nht said: An ARM based Mac is redundant for this market segment.
Nope.
Yep. Apple has been saying this...that the iPad is the next computing platform for consumers and replaces laptops.
Don't be daft. Even Jobs gave a brilliant analogy of cars and trucks, which even you should be able to grasp. As of now, there is no Xcode for iOS. Let me know when you can start building a Mac app on your iPhone.
Don't be an ass. You said the low end Mac ARM laptop would be for people that need cars not developers that want trucks:
You get those that need a basic email and internet machine and the handful of apps that they can get from the Mac App Store
Wow! You really need to get rid of that archaic notion that ARM = iPhone/iPad and Intel = notebook/desktop. All you're going to do is make yourself even more upset when the world changes in ways you've actively chosen to not to understand because you invented a pointless demarcation point for the architecture that these devices are allowed to run on.
nht said: An ARM based Mac is redundant for this market segment.
Nope.
Yep. Apple has been saying this...that the iPad is the next computing platform for consumers and replaces laptops.
Don't be daft. Even Jobs gave a brilliant analogy of cars and trucks, which even you should be able to grasp. As of now, there is no Xcode for iOS. Let me know when you can start building a Mac app on your iPhone.
Don't be an ass. You said the low end Mac ARM laptop would be for people that need cars not developers that want trucks:
You get those that need a basic email and internet machine and the handful of apps that they can get from the Mac App Store
Wow! You really need to get rid of that archaic notion that ARM = iPhone/iPad and Intel = notebook/desktop. All you're going to do is make yourself even more upset when the world changes in ways you've actively chosen to not to understand because you invented a pointless demarcation point for the architecture that these devices are allowed to run on.
Illegal movement of goal posts. 10 yard penalty. Still 4th down.
Your assertion was that fracturing the Mac product line into an ARM based Mac RT on the low end and X86 on the high end makes sense because that device can be used by people with basic email, internet and app needs.
I stated that this use case/market segment is already addressed by the iPad.
Then you called me daft and started back pedaling bringing up tangential things.
There isn't anything an ARM based MacBook can do that the iPad can't.
The demarcation point is compatibility with legacy apps and the ability to run windows apps. This is the same limitation that Windows RT devices faced.
XCode is not a demarcation point. I can code iOS LUA apps using codea on the iPad. While Apple is not choosing to port XCode to the iPad Pro at this time Dirgend gives you a Dev environment on iOS but is still dependent on a remote build server. Once swift is ported to iOS (or more accurately, the iOS port is released as open source as I'm sure there is already an internal build) this can change and you'll see more 3rd party iOS ide appear on the App Store for developers even if Apple doesn't release their own iOS XCode port.
As far as X86 vs ARM on desktops/laptops go I'll probably own an ARM laptop before you do. These are perfectly fine for Linux or Chrome/Android where there are essentially no legacy app concerns or expectations. Plus they will be far below the MacBook in price anyway in the Chromebook market segment.
Apple has the $399-$499 iPad Air to cover this market segment and has little need for a an ARM based MacBook to do so. This allows Apple to clearly delineate car and truck ecosystems without confusing users like what Microsoft did with Windows RT.
The problem is not whether macOS can run on ARM. The problem is can the software run on ARM?
A move to ARM will break ALL games not specifically designed to run on macOS. It will break Parallels and other virtual machine software. It will break Wine which in turn brings us back to the games breaking.
For Apple to move to ARM on Macs they will have to develop some sort of layer that will allow currently software to run flawlessly. HINT: It's not going to happen in the next couple of years.
How will producing an $800 ARM-based Mac for entry-level users with simple needs make my $3000 MBP no longer work with Parallels or VMWare?
It won't.
What it will do is create a lot of complaints that the $800 Mac can't run parallels or older apps and lower customer satisfaction because these are things the current low end MacBook can do.
This is exactly what happened to Windows RT. Not (just) because the devices were so-so but because they were sold as Windows laptops. Selling a "Mac" laptop that can't run Mac apps is the same recipe for user frustration.
Especially since an iPad is already a great solution for entry level users and costs less than $800.
Would one be able to run Windows on a Mac like we can now if Apple switched to ARM chips?
Not the Intel-based version of Windows, at least not without EMULATION.
That said, there are solutions, like MS releasing their (failed) ARM-based version of Windows or Apple building into their ARM chips or an accompanying, discreet chip that will allow for Virtualization of x86-based OSes. Apple will still need to allow Bootcamp for this operation or a company like VMWare or Parallels will have to work to make this happen.
I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
Nope.
The MacBook and MacBook Air are fully compatible with Mac apps and are light trucks. RAM aside there isn't anything that you can do on a MBP that you can't do on a MacBook. It just takes a little longer.
This is not true of the iPad or an ARM based Mac.
That at some folks buy trucks as their daily driver doesn't make them cars or that a car wouldn't completely meet their needs.
You still haven't shown any "car" use cases that an ARM based MacBook can do that an iPad can't with a pencil and keyboard cover.
Conversely there are many "truck" use cases that cannot be met by an ARM based MacBook.
Therefore it is far better for Apple to continue to expand the iPad line as they have been doing with the iPad Pro than screw up the Mac line with an incompatible product that would only confuse users.
I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
PS: Do you want to tell me again why Apple will never switch to Intel from IBM or to IBM from Motorola because it's impossible to make apps for the Mac with a different architecture?
I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
Nope.
PS: Do you want to tell me again why Apple will never switch to Intel from IBM or to IBM from Motorola because it's impossible to make apps for the Mac with a different architecture?
Do you want to tell me when Apple switched halfway between Intel and PowerPC? When Apple jumped from Power to Intel they did it as quickly as possible. January 2006 to October 2006.
The 68K also transitioned the entire line to PowerPC in 1 generation although it was much messier with the majority of the is running under a 68K emulation.
It's not impossible to support different architectures but fat binaries are annoying and product testing is made more time consuming and expensive.
Both times the transition was a major pain for developers and often for users as well. If Apple does transition to ARM for the Mac it will do so across the entire lineup as quickly as possible. Your scenario isn't supported by either Apple history, Apple statements on product strategy or common sense.
Saving less than $200 on BOM for the MacBook would incur huge costs to both Apple and the dev community and cause confusion among users. I doubt there would be any cost savings after you factor in the expense of porting and retesting apps and the increased infrastructure costs for supporting devs.
It's not impossible to support different architectures but fat binaries are annoying and product testing is made more time consuming and expensive.
You know what's more annoying—besides your anti-Apple rhetoric—is paying hundreds of dollars more for a machine that would be faster using Apple's ARM chips and losing out on millions of customers and billions of dollars in revenue because you claim that architecture transitions are too much trouble for Apple to ever do again despite the vast increases in storage capacity, and major changes to the IDE and core code that will make this a relative cakewalk compared to all previous and hugely successful attempts.
But, hey, if you want to suggest that iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and touchbarOS are all pieces of shit because they are OS X using ARM, and that the Mac has to use Intel until the end of time because change scares you, then go right ahead. I support your right to remain ignorant about future possibilities.
It's not impossible to support different architectures but fat binaries are annoying and product testing is made more time consuming and expensive.
You know what's more annoying—besides your anti-Apple rhetoric—is paying hundreds of dollars more for a machine that would be faster using Apple's ARM chips and losing out on millions of customers and billions of dollars in revenue because you claim that architecture transitions are too much trouble for Apple to ever do again despite the vast increases in storage capacity, and major changes to the IDE and core code that will make this a relative cakewalk compared to all previous and hugely successful attempts.
But, hey, if you want to suggest that iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and touchbarOS are all pieces of shit because they are OS X using ARM, and that the Mac has to use Intel until the end of time because change scares you, then go right ahead. I support your right to remain ignorant about future possibilities.
Anti-Apple? LOL. That is possibly the least intelligent thing you have written ever.
That I have destroyed your dumb assertion that a low end ARM based MacBook is viable when it is the antithesis of Apple approach to computing doesn't make me "anti-Apple". It just makes your idea dumb.
That Apple may go all ARM in the future for Macs is more than possible once they can scale to Core i7 performance. That Apple would destroy user experience by providing a muddled product line where some Macs can run everything and other cannot is less likely than the xMac.
The assertion that Apple is losing billions on not having a $800 A10X MacBook is laughable. They are capturing that revenue and profit through the iPad and iPad Pro. There is a reason that iPad replacement cycles looks more and more like laptop replacement cycles.
Because for the "car" use case they have largely replaced budget laptops.
Finally, you aren't a dev, you aren't supporting multiple platforms and architectures. Even cross platform environments require additional testing and overhead in terms of dev ops support. The theoretical "just recompile and ship" will bite you in the ass with 1 star reviews when the app breaks.
Your problem is that Apple makes the difficult LOOK easy. It's not "cakewalk" when you want to do it right. To make a seamless transition from Intel to ARM requires significant engineering effort that isn't worthwhile until they transition the entire Mac product line.
That you continue to push this is more anti-Apple than anything I would ever say. You are creating the false impression that this would be "cakewalk" and if so the Apple isn't doing this so users must spend $1200 Core M3 MacBook vs $800 for a A10X MacBook.
This is just the 2017 version of Apple is greedy because it won't make an xMac.
Instead, my position has been and remains that Apple provides great value in its computing products at launch including the current $1200 MacBook and $600 iPad Pro.
You know what's more annoying is paying hundreds of dollars more for a machine that would be faster using Apple's ARM chips and losing out on millions of customers and billions of dollars in revenue because you claim that architecture transitions are too much trouble for Apple to ever do again despite the vast increases in storage capacity, and major changes to the IDE and core code that will make this a relative cakewalk compared to all previous and hugely successful attempts.
Apple could make a cheaper, faster ARM Mac at the low-end but it would be unlikely to undercut the iPad Pro.
Right now, Apple has the 128GB/8GB 13" Macbook Air at the $999 price point and the 256GB model is $1199.
Switching to ARM would allow them to lower the cost of the chips but they'd just put it back into the display so instead of a non-Retina Intel MBA at $999, it would be a Retina ARM MB at $899-999 and I'd expect sales would be much the same.
I can see the case for an ARM Mac over an iPad as it runs software designed for KB/mouse and it has a performance-per-watt advantage over Intel. The performance advantage isn't all that much though. It's 50% over Kaby Lake Core M but only about 10-20% over the 4.5W i7 Kaby Lake. The biggest advantage is price. Over time, SSD prices will fall and eat away at the $300 gap between the Air and entry MB. In 3 years, the 256GB MB will be $1099 or less and the Air discontinued.
The PPC switch had a multi-decade roadmap to justify the switch. In another decade, computing power will be high enough and cheap enough with any architecture that a major switch isn't nearly as compelling. At the same time, if they could emulate x86 software well enough that any non-native code became a non-issue then it doesn't matter much either way. Microsoft must have put effort into making an ARM version of Windows with emulation for a reason. Using mobile hardware is really the only way for PCs to compete in the mobile space.
I think it would be nice to have an ARM chip inside Macs as an addition because it would mean being able to test iOS apps natively instead of running them in software mode. They could also do CPU switching like how they do GPU switching. If you were just browsing, using Mail, iTunes etc then it can run the ARM versions at a lower power.
They can make an ARM Mac but it still won't be nearly cheap enough to drastically impact overall sales. The bulk of PC sales are in the $500 region and this is more to do with margins than components.
You know what's more annoying is paying hundreds of dollars more for a machine that would be faster using Apple's ARM chips and losing out on millions of customers and billions of dollars in revenue because you claim that architecture transitions are too much trouble for Apple to ever do again despite the vast increases in storage capacity, and major changes to the IDE and core code that will make this a relative cakewalk compared to all previous and hugely successful attempts.
Apple could make a cheaper, faster ARM Mac at the low-end but it would be unlikely to undercut the iPad Pro.
Right now, Apple has the 128GB/8GB 13" Macbook Air at the $999 price point and the 256GB model is $1199.
Switching to ARM would allow them to lower the cost of the chips but they'd just put it back into the display so instead of a non-Retina Intel MBA at $999, it would be a Retina ARM MB at $899-999 and I'd expect sales would be much the same.
I can see the case for an ARM Mac over an iPad as it runs software designed for KB/mouse and it has a performance-per-watt advantage over Intel. The performance advantage isn't all that much though. It's 50% over Kaby Lake Core M but only about 10-20% over the 4.5W i7 Kaby Lake. The biggest advantage is price. Over time, SSD prices will fall and eat away at the $300 gap between the Air and entry MB. In 3 years, the 256GB MB will be $1099 or less and the Air discontinued.
The PPC switch had a multi-decade roadmap to justify the switch. In another decade, computing power will be high enough and cheap enough with any architecture that a major switch isn't nearly as compelling. At the same time, if they could emulate x86 software well enough that any non-native code became a non-issue then it doesn't matter much either way. Microsoft must have put effort into making an ARM version of Windows with emulation for a reason. Using mobile hardware is really the only way for PCs to compete in the mobile space.
I think it would be nice to have an ARM chip inside Macs as an addition because it would mean being able to test iOS apps natively instead of running them in software mode. They could also do CPU switching like how they do GPU switching. If you were just browsing, using Mail, iTunes etc then it can run the ARM versions at a lower power.
They can make an ARM Mac but it still won't be nearly cheap enough to drastically impact overall sales. The bulk of PC sales are in the $500 region and this is more to do with margins than components.
1) Why use the iPad Pro's display, which uses an expensive digitizer and is the top of the line iPad?
2) Consider the cost of that Intel chip compared to what it would cost Apple to produce their own chip.
nht said: The assertion that Apple is losing billions on not having a $800 A10X MacBook is laughable. [...] Apple isn't doing this so users must spend $1200 Core M3 MacBook vs $800 for a A10X MacBook.
It's my fault for engaging in a conversation with you when you aren't even paying attention to what is being discussed. I never mentioned anything about an "A10X MacBook" but for some reason you think we're talking about the same chip from last year's iPad being used in a future product that could still be years from coming to market, not to mention that you've ignored Apple's various renaming of their ARM-based chips for different product categories. I did note the fact that the A10X beats the CPU performance of the 12" MB to demonstrate they ARM isn't the underpowered, piece of shit architecture you seem to want to paint it as, but never did I say the A10X should be used in a Mac.
nht said: The assertion that Apple is losing billions on not having a $800 A10X MacBook is laughable. [...] Apple isn't doing this so users must spend $1200 Core M3 MacBook vs $800 for a A10X MacBook.
It's my fault for engaging in a conversation with you when you aren't even paying attention to what is being discussed. I never mentioned anything about an "A10X MacBook" but for some reason you think we're talking about the same chip from last year's iPad being used in a future product that could still be years from coming to market, not to mention that you've ignored Apple's various renaming of their ARM-based chips for different product categories. I did note the fact that the A10X beats the CPU performance of the 12" MB to demonstrate they ARM isn't the underpowered, piece of shit architecture you seem to want to paint it as, but never did I say the A10X should be used in a Mac.
Lol u mad bro?
Because you are projecting all over the place.
I never said or implied that the ARM architecture was a piece of shit but that it has not been scaled to Core i7 performance. Until then it can't replace Intel across the board.
Your piecemeal replacement is simply stupid today and even dumber "years" from now when ARM is closer to being a potential wholescale replacement for Intel.
I used A10X because it's what is available for comparison today for BOM costs. Otherwise there is zero basis for your assertion that an ARM based MacBook would be hundreds less than an Intel based MacBook.
And there isn't an A10X iPad yet. Of course as the uber Apple fan you knew that.
The A10X geekbench scores aren't real until the A10X iPads ship so isn't a "fact". That said the A9X iPad Pros (and iPhone 7) do quite well so the expectation that this years iPad Pros will do better than last years M3 in the MacBook is reasonable.
Your complaint is just like the xMac whining about how apple's desktops are too expensive and too slow because they use laptop parts: Pointless.
Apple picks the best options for users and its own bottom line. Until and unless ARM is ready to replace Intel across the board it's not likely to appear in a Mac branded product.
Whether Apple bothers to make the engineering effort to scale ARM to Core i7 performance is debatable. There is no question that they could do so but whether it's really worth the effort in the near term is questionable so long as Intel continues to cater to Apple's desire for more performance per watt.
Wouldn't an ARM based Mac need a lot more than just an ARM CPU? Doesn't Apple use Intel Reference motherboard designs that are then modified for Apple's specific use, thus relieving Apple from having an entire motherboard design division? Seems like Apple would need to design a unique Mac motherboard series to fit the requirements of the ARM chip which would not be trivial. Undertaking the development of an ARM based Mac is certainly a much bigger deal than just creating an adequate CPU. Not that Apple can't do it of course - but still . . .
The chip cost will be the largest difference. Let's say they managed $899 for an ARM Macbook with 8GB RAM and 128GB storage. They currently start laptops at $999 so going to $899 might boost unit sales by 25% from 18 million Macs to 23m. At the same time, this lower cost machine would drive buyers away from the $1299 Intel model, which lowers their average selling price. So they might sell 5 million more Macs but drive another 5 million away from a $1299 model to an $899 model. The margins aren't affected but the revenue per sale is lower. Their ASP is around $1200 for 18m units = $21.6b. Instead it would be 13m @ $1200 + 10m @ $900 = $24.6b. That's ~14% revenue/profit growth. Weighing up the software split and the hardware inventory against the potential unit and revenue growth, it doesn't seem worth the effort. There are clear advantages with price, performance, battery life in having an ARM unit vs an Intel unit comparing a single unit to the other but on the larger scale, it doesn't look as good.
To compete for high unit volume in the PC market, the competition looks like this:
300 million PCs per year and the majority will be hovering close to the $400 mark now. There's probably 25-50 million PCs that Apple could target in the $600-1000 region but I wouldn't expect they'd switch many more people with even a $799 MB if a $999 Air isn't doing it already.
It would be interesting to see how well an ARM Macbook would perform and they must have tried it already internally. It probably works pretty well but like I say ramping that up to production level and having to support it is a different matter. The more that prices are being driven down with PCs, I could actually see PC manufacturers making moves to ARM chips to avoid making losses. Microsoft will be prepared for this with Windows on ARM. If this happens though, Intel will lower prices too. It would be nice if Intel lowered their prices at the high-end, those prices are crazy. 40% of the retail price of the higher-end Mac Pros goes to Intel. It just kills demand for those products and they get away with it as there isn't anything competing at that level.
Wouldn't an ARM based Mac need a lot more than just an ARM CPU? Doesn't Apple use Intel Reference motherboard designs that are then modified for Apple's specific use, thus relieving Apple from having an entire motherboard design division? Seems like Apple would need to design a unique Mac motherboard series to fit the requirements of the ARM chip which would not be trivial. Undertaking the development of an ARM based Mac is certainly a much bigger deal than just creating an adequate CPU. Not that Apple can't do it of course - but still . . .]
Well, they have to do all their own designs for their ARM platforms already. This includes all the power, battery, heat (but not fans), data storage, data flow, sensors, cameras, management and the mobo to hang it all on. Add to they have added the complexity of cellular radios on top of all the other data handling I think they are well equipped or should be anyway.
Now if the aim was to trash intel's platform hub then effectively Apple would have one common platform for everything south of the bridge to use the old language.
1) Why use the iPad Pro's display, which uses an expensive digitizer and is the top of the line iPad?
2) Consider the cost of that Intel chip compared to what it would cost Apple to produce their own chip.
They'd use a display similar to the MB. The iPad and MB displays probably aren't that much different in price overall:
Not even close. Again, the digitizer is not a cheap component in the iPad Pro display. And I'm not even getting into about other touchscreen components to the iPad Pro display that also increase its cost, although not nearly as much as the digitizer.
Comments
Your assertion was that fracturing the Mac product line into an ARM based Mac RT on the low end and X86 on the high end makes sense because that device can be used by people with basic email, internet and app needs.
I stated that this use case/market segment is already addressed by the iPad.
Then you called me daft and started back pedaling bringing up tangential things.
There isn't anything an ARM based MacBook can do that the iPad can't.
The demarcation point is compatibility with legacy apps and the ability to run windows apps. This is the same limitation that Windows RT devices faced.
XCode is not a demarcation point. I can code iOS LUA apps using codea on the iPad. While Apple is not choosing to port XCode to the iPad Pro at this time Dirgend gives you a Dev environment on iOS but is still dependent on a remote build server. Once swift is ported to iOS (or more accurately, the iOS port is released as open source as I'm sure there is already an internal build) this can change and you'll see more 3rd party iOS ide appear on the App Store for developers even if Apple doesn't release their own iOS XCode port.
As far as X86 vs ARM on desktops/laptops go I'll probably own an ARM laptop before you do. These are perfectly fine for Linux or Chrome/Android where there are essentially no legacy app concerns or expectations. Plus they will be far below the MacBook in price anyway in the Chromebook market segment.
Apple has the $399-$499 iPad Air to cover this market segment and has little need for a an ARM based MacBook to do so. This allows Apple to clearly delineate car and truck ecosystems without confusing users like what Microsoft did with Windows RT.
What it will do is create a lot of complaints that the $800 Mac can't run parallels or older apps and lower customer satisfaction because these are things the current low end MacBook can do.
This is exactly what happened to Windows RT. Not (just) because the devices were so-so but because they were sold as Windows laptops. Selling a "Mac" laptop that can't run Mac apps is the same recipe for user frustration.
Especially since an iPad is already a great solution for entry level users and costs less than $800.
That said, there are solutions, like MS releasing their (failed) ARM-based version of Windows or Apple building into their ARM chips or an accompanying, discreet chip that will allow for Virtualization of x86-based OSes. Apple will still need to allow Bootcamp for this operation or a company like VMWare or Parallels will have to work to make this happen.
I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
The MacBook and MacBook Air are fully compatible with Mac apps and are light trucks. RAM aside there isn't anything that you can do on a MBP that you can't do on a MacBook. It just takes a little longer.
This is not true of the iPad or an ARM based Mac.
That at some folks buy trucks as their daily driver doesn't make them cars or that a car wouldn't completely meet their needs.
You still haven't shown any "car" use cases that an ARM based MacBook can do that an iPad can't with a pencil and keyboard cover.
Conversely there are many "truck" use cases that cannot be met by an ARM based MacBook.
Therefore it is far better for Apple to continue to expand the iPad line as they have been doing with the iPad Pro than screw up the Mac line with an incompatible product that would only confuse users.
http://www.apple.com/mac/
PS: Do you want to tell me again why Apple will never switch to Intel from IBM or to IBM from Motorola because it's impossible to make apps for the Mac with a different architecture?
The 68K also transitioned the entire line to PowerPC in 1 generation although it was much messier with the majority of the is running under a 68K emulation.
It's not impossible to support different architectures but fat binaries are annoying and product testing is made more time consuming and expensive.
Both times the transition was a major pain for developers and often for users as well. If Apple does transition to ARM for the Mac it will do so across the entire lineup as quickly as possible. Your scenario isn't supported by either Apple history, Apple statements on product strategy or common sense.
Saving less than $200 on BOM for the MacBook would incur huge costs to both Apple and the dev community and cause confusion among users. I doubt there would be any cost savings after you factor in the expense of porting and retesting apps and the increased infrastructure costs for supporting devs.
But, hey, if you want to suggest that iOS, watchOS, tvOS, and touchbarOS are all pieces of shit because they are OS X using ARM, and that the Mac has to use Intel until the end of time because change scares you, then go right ahead. I support your right to remain ignorant about future possibilities.
That I have destroyed your dumb assertion that a low end ARM based MacBook is viable when it is the antithesis of Apple approach to computing doesn't make me "anti-Apple". It just makes your idea dumb.
That Apple may go all ARM in the future for Macs is more than possible once they can scale to Core i7 performance. That Apple would destroy user experience by providing a muddled product line where some Macs can run everything and other cannot is less likely than the xMac.
The assertion that Apple is losing billions on not having a $800 A10X MacBook is laughable. They are capturing that revenue and profit through the iPad and iPad Pro. There is a reason that iPad replacement cycles looks more and more like laptop replacement cycles.
Because for the "car" use case they have largely replaced budget laptops.
Finally, you aren't a dev, you aren't supporting multiple platforms and architectures. Even cross platform environments require additional testing and overhead in terms of dev ops support. The theoretical "just recompile and ship" will bite you in the ass with 1 star reviews when the app breaks.
Your problem is that Apple makes the difficult LOOK easy. It's not "cakewalk" when you want to do it right. To make a seamless transition from Intel to ARM requires significant engineering effort that isn't worthwhile until they transition the entire Mac product line.
That you continue to push this is more anti-Apple than anything I would ever say. You are creating the false impression that this would be "cakewalk" and if so the Apple isn't doing this so users must spend $1200 Core M3 MacBook vs $800 for a A10X MacBook.
This is just the 2017 version of Apple is greedy because it won't make an xMac.
Instead, my position has been and remains that Apple provides great value in its computing products at launch including the current $1200 MacBook and $600 iPad Pro.
12" iPad Pro, 128GB, 4GB RAM = $899.
12" MB, 256GB, 8GB RAM = $1299.
Right now, Apple has the 128GB/8GB 13" Macbook Air at the $999 price point and the 256GB model is $1199.
Switching to ARM would allow them to lower the cost of the chips but they'd just put it back into the display so instead of a non-Retina Intel MBA at $999, it would be a Retina ARM MB at $899-999 and I'd expect sales would be much the same.
I can see the case for an ARM Mac over an iPad as it runs software designed for KB/mouse and it has a performance-per-watt advantage over Intel. The performance advantage isn't all that much though. It's 50% over Kaby Lake Core M but only about 10-20% over the 4.5W i7 Kaby Lake. The biggest advantage is price. Over time, SSD prices will fall and eat away at the $300 gap between the Air and entry MB. In 3 years, the 256GB MB will be $1099 or less and the Air discontinued.
The PPC switch had a multi-decade roadmap to justify the switch. In another decade, computing power will be high enough and cheap enough with any architecture that a major switch isn't nearly as compelling. At the same time, if they could emulate x86 software well enough that any non-native code became a non-issue then it doesn't matter much either way. Microsoft must have put effort into making an ARM version of Windows with emulation for a reason. Using mobile hardware is really the only way for PCs to compete in the mobile space.
I think it would be nice to have an ARM chip inside Macs as an addition because it would mean being able to test iOS apps natively instead of running them in software mode. They could also do CPU switching like how they do GPU switching. If you were just browsing, using Mail, iTunes etc then it can run the ARM versions at a lower power.
They can make an ARM Mac but it still won't be nearly cheap enough to drastically impact overall sales. The bulk of PC sales are in the $500 region and this is more to do with margins than components.
2) Consider the cost of that Intel chip compared to what it would cost Apple to produce their own chip.
Because you are projecting all over the place.
I never said or implied that the ARM architecture was a piece of shit but that it has not been scaled to Core i7 performance. Until then it can't replace Intel across the board.
Your piecemeal replacement is simply stupid today and even dumber "years" from now when ARM is closer to being a potential wholescale replacement for Intel.
I used A10X because it's what is available for comparison today for BOM costs. Otherwise there is zero basis for your assertion that an ARM based MacBook would be hundreds less than an Intel based MacBook.
And there isn't an A10X iPad yet. Of course as the uber Apple fan you knew that.
The A10X geekbench scores aren't real until the A10X iPads ship so isn't a "fact". That said the A9X iPad Pros (and iPhone 7) do quite well so the expectation that this years iPad Pros will do better than last years M3 in the MacBook is reasonable.
Your complaint is just like the xMac whining about how apple's desktops are too expensive and too slow because they use laptop parts: Pointless.
Apple picks the best options for users and its own bottom line. Until and unless ARM is ready to replace Intel across the board it's not likely to appear in a Mac branded product.
Whether Apple bothers to make the engineering effort to scale ARM to Core i7 performance is debatable. There is no question that they could do so but whether it's really worth the effort in the near term is questionable so long as Intel continues to cater to Apple's desire for more performance per watt.
https://www.ifixit.com/Store/iPad/iPad-Pro-12-9-Inch-LCD-Screen-and-Digitizer/IF323-000-1
https://www.ifixit.com/Store/Mac/MacBook-12-Inch-Retina-Early-2015-Display-Assembly/IF301-002-1
The chip cost will be the largest difference. Let's say they managed $899 for an ARM Macbook with 8GB RAM and 128GB storage. They currently start laptops at $999 so going to $899 might boost unit sales by 25% from 18 million Macs to 23m. At the same time, this lower cost machine would drive buyers away from the $1299 Intel model, which lowers their average selling price. So they might sell 5 million more Macs but drive another 5 million away from a $1299 model to an $899 model. The margins aren't affected but the revenue per sale is lower. Their ASP is around $1200 for 18m units = $21.6b. Instead it would be 13m @ $1200 + 10m @ $900 = $24.6b. That's ~14% revenue/profit growth. Weighing up the software split and the hardware inventory against the potential unit and revenue growth, it doesn't seem worth the effort. There are clear advantages with price, performance, battery life in having an ARM unit vs an Intel unit comparing a single unit to the other but on the larger scale, it doesn't look as good.
To compete for high unit volume in the PC market, the competition looks like this:
http://venturebeat.com/2017/02/05/lenovo-introduces-299-yoga-a12-convertible-android-tablet-with-halo-keyboard/
$299 with an Intel chip and 12" display. Their gross margins are 14%, net margins ~2%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/203772/average-selling-price-of-pcs-worldwide/
300 million PCs per year and the majority will be hovering close to the $400 mark now. There's probably 25-50 million PCs that Apple could target in the $600-1000 region but I wouldn't expect they'd switch many more people with even a $799 MB if a $999 Air isn't doing it already.
It would be interesting to see how well an ARM Macbook would perform and they must have tried it already internally. It probably works pretty well but like I say ramping that up to production level and having to support it is a different matter. The more that prices are being driven down with PCs, I could actually see PC manufacturers making moves to ARM chips to avoid making losses. Microsoft will be prepared for this with Windows on ARM. If this happens though, Intel will lower prices too. It would be nice if Intel lowered their prices at the high-end, those prices are crazy. 40% of the retail price of the higher-end Mac Pros goes to Intel. It just kills demand for those products and they get away with it as there isn't anything competing at that level.
Well, they have to do all their own designs for their ARM platforms already. This includes all the power, battery, heat (but not fans), data storage, data flow, sensors, cameras, management and the mobo to hang it all on. Add to they have added the complexity of cellular radios on top of all the other data handling I think they are well equipped or should be anyway.
Now if the aim was to trash intel's platform hub then effectively Apple would have one common platform for everything south of the bridge to use the old language.