Intel's chip design, not Apple's choices, reason behind Thunderbolt 3 & RAM issues in new MacBook P

1235710

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 193
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Soli said:
    brucemc said:
    When Apple referred to the A7 as "desktop class 64 bit", was that purely marketing to help position iPhone / iPad as "Post PC", or did they have another plan to slowly take the Mac / laptop line to in-house silicon?
    I agree with most of your post, but not calling the A7 "desktop class" as purely marketing. Sure, they did it for marketing, just as everything they put a spotlight on is for marketing, but their claim wasn't wrong. There are plenty of AnandTech articles that show that Apple's A-series chips are competitive with the performance found in a huge number of PCs on the market today.
    Thinking back to when the the PowerMac with the PowerPC G4 chip with it's AltiVec processor was released and at Apple's keynote it was referred to as a supercomputer-class computer...
    Despite the brief four-month period during which the Power Mac G4 exceeded the existing MTOPS export limit, Apple’s award-winningmarketing department sought to capitalize on what might otherwise be considered a setback. Both in press statements and advertisements, Apple touted its newest flagship as “the world’s first personal supercomputer,” one that was so powerful that it was “classified as a weapon by the U.S. government.”
    https://www.tekrevue.com/apples-1999-power-mac-g4-really-classified-weapon/


  • Reply 82 of 193
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,858administrator
    @VSzulc 

    FACT: Skylake supports DDR3, and DDR3L to 64GB. I do agree that they could have used DDR3, and not LPDDR3, but given a five-fold difference in power for the same memory capacity, and a 10-fold difference with double, that would have been a problem.

    LPDDR3 is surface mounted, not socketed. There are no SO-DIMM LPDDR3 chips, and LPDDR3 architecture is different from DDR3. The 32GB SODIMM you're talking about is DDR3L.

    Also, we're not iMore, and have been around a lot longer than they have.

    edited October 2016 williamlondonfastasleep
  • Reply 83 of 193
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    boeyc15 said:
    Soli said:
    digitol said:
    Ok now we are getting somewhere. So now we are admitting the cpu's are not the best, and in fact a bit dated, and now limiting what a mac can do. Thanks intel. So Apple knows this, and still decides to raise the starting price $500.00?? Oh man. Please don't be taken for a fool. Don't support this laptop. Demand better. 
    1) What's not "better" about a faster CPU, that supports considerably faster I/O, more architecture features, and does it all using less power than Broadwell?

    2) What's not better than this much brighter display with better color, using less power?

    3) What's so necessary about physical PF-keys (do you even know what that means) that you think the Touch Bar is worse?

    4) What's so awful about Touch ID and Apple Pay on a Mac?

    5) What's so bad about 4xUSB-C ports with 5Gibp/s, and 4x USB-C ports with TB3 (or 2xTB3 and 2xTB2) speeds of 40Gibps?

    6) What's worse about no longer having to buy a emplacement or extra power cables from Apple?

    7) What's worse abut having a single, high speed, universal port interface that can be used for I/O charging, I/O data, and display-out to 2x5K or 4x4K displays?

    Absolutely nothing. although Ill quibble that a legacy 3.0 USB should have been included... there are only a couple gazillion legacy out there that are perfectly functional. And I love the Mag. Magport is rad!

    If I understand this brew-ha-ha correctly there is a class of chips / memory(will call this the PRO class) that could have been added to MacBook Pro that would allow 32GB RAM, but that PRclass of chips was not and has not in been in the previous versions? Simple put --- desktop class chips in the 'portable'. This PRO class of chips would be higher wattage thus require more cooling and battery than the 'new' version chassis could handle.

    And according to the 'PRO's' commenting --- this High RAM configuration usage case is 'becoming very standard' in Professional development world.. and could become a more typical usage cases of 'pro-sumer'(apples present intended market).

    Could all of these things been done in the prior chassis? 

    In summary, in my ass-hat opinion -- If Apple kept a version of the old basic chassis (tweaked it) and did all above and had two internal board/battery configs(yes it cost money) --- 16GB board(medium duty chips) and 32 gb Board(heavy duty chips) it would be darn closer to meeting 100% of it user community's needs, including an absolutely kick-arse machine(albeit lower batter life). The down side-- two configs to manage, and ohh yes... Apples obsession with weight and thinness would have to be sacrificed a bit.

    I understand Apples design for 80%-90% of users, new tech for old etc, but in my opinion, they used to design and sell hardware that was 'optioned' to be much closer to 100% of its users needs and the 'hardware' features/ports were more consistent and allowed transition better. Now its like a mish-mash of features/ports across devises with one size fits all ports and processors for each device (Sounds like a 'supply guy' running things at Apple! ).





    I just don't get it.  Just because the MacBook Pros have a lot of horsepower and flexibility, they are still laptops and Apple (rightfully) considers them mobile machines.  The fact that people use them as desktops, or leave them plugged in 24x7, or attach them to 24 Thunderbolt devices on four TB ports is irrelevant because they are STILL laptops and a balance has to be made between portability, power, and battery life.  

    Enough of the rants and demands that the MBP's should be desktop-class machines.  They are not, they never were.  They are MOBILE machines and there will always be compromises on these systems.  Get a desktop machine for the serious power, and use these laptops for the reason they were designed.  I think it's great that today's laptops rival the power of desktop machines.  It's great, but they are still LAPTOPS. I don't want legacy USB ports.  Those ports are obsolete, and they would barely (if at all) fit on the new, slimmer chassis.  

    The rants about the TB3 ports on the new MBP's are laughable to say the least.  People want thinner, lighter, more powerful machines and (thanks to Apple) incorporating the most current tech (and ports), and (again, thanks to Apple) taking the initiative and jettison legacy ports.  Enough of it.  Move on.  I did, everyone will, and when the Microsofts/Samsungs of the world clone identical Apple laptops with the same ports, I'll bet money none of you will complain.

    It's a moot point.  Change is inevitable.  "Change" is the only thing that doesn't change.  When USBc becomes mainstream, I doubt you'll all be whining about it in a year from now.
    macplusplusbrucemc
  • Reply 84 of 193
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    brucemc said:

    kpom said:
    wood1208 said:
    Intel's Skylake processor is 2015 story. Kaby lake is 2016. Intel will release ICE lake 10nm end of 2017. If I was Apple, I would skip Kaby lake and pick up ICE lake in 2017 for Spring 2018 release of Macbook pro that Apple can design without any compromise.
    I wouldn't be surprised if they skip Kaby Lake (but then we'll get complaints about how out of date the MacBook is next year). At the same time, the latest specs are out, and as predicted, the Skylake chips aren't significantly faster than the Broadwell chips they replaced. That's also the case with Kaby Lake vs Skylake (almost all the gains are from clock speed increases, except for h.265 encoding).

    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.
    Maybe not 80% of the complaints  - forum people have to complain about something - but fully agree that the effective price bump across the board (for which currency exchange makes that much worse for many of Apple's big markets) was the biggest issue.  Last year (or was it 2014?), you could buy the entry level 13" MBP for $1300 USD, and now that is $1500.  The entry level with the Touch Bar is $1800 USD.  For many people, especially in FX challenged currencies, the decision to purchase has become a lot more difficult.

    In the end, Apple has been in this business for a long time, they are the only ones with the real data on who buys what, at which prices, for what reasons.  They have been successful in their approach for the last two decades.  At the macro level, they should be afforded the benefit of the doubt.  They made clear these machines were for "pro" users, so I certainly hope that 2017 brings in options for mainstream that have more size than the ultra-super-slim-portable 12" MacBook, or the aging-almost-no-updates-no-retina Air.  

    And if Apple does determine that sales were below expectation, they always have the ability to lower prices later in 2017.
    Apple has always lowered the price on MBPs about 6-9 months after a major release. I full expect these machines to be $200 cheaper by 6/2017. Book mark me.  
    williamlondonsteveh
  • Reply 85 of 193
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member
    Soli said:
    blastdoor said:
    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.
    Or they could simply make the iPad Pro's more powerful. 
  • Reply 86 of 193
    Soli said:

    This. If Apple makes an ARM-based laptop, which I still find unlikely, it would probably be more closely aligned with the iOS architecture than macOS. Making an ARM-based Mac would be a huge mistake, since 1) performance would decrease, and 2) with zero compatibility with existing apps, they'd have the same problem Microsoft had with the early Surface tablets, before they switched them back to Intel, where people were returning the things in record numbers because while they claimed to run Windows, their Windows software didn't work.
    It makes no sense to put iOS into a notebook or desktop. Regardless of what they call it, it would be based on macOS. It would have drivers for a trackpad/mouse, keyboard without a virtual keyboard being the primary keyboard input, it would have ports for accessories like a directly connected printer and external display. These are not iOS features.
    • Physical keyboards: Already supported by iOS. Apple is even selling a first-party one for the iPad now.
    • Mouse/trackpad: Competing platforms (Android and Windows Phone) support it. It wouldn't be hard to add to iOS as well.
    • Ports for:
      • Printing: No ports needed, really; iOS can do that right now, with AirPrint. Chromebook does something similar, requiring Google Cloud Print or networked printers.
      • External display: While this sort of thing would be arguably out of scope of a low-end product such as the hypothetical laptop being discussed, iOS can nevertheless do that right now, with this. Adopt USB-C instead of the Lightning port, and it'll be even easier; exactly the same as on Mac laptops.

    The only one of these things that isn't an iOS feature right now is the mouse support, and that's easily added.
    And of course they would be compatible with existing apps. Even on the iPhone Pages, for example, is compatible with Pages on macOS. And this isn't just Apple's apps, but innumerable 3rd-party developers make macOS and iOS apps that are compatible with each other. Dropbox, foe example, is only both platforms, as well on Windows and Linux. If and when this does happen you'll see Xcode updated to allow yet another (their 4th?) seamless conversation for developers with relatively little effort, but the apps will exist.
    You can't take the macOS version of Pages and run it on iOS. It's a completely different app, running on a completely different architecture. Apple's previous processor jumps have been to processors sufficiently more powerful that the software for the old architecture could be emulated reasonably during the transition period. That's not possible with ARM, at least not right now.

    Microsoft ran into this with the first two Surface models. They weren't compatible with x86 Windows software, and people kept buying them, WTFing at why their apps wouldn't run on this supposed Windows PC, and returning them. Then they had the Surface/Surface Pro dichotomy which confused users, with one machine running their apps and another nearly identical-looking one not. Eventually Microsoft was forced to move the Surface to Intel Atom. Apple would be wise not to repeat this mistake. The obvious solution is to call any ARM-based laptop, in the unlikely case they decide to make one, something other than a Mac.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 87 of 193
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,415member
    It is discouraging that Intel is not meeting deadlines lately and that really puts Apple on a spot. 

    ARM would probably allow Apple to develop at its own pace but I suspect it would be simply too expensive - it requires a lot of retooling with interfaces and extensive emulation development passing even higher costs to customers. 

  • Reply 88 of 193
    kpomkpom Posts: 660member
    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores. 
    ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
    I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance. 
    Apple's fastest A10 CPU is about as fast as Intel's slowest Core m.
    durandal_1707afrodri
  • Reply 89 of 193
    VSzulcVSzulc Posts: 32unconfirmed, member
    The Surface Book is limited to the same 16GB, but is MS catching heat for that?
    First of all, the Surface isn't meant to be sweeping the marketplace, taking customers from Microsofts OEM partners. It's meant to be a limited success that pushes OEMs to make better devices.

    Secondly, and most importantly, the Surface isn't a pro device the same way the MBP is. The Surface starts at 800$ The Surface Book at 1500$. These are premium devices, not professional devices like the 15 inch MBP that costs over 2000$.

    Note however, that the Surface Studio that IS meant as a pro device, comes with up to 32GB RAM.
  • Reply 90 of 193
    kpomkpom Posts: 660member
    kamilton said:
    The big mistake was Apple not seeing that the intel roadmap was running out of steam, and designing what they need to have innovative new products every 12-14 months.  It's clear, they have to do an x86 chipset.  Going ARM is not a good solution for short term.  

    An AMD acquisition, placed under direction of Apple's current ARM chip team would yield the results we need.  Otherwise the Mac in hamstrung for the foreseeable future.
    The problem is that if either Intel or AMD are acquired that automatically terminates their mutual licensing agreement. Intel owns the rights to x86 and many extensions. AMD owns the rights to x64. So the only option is for AMD and Intel to merge, or any potential suitor of AMD to negotiate a brand new licensing arrangement with Intel.
  • Reply 91 of 193
    kpomkpom Posts: 660member
    knowitall said:
    kamilton said:
    The big mistake was Apple not seeing that the intel roadmap was running out of steam, and designing what they need to have innovative new products every 12-14 months.  It's clear, they have to do an x86 chipset.  Going ARM is not a good solution for short term.  

    An AMD acquisition, placed under direction of Apple's current ARM chip team would yield the results we need.  Otherwise the Mac in hamstrung for the foreseeable future.
    The x86 license from AMD cannot be transferred to another company if AMD is bought. Intel can't afford to kill their monopoly.
    x86 is dead.
    But you can't produce an x64 processor without using x86 technology and patents.
  • Reply 92 of 193
    marrtyy said:
    They made a big mistake with the new MacBooks. They have been making big mistakes since Jobs died. And they have been making poor excuses to cover their big mistakes. Right now they have lost their vision and they will soon lose their following. There is no one at Apple with their fingers on the pulse of the public. Angela A . is a born snob from Cincinnati, the worst kind of snob. She appeals to the 1% and Apple has followed her lead(Wasn't the watch rollout a mess/overpriced)... and will follow her right into the oblivion of... remember when....
    Yes. you must know so much more then they do about making a laptop.

    I bet you didn't even read what was posted. christ.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 93 of 193
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,075member
    williamh said:
    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.
    Cook can probably survive falling sales numbers as long as the per unit profit stays high.   So like the iPad the price of the new MBP went up.  Apple doesn't care if they lose customers.
    singularity
  • Reply 94 of 193
    VSzulc said:
    This is such nonsense, and the saddest attempt at shilling for a corporation, I've seen in a long time.

    Here are the facts:

    FACT: Intel Skylake CPUs support up to 64GB of RAM. Mobile CPUs included.

    FACT: LPDDR3 comes in 32GB SODIMMs these days. Samsung is one manufacturer.

    FACT: If Apple had the best interest of their pro customers in mind, rather than how thin their MBP is, they could have installed one of these, or used 2 16 GB SODIMMs

    Or even better, put 8GB RAM on the motherboard, and left an expansion port for future use. They could also have used DDR3L RAM, for those customers who don't mind taking a small hit on battery life.

    FACT: There are several ways they could have accomplished this. There are plenty of 15inch thin and light Windows laptops with 32GB RAM at lower prices than the MBP, and at a similar size/weight. Why they didn't is a good question, but the answers they've given are nonsense.

    Another good question is why Appleinsider is trying to defend Apples poor decision, rather than look out for the interest if Apples customers and their readers.
    Fact, skylake supports 64gb of ddr4 ram, not LPDDR3.

    Fact, there are no 32gb of LPDDR3 ram. only ddr3L.

    Fact, the 15 inch laptops you're talking about ddr4 ram, giving them significantly less battery life then the MBP, and they don't even have 4 thunderbolt ports to power, not even the tank laptops.
    Solipulseimagesksecfastasleep
  • Reply 95 of 193
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    kpom said:
    blastdoor said:
    blastdoor said:
    Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores. 
    ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
    I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance. 
    Apple's fastest A10 CPU is about as fast as Intel's slowest Core m.
    Link?
  • Reply 96 of 193
    VSzulcVSzulc Posts: 32unconfirmed, member
    @VSzulc 

    FACT: Skylake supports DDR3, and DDR3L to 64GB. I do agree that they could have used DDR3, and not LPDDR3, but given a five-fold difference in power for the same memory capacity, and a 10-fold difference with double, that would have been a problem.

    Yes, there is a big difference in power-draw between LPDDR3 and DDR3L, but the amount of power that they draw is still minuscule compared to the screen or CPU. We're talking about hundreds of milliwatts. 
    Considering that the new display uses 30% less power, Apple could have switched to DDR3L memory instead, and still have more than enough power saved to make the battery smaller. (10 W/hr smaller, for example, instead of more than 20W/hr smaller like now.)

    [quote]
    LPDDR3 is surface mounted, not socketed. There are no SO-DIMM LPDDR3 chips, and LPDDR3 architecture is different from DDR3. The 32GB SODIMM you're talking about is DDR3L.[/quote]

    Samsung makes LPDDR3 in 4GB chips, so it would take 4 of those for a 16 GB model, yes?

    And why exactly is it impossible to put in 4 more, for a total of 32GB? They could put them on the other side of the motherboard, for example. That's a popular choice with OEMs to save space in the X/Y dimensions.

    They chose not to do so, however. Maybe because it would cut profit margins by a few percent. Or maybe because that would mean that the new MBP would only be 10% thinner instead of 17%

    Either way, it's a deliberate choice by Apple, and blaming Intel for not having next years CPU ready this year is disingenuous.

    [quote]Also, we're not iMore, and have been around a lot longer than they have.[/quote]

    Yeah sorry, that was a slip of the tongue. I have been reading you guys for years (though I also read imore).

    And it's because I've been reading AppleInsider for a long time, that I'm disappointed that you try to kick the blame down the road to intel, instead of putting the blame where it belongs: With Apple.

    Don't get me wrong, I've been a Mac owner for years. I'm a huge Apple enthusiast, but I'm not a fanboy who insists that Cupertino can do no wrong.

    If we Apple enthusiasts don't speak up when they take a wrong turn or screw up, eventually Apple will lose what makes it special.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 97 of 193
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    blastdoor said:
    Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores. 
    ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
    This keeps happening. People keep going "Apple will use ARM in their MacBooks" and all you have to do is look at the iPad Pro and go "why would they bother?"

    The iPad Pro is better at being a laptop than many of the Intel-based i3 parts. There is no demand to run macOS software on the iPad Pro. This is different from Microsoft's problem where they completely fumbled by releasing not one, but two different products that people didn't want. They released Windows 8 without the "classic" interface, thus subjecting desktop users to what is clearly a touch-interface that nobody had (Microsoft didn't learn this lesson with Windows CE/Mobile either) but they then put out an ARM-based Windows Surface laptop/tablet that didnt't run Windows classic software either. Microsoft illustrates the folly of trying to have one OS be everything. Microsoft should have literately stolen Apple's idea and released the "Windows 8 UI" as it's own OS even if the underlying OS could still run classic applications through a control panel widget. It should be been "Buy all your apps from the Microsoft store" just like Apple. They might have even gotten away with calling the Windows 8 UI OS "Windows Metro 8 " and then later releasing a "Windows 8 64-bit" for the desktop/laptop and drop support for 32-bit CPU's.

    But no, Microsoft in all it's brilliant screwups since Bill Gates left, opted for the ARM chip for no reason and then abandoned it. See also Zune, and Windows CE/Mobile where Microsoft just outright abandoned a software/hardware product and shot off their own foot in the process. Who was going to buy a Windows Phone now? Microsoft is just going to abandon Windows Phone users, and have done so. If you want the mass market to adopt something you have to put your full support behind it, and unfortunately Microsoft only puts their full support behind their Office product and the Xbox. Nothing else. A surface-series computer is a hard sell because you know Microsoft is not going to support it for 8 years.

    durandal_1707
  • Reply 98 of 193
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    I love these people that claim Apple is lying to them about RAM, they're claiming that they can't do any work until 32GiB is available on a notebook so they're going to keep their current notebook that doesn't have 32GiB, and that if Apple puts ARM in a Mac it'll have to run iOS because a traditional PC OS on a traditional PC doesn't make sense to them. Where do these people come from?
    fastasleep
  • Reply 99 of 193
    Intel's sluggish performance in recent years provides Apple plenty of reason to use ARM processors in Macs. Two or four iPhone ARMs running in parallel would be more powerful yet far less costly than one Intel DryLake processor.
    You're wrong for very good reasons.

    The things that the Intel based Macs can do are simply NOT possible in ARM based Macs.

    Bootcamp would have to disappear and Parallels and VMWare would have to regress to being emulators which takes us right back to the days of Virtual PC on the Mac.

    People are already moaning about the state of gaming on Macs today so going to ARM will pretty much kill any opportunity to have the latest games ported to Mac.

    Your Ivory Tower is really just not built well when you look at it. Its more osteoporotic bone.
  • Reply 100 of 193
    misa said:
    blastdoor said:
    Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores. 
    ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
    This keeps happening. People keep going "Apple will use ARM in their MacBooks" and all you have to do is look at the iPad Pro and go "why would they bother?"

    The iPad Pro is better at being a laptop than many of the Intel-based i3 parts. There is no demand to run macOS software on the iPad Pro. This is different from Microsoft's problem where they completely fumbled by releasing not one, but two different products that people didn't want. They released Windows 8 without the "classic" interface, thus subjecting desktop users to what is clearly a touch-interface that nobody had (Microsoft didn't learn this lesson with Windows CE/Mobile either) but they then put out an ARM-based Windows Surface laptop/tablet that didnt't run Windows classic software either. Microsoft illustrates the folly of trying to have one OS be everything. Microsoft should have literately stolen Apple's idea and released the "Windows 8 UI" as it's own OS even if the underlying OS could still run classic applications through a control panel widget. It should be been "Buy all your apps from the Microsoft store" just like Apple. They might have even gotten away with calling the Windows 8 UI OS "Windows Metro 8 " and then later releasing a "Windows 8 64-bit" for the desktop/laptop and drop support for 32-bit CPU's.

    But no, Microsoft in all it's brilliant screwups since Bill Gates left, opted for the ARM chip for no reason and then abandoned it. See also Zune, and Windows CE/Mobile where Microsoft just outright abandoned a software/hardware product and shot off their own foot in the process. Who was going to buy a Windows Phone now? Microsoft is just going to abandon Windows Phone users, and have done so. If you want the mass market to adopt something you have to put your full support behind it, and unfortunately Microsoft only puts their full support behind their Office product and the Xbox. Nothing else. A surface-series computer is a hard sell because you know Microsoft is not going to support it for 8 years.

    Exactly. All they'd need to do would be to add a trackpad to that flip-cover keyboard they have for the iPad Pro and voilà, there's your ARM-based laptop.
Sign In or Register to comment.