I'll agree that Steve Jobs would be doing something more... unique... than what Tim has chosen to do.

Agreed.

I suppose the M1 launch in November 2020 was so impressive that I had the feeling that a real revolution was coming. And it was not. The 24-inch iMac was a leap in terms of design, but not of performance (as it kept the same M1 we had already seen). The new MacBook Pros brought additional performance but were conservative in terms of design choices.

And we are yet to see the M2. Hopefully, the chip shortage is to blame (so it is a one-off delay).

 

[skaertus]

Exactly and that's roughly a 24 month upgrade cycle which is IMHO less than ideal. I'm not saying it has to be every 12 months (although if i'm being honest I do think that should be the target), but at the very least I think these upgrades should really be coming in March/April/May, not Q4...
Thankfully for Apple, the M1's efficiency is still untouchable in that product class but I can't help but feel like they're giving the competition far too much time to catch up when they should be working on extending their lead.

A 24-month upgrade cycle is far from ideal from a consumer perspective. When I go shop for a laptop, I want the latest and the greatest.

For instance, I would never buy the current M1 MacBook Air, unless it is heavily discounted. Performance-wise, it is great. However, its design has been superseded by other Apple models and by competitors.

(This is another reason I do not look forward to "future-proofing" my devices. I know Apple or some other manufacturer will come with a brand-new must-have feature every other year and I will not stick with an expensive device I bought three years earlier just because I made the investment to make it "future-proof".)

 

[skaertus]

I don’t know that there is an intention to keep the product lines simple. Yes, early on Steve Jobs made a big deal about simplifying the Mac product line. That was when Mac sales were a much smaller market and when Apple was financially strapped. As the market for a product grows, you can elect to better meet the varied needs of customers by segmenting that market to match the customers. It is possible to overdue that, but when you get it right, you end up with more sales because of the different models. Right now, the iPad Air and 11” Pro are a little too close in some ways, but they sell at different price points and I can tell you as an 11” Pro user, I would not be satisfied with the Air And the 12.9” Pro is just too damn big. Once Apple puts the M1 in the 11” and upgrades the screen, it will again be enough better than the Air to be a pro segment model.

In the Mac line, the new models fit into a well defined product line. The Air and the 13” MBP are a little awkward since they are legacy machines in a lot of ways. I think once we get past the redesigns, it will make more sense at that lower end.

That Intel version is an obvious transition model. The M1 cannot support the amount of RAM that that Intel Mini can do. They can’t get rid of that one until they can bring the M1 Pro/Max chips to the Mini. Same with the Intel 27” iMac and the Map Pro. They haven’t transition, yet.

Remember, right now all of Apples models are in transition. Many of them don’t fit together in a clear, simple product line because they represent different generations of products. This will make a lot more sense by the end of this year.

I hope it does make sense.

I once had both a 13-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar and a 13-inch Retina MacBook Air, both with Intel processors. They had similar designs. In this respect, the Air was lighter, and the Pro had a brighter screen. But the real difference was in performance: the Pro blew the Air away, as the processor and the disk were far faster. And there was the TouchBar, of course, but that is now a goner.

So, there was some rationale in differentiating the 13-inch Pro and the Air in the Intel era. One is faster and the other is lighter. The M1 blew these differences away. Now, the 13-inch Pro and the Air have the same performance, the differences being that one is slightly heavier and has a brighter screen. These differences do not justify having two different models, especially in a lean line-up such as Apple's (I suppose not even Dell or Lenovo keep two laptops with such small differences).

It could make sense for Apple (i) merging the Air and the 13-inch Pro into one product or (ii) offering a low-end 14-inch Pro with the M2 and an Air with a thinner design. I still think it would be best if Apple could replace these models for an Air with two sizes (a 14 and a 16-inch). I do not think Apple would do this, but it would be a slightly bolder move and would please many customers who are on the market for larger laptops and do not want or need to spend a small fortune on a high-end über-fast model.

 

[skaertus]

So did Steve Jobs' Apple.

Yes, he definitely did. But Tim Cook does that more ostensibly. He even created a "Max" moniker to justify a higher-end than the high-end Pro. I would not be surprised if the next Mac Pro is divided into a Mac Pro and a Mac Max...

 

[darngooddesign]

Yes, he definitely did. But Tim Cook does that more ostensibly. He even created a "Max" moniker to justify a higher-end than the high-end Pro. I would not be surprised if the next Mac Pro is divided into a Mac Pro and a Mac Max...

Max is only used on the phones to denote the largest size and the SoCs to denote the greatest performance, notice how there is no iPad Pro Max, despite those being Tim Cook's products. Then again, if you look at Intel and AMD CPUs and GPUs, there are all kinds of performance specific names; for example Threadripper, which admittedly sounds a lot cooler than M1-Max.

A better question is why you think that Tim Cook is naming its products instead of his letting the experts that Apple hired do the naming, and why this bothers you in a way that Steve Jobs doing the same thing doesn't.