One of those chips support lpddr 2133, only up to 1866. Custom spec chips from intel to bridge the gap till lpddr4? Or Apple over locking the memory bus?
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
And since the choice for the Retina Macbook has been made, isn't this issue sealed by Apple for at least five years?
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
This gets old. People keep complaining about the Thunderbolt limitations on dual-core CPU's, however they conveniently miss that part that one Thunderbolt port can daisy-chain up to six devices.
This is a less than 1% problem - if even that much - for only they most "power" of power users. This is getting old and just goes to show how much people will be crybabies over what will never affect them.
So Apple's using CPUs that're a year behind. Will they still be using the same CPUs in 500 days? Why didn't they update the MacBooks in Q4 2015 with Skylake? If they'd updated in Q4 2015 they could have waited until Q1 2017 for Kaby Lake. They're completely out of sync with Intel's release cycles now, couldn't really have released the 2016 MBPs at a worse time. Sadly, it seems to me like they're trying to let the Mac die.
There's a reasonable chance it was the Touch Bar that delayed the release of the 2016 MBPs. Pretty much all of the rest of the tech would have been available for a release much earlier in 2016, but if the Touch Bar was the "big deal" feature and it wasn't ready yet (including having major software titles available shortly after launch to take advantage of it), do you pull it from your design (major rework) or delay the release? In hindsight, yeah, they should have simply released a Skylake update of the existing MBP design (no Touch Bar, same ports except perhaps TB3 in place of TB2) early in 2016 and then released the redesigned MPB with Touch Bar MBP with Kaby Lake a year later. And at that point it even would have been a bit more palatable to go TB3/USB C only as the USB C ecosystem would have had more time to mature.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
And since the choice for the Retina Macbook has been made, isn't this issue sealed by Apple for at least five years?
Usually Apple is pretty consistent about these things, but they could always throw in a whammy. The 12" MacBook is a neat device but that ultra-low-power Intel Core is crazy expensive for the machine and I think the sales are pretty low so they could pop an ARM chip in there.
They could also keep the 12" MacBook as is and bring back the MacBook Air, iBook, or something else entirely that runs off of ARM. Marketing is a huge factor so they may not even want to use the Mac name on the HW to help avoid confusion about it not supporting Boot Camp (unless MS offers their ARM-version of Windows) or VMs. The only two things I think we know is that 1) Apple can save hundreds on HW by using their own SoCs, and 2) their SoC already outperform the 12" MacBook and I believe pretty much every WinPC in the range that Apple could then target with a low-cost, entry-level machine based on macOS.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
It could go that way, but I don't think it has to.
I think it could actually go in the exact opposite direction -- start at the Mac Pro, and then work down. That might sound crazy, but there could be some advantages to starting with a low volume niche machine like the Mac Pro. First, if Apple screws up then they don't end up alienating too many people (and Mac Pro users are already about as alienated as you can get). Second, Mac Pro users are mostly video production people at this point, so it's a more limited range of software that needs to be targeted. Apple could literally design the SOC with heavy input from the FCP team. The result could be a killer FCP machine that really highlights the advantages of controlling the full stack.
If the Mac Pro experiment succeeds, then Apple could move down market.
I would say that the last machine to go ARM should be the Mac Mini -- it could be the last hold out for people who need Intel.
So Apple's using CPUs that're a year behind. Will they still be using the same CPUs in 500 days? Why didn't they update the MacBooks in Q4 2015 with Skylake? If they'd updated in Q4 2015 they could have waited until Q1 2017 for Kaby Lake. They're completely out of sync with Intel's release cycles now, couldn't really have released the 2016 MBPs at a worse time. Sadly, it seems to me like they're trying to let the Mac die.
There's a reasonable chance it was the Touch Bar that delayed the release of the 2016 MBPs. Pretty much all of the rest of the tech would have been available for a release much earlier in 2016, but if the Touch Bar was the "big deal" feature and it wasn't ready yet (including having major software titles available shortly after launch to take advantage of it), do you pull it from your design (major rework) or delay the release? In hindsight, yeah, they should have simply released a Skylake update of the existing MBP design (no Touch Bar, same ports except perhaps TB3 in place of TB2) early in 2016 and then released the redesigned MPB with Touch Bar MBP with Kaby Lake a year later. And at that point it even would have been a bit more palatable to go TB3/USB C only as the USB C ecosystem would have had more time to mature.
Considering the 2016 13" MBP without the Touch Bar was available the day of the event, I think it's reasonable hypothesis that the Touch Bar/T1 chip/Apple Pay/Touch ID was likely a reason or the holdup.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
It could go that way, but I don't think it has to.
I think it could actually go in the exact opposite direction -- start at the Mac Pro, and then work down. That might sound crazy, but there could be some advantages to starting with a low volume niche machine like the Mac Pro. First, if Apple screws up then they don't end up alienating too many people (and Mac Pro users are already about as alienated as you can get). Second, Mac Pro users are mostly video production people at this point, so it's a more limited range of software that needs to be targeted. Apple could literally design the SOC with heavy input from the FCP team. The result could be a killer FCP machine that really highlights the advantages of controlling the full stack.
If the Mac Pro experiment succeeds, then Apple could move down market.
I would say that the last machine to go ARM should be the Mac Mini -- it could be the last hold out for people who need Intel.
I've never seen an ARM chip that would match the performance of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro is designed to be used with the most processor intensive, complex apps. Even if they had an ARM setup that was double the performance of the Mac Pro you'd still have an issue with app support from Adobe, for one. The only way I see this happening is with marketing to the more basic users that only need the more basic apps. Plus, they can tap into an entirely new customer base with a much cheaper Mac that doesn't reduce their profit margin.
Apple's statement that other RAM choices allowing for 32 gigabytes of RAM or more would cause decreased battery life is accurate, if not quite specific.
Only if you choose to sacrifice battery size in order to force a .00000x thinner design that no professional wanted. Otherwise, we would have the same battery life with the amount of RAM professionals need.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
It could go that way, but I don't think it has to.
I think it could actually go in the exact opposite direction -- start at the Mac Pro, and then work down. That might sound crazy, but there could be some advantages to starting with a low volume niche machine like the Mac Pro. First, if Apple screws up then they don't end up alienating too many people (and Mac Pro users are already about as alienated as you can get). Second, Mac Pro users are mostly video production people at this point, so it's a more limited range of software that needs to be targeted. Apple could literally design the SOC with heavy input from the FCP team. The result could be a killer FCP machine that really highlights the advantages of controlling the full stack.
If the Mac Pro experiment succeeds, then Apple could move down market.
I would say that the last machine to go ARM should be the Mac Mini -- it could be the last hold out for people who need Intel.
I've never seen an ARM chip that would match the performance of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro is designed to be used with the most processor intensive, complex apps. Even if they had an ARM setup that was double the performance of the Mac Pro you'd still have an issue with app support from Adobe, for one. The only way I see this happening is with marketing to the more basic users that only need the more basic apps. Plus, they can tap into an entirely new customer base with a much cheaper Mac that doesn't reduce their profit margin.
Pfff, not so. Adobe needs support for OpenCL and OpenGL, both perfectly supported by Apples Ax chips.
I've never seen an ARM chip that would match the performance of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro is designed to be used with the most processor intensive, complex apps. Even if they had an ARM setup that was double the performance of the Mac Pro you'd still have an issue with app support from Adobe, for one. The only way I see this happening is with marketing to the more basic users that only need the more basic apps. Plus, they can tap into an entirely new customer base with a much cheaper Mac that doesn't reduce their profit margin.
Pfff, not so. Adobe needs support for OpenCL and OpenGL, both perfectly supported by Apples Ax chips.
OK, then show me this ARM chip for sale that exceeds the Xeon's used in the Mac Pro.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
It could go that way, but I don't think it has to.
I think it could actually go in the exact opposite direction -- start at the Mac Pro, and then work down. That might sound crazy, but there could be some advantages to starting with a low volume niche machine like the Mac Pro. First, if Apple screws up then they don't end up alienating too many people (and Mac Pro users are already about as alienated as you can get). Second, Mac Pro users are mostly video production people at this point, so it's a more limited range of software that needs to be targeted. Apple could literally design the SOC with heavy input from the FCP team. The result could be a killer FCP machine that really highlights the advantages of controlling the full stack.
If the Mac Pro experiment succeeds, then Apple could move down market.
I would say that the last machine to go ARM should be the Mac Mini -- it could be the last hold out for people who need Intel.
I've never seen an ARM chip that would match the performance of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro is designed to be used with the most processor intensive, complex apps. Even if they had an ARM setup that was double the performance of the Mac Pro you'd still have an issue with app support from Adobe, for one. The only way I see this happening is with marketing to the more basic users that only need the more basic apps. Plus, they can tap into an entirely new customer base with a much cheaper Mac that doesn't reduce their profit margin.
Nobody has tried to make an ARM chip that can match the performance of the Mac Pro. That definitely does not mean that it cannot be done. Prior to the A7, nobody had seen a 64 bit ARM chip either.
Adobe moved with Apple from 68k to PPC and from PPC to Intel. They moved from Carbon to Cocoa. They moved from 32 bit to 64 bit. Given the current state of development tools on the Mac, every single one of those transitions was radically harder than the transition I'm proposing.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
And since the choice for the Retina Macbook has been made, isn't this issue sealed by Apple for at least five years?
Usually Apple is pretty consistent about these things, but they could always throw in a whammy. The 12" MacBook is a neat device but that ultra-low-power Intel Core is crazy expensive for the machine and I think the sales are pretty low so they could pop an ARM chip in there.
The price point of Retina Macbook may be wrong not because of the cost of Intel Core M, but just because its slot is still occupied by Macbook Air. Apple must get rid of Macbook Air as soon as the holiday season ends, and give its slot to Retina Macbook. The obsolete Macbook Air still causes inflated prices through all the Macbook range. Why people still buy it I don't understand. Spend $300 more and buy a 4K capable Retina Macbook, isn't it? People spend a fortune to their 4K capable smartphones but when it comes to a 4K computer $300 appears as so huge expense.
kpom said: They got the basics right with the new MacBooks. If the price were $200 less about 80% of the complaints on web forums would go away.
That's for dang sure. $300 cheaper is about where I expected it to start,
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Apple's product meetings where they decide specs and pricing. Obviously they charge as much as they think people will be willing to pay but are they leaving sales on the table? Would pricing these $200-$300 less bring in a lot more sales that would offset the cheaper price? I think they need the iPhone SE mentality across their entire product line. Come in a little cheaper than people expect, especially with a product line that isn't really growing.
So it's still an Apple choice to limit memory for the sake of size/weight/battery. If Intel is truly holding them back it's time to make another processor switch like when Moto couldn't produce lower power G5 for notebooks.
So, quit the Intel shit and start using the Ax chips. Apple can design the memory bandwidth and energy use they like, without waiting on a compromise(d) chip set from Intel. Can't wait the performance gain and huge battery life increase (24 hours or so) and reduced price. Anyone not wanting this must either be working for Intel or have Intel shares (or otherwise be crazy).
(Did you notice Phill praising the Intel processors, no?, that's because he didn't, did you see his enthusiasm and energy talking about Ax?, yes because he knows it's the best thing Apple does at the moment.)
I love the way this story seeks to push the issues people are now commenting on from Apple to Intel. Apple could have introduced a Skylake update to their MB Pro series as soon as the chips were available. Skylake is now over a year old and even the 13 inch chips were introduced in Q1 2016. So I have a question. Can you put USB C and USB A together on the same machine? If the answer is yes then it seems it would have been a much better strategy for Apple to have introduced an old style MB Pro body in the spring of 2016 which included USB C allowing peripheral makers and end users time to start the transition over to the new tech. (This is the way that Apple handled many other transitions away from Firewire, etc). Kaby Lake quad core chips are going to be available in the next few months and this would have meant a much cleaner move over to an all USB C machine in the spring of 2017 with the sexy new touchbar. It seems as if the lunatics are now running the asylum if Apple's product introduction strategy is being decided by the design group rather than when the Intel chips become available. The ones in the middle are us end users who are now looking at the new models thinking why would I invest in a tech that is a year old and which forces me to upgrade all my peripherals or buy a horde of dongles which I have to schlep around with me. For once Appleinsider should question Apple's decisions rather than trying to blame Intel for something which is clearly not their problem!
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
It could go that way, but I don't think it has to.
I think it could actually go in the exact opposite direction -- start at the Mac Pro, and then work down. That might sound crazy, but there could be some advantages to starting with a low volume niche machine like the Mac Pro. First, if Apple screws up then they don't end up alienating too many people (and Mac Pro users are already about as alienated as you can get). Second, Mac Pro users are mostly video production people at this point, so it's a more limited range of software that needs to be targeted. Apple could literally design the SOC with heavy input from the FCP team. The result could be a killer FCP machine that really highlights the advantages of controlling the full stack.
If the Mac Pro experiment succeeds, then Apple could move down market.
I would say that the last machine to go ARM should be the Mac Mini -- it could be the last hold out for people who need Intel.
I've never seen an ARM chip that would match the performance of the Mac Pro. Additionally, the Mac Pro is designed to be used with the most processor intensive, complex apps. Even if they had an ARM setup that was double the performance of the Mac Pro you'd still have an issue with app support from Adobe, for one. The only way I see this happening is with marketing to the more basic users that only need the more basic apps. Plus, they can tap into an entirely new customer base with a much cheaper Mac that doesn't reduce their profit margin.
There would be a sizable market for a Mac Book likw machine running a more robust iOS, without a hint of legacy support for x86, if it was hundreds less expensive. But let's stop with the Mac OS running on ARM; there isn't any reason for that. Remember that all of Apple's desktop competitors are equally fucked by Intel's roadmap, same as Apple. Apple will stick with x86 until MS deprecates it, or until the PC market is dead.
The reality is MacOS runs on Intel processors - that cannot be changed without a huge investment in time and resources, not to mention reprogramming the OS, all apps and getting all developers to do the same! For those that follow the industry, Intel is experiencing fab problems which caused them to miss their tick-tock cycle and moving to a more advanced, power efficient die shrink - a change Apple was banking on to happen for this release. This will now not happen until 2017.
Fab issues combined with Intel's lack of competition and decades long strategy of withholding advanced technologies for the sake of maximizing profits has really been detrimental to the industry. Intel delays more advanced technologies and withholds features in certain chips solely to maximize profits -- not to advance computing. As we all know, Intel currently has NO real competition.
Intel also deliberately confuses the naming and numbering of their chips and even rebrands similar chips (Xeon) to get higher price points. They know their days are numbered, they play dirty - and they even tried to destroy AMD when they were closing in on technology and performance. Who loses? The general population and the environment - since we have to run Intel's inefficient, power hungry, poorly designed CPUs for years now. Thankfully, smart phones run on modern ARM designs & there is healthy competition in that space. Intel cannot compete in this space, they are too far behind.
It's Intel that is to blame, Apple engineers should get kudos for actually releasing decent products based on Intel's last gen CPUs. Kaby Lake is a farce, it's a overpriced band-aid before the real generation is released, hence the reason it's not being used in the newest laptops - even on the Windows platform.
So Apple's using CPUs that're a year behind. Will they still be using the same CPUs in 500 days? Why didn't they update the MacBooks in Q4 2015 with Skylake? If they'd updated in Q4 2015 they could have waited until Q1 2017 for Kaby Lake. They're completely out of sync with Intel's release cycles now, couldn't really have released the 2016 MBPs at a worse time. Sadly, it seems to me like they're trying to let the Mac die.
There's a reasonable chance it was the Touch Bar that delayed the release of the 2016 MBPs. Pretty much all of the rest of the tech would have been available for a release much earlier in 2016, but if the Touch Bar was the "big deal" feature and it wasn't ready yet (including having major software titles available shortly after launch to take advantage of it), do you pull it from your design (major rework) or delay the release? In hindsight, yeah, they should have simply released a Skylake update of the existing MBP design (no Touch Bar, same ports except perhaps TB3 in place of TB2) early in 2016 and then released the redesigned MPB with Touch Bar MBP with Kaby Lake a year later. And at that point it even would have been a bit more palatable to go TB3/USB C only as the USB C ecosystem would have had more time to mature.
I totally agree that they could have and should have introduced an older style MB Pro update in the spring of 2016. The more I look at what they've produced now the less I am inclined to jump into the new model. Why would I? Better to let others be the early adopters waiting for the all the peripheral makers to transition to USB C and software companies to update their apps to deal with the touchbar. I am bemused by Apple's transition strategy. It seems to be that when faced with no other choice customers will be forced into moving over....... Not really customer service friendly!
Comments
And since the choice for the Retina Macbook has been made, isn't this issue sealed by Apple for at least five years?
This is a less than 1% problem - if even that much - for only they most "power" of power users. This is getting old and just goes to show how much people will be crybabies over what will never affect them.
They could also keep the 12" MacBook as is and bring back the MacBook Air, iBook, or something else entirely that runs off of ARM. Marketing is a huge factor so they may not even want to use the Mac name on the HW to help avoid confusion about it not supporting Boot Camp (unless MS offers their ARM-version of Windows) or VMs. The only two things I think we know is that 1) Apple can save hundreds on HW by using their own SoCs, and 2) their SoC already outperform the 12" MacBook and I believe pretty much every WinPC in the range that Apple could then target with a low-cost, entry-level machine based on macOS.
I think it could actually go in the exact opposite direction -- start at the Mac Pro, and then work down. That might sound crazy, but there could be some advantages to starting with a low volume niche machine like the Mac Pro. First, if Apple screws up then they don't end up alienating too many people (and Mac Pro users are already about as alienated as you can get). Second, Mac Pro users are mostly video production people at this point, so it's a more limited range of software that needs to be targeted. Apple could literally design the SOC with heavy input from the FCP team. The result could be a killer FCP machine that really highlights the advantages of controlling the full stack.
If the Mac Pro experiment succeeds, then Apple could move down market.
I would say that the last machine to go ARM should be the Mac Mini -- it could be the last hold out for people who need Intel.
Only if you choose to sacrifice battery size in order to force a .00000x thinner design that no professional wanted. Otherwise, we would have the same battery life with the amount of RAM professionals need.
Just pondering...
Adobe moved with Apple from 68k to PPC and from PPC to Intel. They moved from Carbon to Cocoa. They moved from 32 bit to 64 bit. Given the current state of development tools on the Mac, every single one of those transitions was radically harder than the transition I'm proposing.
Apple can design the memory bandwidth and energy use they like, without waiting on a compromise(d) chip set from Intel.
Can't wait the performance gain and huge battery life increase (24 hours or so) and reduced price.
Anyone not wanting this must either be working for Intel or have Intel shares (or otherwise be crazy).
(Did you notice Phill praising the Intel processors, no?, that's because he didn't, did you see his enthusiasm and energy talking about Ax?, yes because he knows it's the best thing Apple does at the moment.)