Why Apple will release a 27 inch Apple Silicon processor Mac as it’s first MAC With apple Silicon.

[MisterMe]

My guess is an ARM Mac Mini first because they have already shipped that to developers.

I see many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released. I highly, highly, doubt it. In fact, I'm pretty much 100% sure it won't be. Think about it. Of all macs, it's probably the one with the smallest share - it's smaller than any laptop of course, but it's also smaller than the iMac, only the MacPro might be smaller. Why would Apple release to such a small user market? Is that going to make any noise in the media?? It's nuts. Now, you release a laptop with amazing battery life and specs and you've created waves. But a mini? What in the world are people thinking? SMH.

....

C'mon friends. Think. Think. Don't just blurt out whatever first pops into one's mind. We've got to make better quality rumors and speculation on Macrumors.

I tend to agree if to nothing more than your line of thought. There are comments made here with absolute certainty and virtually no thought. One of the presumptions is that with ASi, Apple will have to start small and build up to larger systems at some point in the future. Therefore, a MacBook Air is more likely than a Mac Pro in the near term. This notion fails two simple tests:

1. It ignores the fact that Apple has built systems using Apple Silicon for more than a decade. The systems that it built were small. They span the gamut from the Apple Watch to the iPad Pro with the iPhone in between. How much more "practice" does Apple need?
2. It assumes a connection between size and sophistication that is tenuous at best.

Another assumption is that Apple has some sort of "investment" in Intel that it must receive a return on before it can move on. It is my understanding that the most expensive parts of your gray box Wintel PC are the Intel processor and the Microsoft operating system. Apple does not include Microsoft operating systems, but it does include Intel processors. I see virtually no disagreement over the proposition that Apple Silicon will be less expensive than Intel processors. Leaving aside the fact that fewer support chips will be required, the switch from Intel to ASi is virtually guaranteed to reduce Apple's costs. Who in business maintains high costs when an alternative both lowers costs and increases quality and product diversity?

That all said, I can make a case for going in any number of directions with Apple Silicon, at least to start. However, I believe that some moves make more sense than others. One of the considerations is that Apple Silicon based Macs are expected to have much higher performance than their model replacements. This leads me to believe that Apple will not start at the low end. Image an ASi MacBook Air that blows away an i9-based MacBook Pro or even keeps pace with the more expensive computer. On the other hand, converting the iMac to ASi raises the ceiling below which lesser Macs can thrive. In this scenario, the early conversion of the Cheesegrater II Mac Pro raises the ceiling for everything below.

I note that a significant number of posters have treated the ASi thermal savings as house money that can be played into massive performance. The thing that intrigues me are the benefits that a cooler computer provides. The billet cases of the Mac Pro tower and rack mount have significant potential. Those heavy ventilated cases have a lot of thermal mass and the potential to vent a lot of heat without a fan. These raise the possibility of professional computers with no moving parts and, thus, no noise at all.

 

[deconstruct60]

My guess is an ARM Mac Mini first because they have already shipped that to developers.

I see many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released. I highly, highly, doubt it. In fact, I'm pretty much 100% sure it won't be. Think about it. Of all macs, it's probably the one with the smallest share - it's smaller than any laptop of course, but it's also smaller than the iMac, only the MacPro might be smaller. Why would Apple release to such a small user market? Is that going to make any noise in the media?? It's nuts. Now, you release a laptop with amazing battery life and specs and you've created waves. But a mini? What in the world are people thinking? SMH.

The small market share could help in that there is only a limited amount of 5nm capacity right now. Latest iPhones and iPad are sucking that up in large , peak demand numbers at this time. It probably is going to be a laptop that Apple ships with but I won't be surprised at all if it is a non mainstream laptop. Something where paying a substantive price premium because either Apple made it magically thin or put some magical screen on it or something to reduce the demand.


The likely far more substantive problem with the Mac Mini as a first target is that the DTK is woefully incomplete as far as I/O goes. Folks are spinning it as 'first' because already 'done all the hard work on the DTK' ( swap out the 12X , slap in a 14X and ta-da .... done. ). No 4 USB Thunderbolt 4 ( maybe 'backside' to 3 ) ports. (2 USB-C 3.1 gen 2 only. ) . 2 bandwidth limited USB A ports . No 10GbE option . The baseline limiter is that the A12X doesn't have much general purpose PCI-e lanes coming out of the package. More than a pretty good chance the A14X is in almost the same boat.

This first "Mac" Apple Silicon out the door probably doesn't have "desktop I/O" support. Apple's laptops vary from 1-4 port and that is it. The first laptop out the gate having only 2 ports would be no surprise at all. Neither would be a return of the one-port-wonder MacBook ( in part as a 'statement' as to what they can do with their own stuff that could not do with Intel's or AMD's options . Also given them an excuse to limp out without Thunderbolt on that model also. ) .

Substantially, same short term horizon for the other desktop Macs where not constrained to minimized I/O. More pins to communicate with more ports will make the SoC package bigger and that will be a substantive departure from what Apple has done in the A-Seres where the SoC package size has pretty tight space constraints. Dealing with 5-12 ports is that phones and iPads don't have to deal with. Ditto with multiple screens ( stopping at two (with one often in mirror mode)).

Apple wants the whole world to take notice -.... Who gives a rip about a mini apart from a tiny group of special requirement folks? Madness.

Apple doing what is somewhat an 'un-obtainium" device would generate buzz. The original MacBook Air intro. ( Jobs declaring the 'future' of Macintosh ). It fits completely in with Apple's "Captain Ahab' quest on laptop thinness.
Narrowing the scope being laptop won't necessarily mean it will be broad market segment.

How does a mini showcase the great battery life ASi can achieve?? How does a mini showcase ANYTHING??

I wouldn't bet the farm on better battery life. The iPad Pro 12" and the MBP 13" get around the same lifetime on a battery charge. Apple could sacrifice better battery life to the "even thinner and lighter laptop " gods. ( butterfly keyboards was the similar general trade-off that they ran with for almost 4 years; doggedly not wanting to let go. ) Or trade it off for even higher power consuming "XDR" screen.

A Mini won't showcase per se but the DTK were not for sale either. That's a rental fee. I think there is some pent up demand to get one to own and 'try out' at a reasonable price point. If Apple throws a "magically thin" laptop out there at a higher than MBP 13" prices the spectacle may not lead to a chorus of happy potential buyers.

A robustly provisioned Mini would also signal were going to be loosing out on I/O on platform switch.

Why would Apple be anxious to showcase their first AS Mac by releasing it into a sea of a bewildering and uncontrollable peripherals??

Even if Apple does a one-port-wonder , in aggregate it will still be highly likely hooked much wider range of stuff than the DTK was and bugs will come up. But yeah of highly target just hightly mobile folks who more rarely use ports , Apple can 'kick the can' on maturing the new drivers for the new OS platform for a longer period of time. Anything that needed Thunderbolt wasn't covered by the DTK so there are lots of 'holes' at the moment.

C'mon friends. Think. Think. Don't just blurt out whatever first pops into one's mind. We've got to make better quality rumors and speculation on Macrumors.

On Macrumors it often isn't "first pops into mind" . More often it is "what was only on their mind in the first place"; driven by self-reflective "what I want". "My favorite Mac product should come first and that 'other stuff' later". For example, the original post of this thread is likely about the 27" iMac probably more so than the Apple Silicon. Same driver which will drag in many hundreds of posts of "who wants that??" on whatever Mac product transitions first. ( The initial iPad threads were highly negative. etc. )

The signal to noise ratio on the macrumors front page stories generally is even lower. It is a scale problem. More people/users generate more ad views ( and more revenue for site). More folks generating opinions as "facts' generates more noise. Sadly more noise tends to generate more ad view revenue.

 

[deconstruct60]

I tend to agree if to nothing more than your line of thought. There are comments made here with absolute certainty and virtually no thought. One of the presumptions is that with ASi, Apple will have to start small and build up to larger systems at some point in the future. Therefore, a MacBook Air is more likely than a Mac Pro in the near term. This notion fails two simple tests:

1. It ignores the fact that Apple has built systems using Apple Silicon for more than a decade. The systems that it built were small. They span the gamut from the Apple Watch to the iPad Pro with the iPhone in between. How much more "practice" does Apple need?
2. It assumes a connection between size and sophistication that is tenuous at best.

Both statements pretty much fail when not over simplified.

1. Apple has a track record of building small systems. One-port wonders with primarily one screen. Macs generally are not one-port wonder systems and multiple screens has been a stable for even more decades than Apple Silicon has existed.

All that robust PC class, I/O Apple doesn't have a track record on. ( or at least drags back to when Apple was doing custom "Soutbridge" I/O for PowerPC. So been a while. And covering early 2000 comatose USB standards isn't that hard. ). There is lots of cross the t's and dot the i's that Intel has been doing for the last 14 years that Apple has done substantively little on. Especially at the higher ranges of I/O bandwidth and speeds. Apple "copied over" some system I/O handling to the T2 but that was largely same scope of video, audio ,etc of the one-port-wonder iOS devices.


Secondly, a very large chunck of the "to the iPad Pro with the iPhone inbetween" range of products are all just done with the same "hand me down SoC". Mainstream iPad... "paid for" iPhone SoCs. AppleTv ... "hand me down". Home Pod "hand me down". Watch OS cores .... at this point hand me down 'little cores' from iPhone. Pointing a broad range of products that are implemented with large the same SoC aged and dropped to other products.


2. Size of what? The device ecosystem have to interoperate with? Yes, that does require more sophistication.
The newest iPhones are pushing max capacity of 6-8GB or RAM. Current iMac Pro does 256GB of ECC RAM (three digits versus one ) . Mac Pro in in the yet another digit range larger than that.

I see virtually no disagreement over the proposition that Apple Silicon will be less expensive than Intel processors. Leaving aside the fact that fewer support chips will be required, the switch from Intel to ASi is virtually guaranteed to reduce Apple's costs. Who in business maintains high costs when an alternative both lowers costs and increases quality and product diversity?

Increased SoC product diversity? Apple only buys a small subset of Intel CPU/Soc product category.
In 2005-2006 Intel has a more than complete line up of mature CPU products for Apple to "jump into". 2020 that isn't even close to being true. The bottom halve of the laptop systems? Yes. The rest of the Mac line up? No.

Apple in-sourcing SoC development isn't going to get increased SoC diversity. Intel also way more CPU/SoC than Apple does. For the lower volume Mac Products Apple is going to have a 1-3 order of magnitude smaller system base to amortize fixed cost over. For the Mac products in the run rate zone of sub 100K I wouldn't bet on lower costs than Intels for end users at all. Where the Mac line up might re-use an iPad Pro part then sure, but most of the rest of the Mac line up it wasn't like Apple was 'hurting' selling Intel parts. Apple stacked their margin on top of Intel's and sold plenty number of systems. If go to Apple's online store and look at the BTO CPU pricing there is gobs of Apple margin there. Those aren't Intel's prices driving the majority of that at all. The sob story that Intel's pricing was keeping Apple on 'thin margins' is weak.

Apple charges around $400/TB for SSD capacity. If CPU bill of material prices drop, most likely Apple will add it back into the overall system cost with something else that they have marked up. The rest gets tossed in the Scrooge McDuck money pit.

 

[OldCorpse]

I see virtually no disagreement over the proposition that Apple Silicon will be less expensive than Intel processors.

I guess I’m one of those few who is not all in on the idea that there are big savings to be had with ASi comp to Intel. I’ve made this argument many times in many posts, but I keep pointing out that not only does Apple now have to spend big money on R&D for their ASi, but it’s going to be an ongoing expense as they’ll have to keep developing the chipsets in perpetuity. Meanwhile they have a fraction of the volume Intel has to recoup all those costs, and that’s before considering that they have to pay to have their chips manufactured with a profit margin for the Taiwanese, unlike Intel who have their own fabs.

How does all that shake out cost-wise? Who knows, but I wouldn’t assume big savings for Apple. YMMV.

 

[MisterMe]

I see virtually no disagreement over the proposition that Apple Silicon will be less expensive than Intel processors.

I guess I’m one of those few who is not all in on the idea that there are big savings to be had with ASi comp to Intel. I’ve made this argument many times in many posts, but I keep pointing out that not only does Apple now have to spend big money on R&D for their ASi, but it’s going to be an ongoing expense as they’ll have to keep developing the chipsets in perpetuity. Meanwhile they have a fraction of the volume Intel has to recoup all those costs, and that’s before considering that they have to pay to have their chips manufactured with a profit margin for the Taiwanese, unlike Intel who have their own fabs.

How does all that shake out cost-wise? Who knows, but I wouldn’t assume big savings for Apple. YMMV.

To read this piece, one would swear you are talking about Tandy or Gateway. Apple is a $2 trillion company. That means that the company has more money than God and all of his in-laws. Apple became a $2 trillion company by operating at massive profit. No technology company can be as profitable as Apple by operating like a company that builds lawn mowers and kitchen appliances. Apple invests massive amounts of money and gets massive return on its investment. I am reminded of the original MacBook Air. Apple's retail price on the original MacBook Air was lower than the production costs required to build comparable thin Windows laptops. Read up on how Apple built the tablet market with the iPad and has never really faced serious competition in the space.

 

[Kostask]

I see virtually no disagreement over the proposition that Apple Silicon will be less expensive than Intel processors.

I guess I’m one of those few who is not all in on the idea that there are big savings to be had with ASi comp to Intel. I’ve made this argument many times in many posts, but I keep pointing out that not only does Apple now have to spend big money on R&D for their ASi, but it’s going to be an ongoing expense as they’ll have to keep developing the chipsets in perpetuity. Meanwhile they have a fraction of the volume Intel has to recoup all those costs, and that’s before considering that they have to pay to have their chips manufactured with a profit margin for the Taiwanese, unlike Intel who have their own fabs.

How does all that shake out cost-wise? Who knows, but I wouldn’t assume big savings for Apple. YMMV.

The second reason Apple went to the AS SoCs was because it could leverage the development costs of the major cores or "blocks" from the iPhone. The iPhone gets new SoCs every year, and will continue to do so. But now, Apple's R&D spending doesn't just buy a new SoC for the iPhone/iPad, it also gets them yearly core updates for the Mac. Apple does spend big money on R&D, but it is the iPhone paying for most of that freight, Mac is along for the ride. The Mac SoC will have some added "blocks" that need to be paid for, like the I/O blocks that will run the USB4/TB4 ports, possibly the Ethernet ports, that sort of thing. But the vast majority of the blocks will be from the iPhone/iPad. This will include the CPU blocks, the GPU blocks, the ML and Neural Engine blocks, more than likely the RAM interface block, and for the laptops, the Facetime camera and possibly the Face ID block. The incremental cost to come up with the Mac SoC will not be anything like what you imagine it to be. I think the all in cost of the Mac SoC will be in the $120 range vs. the $200 plus for an Intel CPU. This doesn't even take into account the cost of things like the T2 chip, or any other support ICs (and I am pretty sure that there are a few), as well as the cost improvement due to the die shrink to 5 nm. vs. Intel's 10/14nm parts. It is true that Intel has its own fabs, just as it is true that Intel's profits are baked into every single CPU they sell, to anybody. At one time, Intel's fabs were a competitive advantage; now, they are a liability with their inability to produce 7nm (lets not talk about 5nm) parts with acceptable yields. Apple's CFO did state that Apple could have sold more Macs if Intel was able to produce the volume of CPUs that Apple wanted in one of the earnings calls. So, Apple does know exactly why they are moving to AS, and they know it is a cost effective move. Cook is a supply chain guy, he knows all of this in intimate detail.

Is this going to be a recurring cost, year after year? Certainly is. But it is what keeps the iPhone ahead of the competition, and its benefits will be there for the Mac, any time the Mac product group chooses to crank out a new SoC. The costs are known, they have been factored in, Apple knows what those costs are, and what they will be going forward.

BTW, the first reason Apple went to the AS SoCs is because Apple is run by a bunch of uptight control freaks who want to control every single aspect of what they produce.

 

[theorist9]

My guess is an ARM Mac Mini first because they have already shipped that to developers.

I see many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released...

I just lose faith in humanity when so little thought goes into forming a hypothesis. When you speculate about something, you really, really, really must think of both PRO and CON arguments. Instead folks just pick one thing, like "developers already have a mini", or "27" iMac will be STRONG" and run with that, giving ZERO thought to if it makes sense from ANY other point of view.

C'mon friends. Think. Think. Don't just blurt out whatever first pops into one's mind. We've got to make better quality rumors and speculation on Macrumors.

It's posts like this that drive me crazy. This guy presumes to come on here and lecture us (and the poor guy he was responding to, who I felt bad for) about how he's "losing faith in humanity" because we're such lazy thinkers, based on seeing "many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released".

But let's take a closer look. His post was #50 on this thread. Prior to that, before declaiming that "many" have been speculating the mini will be "the first", did he actually do the work to see how many had *actually* made that claim? Or did he just, to use his words "blurt out whatever first popped into his mind". Well I did check, and the number I found is: Only one! [The guy he quoted.] Sure, many on this thread (including myself) have speculated that, along with a laptop and possibly a smaller iMac, Apple might also release an AS Mini. But that's a far cry from the Mini being the first (which is what the poster to whom he was responding was saying).

So here he's taking us to task that we're doing lazy thinking, yet he's inferring "many" from a sample size of one! And, furthermore, he didn't even bother to exert the few minutes of effort it would have taken to actually check his sloppy and ill-considered claim before posting it—which makes his statement about our supposed lack of mental effort seem particularly obnoxious.

All in all, it shows there's a big difference between *pontificating* about careful thinking, and actual *being* a careful thinker.

 

[Jouls]

In 2005-2006 Intel has a more than complete line up of mature CPU products for Apple to "jump into"

This is not true. The new Core-Range of Intel CPUs existed only in Intel labs. And when Apple released the first Intel Macs in January 2006 the line-up was far from complete. Apple had to start with paltry 32-Bit chips instead of 64-Bit ones as they initially had intended. Heck, they even swapped the CPU of the MacBook Pro 15“ Core Duo 1,67 GHz just after 36 days. So not mature either.

In 2005 we didn’t know what chips they would put into the new Macs. We were only sure it won’t be the horrible Pentium 4 they had put into the DTK. Same situation now: We don‘t know what Apple has in its lab. To say they have or they don‘t have high performance chips ready for the Mac Pro is pure speculation. We just know Apple will not use the A12Z of the DTK.

 

[Yebubbleman]

What problems did it have other than speed and keyboard? The people who bought it loved it.

The people who bought it != The average Mac notebook customer. That's the problem with that statement. Having high customer satisfaction within the customers who buy it doesn't negate that not enough people bought it. And not enough people bought it because there were too many concessions made in the name of ultra-portability that most didn't even deem necessary. If that wasn't the case, that machine would still be sold today.

Also, I do hope they remove the headphone jack for a second USB port. The MacBook should have never had a headphone jack. What a waste of a port. Buy a 9 dollar adapter if you need it but the rest of us shouldn’t be punished with a non versatile single use port.

Let me spin that a different way. The rest of us shouldn't be punished with the expenditure of a $9 adapter that is unnecessary on literally every other computer on the market just because niche users want an unnecessarily light computer that is so thin that it requires such Sophie's Choices to be mandatory. What nonsense.

If you want two versatile ports, go get a MacBook Air. It's the same computer, but with a slightly larger screen and less than a pound more weight. Furthermore, the Air's Thunderbolt 3 ports are actually versatile compared to the MacBook's USB-C (again a byproduct of the machine being smaller than it realistically has to be).

Huh? Headphone jack is about the most casual user feature there is. People who do “real work” would much rather have a second data and accessory port, not a headphone jack.

That's a loaded statement if ever I've heard one. There are a metric crap-ton of headphones and speakers that still use the headphone jack. By comparison, there are not that many that use USB-C. Furthermore, you're not going to win any argument that suggests that I should have to spend $40 on a dongle to get functionality that there was no good reason to remove to begin with (save for the fact that a handful of you can't tolerate the extra 0.8lbs of weight that the current MacBook Air has over it).

 

[Zarniwoop]

Here’s a scenario I’ve played in my mind:

On November Apple could introduce a new Apple TV with A12Z and demonstrates how cool gaming machine it is etc. Two versions, 64Gb $199 and 256Gb $299. New remote with MagSafe, charging on top of AppleTV. Optional Gamepad with MagSafe.

But then they’d introduced a third version: ”It is not just Apple TV. It’s Mac Mini. The first AS Mac ever. And smallest Mac ever. In the Apple TV form factor. It is a Mac. It’s also Apple TV.” A14X chip, 8GB ram, 256Gb SSD. New MagSafe remote. Magsafe charging on top of Mac mini. $499. BTO A14Z +$100.

New Magsafe Apple Mouse and Keyboard.

The second AS Mac would be Macbook Air. Basic model: A14, 13”, 8GB, 256GB. Second version with A14X. And BTO A14Z.

Third AS Mac is iMac 24”. A14X and A14Z option. MagSafe on foot. New MagSafe Apple mouse and keyboard.

 

[Boil]

16GB RAM / 512GB SSD minimum...

 

[Zarniwoop]

16GB RAM / 512GB SSD minimum...

We are talking Apple here. They’ll introduce W4 chip with wireless USB4 before their entry models start with 16GB/512GB...

Speaking of wireless USB4, with that Apple wouldn’t need to make iMac’s any more... just make a display, with MagSafe and UWB USB4 chip (W4). Put a Mac mini on top of the display foot, magnets place it correctly and that’s it. To upgrade, just trade in the current Mac Mini and get a better one. Only the display has a power cord. Heck, they could turn iPhones to Macs that way... maybe that is a future iPhone Pro feature.

 

[MysticCow]

How does a mini showcase the great battery life ASi can achieve?? How does a mini showcase ANYTHING??

I'm still saying a ASMac mini, but I think you're right that a laptop is coming first.

The mini can be showcased, though, as the ultimate disposable gaming rig. For $X, you can have a machine that can run games from both iOS and macOS. For $X, you have an easy Warcraft rig (especially for Classic if they make the port to ASMac).

Will it attract hardcore gamers? Not at all, but the gaming wars are over and consoles won. And the ones left over are going to stay Windows no matter what. But what about that more casual gamer that sees a Mac mini and sees it as a disposable gaming rig? Yeah, it can happen IF those ASMac minis can deliver better graphics than any current cheap rig out there...and it looks like it certainly can.

But you're right on the money with a laptop coming first. It will be a MacBook Not Pro.

 

[OldCorpse]

It's posts like this that drive me crazy. This guy presumes to come on here and lecture us (and the poor guy he was responding to, who I felt bad for) about how he's "losing faith in humanity" because we're such lazy thinkers, based on seeing "many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released".

But let's take a closer look. His post was #50 on this thread. Prior to that, before declaiming that "many" have been speculating the mini will be "the first", did he actually do the work to see how many had *actually* made that claim? Or did he just, to use his words "blurt out whatever first popped into his mind". Well I did check, and the number I found is: Only one! [The guy he quoted.] Sure, many on this thread (including myself) have speculated that, along with a laptop and possibly a smaller iMac, Apple might also release an AS Mini. But that's a far cry from the Mini being the first (which is what the poster to whom he was responding was saying).

So here he's taking us to task that we're doing lazy thinking, yet he's inferring "many" from a sample size of one! And, furthermore, he didn't even bother to exert the few minutes of effort it would have taken to actually check his sloppy and ill-considered claim before posting it—which makes his statement about our supposed lack of mental effort seem particularly obnoxious.

All in all, it shows there's a big difference between *pontificating* about careful thinking, and actual *being* a careful thinker.

Whaa? Come again? What a bizarre attack, lol. I wrote that I was seeing such posts pertaining to the mini on macrumors, so that's why I mentioned macrumors overall, I wasn't going to wade through all the posts in all the threads. Be that as it may, it took me all of 3 minutes to locate a thread with a nifty title "Your estimates of announcement/launch date, model for first Apple Silicon Mac?" which seems kinda relevant, dontya think, lol? And boom:

Your estimates of announcement/launch date, model for first Apple Silicon Mac?

My prediction: First ARM Mac will either be a Mac mini model, or the second rebirth of the MacBook. Possible it could be simultaneous launches too. Likely with announcements in November, with launch later that month or early December.

forums.macrumors.com

Your estimates of announcement/launch date, model for first Apple Silicon Mac?

MacMini is logical, but only the cheapest iMac doesn’t use a external GPU. Without knowing the Apple Silicon implementation we are all guessing if Apple want to do that in the last example? Cheers.

forums.macrumors.com

There certainly are other threads with other posts, but I'm not about to spend more time wading through all the posts on macrumors - I've already proven that's it's not just ONE as you claimed. Game over. I saw such posts wrt. the mini on macrumors, I reported that fact, and I was right. Game, set, match. Thanks, now you're exhibit A for the issues I mentioned

BTW, the first reason Apple went to the AS SoCs is because Apple is run by a bunch of uptight control freaks who want to control every single aspect of what they produce - Kostask

True enough. Wrt. the cost of the chipsets, it's obvious that Apple would develop their own even if ultimately per unit they were to be more expensive than Intel - it's all about control. Besides Intel simply was not delivering what Apple wanted and that would've been another very good reason to switch almost regardless of cost (shades of the PPC to Intel transition). So while I don't know what the ultimate cost to Apple is, it's almost irrelevant, since cost was not the motivation in the switch. That said, even if there is a cost saving, I doubt it'll result in a price cut on the product or fatter margins for Apple, I think it's much more likely that they'll just boost the quality of the other components. YMMV.

 

[theorist9]

Whaa? Come again? What a bizarre attack, lol.

Says the guy who penned an 8-paragraph diatribe in response to a one-sentence post.???

I wrote that I was seeing such posts pertaining to the mini on macrumors, so that's why I mentioned macrumors overall, I wasn't going to wade through all the posts in all the threads. Be that as it may, it took me all of 3 minutes to locate a thread with a nifty title "Your estimates of announcement/launch date, model for first Apple Silicon Mac?" which seems kinda relevant, dontya think, lol? And boom:

Your estimates of announcement/launch date, model for first Apple Silicon Mac?

My prediction: First ARM Mac will either be a Mac mini model, or the second rebirth of the MacBook. Possible it could be simultaneous launches too. Likely with announcements in November, with launch later that month or early December.

forums.macrumors.com

Your estimates of announcement/launch date, model for first Apple Silicon Mac?

MacMini is logical, but only the cheapest iMac doesn’t use a external GPU. Without knowing the Apple Silicon implementation we are all guessing if Apple want to do that in the last example? Cheers.

forums.macrumors.com

There certainly are other threads with other posts, but I'm not about to spend more time wading through all the posts on macrumors - I've already proven that's it's not just ONE as you claimed. Game over. I saw such posts wrt. the mini on macrumors, I reported that fact, and I was right. Game, set, match. Thanks, now you're exhibit A for the issues I mentioned

Maybe there are many elsewhere, maybe there aren't. It's not as if you're exactly a credible source on this. But the point (which maybe you'll see, or maybe you won't) is that you didn't go on those other threads with the "many" posters saying the Mini would be the first, and lecture them. You came here and harangued us about lazy thinking, making a claim of "many" where there was just one. This makes no logical sense.

You claim you mentioned "macrumors overall", but that qualifier doesn't exist anywhere in your post. Further, there's nothing in your language that indicates you meant to direct it to MacRumors generally. Quite the opposite.

Remember last month when the Clippers blew a 3-1 game lead against the Nuggets to lose the Western Conference Semifinals? It's as if, after that, you walked into the Nuggets' locker room and harangued them that they need to be less lazy about their basketball!

I suspect the Nuggets would tell you to get the hell out of their locker room, and rightly so.

 

[OldCorpse]

Says the guy who penned an 8-paragraph diatribe in response to a one-sentence post.???

That's funny. I gave reasons for my opinion, which is what is required in arguments. The "diatribe" was yours in response to one word from my entire post, a claim that "many" folks see the mini as coming first.

Maybe there are many elsewhere, maybe there aren't. It's not as if you're exactly a credible source on this.

Oh, that's rich. "Maybe"? I just quoted more posts, clearly proving that it wasn't just "one" poster, so what are you talking about? The lack of credibility is all yours - in addition to poor reading comprehension.

But the point (which maybe you'll see, or maybe you won't) is that you didn't go on those other threads with the "many" posters saying the Mini would be the first, and lecture them. You came here and harangued us about lazy thinking, making a claim of "many" where there was just one. This makes no logical sense.

I wrote: "I see many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released." - I didn't write "I see many people IN THIS THREAD speculating[...]" had I written "in this thread", you'd have a point - but I didn't, which leaves open the fact that it could be anywhere... which is exactly what I meant - I've seen it on macrumors, which is why I was able so quickly to find it in another thread... if I didn't have that experience I wouldn't even bother to look for it in other threads, but I did, so I quickly found it. It's not my fault that you cannot comprehend what you read - perhaps remedial English courses would be helpful for you, in addition to remedial courses in logic, because you are very lacking in that area too.

You claim you mentioned "macrumors overall", but that qualifier doesn't exist anywhere in your post. Further, there's nothing in your language that indicates you meant to direct it to MacRumors generally. Quite the opposite.

Quite the opposite? No, that would be if I wrote "in this thread only" - that would be the opposite. Instead, my language was inclusive. Also, that qualifier DOES exist in my post: "We've got to make better quality rumors and speculation on Macrumors." I didnt' write "[...]in this thread" I wrote "on Macrumors". GAME. SET. MATCH.

It's funny that in a thread where we are discussing Apple products you latched onto an incredibly petty point that you write posts after posts on and aren't even right about that petty point! FAIL!

Macrumors is a site where we speculate about Apple products. It's not too much to ask that we all speculate with at least some effort put into our reasoning - and that was my point. MACRUMORS, not just a single thread, and I mentioned MACRUMORS. You meanwhile are an example of the very failure I'm talking about: poor reading comprehension, pointless personal attacks, very bad reasoning and lack of evidence for silly claims. I'm not going to respond any further to you, as this derail you initiated is mere noise, the quality of your arguments is demonstrably extremely poor and you don't appear to be educable. So you can have the last word. Have a nice day!

 

[Fomalhaut]

That's funny. I gave reasons for my opinion, which is what is required in arguments. The "diatribe" was yours in response to one word from my entire post, a claim that "many" folks see the mini as coming first.



Oh, that's rich. "Maybe"? I just quoted more posts, clearly proving that it wasn't just "one" poster, so what are you talking about? The lack of credibility is all yours - in addition to poor reading comprehension.



I wrote: "I see many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released." - I didn't write "I see many people IN THIS THREAD speculating[...]" had I written "in this thread", you'd have a point - but I didn't, which leaves open the fact that it could be anywhere... which is exactly what I meant - I've seen it on macrumors, which is why I was able so quickly to find it in another thread... if I didn't have that experience I wouldn't even bother to look for it in other threads, but I did, so I quickly found it. It's not my fault that you cannot comprehend what you read - perhaps remedial English courses would be helpful for you, in addition to remedial courses in logic, because you are very lacking in that area too.



Quite the opposite? No, that would be if I wrote "in this thread only" - that would be the opposite. Instead, my language was inclusive. Also, that qualifier DOES exist in my post: "We've got to make better quality rumors and speculation on Macrumors." I didnt' write "[...]in this thread" I wrote "on Macrumors". GAME. SET. MATCH.

It's funny that in a thread where we are discussing Apple products you latched onto an incredibly petty point that you write posts after posts on and aren't even right about that petty point! FAIL!

Macrumors is a site where we speculate about Apple products. It's not too much to ask that we all speculate with at least some effort put into our reasoning - and that was my point. MACRUMORS, not just a single thread, and I mentioned MACRUMORS. You meanwhile are an example of the very failure I'm talking about: poor reading comprehension, pointless personal attacks, very bad reasoning and lack of evidence for silly claims. I'm not going to respond any further to you, as this derail you initiated is mere noise, the quality of your arguments is demonstrably extremely poor and you don't appear to be educable. So you can have the last word. Have a nice day!

Guys...can we please stick to the topic, and refrain from pedantic attacks on each other that do not add any value to the thread!

 

[ADGrant]

My guess is an ARM Mac Mini first because they have already shipped that to developers.

I see many people speculating that the mini will be the first AS Mac released. I highly, highly, doubt it. In fact, I'm pretty much 100% sure it won't be. Think about it. Of all macs, it's probably the one with the smallest share - it's smaller than any laptop of course, but it's also smaller than the iMac, only the MacPro might be smaller. Why would Apple release to such a small user market? Is that going to make any noise in the media?? It's nuts. Now, you release a laptop with amazing battery life and specs and you've created waves. But a mini? What in the world are people thinking? SMH.

I don't know if they will do a Mini first but would makes a lot of sense if they did. Developers need something to replace the DTK and a production AS Mac mini would be a drop in replacement. Companies might want to use them in build farms and MacStadium will certainly want to put them in their data centers.

 

[Jorbanead]

I don't know if they will do a Mini first but would makes a lot of sense if they did. Developers need something to replace the DTK

Developers have the DTK for 1 year. Most of them received theirs in June-July, which means they won’t need a replacement until then. It’s likely they will announce a mini next spring before the 1-year is over.

We’ll get one or two laptops. Maybe a new Mac mini if we’re lucky. No iMacs or pro models until the second generation AS chip.

There have been several leaks and rumors from analysists, leakers, and even a recent photo from the Foxconn factory of a possible new iMac that’s already in production. Signs point to a new 21.5” (or 24”) iMac within the next few months. They also didn’t update it this year which is odd unless they plan to replace it soon.

My guess is an ARM Mac Mini first because they have already shipped that to developers.

The DTK during the intel transition was a Mac Pro case - but the Mac Pro was one of the last intel macs they announced. That’s because the internals had very little in common with what was actually going into the Mac Pro. I believe this is the case with the Mac mini TDK as well which means the DTK has no major impact on an actual consumer-ready mini.

I don’t doubt we will see a mini within the next year, but the mini is a relatively niche product that the average consumer doesn’t care about. I predict a mini coming next spring - but it certainly won’t be the very first Mac announced.

For both the mini and the 27” iMac - none of the current rumors and leaks support these claims that these will be the first. Sure, leaks have been wrong, but there has been zero talk about either one of these machines coming out anytime this year. What we have heard about is notebooks and a possible smaller iMac update. All signs point to those being the first.

Personally I think the best move for Apple is to announce 1 notebook and 1 desktop at their November event. That way they can 1) show off the battery life in a notebook and 2) show off the raw performance of a desktop. It’s also the perfect opportunity to showcase a completely redesigned iMac (which we all know has been in desperate need of a redesign for years now).

 

[curmudgeonette]

Companies might want to use them in build farms ...

You don't need an Arm / Apple Silicon machine to build applications for them.

My prediction for the first model is an MBP 16 - essentially the flagship model. If they release an AS MBP16 with better performance than Intel, a certain set of early adopters will be clamoring to buy them. Then, with their best customers already on AS, application developers will be pushed and pulled onto the new platform.

Whereas if an MB12 or Mini was first, developers will ignore the new silicon.

 

[Varmann]

I share the majority opinion, Apple will start with a laptop.
I lost count on all times I heard "performance per watt", or similar, during the WWDC Keynote.

The famous blue cloud of Apple silicon performance vs power consumption is vague at best. The small "desktop square" there is certainly only covering a very small segment of all desktop computers. I am pretty certain not counting heavy multicore workstation or gaming PC´s with massive GPUs. Apple can not alter the laws of physics. Yes, Intel has stumbled the last couple of years and AMD have taken advantage. But do not expect Apple silicon to take over the high performance WS market in just a few years.

Apples computer focus has for very long been laptops, especially with good battery life and decent performance. Imacs seems more and more being done as an afterthought. The Mini and the MacPro? Well, update frequency speak for itdelf.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I don't know if they will do a Mini first but would makes a lot of sense if they did. Developers need something to replace the DTK and a production AS Mac mini would be a drop in replacement. Companies might want to use them in build farms and MacStadium will certainly want to put them in their data centers.

I'm pretty sure that developers and colocation services are a tiny proportion of Apple's Mac customers, so why would Apple release a product to those user segments?

I agree that getting developers on-board is important to grow the adoption of Apple Silicon apps, but developers already have the DTK for this purpose, and will be happy to "upgrade" to an ASi Mac when they are available. In fact, I understand that DTK users may be given the option of swapping the DTK for the first ASi Mac (almost certainly a laptop) either free or with a substantial discount

They will want the launch to have some impact with consumers and generate significant sales, so it is far more likely to launch a low-mid level laptop, which is their biggest seller. It's a business after all!

 

[Fomalhaut]

You don't need an Arm / Apple Silicon machine to build applications for them.

My prediction for the first model is an MBP 16 - essentially the flagship model. If they release an AS MBP16 with better performance than Intel, a certain set of early adopters will be clamoring to buy them. Then, with their best customers already on AS, application developers will be pushed and pulled onto the new platform.

Whereas if an MB12 or Mini was first, developers will ignore the new silicon.

I doubt that the first model will be an MBP16. Why? The GPU performance required! As it stands, the MBP dGPUs are 2.5x-4x more powerful than the A12Z in the iPad Pro. While I'm confident that Apple has improved upon this over the last 2 years, that's still a big gap to close.

I don't think Apple will be ready to match the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M in Apple Silicon quite yet.

Apple will want to launch a computer that appeals to a wide customer base - which is typically the low-mid level laptops. They can still have a "wow factor" by making this much better than existing mid-tier Intel-based Macs, particularly in the areas of battery life (I expect 15 hours) and GPU performance (compared to Intel integrated GPUs).

 

[curmudgeonette]

I doubt that the first model will be an MBP16. Why? The GPU performance required! As it stands, the MBP dGPUs are 2.5x-4x more powerful than the A12Z in the iPad Pro. While I'm confident that Apple has improved upon this over the last 2 years, that's still a big gap to close.

The rumors here have Apple producing a 12 core chip - 8 performance and 4 efficiency cores.

My thoughts are that Apple will pair two of these chips in the MBP16, thus making a machine with 16 performance cores. Keep in mind that the current MBP has a hyperthreaded CPU meaning the 8 core model has 16 threads. With Apple Silicon not being hyperthreaded, Apple needs to up the core count.

Such a hypothetical dual chip MBP16 would have double the iGPU resources. This may be competitive with AMD dGPUs.

As for the MBP13, MB12, Air, and whatever - they might receive a single 8+4 chip with some models getting dies that are binned to fewer cores.

 

[ADGrant]

I'm pretty sure that developers and colocation services are a tiny proportion of Apple's Mac customers, so why would Apple release a product to those user segments?

I agree that getting developers on-board is important to grow the adoption of Apple Silicon apps, but developers already have the DTK for this purpose, and will be happy to "upgrade" to an ASi Mac when they are available. In fact, I understand that DTK users may be given the option of swapping the DTK for the first ASi Mac (almost certainly a laptop) either free or with a substantial discount

They will want the launch to have some impact with consumers and generate significant sales, so it is far more likely to launch a low-mid level laptop, which is their biggest seller. It's a business after all!

The DTK is a $500 interim solution, not a production AS Mac, developers will want a officially released AS Mac to develop against. If Apple did offer a free swap, a production Mini would seem more likely given how much cheaper a Mac mini would be for Apple (pretty much just a motherboard swap).

Developers and colocation services may be a relatively small proportion of Apples Mac customers (though Macs are very popular with developers) but they are early adopters. Apple could sell a lot of AS Mac minis. It's not like the current Intel Mac Mini is particularly impressive. Low spec CPU, completely crap GPU.