Be careful what you wish for. Apple has already switched to using Intel Graphics almost exclusively in their notebook products and performance has suffered. Yet MacBooks are still priced as though they retained their discreet graphic chips. I'm not sure I'd follow Apple again if they tried the same "trick" with ARM cpus. I'm growing tired of the three steps forward...three steps back...but in a smaller package strategy. Sometimes less is just less.
This isn't an Atom processor, it is a Broadwell processor. As for performance. I'm expecting it to be very good considering it is a fanless design.
I just think that its a bit pricey for a low end CPU (its a mobile chip 1 step up from atom) but I suppose its fine for browsing and basic office tasks.
I guess I'm not so orthodox about it and understand the annoyance with folks who refer to the MacBook as a tablet. For me and others, however, this feels like a new kind of device somewhere between a Mac and an iPad. For many, the compact form factor, a single-port design, Retina display, and a long battery life, all enable a tablet-like charge-and-go. Such design decisions reference the iPad design (which we all know emanated from iPhone and so on). Hence, the "-esque" , i.e., bearing a resemblance to.
The new Mac Book is tablet "like" in its engineering. I'm not sure why people have issues with such statements, it is simply trying to ground the conversation with a reference to things people are familiar with. It doesn't mean that the Mac Book is a tablet at all. Clearly the customization of the batteries and the mother board derive from Apples experiences with tablets and phones.
Tim made it clear that convergence of Mac and iOS is a non-starter, but what if, in a Jobsian way, that is turned on its head as circumstances change. For instance, what if in a not-too distant future, MacBooks ran on ARM, could dual boot into iOS or Mac OS (XI?)
There is zero need to dual boot, an ARM based Mac could run IOS apps in a Window with zero problems.
and used an all glass Force Touch keyboard instead of mechanical butterfly keys?
How would one type on such a laptop. I'm sitting here responding to this post on my iPad using hunt and pick. It works but for the laptop work I do it would be a joke. I still see a massive differene in what I expect out of a laptop as opposed to a tablet.
What if dictation and keyboard-less gesture control got so good that ARM-based Apple notebooks shipped without a physical keyboard, yet ran Mac OS? Would you then say that there is zero that MacBook share with iPad? Or that all that came from Mac, hence, there was "zero" relationship?
Much of this is in the realm of software and I really don't think that was what was being commented on when the thread first got started.
Just a thought experiment; my point is that Apple is deeply interested in breaking down boundaries between devices, both formally and functionally. There is a move toward a continuum of devices rather than categories of devices, IMHO.
In a sense I believe this to be true. However Apple really needs to look towards the future and that involves computers with the natural language processing capability to effectively handle speech without going to an Apple cluster. As such im expecting Apple to start to integrate hardware that accelerates or is dedicated to voice processing. Unless they come to an agreement with Intel for custom chips that means SoC of their own design. This is where we might see ARM based Macs becoming a reality. What would make such machines Mas isn't the processor but rather the operating system running on the processor.
It's clear that Apple's hardware teams have pretty much a blank check to design the absolute best possible machines. I really don't think ANY other personal computer company's hardware division is even close to having this type of freedom-even if they had the talent.
I think it's mostly about the freedom, environment, leadership & trust. Everyone, everyone at Apple cares about design, from the top down. The leadership Trusts design & engineering will do what's best for the company & it's mission. Everyone (from an outsider's perspective obviously) is on the same page & knows what's going on. Unlike my circus of a company wherein sales doesn't trust engineering, doesn't trust design, doesn't trust sales. Leadership doesn't know how things get done, they just want it done now. never thinking more than a week or two out and always worrying about how to make things easy for us, not the customer. Seeking out bottom of the barrel clients rather than top tier clients - not that we have made the proper investments over the past 20 years to meet their expectations if we did.
Apple has put Design, Engineering & Customer Experience First. Before everything. It's not easy to do. It's doesn't get done fast. You can't make promises before you have results. You have to think ahead more than a week, and be prepared to have to change course along the way. The leadership at most companies just don't have it.
Then why didn't the MBA remind anyone of a tablet?
You do realize that the MBA has been out for a long time now. Further in its introductory form it was very laptop like in its construction.
I also don't recall anyone saying the iPad was MBA-esque.
That was due to being derived from the techniques associated with cell phones not the MBA as it was back then.
As for feeling like anew kind of device, I only see new advancements in components that make it a better notebook, not a device that is trying to become a tablet.
I really think you are missing the point. The new Mac Book has many concepts derived from tablets. I don't think anybody seriously sees it as a tablet just that it has a feature set similar to a tablet. There is a big difference with respect to those points of view. The Mac a Book is certainly a laptop but it can be easily seen as a tablet that had a keyboard added to get to its tablet configuration.
The new keyboard keys, the new keyboard backlight, and new trackpad are all just trying to make the device thinner (and perhaps less susceptible to damage since it allows for parts that move less or are completely removed, like the fan).
Consider for a moment how important that keyboard was to Apple at the keynote. The implication was that the keyboard made the new machine possible.
Sure technology has moved forward to allow us to have a fanless design, something originally seen in tablets by the way, but these fanless designs come at a far lower performance point (for power users).
If I were to make a prediction about Apple'd direction with the new MB I'd say that it opens the way for an ARM-based Mac or Mac-like notebook.
I would hope so. However with these new processors it looks like Intel is taking that threat seriously. I suspect Apple will be happy as long as they continue to see Intel taking their advice when it comes to processor design. It is fairly certain that Apple suggested to Intel to focus on the GPUs in their SoC. That was probably five years ago and I have no doubt Apple has stressed other issues or features it wants to see in Intels lineup. In part that will mean dropping legacy hardware for use in these modern machines and adding new technology as needed.
As much as I would love to see a many core ARM based Mac in Apples future I still think they will have a hard time giving up on Intel. In fact the low resistance approach will likely be to work with a Intel to get the SoC they want.
Can someone explain the point of an ARM-based OS X machine?
I'm not trolling or trying to be snide, I just don't get it.
Much the same as a Core-M machine, but without the high cost of the Intel Core processor which are $281 in lots of 1000 according to Intel's latest price list.
But don't think of A8 as it is in the iPhone or iPad because those power envelopes are are purposely lower for a reason, think of Apple using their expertise to make a A-series SoC that can match Intel at the low-end that Apple sells Macs without the high cost, and probably better performance per Watt, and likely the ability to add additional HW features that will make Mac OS X (or a Mac OS X-like OS) even more efficient than it can running on x86_64.
I agree, Apple is using a lot they learned on iDevices to enhance OSX products. While they someday may build an iOS laptop, it won't be called a Mac or even emulate OSX. Apple's intent is to bridge away from a file-based OS with iOS and while they are not there yet, it's a direction they are pointed toward. I don't see any advantage for this direction, but perhaps this are some.
It is their fear of file based system access that worries me the most. It is just extremely frustrating on the iPad and frankly I don't think they will ever get iCloud right.
This is also a feeling I have about the latest MB. It represents a directional move by Apple that seems mixed to me. It should have been priced to replace both MBA laptops, but it was not. So, where does it fit in the lineup where it is moth superior and inferior to the MBA??
The pricing is easy to understand. People forget just how expensive the original Airs where. In a nut shell the high price does several things for Apple. One it moderates sales which is always good with a completely new product. Second it pays for the development of the new technology and manufacturing methods. Third it deals with the ramp up associated with all new technology debuts. Eventually production will be optimized and development costs paid for, so that more aggressive price points can be hit.
Further in its introductory form it was very laptop like in its construction.
And the MacBook has been and still is "very laptop like in its construction."
The new Mac Book has many concepts derived from tablets.
Like what? No touchscreen, a physical keyboard, a clamshell, and a windowed OS still make it a notebook computer.
There is absolutely nothing tablet-esque about that. It's not a "transformer" laptop/tablet device. Being thinner, being fanless, and losing ports do not a tablet make. If you think those make it tablet-esque then why not the MBA arriving the year after the iPhone and well after the iPod make it smartphone-esque or PMP-esque simply because it copies some of the simplicity to its design?
If Apple does move to an ARM-based Mac or Mac-like "PC" at the low end that also won't make it just like a tablet, although I'm sure there will be some that will claim it is, jus as now there are people claiming that Core-M is just like Atom.
Much the same as a Core-M machine, but without the high cost of the Intel Core processor which are $281 in lots of 1000 according to Intel's latest price list.
But don't think of A8 as it is in the iPhone or iPad because those power envelopes are are purposely lower for a reason, think of Apple using their expertise to make a A-series SoC that can match Intel at the low-end that Apple sells Macs without the high cost, and probably better performance per Watt, and likely the ability to add additional HW features that will make Mac OS X (or a Mac OS X-like OS) even more efficient than it can running on x86_64.
I think the MBA is going away and will be fully-replaced by the macBook. When that happens..I'd guess 2-3 years. For example, they still sell the non-Retina 13" MacBook Pro and will likely do so until IDK?
I see the new Mac Book as a new product for Apple. I don't see the MBA going away anytime soon though they morph a bit.
A year or two ago they still sold a non-Retina 15"MBP. I suspect they'll draw down inventory on the 13" MBP and ramp volume and lower prices on the current MacBook as soon as logistically and economically feasible.
Why would they draw down the inventory on the 13" MBP? I just purchased one and frankly I'm impressed with the machine. It has all the capabilities I and many others need that simply aren't there in a Mac Book.
My experiences with laptops are they all have very short standby time. If it is not used for just a couple days, the battery is completely drained out. The MBA is the first laptop that has this amazing 30 days standby time.
So?
I mean really how many people really care about standby times beyond a couple of days? A handful maybe but stand by time is only useful if you don't use the computer much, because if you are regular user on battery power you will need to recharge daily.
Don't take this the wrong way. My 2015 13 MBP has amazing stand by time itself having sat for 12 hours so far with minimal battery drain. That is great because it means IPad like usage convenience. However I don't see where 20 or 30 days means much as that would mean leaving the machine untouched for that long.
Sure they are. Every user manual, instructions for use,, advertisement, trade show graphic, magazine, photo retouch, newspaper, book, billboard, TV program, postcard, business card, buswrap, textbook, logo, and probably every car, motorcycle, ship, airplane, and spaceship would cease to exist, because Adobe is integral to all those industries.
Baloney. You don't have to use Adobe products to achieve what is listed above.
What I find interesting is the move away from the paradigm that used to rule at Apple regarding product lines and diversity.
Jobs axed a lot of products when he returned to Apple and he used to say that it was important to choose which product should be made - but even more, which products should be terminated.
The problem with this sort of statement is that people don't realize that Steve had no choice in the matter when he returned. By some estimates the company had only 2 months left before failure. The axe was swung because he had no choice and need to cut expense significantly.
Now, we have two different iPhones, two different iPad, three different MacBook - that's three more versions of three products than when Jobs was CEO.
The unfortunate thing with Steve or maybe the good thing depending upon your perspective, was that he was highly focused on new products or the future. This was never a good thing and resulted in many products languishing. This was especially bad with the Macs and more so with the laptops. Laptops electively became the PC industry and Apples lack of models has always been a problem, in fact I believe they missed a lot of opportunity. I see this Mac Book as an attempt to expand the product line to reel more users in.
And this trend is actually a full blown strategy, just look at the watch. Again, three different versions, but with a LOT of different bracelets. And different buying experiences.
I think it's a sound strategy - and it defines the post-Jobs era.
Well I can't disagree as I've advocated more hardware in the past. However marketing a watch is not the same as marketing a computer.
You should check out his other posts. That was just the final straw.
In regards to performance per watt, do you think Apple has the chops to match Intel at the fanless end of the notebook market?
That is a tough question to answer! Apple has already demonstrated impressive ARN 64 bit performance right out of the gate with A7 and A8. Considering that the performance is impressive and frankly more than a year ahead of generic ARM solutions I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Apple overhaul the architecture significantly for 14 nm. This would mean faster cores per clock, better interprocessor communications and faster RAM interfaces. It has been three years now and I could see Apple targeting another 50%+ increase in performance, this could put them in Broadwell range.
The problem here is that Apple needs to support cell phones on its SoC designs. That means they can't go after maximum performance in the core design unless they begin to support two different core designs. Of course the other option for Apple and a very viable one, is to put a lot of cores on chip. That isn't as easy to do as it sounds because you need an architecture to keep those cores working efficiently.
In any event we need to remember that PA Semi and most of the companies Apple has picked up since have been focused on low power not specifically high performance. In the end though yes I think Apple has the chops to build competitive ARM based solutions. They won't hit the per core performance numbers initially but can do far better than current ARM cores.
I just think that its a bit pricey for a low end CPU (its a mobile chip 1 step up from atom) but I suppose its fine for browsing and basic office tasks.
It is more than a notch up. You need to do some research here, this is a Broadwell based processor.
I mean really how many people really care about standby times beyond a couple of days? A handful maybe but stand by time is only useful if you don't use the computer much, because if you are regular user on battery power you will need to recharge daily.
Don't take this the wrong way. My 2015 13 MBP has amazing stand by time itself having sat for 12 hours so far with minimal battery drain. That is great because it means IPad like usage convenience. However I don't see where 20 or 30 days means much as that would mean leaving the machine untouched for that long.
It really matter if standby time is only a couple days. You can not use your laptop without finding an external power plug to charge it first.
Can someone explain the point of an ARM-based OS X machine?
It would mean laptops (mostly) with tailored made SoC technology.
Look at it this way a SoC is effectively the equivalent of a printed circuit board from the 80's to 90's time frame. It is where engineers now glue their unique designs together. Instead of designing a printed circuit board and a few custome chips to realize most of your platform, you instead design a SoC much like Apple has with the A series chips.
Now why would Apple want to do this for a Laptop? It allows for exactly what they need and want on the SoC instead of settling for Intels generic solutions.
I'm not trolling or trying to be snide, I just don't get it.
That is all right, it is actually a good question. From the standpoint of people want to see this happen I think it boils down to these issues:
We want to see Intel under constant pressure to improve their hardware. In the past AMD was a big factor here, today not so much.
ARM might be a better fit for ultra compact laptops like the new Mac Book. The thing is we really don't know how well the new Mac Book will perform due to thermal issues common to Intel hardware. Apples ARM designs often run flat out while keeping performance stready.
ARM would allow far more cores on chip than can be had with i86 which in some workloads would be ideal. Imagine if you will a six core SoC, A10 if you will, that only runs at 5 watts. This might sound extreme to some but the ARM cores aren't massive and they can be improved. If you look at the photos of the current Apple implementation you will see that six cores would be easy space wise with a process shrink.
Remember Apple hasn't even implemented a FinFet type processor yet. Doing so could allow them to produce a decent machine with a 2 watt SoC.
It puts Apple in the drivers seat.
Lastly a big reason is cost. Intel gets a really good price on its laptop chips. Going ARM, leveraging IOS hardware development costs might allow Apple to trim $300 of the cost of a machine. This especially if they can implement stuff (on the SoC) that requires third party chips on Intel based machines.
Comments
You should check out his other posts. That was just the final straw.
In regards to performance per watt, do you think Apple has the chops to match Intel at the fanless end of the notebook market?
Originally Posted by NeilM
We do know that. Apple says the new MB will offer 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 GHz processors, see http://www.apple.com/mac/compare/
You realize there's more than one Core M processor with the same base clock speed, right? Not to mention that there are zero Core M processors with a 1.3ghz base clock. See http://ark.intel.com/products/family/83613/Intel-Core-M-Processors#@Mobile for reference.
Like my momma always said, you can't judge a processor by its base clock.
Be careful what you wish for. Apple has already switched to using Intel Graphics almost exclusively in their notebook products and performance has suffered. Yet MacBooks are still priced as though they retained their discreet graphic chips. I'm not sure I'd follow Apple again if they tried the same "trick" with ARM cpus. I'm growing tired of the three steps forward...three steps back...but in a smaller package strategy. Sometimes less is just less.
I just think that its a bit pricey for a low end CPU (its a mobile chip 1 step up from atom) but I suppose its fine for browsing and basic office tasks.
In a sense I believe this to be true. However Apple really needs to look towards the future and that involves computers with the natural language processing capability to effectively handle speech without going to an Apple cluster. As such im expecting Apple to start to integrate hardware that accelerates or is dedicated to voice processing. Unless they come to an agreement with Intel for custom chips that means SoC of their own design. This is where we might see ARM based Macs becoming a reality. What would make such machines Mas isn't the processor but rather the operating system running on the processor.
It's clear that Apple's hardware teams have pretty much a blank check to design the absolute best possible machines. I really don't think ANY other personal computer company's hardware division is even close to having this type of freedom-even if they had the talent.
I think it's mostly about the freedom, environment, leadership & trust. Everyone, everyone at Apple cares about design, from the top down. The leadership Trusts design & engineering will do what's best for the company & it's mission. Everyone (from an outsider's perspective obviously) is on the same page & knows what's going on. Unlike my circus of a company wherein sales doesn't trust engineering, doesn't trust design, doesn't trust sales. Leadership doesn't know how things get done, they just want it done now. never thinking more than a week or two out and always worrying about how to make things easy for us, not the customer. Seeking out bottom of the barrel clients rather than top tier clients - not that we have made the proper investments over the past 20 years to meet their expectations if we did.
Apple has put Design, Engineering & Customer Experience First. Before everything. It's not easy to do. It's doesn't get done fast. You can't make promises before you have results. You have to think ahead more than a week, and be prepared to have to change course along the way. The leadership at most companies just don't have it.
They also have to hire people who aren't clowns.
Can someone explain the point of an ARM-based OS X machine?
I'm not trolling or trying to be snide, I just don't get it.
Sure technology has moved forward to allow us to have a fanless design, something originally seen in tablets by the way, but these fanless designs come at a far lower performance point (for power users).
I would hope so. However with these new processors it looks like Intel is taking that threat seriously. I suspect Apple will be happy as long as they continue to see Intel taking their advice when it comes to processor design. It is fairly certain that Apple suggested to Intel to focus on the GPUs in their SoC. That was probably five years ago and I have no doubt Apple has stressed other issues or features it wants to see in Intels lineup. In part that will mean dropping legacy hardware for use in these modern machines and adding new technology as needed.
As much as I would love to see a many core ARM based Mac in Apples future I still think they will have a hard time giving up on Intel. In fact the low resistance approach will likely be to work with a Intel to get the SoC they want.
Much the same as a Core-M machine, but without the high cost of the Intel Core processor which are $281 in lots of 1000 according to Intel's latest price list.
But don't think of A8 as it is in the iPhone or iPad because those power envelopes are are purposely lower for a reason, think of Apple using their expertise to make a A-series SoC that can match Intel at the low-end that Apple sells Macs without the high cost, and probably better performance per Watt, and likely the ability to add additional HW features that will make Mac OS X (or a Mac OS X-like OS) even more efficient than it can running on x86_64.
The pricing is easy to understand. People forget just how expensive the original Airs where. In a nut shell the high price does several things for Apple. One it moderates sales which is always good with a completely new product. Second it pays for the development of the new technology and manufacturing methods. Third it deals with the ramp up associated with all new technology debuts. Eventually production will be optimized and development costs paid for, so that more aggressive price points can be hit.
And the MacBook has been and still is "very laptop like in its construction."
Like what? No touchscreen, a physical keyboard, a clamshell, and a windowed OS still make it a notebook computer.
There is absolutely nothing tablet-esque about that. It's not a "transformer" laptop/tablet device. Being thinner, being fanless, and losing ports do not a tablet make. If you think those make it tablet-esque then why not the MBA arriving the year after the iPhone and well after the iPod make it smartphone-esque or PMP-esque simply because it copies some of the simplicity to its design?
If Apple does move to an ARM-based Mac or Mac-like "PC" at the low end that also won't make it just like a tablet, although I'm sure there will be some that will claim it is, jus as now there are people claiming that Core-M is just like Atom.
Much the same as a Core-M machine, but without the high cost of the Intel Core processor which are $281 in lots of 1000 according to Intel's latest price list.
But don't think of A8 as it is in the iPhone or iPad because those power envelopes are are purposely lower for a reason, think of Apple using their expertise to make a A-series SoC that can match Intel at the low-end that Apple sells Macs without the high cost, and probably better performance per Watt, and likely the ability to add additional HW features that will make Mac OS X (or a Mac OS X-like OS) even more efficient than it can running on x86_64.
OK, gotcha. Thank you.
Why would they draw down the inventory on the 13" MBP? I just purchased one and frankly I'm impressed with the machine. It has all the capabilities I and many others need that simply aren't there in a Mac Book.
So?
I mean really how many people really care about standby times beyond a couple of days? A handful maybe but stand by time is only useful if you don't use the computer much, because if you are regular user on battery power you will need to recharge daily.
Don't take this the wrong way. My 2015 13 MBP has amazing stand by time itself having sat for 12 hours so far with minimal battery drain. That is great because it means IPad like usage convenience. However I don't see where 20 or 30 days means much as that would mean leaving the machine untouched for that long.
Baloney. You don't have to use Adobe products to achieve what is listed above.
Well I can't disagree as I've advocated more hardware in the past. However marketing a watch is not the same as marketing a computer.
That is a tough question to answer! Apple has already demonstrated impressive ARN 64 bit performance right out of the gate with A7 and A8. Considering that the performance is impressive and frankly more than a year ahead of generic ARM solutions I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Apple overhaul the architecture significantly for 14 nm. This would mean faster cores per clock, better interprocessor communications and faster RAM interfaces. It has been three years now and I could see Apple targeting another 50%+ increase in performance, this could put them in Broadwell range.
The problem here is that Apple needs to support cell phones on its SoC designs. That means they can't go after maximum performance in the core design unless they begin to support two different core designs. Of course the other option for Apple and a very viable one, is to put a lot of cores on chip. That isn't as easy to do as it sounds because you need an architecture to keep those cores working efficiently.
In any event we need to remember that PA Semi and most of the companies Apple has picked up since have been focused on low power not specifically high performance. In the end though yes I think Apple has the chops to build competitive ARM based solutions. They won't hit the per core performance numbers initially but can do far better than current ARM cores.
It is more than a notch up. You need to do some research here, this is a Broadwell based processor.
So?
I mean really how many people really care about standby times beyond a couple of days? A handful maybe but stand by time is only useful if you don't use the computer much, because if you are regular user on battery power you will need to recharge daily.
Don't take this the wrong way. My 2015 13 MBP has amazing stand by time itself having sat for 12 hours so far with minimal battery drain. That is great because it means IPad like usage convenience. However I don't see where 20 or 30 days means much as that would mean leaving the machine untouched for that long.
It really matter if standby time is only a couple days. You can not use your laptop without finding an external power plug to charge it first.
Look at it this way a SoC is effectively the equivalent of a printed circuit board from the 80's to 90's time frame. It is where engineers now glue their unique designs together. Instead of designing a printed circuit board and a few custome chips to realize most of your platform, you instead design a SoC much like Apple has with the A series chips.
Now why would Apple want to do this for a Laptop? It allows for exactly what they need and want on the SoC instead of settling for Intels generic solutions.
That is all right, it is actually a good question. From the standpoint of people want to see this happen I think it boils down to these issues: