As we know laptop May account for 70% of the sales, so let us imagine laptops performing To the level of today’s desktop and the new Apple silicon Imac’s surpassing the performance of Present day Desktops. let’s just imagine double the performance of today’s desktops.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why Apple will release a 27 inch Apple Silicon processor Mac as it’s first MAC With apple Silicon.
- Thread starter TDTOMW
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes I don’t dismiss this at all. I think the iMac is going to be very powerful with Apple silicon. I just don’t think it’s going to be the first. If Apple wanted to show off the most powerful Mac first, they would start with the Mac Pro. But what’s an even smarter move and more realistic, is to show off a powerful notebook first. This is what most consumers want, and it will ensure a large adoption of the new hardware right out of the gate.
Plus Apple is always about outdoing themselves. At the early 2021 event, they can come out again and say “I know we all blew you away with our notebooks, but now look at how powerful our desktops are!”
They need to step-up performance at each event. It’ll also realistically be much more feasible for their chip team to realistically make chips that can compete and beat out the 10-core and 18-core iMacs.
Most likely Apple is not quite ready for that level of performance just yet (but soon).
Pretty spot on, except I can't see Apple announcing anything to do with intel at an AS event. If they do release an Intel 16" MBP, it'll be a silent update with the new tag next to it on the homepage. But if there is a 16" AS on the horizon, you'd think they will announce it at the very minimum. No way it's a silent update in January (if true re production ramping up for the 16 but behind the 13).
I think they will demo Apple Silicon first on Macbook Air, and run the latest Geekbench x86 version version side-by-side with the current Intel Macbook Air. Apple Silicon machine will run the translated version faster than Intel native. So their message will be no need to worry, if the app is native or not. You will get better machine anyway. Then they run the native version and compare it to Macbook Pro 13” Intel machine. It wont have a change. Macbook Air, $799 US, faster than over twice as expensive Macbook Pro.
If an unverified Geekbench number is true, that MacBook Air with an A14X will score higher on both single and multi core than a 16" MBP with a Core-i9.
And I’m fully inclined to believe those numbers considering how the A14 currently performs and the previous AX chips have jumped compared to their lower counterparts.
…which also makes me really curious about what they’ll do with the 16” at this event.
Except the transition to Intel chips was a move towards more compatibility with the PC world. Bootcamp was a boon to many people who straddle between both platforms and was what finally convinced many pro users on the PC side to finally give Mac a chance.
If Apple is smart, they would keep a few high-end Intel Macs on their lineup well past 2022. Reasons?
- We're not in a desktop-dominated world now as in 2005. People are keeping their desktops and even laptops longer so the market share of Intel Macs will dwindle much slower than in the last transition. Developers won't be in a rush to write new programs for AS Macs.
- The paltry of pro apps on iPadOS is a harbinger of this transition. Despite having superior chips, i.e. Apple Silicon, developers either are not writing apps for iPadOS at all or are writing apps for the operating system with fewer functionalities than their macOS counterparts.
- Besides the loss of Bootcamp, there is also the loss of eGPU support. Having an Intel chip inside allows a certain degree of interoperability in situ but now people who require either or both are left with no recourse (short of buying a PC). If Apple can't get their graphics performance up on par with the top-tier graphics cards on the market today, then it's not really up to them how long the transition takes.
- Profitability: Desktops and laptops are not as profitable for Apple in 2020 as in 2005. How much resource has Apple reallocated and is continually willing to reallocate to make this transition as smooth and as quick as possible?
- Windows: How quickly will ARM Windows be made available on the macOS?
- eGPU: What kind of solutions will there be for people who require powerful graphics performance on the Mac platform?
This is not to mention the almost permanent loss of the ever-shrinking Mac gaming community. ? We'll likely see no major game titles coming to (AS) Macs for the next two years or perhaps even longer. There are already game developers who stopped making/porting games to Mac due to the untenable situation on macOS, i.e. 32-bit to 64-bit, high-spec Macs being prohibitively expensive, Mac being exclusively Metal after support for OpenGL dropped, and no eGPU support in AS Mac. What makes matter worse is Apple so far hasn't provided a clear roadmap for their graphics card/chip.
The hardware transition might finish in two years if Apple is foolhardy enough to force an all AS product lineup. The actual software transition, which is what really matters anyway, will take much longer.
I believe the real reason was the PPC Alliance had hit the wall in terms of performance. Apple went with Intel because they were the only other option. Windows compatibility was just a side-benefit.
I expect Apple will keep a handful of Intel-powered models around (Mac Pro, MacBook Pro) for a couple of years and just not actively advertise them. We saw this with the 2012 MacBook Pro with DVD and the 2015 MacBook Pro, which were available for a couple of years after the new form-factors were formally released but you had to look for them on Apple's store website.
It there any technical reason why eGPUs wouldn't be supported?
Presumably, Apple Silicon will have PCIe support, so it would only require the use of Metal APIs or appropriate drivers provided by the GPU vendors?
Why won't developers "be in a rush to write new programs for AS Macs"? If there is a market for them, and it doesn't require a lot of work (e.g. recompile or minor changes and optimizations for Apple Silicon), then why wouldn't they? I agree that there is a "chicken and egg" situation here: developers will want to see a lot of hardware sales before committing to developing software, and consumers won't buy the hardware unless there is a decent selection of software.
You are right, but both OpenGL and OpenCL are now deprecated on Apple Silicon: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/porting_your_macos_apps_to_apple_silicon
But deprecated does not mean "dropped" as stated by @lysingur .
You're right. I stand corrected. But at the end of the day, it really is just semantics. OpenGL on macOS was already outdated by the time Apple announced that they're going to deprecate it. The point is that Apple is moving away from interoperability with this transition as opposed to towards like the last and that it's making gaming on macOS harder, not easier.
You pretty much answered your own questions, which I suspect are rhetorical. On the one hand, the overall market for desktops and laptops are shrinking. On the other, it's not "minor changes and optimization" writing software natively for a completely different computing architecture. Rosetta 2 will help. But it remains to be seen.
Mac Catalyst will help also but as I stated in the original post, it's not like there are a lot of developers writing functionally equivalent software on iPadOS now, when
- iPad's computing power is and has been more or less on par with a laptop
- iPadOS already supports mouse and keyboard
- iPadOS's multitasking and file management have become more or less tolerable, especially for casual users
The incentive for them to do it quickly is that those who purchase new Macs will prefer to run native apps.
If you need a photo editor, and one runs under Rosetta and the other runs native and leverages the neural engine for high quality denoising/sharpening/scaling for instance and is more responsive overall, which would you buy? As a software consumer, what inspires confidence in future support and development, the product that is promptly updated for the new Macs (DTK has been available for just under half a year already), or the product where nothing happens and they keep selling their old stuff?
There is a lot of economic incentive for software developers to ensure that their software at least run native in the new Macs. It’s called competition, and developers who drag their feet can be sure that their customers will be looking around for alternative solutions.
Those who use a photo editor and who really need to leverage the power of the neural engine in their workflow probably won't buy a MacBook Air or other entry-level Macs that Apple will surely introduce first in the initial months of the transition (or in less than 12 hours for that matter). The most probable timeline for an AS iMac/iMac Pro and Mac Pro is mid to late 2021. By the time the Photoshop, Affinity Photo, or Pixelmator people need to even start worrying about their customers' "confidence in [their] future support and development", we'd be standing on the cusp of 2022.
As I stated previously, the hardware transition can be as quick or as slow as Apple wants, but the software transition, which is where it really matters, will likely be very slow, much longer than two years.
People in the creative industry don't jump ship on a whim. Their entire digital asset is tied to a particular piece of software. Two years without a niche function is the least of their worries.
You are talking about the "creative industry". I'm talking about "users". Both upgrade when there is need (or desire), and if their current Mac is on its last legs, they will buy whatever suits them best. The creative industry is both where you find stronger stability-of-environment concerns as you point out, but also where you have the most clear and justifiable need of performance. If performance of the new AS Macs is higher, but software lags, there is a conflict. Which will make software customers take stock of the situation. Which, if they are running YOUR software, you don't really want them to do.
How do you know? Do you have sources that indicate that Apple‘s Mac margins have dropped since then?
In terms of revenue the Mac segment has grown from 1,5-2,2 billion per quarter in 2006 to 5,3-9 billion per quarter in 2020 (looked up at statista.com). And as far as I remember margins were always above 20% - at least for the times Apple reported them.
I guess we will know very soon what will be revealed as the first AS Macs, but I would not be surprised if a 27 inch iMac was included in the line-up, at least revealed if not available to order for a few months.
After all, the new iMac design is probably good to go (it was rumoured to be ready over the summer and frankly they have had long enough!) so it's just a case of sticking the fastest current AS into it and relying on the design to sell it as the latest and greatest. Sell it for a bit less than the current base model and give it a bit more RAM and storage and I think it will look very appealing even if the performance isn't quite beating top of the line Intel, which it might anyway in certain applications.
If Apple dips its toe like this then I imagine it will keep selling the Intel models for a while yet alongside it.
After all, the new iMac design is probably good to go (it was rumoured to be ready over the summer and frankly they have had long enough!) so it's just a case of sticking the fastest current AS into it and relying on the design to sell it as the latest and greatest. Sell it for a bit less than the current base model and give it a bit more RAM and storage and I think it will look very appealing even if the performance isn't quite beating top of the line Intel, which it might anyway in certain applications.
If Apple dips its toe like this then I imagine it will keep selling the Intel models for a while yet alongside it.
I’m just a little confused, I thought that software companies wrote the software to take a vantage of the advancements in hardware, if the Apple silicon Chip have advancements that improve the speed and efficiency. I think they will write the software for it. If not some other company will step in and write better software and collect the money. I think that’s how it works in business.
You can compare profitability either on its own or to other product/service categories. The Mac segment has grown but relative to the overall growth of Apple, it's one of the least profitable product categories. And it has nothing to do with profit margin. Just because an iMac has a higher profit margin than, say, an iPhone, it doesn't mean as a product category, it's more profitable for Apple. You have to take into account the total number of units sold of that product category.
Software companies write software to make money. I think that's why companies exist.
Most applications people use daily don't take advantage of the latest "advancements in hardware". Software companies make money either by having a large user, hence install, base or by occupying a niche market. My example of iPad and iPadOS is a case in point. Without a large user base, software companies just won't write/rewrite their software with the same ardour as if it were the case. So the software transition will be much longer than two years. That's the gist of my argument.
There won't be a 27-inch iMac in today's event, either revealed, mentioned, or hinted at. The economics just doesn't work. As soon as an AS 27-inch iMac, people will stop buying the Intel-based 27-inch iMac and Apple will be forced to lower the price of the latter to clear inventory. So why would they do that when they can keep selling a perfectly good and powerful machine for another 6 to 9 months (at the very least) at the margin that they're accustomed to and expect?
Tim Cook is a number guy and the numbers don't work for introducing, mentioning or hinting at a 27-inch iMac now.
Last edited:
I really don’t mean it in a mean way. But maybe you would like to look up the meaning of “profitability”.
Revenue up. Margins not down. How more profitable can it get?
My eyes are rolling so hard right now.
It has nothing to do with clearing inventory. If you're going to stereotype Tim Cook, he's a supply chain guy, not a generic numbers guy. Before he was CEO, he streamlined Apple's entire manufacturing operation to be just-in-time. I doubt they stockpile 6 to 9 months of any finished product.
And even if they did stockpile like that: why wouldn't they just stop 6 months ago? I mean, you already implicitly believe they must've done just that for the Intel Macs they're gonna obsolete in a few hours. What's your clever story about why you think they specifically failed to do that for the 27" iMac, given that it's not exactly rocket science to stop making a thing according to a schedule?
Assuming we don't see a 27" iMac in a few hours, I guarantee you the real reason is that even Apple doesn't have the resources to tape out (release to manufacturing) and production ramp the entire slate of Mac Apple Silicon chips in parallel. They can't release the whole line overnight because they simply aren't able to.
I don't really need to because that's what I actually do for a living.
If you have a basic understanding of accounting, you wouldn't be confusing margin, revenue, and profit like this.
Last edited: