Apple Silicon MacBook Pro migration starting in late 2020, new model in late 2021 says Kuo...

AppleInsider

Ming-Chi Kuo's industry sources are claiming to know the sequence Apple will move MacBook Pro to Apple Silicon, including when redesigned 14- and 16-inch models will be launched.

The 2020 13-inch MacBook Pro

In an investment note seen by AppleInsider, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has detailed which Apple suppliers are most to benefit from the move to Apple Silicon -- and which new or redesigned MacBook Pro models they are expected to manufacture.

"Casing suppliers will benefit from robust MacBook shipment momentum boosted by the Apple Silicon and MacBook Pro models equipped with the all-new form factor design, " says Kuo.

"We predict that Apple will launch new MacBook models including the new 13.3-inch MacBook Pro equipped with the Apple Silicon in 4Q20," he continues, "the new MacBook Air equipped with the Apple Silicon in 4Q20 or 1Q21, and new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro models equipped with the Apple Silicon and all-new form factor design in late 2Q21 or 3Q21."

This fits with Kuo's previous claims that Apple will release a 13-inch MacBook Pro running Apple Silicon in late 2020. It also appears to back up the recent report that during the first quarter of 2021, Apple will "open contract bids" from suppliers for the manufacture of a new 14-inch MacBook Pro and 16-inch MacBook Pro.

Kuo speculates that some models may sell at lower price points than the current range. Kuo doesn't specify whether that is because of a cost savings due to a greater volume being manufactured, but Apple will certainly no longer have to pay a fee to Intel for its processors.

"In an optimistic scenario," says Kuo, "if Apple lowers the price of Apple Silicon's MacBook Air to reflect the cost reduction, and if the newly-designed 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro are better than the old MacBook Pro, we expect... shipment volume to grow significantly to 18-20 million units in 2021."

"In our bull-case scenario," says Kuo, "the MacBook shipments in 2021 will markedly increase to 18-20 million units if Apple lowers the price of MacBook Air equipped with the lower-cost Apple Silicon and the demand for the all-new form factor design 14- and 16- inch MacBook Pro models is better than that of legacy models."

Those 2021 figures compare to Kuo's estimate that in total, 2020 will see 16-17 million sold, "thanks to better-than-expected MacBook Air demand and work-from-home demand growth."

entropys

No mention of an iMac in there.

f_kent_d

entropys said:

No mention of an iMac in there.

Because it was an article about MacBooks. 

badmonk

I honestly hope that the first model in production is the 12” fanless MacBook which would be perfect for Apple Silicon.

rcfa

One hopes, that freed from intel’s constraints, Apple will finally make ECC RAM a standard option across all its hardware range, they save enough on the CPU that this minor added expense can be absorbed, and then be used as a unique selling point...

mariowinco

Apple will lower the price of 100usd (or aligned to whatever is the trend on PC market) and advertise how much more powerful than INTEL based are the Apple Silicon based machines. Margins will increase and so shareholder value.

neilm

rcfa said:

One hopes, that freed from intel’s constraints, Apple will finally make ECC RAM a standard option across all its hardware range, they save enough on the CPU that this minor added expense can be absorbed, and then be used as a unique selling point...

...That would matter to almost nobody.

aderutter

entropys said:

No mention of an iMac in there.

I do/did think AS iMacs will be a year away (fall 21).
Low-end laptops this year, Mid-range macs next year then Pro desktop range in 2022. 
This year AS14, next year AS14n ready for pro range?

It would be really good if we ended up with annual increments on Mac and iPad processors like we have with iPhone.
Makes planning purchases easier. 

Then again, that’s complete guesswork of course.
The A12X/Z is 2 years old and fast enough for low-end notebooks but we know Apple will be putting even better unknown chips in the first AS Macs and watching the WWDC videos about porting to Apple Silicon gave me reason to think AS desktops (iMac) might land even sooner...

I do know I’ll be buying straight away, like I have each processor switch to date. The Intel MBP I bought day one lasted me 6 or 7 years with no problems. If the best first AS Mac is more a low-end student device my son has a surprise incoming...

Better get saving, lots of potential new products this year, ATV, AS Mac, iPhone12, Headphones etc.

Exciting times ahead

georgebmac

Interesting that he forecasts lower prices from higher volumes.

A big part of the cost of any product are fixed and semi-fixed costs (costs that only vary with wide swings in volume such as when you start laying off white collar workers).  And those fixed and semi-fixed costs are a major part of the cost of any Mac (they include the cost of OS, software and Apple's ecosystem).

So, although those fixed and semi-fixed costs allocated down to a unit basis are critical to pricing strategies, volume is usually the weakest part of any forecast.   So, predicting an increase in volume on a major switch to a new technology isolated from the industry is gutsy at best.

For example, let's assume the following:

Total Macs sold:    5 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $600 = $3,000M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($3,000m + $3,000M) / 5M = $1,200

Now, assuming variable costs go down and volume increases:

Total Macs sold:    6 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $500 = $2,500M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($2,500m + $3,000M) / 6M = $900

In this hypothetical example volume played a far bigger role in the price of a Mac than did a decrease in its variable (manufacturing) costs.

But, only Apple's internal cost accountants have any idea what the breakdown in costs are.   But, even knowing that, volume projections are always speculative.   Ya just don't know....

In fact, volume could decrease for two reasons:

1)  People may fear a new technology that could block them from doing what they need and want to do and may hold off making a purchase,

2)  The market may have already been saturated with a massive increase in computer sales as a result of stay at home orders from the virus.   Essentially, every kid who ever had a shot at getting a Mac already has one -- and the same for many adults.

techconc

AppleInsider said:

"We predict that Apple will launch new MacBook models including the new 13.3-inch MacBook Pro equipped with the Apple Silicon in 4Q20," he continues, "the new MacBook Air equipped with the Apple Silicon in 4Q20 or 1Q21, and new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro models equipped with the Apple Silicon and all-new form factor design in late 2Q21 or 3Q21."

LOL... No inside information here.  I just don’t buy the rumor that Apple will introduce an Apple Silicon based 13” MacBook Pro in 4Q20 then introduce a new form factor 14” MacBook Pro in 1Q21.  That just doesn’t make sense.  

The common sense and more likely scenario is that we’ll see an A14x based MacBook Air that’s a 13” in 4Q20.  More powerful MacBook Pro models will arrive in 2021 based on Mac specific chips.

linuxplatform

GeorgeBMac said:

Interesting that he forecasts lower prices from higher volumes.

A big part of the cost of any product are fixed and semi-fixed costs (costs that only vary with wide swings in volume such as when you start laying off white collar workers).  And those fixed and semi-fixed costs are a major part of the cost of any Mac (they include the cost of OS, software and Apple's ecosystem).

So, although those fixed and semi-fixed costs allocated down to a unit basis are critical to pricing strategies, volume is usually the weakest part of any forecast.   So, predicting an increase in volume on a major switch to a new technology isolated from the industry is gutsy at best.

For example, let's assume the following:

Total Macs sold:    5 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $600 = $3,000M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($3,000m + $3,000M) / 5M = $1,200

Now, assuming variable costs go down and volume increases:

Total Macs sold:    6 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $500 = $2,500M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($2,500m + $3,000M) / 6M = $900

In this hypothetical example volume played a far bigger role in the price of a Mac than did a decrease in its variable (manufacturing) costs.

But, only Apple's internal cost accountants have any idea what the breakdown in costs are.   But, even knowing that, volume projections are always speculative.   Ya just don't know....

In fact, volume could decrease for two reasons:

1)  People may fear a new technology that could block them from doing what they need and want to do and may hold off making a purchase,

2)  The market may have already been saturated with a massive increase in computer sales as a result of stay at home orders from the virus.   Essentially, every kid who ever had a shot at getting a Mac already has one -- and the same for many adults.

You are aware that Apple probably pays only $50 - if that - for the Intel i3 that goes into the $1000 MacBook Air. I don't know where the idea that Apple is going to save all this money by using their own chips comes from. 

strangedays

entropys said:

No mention of an iMac in there.

MBs are the best selling Macs, why would they lead with revised iMacs?

strangedays

linuxplatform said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Interesting that he forecasts lower prices from higher volumes.

A big part of the cost of any product are fixed and semi-fixed costs (costs that only vary with wide swings in volume such as when you start laying off white collar workers).  And those fixed and semi-fixed costs are a major part of the cost of any Mac (they include the cost of OS, software and Apple's ecosystem).

So, although those fixed and semi-fixed costs allocated down to a unit basis are critical to pricing strategies, volume is usually the weakest part of any forecast.   So, predicting an increase in volume on a major switch to a new technology isolated from the industry is gutsy at best.

For example, let's assume the following:

Total Macs sold:    5 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $600 = $3,000M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($3,000m + $3,000M) / 5M = $1,200

Now, assuming variable costs go down and volume increases:

Total Macs sold:    6 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $500 = $2,500M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($2,500m + $3,000M) / 6M = $900

In this hypothetical example volume played a far bigger role in the price of a Mac than did a decrease in its variable (manufacturing) costs.

But, only Apple's internal cost accountants have any idea what the breakdown in costs are.   But, even knowing that, volume projections are always speculative.   Ya just don't know....

In fact, volume could decrease for two reasons:

1)  People may fear a new technology that could block them from doing what they need and want to do and may hold off making a purchase,

2)  The market may have already been saturated with a massive increase in computer sales as a result of stay at home orders from the virus.   Essentially, every kid who ever had a shot at getting a Mac already has one -- and the same for many adults.

You are aware that Apple probably pays only $50 - if that - for the Intel i3 that goes into the $1000 MacBook Air. I don't know where the idea that Apple is going to save all this money by using their own chips comes from. 

Even if that figure is true, $50 is an expensive chip component.

metriacanthosaurus

Literally anyone could "predict" that Apple will release MacBook Pros with Apple Silicon sometime between now and the end of next year, which is basically what he is saying.

dysamoria

I will be incredibly surprised if Apple lowers prices on any Mac as a result of this transition, and IF they actually do, it will be a short-lived reduction to inspire transitional purchases.

commentzilla

mariowinco said:

Apple will lower the price of 100usd (or aligned to whatever is the trend on PC market) and advertise how much more powerful than INTEL based are the Apple Silicon based machines. Margins will increase and so shareholder value.

It makes more sense for Apple to drop the price without increasing margins to bring more switchers onboard, since their cash cow is software and services where the margins are much higher.

commentzilla

StrangeDays said:

linuxplatform said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Interesting that he forecasts lower prices from higher volumes.

A big part of the cost of any product are fixed and semi-fixed costs (costs that only vary with wide swings in volume such as when you start laying off white collar workers).  And those fixed and semi-fixed costs are a major part of the cost of any Mac (they include the cost of OS, software and Apple's ecosystem).

So, although those fixed and semi-fixed costs allocated down to a unit basis are critical to pricing strategies, volume is usually the weakest part of any forecast.   So, predicting an increase in volume on a major switch to a new technology isolated from the industry is gutsy at best.

For example, let's assume the following:

Total Macs sold:    5 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $600 = $3,000M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($3,000m + $3,000M) / 5M = $1,200

Now, assuming variable costs go down and volume increases:

Total Macs sold:    6 million

Variable cost to manufacture:   5M x $500 = $2,500M

Fixed & semi-fixed costs:   $3,000M

Cost per mac:   ($2,500m + $3,000M) / 6M = $900

In this hypothetical example volume played a far bigger role in the price of a Mac than did a decrease in its variable (manufacturing) costs.

But, only Apple's internal cost accountants have any idea what the breakdown in costs are.   But, even knowing that, volume projections are always speculative.   Ya just don't know....

In fact, volume could decrease for two reasons:

1)  People may fear a new technology that could block them from doing what they need and want to do and may hold off making a purchase,

2)  The market may have already been saturated with a massive increase in computer sales as a result of stay at home orders from the virus.   Essentially, every kid who ever had a shot at getting a Mac already has one -- and the same for many adults.

You are aware that Apple probably pays only $50 - if that - for the Intel i3 that goes into the $1000 MacBook Air. I don't know where the idea that Apple is going to save all this money by using their own chips comes from. 

Even if that figure is true, $50 is an expensive chip component.

Realistically the Mackbook Air 's CPU/GPU RAM and controllers would all be on the SOC and the machine would be fan-less like an iPad. That should help move the price down. But where we'll see the most savings is on the higher end models that have very expensive CPU/GPUs. So they may choose to use some of those savings on the high end to reduce their margins at the entry level in an effort to expand marketshare, which will drive expanded software and service sales with much higher margins.

linuxplatform

StrangeDays said:

You are aware that Apple probably pays only $50 - if that - for the Intel i3 that goes into the $1000 MacBook Air. I don't know where the idea that Apple is going to save all this money by using their own chips comes from. 

Even if that figure is true, $50 is an expensive chip component.

It is most certainly true. You can get one retail for $130, and you KNOW that OEMs - especially Apple with their legendary negotiating prowess with suppliers - don't pay retail. And no, $50 isn't expensive at all. To put it another way, you can get the same 10th gen Intel i3 in a Dell - meaning not some cheap junk that will break in 2 years - that costs $450 and an touchscreen HP (where the only real advantage the MBA has on it is speakers and Retina display) for $500. So even if Apple was getting the CPU for free - which the A14 absolutely will not be ... do you think that it will cost LESS than the $160 that Qualcomm charges Samsung for their flagship chips? - the MBA would still cost twice as much as comparable competition.

Now my point IS NOT to rehash the Apple versus Windows versus Android pricing wars. I am just pointing out that if people think that Intel has been ripping off Apple all these years for some bizarre reason and that Apple is going to be able to make cheaper Macs that will increase market share as a result etc. yeah that isn't true at all. I am willing to consider the possibility that Apple Silicon will be cheaper than Intel i7 and i9 chips. An i9 10th gen runs about $450 retail so let's say that Intel charges Apple maybe half that. (In reality, it is probably 1/3 or less but let's give Apple the benefit of the doubt.) But first we are going to have to see if Apple's ARM SOCs can have similar performance given the same type of real workloads - by this I mean engineering, programming, scientific etc. applications and not merely the Final Cut Pro X and Adobe stuff - that the Mac Pros and top of the line Macbook Pros are currently doing with Intel chips.

linuxplatform

commentzilla said:

mariowinco said:

Apple will lower the price of 100usd (or aligned to whatever is the trend on PC market) and advertise how much more powerful than INTEL based are the Apple Silicon based machines. Margins will increase and so shareholder value.

It makes more sense for Apple to drop the price without increasing margins to bring more switchers onboard, since their cash cow is software and services where the margins are much higher.

Another person who thinks that Intel's CPUs cost a lot more than they do. Reality:

The 10th gen i3 is in both the MacBook Air and HP Pavilion x360 2-in-1. Despite the only real advantage the HP enjoys over the MBA being the Retina screen AND HP needing to pay for Windows where Apple gets their OS for free, the MBA literally costs twice as much. Switch to machines that cost the same as the entry level MacBook Air and you will see devices - again name brands like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. - offering 10th gen Intel i7s with either 16 GB of RAM or Nvidia graphics card with 8 GB of RAM. Realize that this is hundreds less than what Apple charges for their REFURBISHED Intel i5 machines. 

Were you guys honestly thinking that Intel charges like $500-$1000 or something for their CPUs? If so, to what did you attribute Dell, HP, Lenovo and the rest selling computers with comparable specs for half the cost (or less)? Again, note that it isn't Apple who is claiming that switching to Apple Silicon will lower the cost of devices. It is Apple consumers who believe that unless it is made by Apple it will crash every other day until it becomes a doorstop after 9 months. (Yes, lots of alleged "tech writers" fall into this category, which is why some of them bizarrely believe that Apple Silicon will mean cheaper MacBook Airs too. Despite being "tech writers" they have never gone to a local electronics store and seen just how cheap the Intel i3 is OFF THE SHELF TO CONSUMERS).

rayz2016

linuxplatform said:

commentzilla said:

mariowinco said:

Apple will lower the price of 100usd (or aligned to whatever is the trend on PC market) and advertise how much more powerful than INTEL based are the Apple Silicon based machines. Margins will increase and so shareholder value.

It makes more sense for Apple to drop the price without increasing margins to bring more switchers onboard, since their cash cow is software and services where the margins are much higher.

Another person who thinks that Intel's CPUs cost a lot more than they do. Reality:

The 10th gen i3 is in both the MacBook Air and HP Pavilion x360 2-in-1. Despite the only real advantage the HP enjoys over the MBA being the Retina screen AND HP needing to pay for Windows where Apple gets their OS for free, the MBA literally costs twice as much. Switch to machines that cost the same as the entry level MacBook Air and you will see devices - again name brands like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. - offering 10th gen Intel i7s with either 16 GB of RAM or Nvidia graphics card with 8 GB of RAM. Realize that this is hundreds less than what Apple charges for their REFURBISHED Intel i5 machines. 

Were you guys honestly thinking that Intel charges like $500-$1000 or something for their CPUs? If so, to what did you attribute Dell, HP, Lenovo and the rest selling computers with comparable specs for half the cost (or less)? Again, note that it isn't Apple who is claiming that switching to Apple Silicon will lower the cost of devices. It is Apple consumers who believe that unless it is made by Apple it will crash every other day until it becomes a doorstop after 9 months. (Yes, lots of alleged "tech writers" fall into this category, which is why some of them bizarrely believe that Apple Silicon will mean cheaper MacBook Airs too. Despite being "tech writers" they have never gone to a local electronics store and seen just how cheap the Intel i3 is OFF THE SHELF TO CONSUMERS).

I still reckon there’ll be no difference between the Apple Silicon machine and an Apple Intel one. 

They’re not doing this to make cheaper machines. They’re doing this because they reckon that with their own architecture optimised for their software, they can build a faster machine that uses less power. 

edited July 2020

wizard69

It isn’t so laugh that Apple Silicon will be cheaper, it will be by the way, but it is the idea that new chips gives Apple the ability to trim prices.   Let’s face there is nothing about an Apple laptop that is competitive these days.    Apple knows this and realizes that it impacts their ability to move product.    They need to get the Apple tax under control!!!!

now all of that said I can see Apple silicon lowering machine costs by class to $100 due to a number of factors.  

linuxplatform said:

commentzilla said:

mariowinco said:

Apple will lower the price of 100usd (or aligned to whatever is the trend on PC market) and advertise how much more powerful than INTEL based are the Apple Silicon based machines. Margins will increase and so shareholder value.

It makes more sense for Apple to drop the price without increasing margins to bring more switchers onboard, since their cash cow is software and services where the margins are much higher.

Another person who thinks that Intel's CPUs cost a lot more than they do. Reality:

The 10th gen i3 is in both the MacBook Air and HP Pavilion x360 2-in-1. Despite the only real advantage the HP enjoys over the MBA being the Retina screen AND HP needing to pay for Windows where Apple gets their OS for free, the MBA literally costs twice as much. Switch to machines that cost the same as the entry level MacBook Air and you will see devices - again name brands like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. - offering 10th gen Intel i7s with either 16 GB of RAM or Nvidia graphics card with 8 GB of RAM. Realize that this is hundreds less than what Apple charges for their REFURBISHED Intel i5 machines. 

Were you guys honestly thinking that Intel charges like $500-$1000 or something for their CPUs? If so, to what did you attribute Dell, HP, Lenovo and the rest selling computers with comparable specs for half the cost (or less)? Again, note that it isn't Apple who is claiming that switching to Apple Silicon will lower the cost of devices. It is Apple consumers who believe that unless it is made by Apple it will crash every other day until it becomes a doorstop after 9 months. (Yes, lots of alleged "tech writers" fall into this category, which is why some of them bizarrely believe that Apple Silicon will mean cheaper MacBook Airs too. Despite being "tech writers" they have never gone to a local electronics store and seen just how cheap the Intel i3 is OFF THE SHELF TO CONSUMERS).