They could perhaps create a better “iPad + keyboard” combo that offers an attractive package. But Apple already sells three kinds of laptops and three kinds of iPads. Why confuse the consumer with another one that overlaps both classes?
The difference is that it would be a Mac. At this point the defining attribute that differentiates a Mac from an iPad is that the Mac runs Mac OSX.
Mac OSX allows a greater flexibility in available software. With additional software, OSX can even run Windows in a virtual machine.
OSX is a platform that can be used to teach programming. To my knowledge, Apple doesn't allow users to write traditional software under iPad OS. I have a C compiler for my Mac, I have not been able to find one for my iPad.
Similarly, OSX allows one to drop into the command line and explore a bit to see how the machine works under the hood. I don't think the iPad allows this.
You can even run iPad apps on a Mac.
All of these make OSX a better choice for many educational situations.
Sure, I get the differentiation. And for exactly the reasons you mentioned I am a macOS user primarily. But why another product? The target audience you are describing are MacBook Air or even Pro users.
Apple could simply stick a M1 in the same form factor and sell it for $100 less and provide at least some parity with the CPU class they offer (easier to develop for), but what do they gain from that? They won’t unlock a new audience segment.
The majority of their profits don’t come from marginally cheaper products. It’s the extra memory, the bumped up CPU. That is where they make the big bucks at scale. It’s not an interesting proposition for them to sell us a cheaper laptop. In fact, it’s not their brand strategy. They would have to offer a cheaper screen, cheaper internals, etc to drop $200-$350 and that is ‘un-Apple’. That’s why I find this rumor not plausible.
Seems like they could just put an M1 in it if they wanted a cheaper Mac....What I don't want to see if Apple start this race to the bottom with "cheap" devices. Apple is a premium brand and should be treated as such. They may be pricing some people out but that's just how it goes. I can't afford a BMW or Mercedes Benz but that doesn't mean they should be making $25,000 BMW's or Mercedes Benz's. It just cheapens the brand in the end.
That being said if they can keep quality up and use some older SoC's such as the M1 then why not? They make a $500 Mac mini that seems to be good quality however making a $500 Mac mini is a lot different than making a $500-600 MacBook as it has a keyboard/mouse, and screen.
I could see this being popular in K-12/College education. Sorta like the eMac of its time, only a laptop instead of a desktop.
But they aren’t shipping a M1 product anymore so have no need to produce. A18 could be around for a couple of years and could be used in all the lower tier models to clean up what they need to produce. A18 would potentially have all the in silicon improvements of that the system requires to run some improvements in the new OS26 variants efficiently.
Given what is happening I could see Apple pulling back the parts list and unifying the lower tier models and products on more efficient production.
If it's 'cheap' and runs macOS there will be a market for it unless it is crippled in someway (RAM etc) or 'Apple upsell' ends up killing the 'cheap' aspect.
To my mind, I think OS 'convergence' is inevitable despite what Apple says and will mark the way forward just like HarmonyOS is doing right now. One OS for every device.
It will require a huge effort to restructure the OS underpinnings and I think that is already underway even if nothing has been said officially.
We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk.
Times have changed a little. I'd hate to see Apple in a race to the bottom. Building a truly entry level MacBooks does have it's advantages. 13" MBAs have had pretty attractive sale prices, but I don't know if that's the vendors eating any of their cost.
Though it's 12" screen was somewhat limiting, I think it's one of the nice most travel-worthy MacBooks ever. After awhile it's processor really felt anemic, and its subsequent upgrades weren't much better.
Stick any processor better than the best one in the 2017 MB in it, and I might grab one. It wouldn't perform as well as my 13" iPad Pro but wouldn't be as awkward to use for longer than a few minutes. And it's macOS not iPadOS. I'd take that over an iPad running some kind of macOS as well.
They could perhaps create a better “iPad + keyboard” combo that offers an attractive package. But Apple already sells three kinds of laptops and three kinds of iPads. Why confuse the consumer with another one that overlaps both classes?
The difference is that it would be a Mac. At this point the defining attribute that differentiates a Mac from an iPad is that the Mac runs Mac OSX.
Mac OSX allows a greater flexibility in available software. With additional software, OSX can even run Windows in a virtual machine.
OSX is a platform that can be used to teach programming. To my knowledge, Apple doesn't allow users to write traditional software under iPad OS. I have a C compiler for my Mac, I have not been able to find one for my iPad.
Similarly, OSX allows one to drop into the command line and explore a bit to see how the machine works under the hood. I don't think the iPad allows this.
You can even run iPad apps on a Mac.
All of these make OSX a better choice for many educational situations.
Sure, I get the differentiation. And for exactly the reasons you mentioned I am a macOS user primarily. But why another product? The target audience you are describing are MacBook Air or even Pro users.
Apple could simply stick a M1 in the same form factor and sell it for $100 less and provide at least some parity with the CPU class they offer (easier to develop for), but what do they gain from that? They won’t unlock a new audience segment.
The majority of their profits don’t come from marginally cheaper products. It’s the extra memory, the bumped up CPU. That is where they make the big bucks at scale. It’s not an interesting proposition for them to sell us a cheaper laptop. In fact, it’s not their brand strategy. They would have to offer a cheaper screen, cheaper internals, etc to drop $200-$350 and that is ‘un-Apple’. That’s why I find this rumor not plausible.
A low cost, entry level Mac is a way of bringing new users into the Apple ecosystem. This is especially helpful if those users are students. If the student learned on a Mac in school, he is more likely to buy a Mac as an adult. Furthermore, someone who uses a Mac, is more likely to buy an iPhone instead of Android.
A parent buying a first computer for a child may want an inexpensive one. Whatever that child gets, they are more likely to stay with that platform rather than switch. Apple doesn't currently offer a product to fit this need.
There are benefits to having products in all market segments.
There are economies of scale. Apple sells more iPhones than Macs. Using an iPhone chip in a Mac will cost Apple less than maintaining production of old model M1 processors.
I've been waiting for this ever since they killed it. I have an M2 Air but that 12" was my favourite form factor. If they could make the new one also sub 1kg then perfect!
I still use my MacBook gold (a beauty) with Dortana. Latest MacOs, and very workable. Would buy one without thinking.
Now they want to make an iPad with a keyboard but no touchscreen?
the iPhone SOC is for the phone.
Don’t weaken the Mac just to have an even cheaper model.
Sounds really bad.
Why not? I’d love an updated sub 900g notebook for travel. As I age I just couldn’t be arsed to lug so much around unto aircraft.
Sounds like an iPad would fit tje bill nicely.
I use my MacBook, I still use, to travel light. I didn’t check, but my gut feeling tells me this laptop will be lighter than a iPad with keyboard, and far more easy to carry around.
We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk.
Times have changed a little. I'd hate to see Apple in a race to the bottom. Building a truly entry level MacBooks does have it's advantages. 13" MBAs have had pretty attractive sale prices, but I don't know if that's the vendors eating any of their cost.
Though it's 12" screen was somewhat limiting, I think it's one of the nice most travel-worthy MacBooks ever. After awhile it's processor really felt anemic, and its subsequent upgrades weren't much better.
Stick any processor better than the best one in the 2017 MB in it, and I might grab one. It wouldn't perform as well as my 13" iPad Pro but wouldn't be as awkward to use for longer than a few minutes. And it's macOS not iPadOS. I'd take that over an iPad running some kind of macOS as well.
Agree, couldn’t agree more. Plus, can I have a gold one again?
Now they want to make an iPad with a keyboard but no touchscreen?
the iPhone SOC is for the phone.
Don’t weaken the Mac just to have an even cheaper model.
Sounds really bad.
Why not? I’d love an updated sub 900g notebook for travel. As I age I just couldn’t be arsed to lug so much around unto aircraft.
Sounds like an iPad would fit tje bill nicely.
Not for me. The Max is a far superior tool for managing and editing photos and video. I really love having a real keyboard that is permanently attached. Tried the first usb-c iPad for travel and it wasn’t a be good experience. Lightroom is not up to the level of Lightroom Classic (which does not run on the iPad) unless you buy lots of TB of Adobe cloud storage and have good internet.
How much of the cost of the device would be down to A-series vs M-series? I understand the huge volume advantage of the a-series but all the rest of the Mac would be similar, right? I’m going to just think this gives Apple a way to cut margins, maybe go down spec for some stuff and sell a cheaper Mac.
Just upgraded my 4 1/2 year old M1 Air to a refurbished M3 for my travel Mac. Love it. Insta360 Studio, Lightroom Classic and Xcode all work really well. Would I buy this new A-series instead if it were out? It would have to have MagSafe,2xUSBC, at least 16g and be as fast as my M3 so I suspect the answer would be no.
They could perhaps create a better “iPad + keyboard” combo that offers an attractive package. But Apple already sells three kinds of laptops and three kinds of iPads. Why confuse the consumer with another one that overlaps both classes?
The difference is that it would be a Mac. At this point the defining attribute that differentiates a Mac from an iPad is that the Mac runs Mac OSX.
Mac OSX allows a greater flexibility in available software. With additional software, OSX can even run Windows in a virtual machine.
OSX is a platform that can be used to teach programming. To my knowledge, Apple doesn't allow users to write traditional software under iPad OS. I have a C compiler for my Mac, I have not been able to find one for my iPad.
Similarly, OSX allows one to drop into the command line and explore a bit to see how the machine works under the hood. I don't think the iPad allows this.
You can even run iPad apps on a Mac.
All of these make OSX a better choice for many educational situations.
Sure, I get the differentiation. And for exactly the reasons you mentioned I am a macOS user primarily. But why another product? The target audience you are describing are MacBook Air or even Pro users.
Apple could simply stick a M1 in the same form factor and sell it for $100 less and provide at least some parity with the CPU class they offer (easier to develop for), but what do they gain from that? They won’t unlock a new audience segment.
The majority of their profits don’t come from marginally cheaper products. It’s the extra memory, the bumped up CPU. That is where they make the big bucks at scale. It’s not an interesting proposition for them to sell us a cheaper laptop. In fact, it’s not their brand strategy. They would have to offer a cheaper screen, cheaper internals, etc to drop $200-$350 and that is ‘un-Apple’. That’s why I find this rumor not plausible.
A low cost, entry level Mac is a way of bringing new users into the Apple ecosystem. This is especially helpful if those users are students. If the student learned on a Mac in school, he is more likely to buy a Mac as an adult. Furthermore, someone who uses a Mac, is more likely to buy an iPhone instead of Android.
A parent buying a first computer for a child may want an inexpensive one. Whatever that child gets, they are more likely to stay with that platform rather than switch. Apple doesn't currently offer a product to fit this need.
There are benefits to having products in all market segments.
There are economies of scale. Apple sells more iPhones than Macs. Using an iPhone chip in a Mac will cost Apple less than maintaining production of old model M1 processors.
An A18 Pro is 40% faster than an M1 in single core, the same performance in multi-core, the same performance in GPU, 200% faster in NPU, operates at half the power consumption, and costs half as much to make.
It’s not even a decision between the M1 versus the A18 Pro. Use the A18 Pro for everything. Now, if they wanted to use an M3 for a cheap MBA, that’s a much tougher decision.
A18 Pro, even A18, is good enough for a $600 to $800 laptop.
The Airs and the Pros will move to higher end screens. The Air will get Mini LED, the Pros get the Tandem OLED. These low cost laptops will get the LCD. My guess these laptops are for low cost education market (think eMac remember those!) and using the orders they have to make well in advance.
The MBA is rumored to get OLED display in 2027. Not tandem OLED but OLED nonetheless.
They could perhaps create a better “iPad + keyboard” combo that offers an attractive package. But Apple already sells three kinds of laptops and three kinds of iPads. Why confuse the consumer with another one that overlaps both classes?
The difference is that it would be a Mac. At this point the defining attribute that differentiates a Mac from an iPad is that the Mac runs Mac OSX.
Mac OSX allows a greater flexibility in available software. With additional software, OSX can even run Windows in a virtual machine.
OSX is a platform that can be used to teach programming. To my knowledge, Apple doesn't allow users to write traditional software under iPad OS. I have a C compiler for my Mac, I have not been able to find one for my iPad.
Similarly, OSX allows one to drop into the command line and explore a bit to see how the machine works under the hood. I don't think the iPad allows this.
You can even run iPad apps on a Mac.
All of these make OSX a better choice for many educational situations.
Sure, I get the differentiation. And for exactly the reasons you mentioned I am a macOS user primarily. But why another product? The target audience you are describing are MacBook Air or even Pro users.
Apple could simply stick a M1 in the same form factor and sell it for $100 less and provide at least some parity with the CPU class they offer (easier to develop for), but what do they gain from that? They won’t unlock a new audience segment.
The majority of their profits don’t come from marginally cheaper products. It’s the extra memory, the bumped up CPU. That is where they make the big bucks at scale. It’s not an interesting proposition for them to sell us a cheaper laptop. In fact, it’s not their brand strategy. They would have to offer a cheaper screen, cheaper internals, etc to drop $200-$350 and that is ‘un-Apple’. That’s why I find this rumor not plausible.
Don’t weaken the Mac just to have an even cheaper model.
Interesting comment. You are right, the A chip is for the phone, and the iPad. Yet Apple continues to waste M chips in iPads, and hobble it with iPadOS. Weaken the Mac for a cheaper model. Yet the iPads with M chips overpower the iPad to make a more expensive model, but iPadOS 'cheapens' the M chip because it doesn't fully support the performance of the chip. Yet Apple continues to make these iPads.
The performance of the A18 Pro is somewhere between the M2 and M3 chip. If Apple wanted to make a lower cost Mac, they should just use older M chips. They already do that now, the problem is, they don't lower the cost. Hello Mac Pro? 2 years old and still using an outdated M2-based chip for $7,000. The Mac mini development kit used the A12Z Apple Silicon chip because the M chip is based off the A chip. So the A18 Pro can run macOS, and it would already be faster than the M1 chip. The limitation would be memory and storage. But the A18 Pro can support more memory, but Apple doesn't utilize that in a phone, because iOS apps don't need it. In a Mac, it would likely have 16GB for Apple Intelligence.
If this Mac does become reality, it just further proves Apple's weird roadmap. iPads using M chips before the Mac, Macs using outdated M chips while others get updated, and now possibly a Mac using an A chip? Talk about further confusing customers.
"The A-series have fewer CPU and GPU cores, and are not really built for the same heavy workload as a Mac."
"That would immediately mean that the low-cost Mac would not be suitable for power users, which then implies it would be much more of a casual or consumer device."
Apple can re-work the A18 Pro. They have done it before, just like they have binned M chips with less cores. And they lowered the performance of the M chip in the iPad Air. So they could easily change the cores in the A18 Pro and still call it an A18 Pro. The performance of the A18 Pro is already between the M2 and M3. If Apple wanted to make a lower cost Mac, just use an M1 or M2 and lower the cost. When Apple introduced the 15" Air, they called it 'new', but it had the year and a half old M2 chip. The Mac mini dev kit had an A12Z, and the M chip is based off the A chip. All this would do is confuse consumers.
Funny second quote. The iPad is a casual or consumer device with the limitations of iPadOS, yet Apple puts overpowered M chips in it to jack up the price. iPads should be using A chips and Macs should stick with M chips. That is what the M is for. That is what they said at 2020 WWDC, we developed a desktop chip for Macs, the M1.
If this is true, maybe an A-based Mac will be as awful as that 12" MacBook that was painfully slow, and slower than an iPad.
Is this A-Series MacBook Lite a response to Trump's Tariffs?
How about convergence of MacOS and iOS / iPadOS. Some tech(s) with curiosity and time may try to run iPadOS but problems will abound starting with the lack of touch screen on Macs.
No thanks to convergence of MacOS and a tablet look and feel. No way. Tablets have their place, so do laptops.
"The A-series have fewer CPU and GPU cores, and are not really built for the same heavy workload as a Mac."
"That would immediately mean that the low-cost Mac would not be suitable for power users, which then implies it would be much more of a casual or consumer device."
Apple can re-work the A18 Pro. They have done it before, just like they have binned M chips with less cores. And they lowered the performance of the M chip in the iPad Air. So they could easily change the cores in the A18 Pro and still call it an A18 Pro. The performance of the A18 Pro is already between the M2 and M3. If Apple wanted to make a lower cost Mac, just use an M1 or M2 and lower the cost. When Apple introduced the 15" Air, they called it 'new', but it had the year and a half old M2 chip. The Mac mini dev kit had an A12Z, and the M chip is based off the A chip. All this would do is confuse consumers.
Funny second quote. The iPad is a casual or consumer device with the limitations of iPadOS, yet Apple puts overpowered M chips in it to jack up the price. iPads should be using A chips and Macs should stick with M chips. That is what the M is for. That is what they said at 2020 WWDC, we developed a desktop chip for Macs, the M1.
If this is true, maybe an A-based Mac will be as awful as that 12" MacBook that was painfully slow, and slower than an iPad.
The names of chips is mostly a marketing issue. There is no Apple could use an A18 Pro and simply name it "M4 lite" when it's in a Mac. The naming of the chips is marketing, not technology.
Fewer cores does not necessarily rule out a chip for use in a low end Mac. In fact, fewer cores helps differentiate the low end make from more expensive models.
Today's A18 Pro chip is faster in single core than the M1 Mac of 4 years ago. There are still many people happily using an M1 Mac.
Apple likely will sell more iPhone Pros than low end Macs. It makes sense to repurpose an iPhone chip already being made, then to have a production line doing a small run of low end M series chips.
My understanding is that the iPhone chips are more power efficient than the M series. This would allow Apple to use smaller lower cost batteries, while still keeping a long run time.
Obviously, this kind of Mac would not be for power users, but most people are not power users.
The 12" MacBook was an extremely hip concept. I keep my 2016 Intel M5 just out of coolness. It's adequate for light to moderate use cases. An update would have to bring it up to Apple Silicon M2/M3 spec and be considerably lower priced than the M4 Air. That's a tough niche to carve out.
I think RAM would be an issue. It would not be a standard A18 pro and not be subject to derision in that front.
i am a bit disappointed in the screen screen size though. I would hope it was an attempt to revive the 11 inch MBA (I still have one) or the failed 12 inch rMB, but with more ports.
Comments
To my mind, I think OS 'convergence' is inevitable despite what Apple says and will mark the way forward just like HarmonyOS is doing right now. One OS for every device.
It will require a huge effort to restructure the OS underpinnings and I think that is already underway even if nothing has been said officially.
Times have changed a little. I'd hate to see Apple in a race to the bottom. Building a truly entry level MacBooks does have it's advantages. 13" MBAs have had pretty attractive sale prices, but I don't know if that's the vendors eating any of their cost.
Though it's 12" screen was somewhat limiting, I think it's one of the nice most travel-worthy MacBooks ever. After awhile it's processor really felt anemic, and its subsequent upgrades weren't much better.
Stick any processor better than the best one in the 2017 MB in it, and I might grab one. It wouldn't perform as well as my 13" iPad Pro but wouldn't be as awkward to use for longer than a few minutes. And it's macOS not iPadOS. I'd take that over an iPad running some kind of macOS as well.
A parent buying a first computer for a child may want an inexpensive one. Whatever that child gets, they are more likely to stay with that platform rather than switch. Apple doesn't currently offer a product to fit this need.
There are benefits to having products in all market segments.
The performance of the A18 Pro is somewhere between the M2 and M3 chip. If Apple wanted to make a lower cost Mac, they should just use older M chips. They already do that now, the problem is, they don't lower the cost. Hello Mac Pro? 2 years old and still using an outdated M2-based chip for $7,000. The Mac mini development kit used the A12Z Apple Silicon chip because the M chip is based off the A chip. So the A18 Pro can run macOS, and it would already be faster than the M1 chip. The limitation would be memory and storage. But the A18 Pro can support more memory, but Apple doesn't utilize that in a phone, because iOS apps don't need it. In a Mac, it would likely have 16GB for Apple Intelligence.
If this Mac does become reality, it just further proves Apple's weird roadmap. iPads using M chips before the Mac, Macs using outdated M chips while others get updated, and now possibly a Mac using an A chip? Talk about further confusing customers.
"The A-series have fewer CPU and GPU cores, and are not really built for the same heavy workload as a Mac."
"That would immediately mean that the low-cost Mac would not be suitable for power users, which then implies it would be much more of a casual or consumer device."
Apple can re-work the A18 Pro. They have done it before, just like they have binned M chips with less cores. And they lowered the performance of the M chip in the iPad Air. So they could easily change the cores in the A18 Pro and still call it an A18 Pro. The performance of the A18 Pro is already between the M2 and M3. If Apple wanted to make a lower cost Mac, just use an M1 or M2 and lower the cost. When Apple introduced the 15" Air, they called it 'new', but it had the year and a half old M2 chip. The Mac mini dev kit had an A12Z, and the M chip is based off the A chip. All this would do is confuse consumers.
Funny second quote. The iPad is a casual or consumer device with the limitations of iPadOS, yet Apple puts overpowered M chips in it to jack up the price. iPads should be using A chips and Macs should stick with M chips. That is what the M is for. That is what they said at 2020 WWDC, we developed a desktop chip for Macs, the M1.
If this is true, maybe an A-based Mac will be as awful as that 12" MacBook that was painfully slow, and slower than an iPad.
Fewer cores does not necessarily rule out a chip for use in a low end Mac. In fact, fewer cores helps differentiate the low end make from more expensive models.
My understanding is that the iPhone chips are more power efficient than the M series. This would allow Apple to use smaller lower cost batteries, while still keeping a long run time.
Obviously, this kind of Mac would not be for power users, but most people are not power users.
i am a bit disappointed in the screen screen size though. I would hope it was an attempt to revive the 11 inch MBA (I still have one) or the failed 12 inch rMB, but with more ports.
it better have more than one port.