A) Based on the strength of this specific citation and my research about how long my 2012 iMac was supported from November 2012 with macOS 10.8 to November 2020 with macOS 10.15 I will concede that it is possible that macOS support for select Intel Macs will lengthen from a conservative 2024 to the year 2028 for desktops like the 2020 iMac. Thank you for giving am uncharacteristically better source of information.
?
B) The
Tim Cook doctrine makes it possible that the chips suitable to replace the remaining Intel Macs have finished with their R&D stage by now. At this point it time they're lined up for QC & stress testing before mass production is to commence in the first weeks of 2021. Manufacturing of billions of items is always done efficiently on a schedule to increase utility of bought capacity at near 100%
iPhone chips do not manifest itself out of the ether. It takes years of R&D before it's ready for sale. As such any other product follows the the same method. The R&D also includes the manufacturing process for the design targets of the chips. Like say the 5nm process employed on the M1. Perfecting 5nm process took years to R&D, test and mass produce the machines to manufacture the chips. That's baked into the total end to end R&D time. If you are implying by R&D as the time Apple takes to manufacture the chips then yes, they can make it quickly once all parts of the manufacturing and supply chain are setup and complete.
Apple planned the transition from Intel to Apple Silicon earlier than last year. I've seen rumours about this transition as early as 2017.
Look, for Apple to complete this transition by June, they need to have chips for EVERY MAC ready to go. Currently, they only have a chip that maxes out at 16GB of RAM and Two Thunderbolt 3 ports. If they didn't have those limitations, we would've seen an initial Apple Silicon Mac launch similar to the initial Intel Mac launch (with iMacs and the larger MacBook Pros, rather than the low-end). If those weren't limitations, we would've seen a COMPLETE replacement of the Mac mini, rather than a partial one, and the Apple Silicon 13" MacBook Pro that came out would've been the 4-port version and not the 2-port version. Clearly, Apple isn't there yet. And they're not going to magically get there that soon. This transition is going to be two years.
Also, of note, Steve Jobs was mum on the "two years estimate" early into the PowerPC to Intel transition, because he knew he was going to do it in less. Tim Cook and everyone has REPEATEDLY reiterated THIS MONTH ALONE that it'll be a two-year transition.
M1 chip is being used with the ~80% of all Macs shipped. From a supply chain, finance, sales and business point of view its release, manufacture and distribute is the least complicated and the most profitable to execute a product launch this way.
Where do you figure it is 80% of all Macs shipped? Show me your citations, bro.
Think of the M1 as the "Core i3 of Apple chips". Apple is only selling "Core i3" Macs as it represents ~80% of all Macs shipped. The performance improvement is so astonishing people get confused and think this is the only Apple Silicon chip to ever be made.
First off, Apple didn't use the Core i3 often. On this year's last Intel MacBook Air, on the 2018 Mac mini, and then not since the 2010 iMacs. So, I'm not sure where you even get that figure. Similarly, the M1 is on two and a half of Apple's nine Mac product lines (MacBook Air, 2-port 13" MacBook Pro, 4-port 13" MacBook Pro, 16" MacBook Pro, Mac mini, 21.5" iMac, 27" iMac, iMac Pro, Mac Pro). That's not to say that the M1 Macs aren't probably outselling the remaining lower-end Intel Macs right now, but I have no freakin' clue where you get "~80%" from.
M1 is not the "best it can do right now" but the M1 is the collective focus of all of the Mac supply chain.
M1 is the best that they can put out right now, otherwise, they would've put out an SoC that could completely replace the Intel Mac mini rather than the confusing partial replacement that they've done now. There is no other explanation as to why the M1 Mac mini lacks features that are marquee for the Intel Mac mini.
"Early 2021" will debut the "Core i7 of Apple Chips" (following Apple's product naming conventions it may be called the M1X) that is suitable for four TB4/USB4 port Mac mini and 13", MBP 16", iMac 21.5"/27" make up ~19% of all Macs shipped. Mac event scheduled within Jan-Apr 2021 will introduce it.
"Mid 2021" will debut "Xeon of Apple chips" (following Apple's product naming conventions it may be called the M1Z). This will be used on ~1% of all Macs sold that are the iMac Pro and Mac Pro and as such they're suitable to debut by WWDC 2021 in June.
That's a more aggressive timeline than any credible source is predicting. It's not going to happen; and unless you show me proof that you have insider information, it's just wishful thinking on your part.
C) Apple will not meet sales targets if they will not finish the transition in less than 2 years.
That's simply not true. The average user doesn't care about what processor is in their Mac. Those that do are either fine being an early adopter (especially when the initial offerings are so low-end and affordable to go testing with) or need to wait for more software titles to make the jump (Rosetta 2 isn't working for every x86-64 based macOS application so far...).
People who still need x86 will not be significant number to service further. That is why the $1,099 2018 Intel Mac mini 2020, $1,799 & $1,999 Intel MBP 13" are still being sold. Buy it while stocks are available.
They're still being sold because there isn't an Apple Silicon replacement out yet. This is why the Intel MacBook Air is discontinued. This is also why the Intel 2-port 13" MacBook Pro is also discontinued, while the Intel 4-port 13" MacBook Pro still exists. This is also why only one standard model of the Mac mini is discontinued where the higher-end options still exist. Because Apple doesn't have replacements ready to sell us yet. If they did, they'd have discontinued those models too.
Who would buy a slower & older $1,799 MBP 13" when there's faster & newer $1,299 MBP 13"?
THOSE THAT STILL NEED FULL COMPATIBILITY RIGHT NOW! Also users of Boot Camp. Also users of x86 versions of VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop that need to virtualize other x86 operating systems rather than the comparably small number of ARM64 OSes that are out there.
"Practical" is another word for "cheap" or "easy".
Is English not YOUR first language? Because that's NOT what "practical" means on my planet.
If Apple wants to beat estimate then it must be completed by WWDC 2021. If they're running a charity for the feelings of people they'll make it 2 years.
Apple doesn't want to beat estimates for the sake of doing so. Tim Cook said two years. The advancements of their technology are showing that it will be a two-year transition. Reliable supply chain leakers are also saying two years. Reliable analysts are saying two years. It's going to be two years. That's not charity. That's the nature of this particular hardware transition, which, again, is not the same as the last hardware transition.
D) Apple has the manpower and R&D money to do everything feature by feature. It's $2 trillion company for heaven's sake!
Yes, and the work that they've done to go from A12X to M1 in two short years is insanely great. But they need to go further to complete the transition and they're clearly not there now.
If Apple started in 2017 would that be enough for your "crap takes time to engineer"?
They started earlier. They started when the A10 Fusion was the up and coming SoC. The A10 Fusion wasn't fit to replace the Intel CPU outright (beyond being the basis for the T2 chip). It wasn't until A12X that we were finally faster than every Intel MacBook Air, every 13" MacBook Pro, most Mac minis, most 15" MacBook Pros, and most iMacs. That was enough to get us to M1 today. And, don't get me wrong, M1 is very impressive. But it's not where they need it to be to replace the Intel 16" MacBook Pro, the Intel 27" iMac (let alone any higher-end Mac desktop). Hell, it's not even enough for Apple to replace the Ice Lake 4-port 13" MacBook Pro right now (as evidenced by the fact that machine is still being sold with no successor due out anytime soon). One more time: It's. Going. To. Be. A. Two. Year. Transition.
Business smaller than Apple release products on a schedule. Tim Cook did not wake up 3 days before WWDC 2020 with a revelation of iPhone chips in Macs. That has been on the back burner for at least 3 years.
The Mac is not released on a set schedule. The only Apple products that are released on a schedule are macOS, iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, watchOS, the Apple Watch, and the iPhone. Everything else comes out when Apple feels like it.
Furthermore, the fact that Apple has been planning this transition for many years DOESN'T preclude that each advancement of the SoC requires time. Nor does it mean that Apple has been engineering all of its flavors of their Mac SoCs to launch within the same span of a year. That's not how it works.
To scale it down for non-supply chain types think of Apple Silicon chip R&D as going to University. It takes a few years to learn study and get tested each semester until you graduate upon the completion of your thesis. Typical college course takes 4 years before graduating? Like product R&D it takes a similar amount of time. Remember, this is an analogy or better yet a metaphor.
Okay, using your analogy: Apple just took its first lower division class for the major. Apple needs to take more classes to unlock the upper division classes for the major, and it needs to do all of that before it can graduate from transition university. The M1 Macs are those lower division classes. Engineering the way to that point and past it took time. Yes, while they were releasing the M1 Macs, they are also working on the SoCs for the higher-end Macs. But they're not just going to launch them that fast. They need to take and pass those classes to graduate to the upper division classes.
The chips are ready by now. They're just waiting for their turn to get manufactured. These things gets scheduled because any idle time in manufacturing is cost that eats into margins.
"Waiting for their turn"? That's not how manufacturing works. Go work in a product based industry; you'll learn very quickly that's not how manufacturing of any good works. If their higher-end SoCs were ready for production, they'd be in production by now. They're not waiting for "their turn to be produced".
Have you considered that Apple has not disclosed future chips as it would kill sales of the current model and give the competition advanced warning on Apple's confidential road map?
Yes. Though, I don't understand what that has to do with anything. We're debating this on the forums section of one of the major Mac rumor/news sites. Most of the news on these sites pertaining to a rumor ends up coming true (hence Apple Silicon 13" MacBook Pro rumors being correct pretty much from the first day they were discussed during WWDC20). There is nothing to suggest that what you are predicting will come to pass.
The transition will be as short as 210 days or faster.
How much do you want to bet that will be the case? (Don't take the bet; it's not going to happen.)
Tim Cook aint no fool. The bottomline matters. Longer transition will negatively impact Apple's Mac business.
It won't. Because apps are going to take even longer than that to be native and those on the high end are usually the least keen to be early adopters (unless the reason they're on the high end is that they're enthusiasts/tinkerers).
D) M1 chip on the MBA and MBP are virtually identical. The difference in charger has more to do with different displays they have that use varying amounts of power, having a heat sink fan, a larger battery and other components that consumes more power than the MBA. See the reason why MBA has 18 hr battery life than MBA has 20 hr battery life
Nope. The wattage of the CPUs are different. See Apple's performance per watt graph. The Air uses 10W chips. The 2-port 13" Pro and Mac mini both do not. It's not the same M1. It's DAMN close. But not the same.
The point I was making between the difference of chip TDP is that the iMac, MacBook Pro 16", and four TB4/USB4 port MacBook Pro 13"and Mac mini will require a chip with more than 15W TDP. For example iMac 27" used a Core i9 with a 125W TDP. Would the M1 with less than 15W be suitable even if it nearly matches the absolute performance of that iMac?
That's not how Apple is going to play it. Again, they tip their hand with that graph. There are also interviews with Craig and Johny that all but outright state as much. That's why the M1 based Mac mini and 2-port 13" MacBook Pro have fans where the Air does not.
E) Intel and AMD will not be relevant on macOS as early as 2028. Lengthened it in light of the 8 years possible software update support of the 2020 iMac.
2028 is on the REALLY early side. You forget that even on a Mac's final supported release of macOS, Apple tends to provide two additional years of security update support (and, with that, additional firmware updates). 2030 or 2031 seems more likely.
F) I never claimed or implied Microsoft is a chip maker. What I meant was continuing the development of Windows for ARM, create a developer tools to make Windows programs into fat binaries that will work on both x86 and ARM, having a x86 translation program for x86 Windows programs to run on Windows for ARM. Essentially copy pasting Apple's workflow.
You missed my point. Apple is successful with the M1 because it owns the entire computing stack, from the hardware down to the OS. Microsoft will never have that advantage. Windows 10 for ARM64 even on the second gen Surface Pro X is good when running native stuff, but still not as amazing as a high-end Surface Book 3. And again, that's assuming all software on either Surface product is running natively. Microsoft has an x86 translation element for Windows 10 for ARM64 and it currently sucks. They could do fat binaries, though, it's just as easy for developers to not make a fat binary and just put out two binaries. Fat binaries are more for user convenience than anything. Usually that problem is solved by a download site picking up on the architecture of the browser and selecting the appropriate installer to download automatically. None of that solves the issue of performance in getting Windows 10 on ARM64 to be as seamless of a move as macOS on Apple Silicon.
G) I never claimed or implied Android chips are not good. I said they do not have the performance per Watt of Apple Chips. I also emphasised that Android chips need not be equal to Apple chips. They only need to be superior in performance per Watt to Intel or even AMD.
Right, and I'm telling you that they ARE superior in performance per watt to Intel and AMD. That's a byproduct of the ARM architecture itself. The only thing that Apple has as an edge over them is control over the entire hardware stack. That and the fact that Android apps run on an architecture-independent application layer and are compiled at runtime (which is inherently more inefficient). Otherwise, the ARM64 chips in current Android phones are no slouches.
H) When has Apple ever disclosed any details about any product that will be launched? Unless of course it's a transition that requires the help of 3rd party developers to complete.
Apple does not publish any sort of product or SoC roadmap. A roadmap would introduce the Osborne Effect or allow rivals a competitive advantage over Apple.
That's not incorrect, but that doesn't prove anything in terms of how fast they'll complete this transition. All you're basically saying is that Apple hasn't revealed anything publicly. Except they have given us very big clues as to how this will shake out. Also rumors from reliable sources corroborate what Apple has been saying, namely, THAT IT WILL BE A TWO YEAR TRANSITION!
Only offering M1 Macs is a supply chain strategy to reduce cost and time of manufacturing and distribution to its absolute lowest.
The more SKUs a supply chain has to deal with the more complexities and cost that are introduced.
Again, none of that proves that they're going to complete this transition by June.
Apple shipped an estimated
18.35 million Macs in 2019. ~80% of that are the Macs Apple refreshed to M1 chips. Assuming units shipped remains relatively the same that would be ~14.7 million M1 chips for 12 months to be used on
- 2 standard Mac mini SKUs
- 2 standard Macbook Pro 13" SKUs
- 2 standard Macbook Air SKUs
The MBA with 1 deactivated GPU core is used for binning purposes when the M1 isn't within design parameters. That model probably sells the most of any Mac.
Having as few SKUs as possible improves mass production and the assembly line productivity. It also allows for quicker shipping times as these are not BTOs. All those 6 SKUs make up ~80% of all Macs shipped. The ~20% among the M1 Macs are BTOs.
You still owe me a citation on that figure. Otherwise, what you say still doesn't prove that this transition will be completed in 1 year or less, let alone contradict all of the obvious signs to the contrary.
Having the most common parts allows for use of
certain parts intended for the product XYZ to be applied on product ABC.
To help explain this further let us go back to the first year of Steve Job's return to Apple. He with the help of Tim Cook cut down on a lot of product lines to make their inventory, manufacturing and supply chain more simpler and efficient.
He reduced it to this.
Desktop
- low end with 3 variations he called "small, medium & large" (i.e. iMac)
- high end with 3 variations he called "small, medium & large" (i.e. PowerMac)
Laptop
- low end with 3 variations he called "small, medium & large" (i.e. iBook)
- high end with 3 variations he called "small, medium & large" (i.e. PowerBook)
Rolling out the M1 first makes Apple's supply chain leaner and faster to help to improve margins and get Macs to people like you faster.
I have no freakin' idea what your point here even is. Tim Cook took those four lines and has since turned them into nine product lines. Five for desktops, and four for notebooks. I wouldn't call that a simplification of the supply chain, at least not during the Intel era. Maybe in the Apple Silicon era. But again, I have no clue what your point even is or how it contributes to your overall argument.
Personal note:
Is English your first language?
Yes. What's your point?
Do you work in supply chain, purchasing, manufacturing or part of management?
I have worked for product-based companies before. I've also worked in management. I know what a product lifecycle is and how it goes from idea to shipping product. I also follow the computing industry very closely and have for the last twenty-one years. I also follow Apple rumors as well as their sources.
Do you?
