Components for first Apple Silicon Macs will cost Apple more, says Kuo

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 2020
In a report about the implications for the supply chain of Apple's move away from Intel, well-regarded analyst Ming-Chi Kuo says that specific components required to build the first Apple Silicon Macs -- like the rumored 24-inch iMac -- will initially cost the company more.

Components for all new Apple Silicon models are expected to cost Apple more
Components for all new Apple Silicon models are expected to cost Apple more


Following the announcement that Apple is moving its Mac range to Apple Silicon, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has been examining the expected new demand, plus its impact on suppliers to the company.

In a research note seen by AppleInsider, Kuo says that the shift to Apple Silicon has some additional costs. "Due to design changes, the unit price will increase," Kuo claims. It appears that Kuo is specifically talking about both the cost to Apple for the design effort for the shift and costs borne by suppliers.

It's not yet clear what this will ultimately mean for the consumer. Apple may choose to pass on the greater costs to buyers, but it's equally likely that the cost saving in not buying Intel processors will offset it.

Kuo has discussed the 24-inch iMac redesign previously. In a note just prior to WWDC, Kuo said that the Apple Silicon iMac will use an "all-new form factor design," with a 24-inch display. Besides the Apple Silicon version, Kuo is also predicting an Intel version to ship prior to that transition.

Kuo slightly missed his estimate on how long the migration would take. While Apple CEO Tim Cook said that the transition would take about two years, Kuo said that "we estimate that all Mac models will switch to ARM in 12-18 months," said Kuo, adding an "all-new form-factor design MacBook" model will head into mass production in the second half of 2021.

Elsewhere in the same research note published very early Tuesday morning, Kuo says that he expects consumer Apple demand to rise over the second half of 2020, before the Apple Silicon Macs start arriving.

"Benefiting from the need to work from home," he says, "we have increased the MacBook shipment forecast in 3Q20 by about 30%. Due to increased demand for work from home and demand for MacBook Air, 2H20 shipments are better than expected, so we expect MacBook shipments to grow by about 15% in 2020 to YoY to 16-16.5 million units."

"Our latest survey indicates that Magic Keyboard demand is expected to increase by 10-20% due to better than expected 2H20 shipments," he continues.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.
    chemengin1
  • Reply 2 of 32
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 367member
    dysamoria said:
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.
    I’m not so sure about it.
    F_Kent_Dnarwhalwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 32
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 611member
    dysamoria said:
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.
    And this based on the opinion of one sketchy analyst who later admits the savings from not buying from Intel will most likely offset it, if it even exists. 
    F_Kent_DAppleSince1976narwhalwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 32
    Of course, the new Apple Silicon computers will cost more! The Intel prices are pretty high but Apple had pay Intel for the processors! Apple pays a license fee to ARM in Japan and pays TSMC to build the chips! It will be more expensive despite everybody dreaming of lower costs! Apple wants everything proprietary and hence perceived control but I believe that will hurt them like it hurt Sony years ago! 

  • Reply 5 of 32
    F_Kent_DF_Kent_D Posts: 98unconfirmed, member
    Of course, the new Apple Silicon computers will cost more! The Intel prices are pretty high but Apple had pay Intel for the processors! Apple pays a license fee to ARM in Japan and pays TSMC to build the chips! It will be more expensive despite everybody dreaming of lower costs! Apple wants everything proprietary and hence perceived control but I believe that will hurt them like it hurt Sony years ago! 

    Years ago the technology wasn’t there to make seamless working transitions as it is today. The transition from PowerPC to Intel was tough and a bumpy ride because as in today’s standards both technologies were no good. Today’s tech and engineering on both the hardware and software side of things are far superior to anything we’ve seen back in the day. Apple knows how to do these transitions and I think now is the right time technologically. 
    superklotonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 32
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,630member
    dysamoria said:
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.
    Kuo didn’t say that.  He said it would cost Apple more.  If you assume Apple passes this cost to the customer immediately, prices may go up.  Although, it is a reasonable assumption.  

    This headline is a bit misleading.  Of course, new models and new tooling cost more than reusing similar designs.  That’s the very nature of any new design.   Obviously, the added costs of the transition are taken into account by Apple. 

    I dont see anything non-obvious or materially relevant in this article.   Just comments about what is normal.  

    superklotonGeorgeBMacAppleSince1976watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 32
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,268member
    That's a garbage forecast because it treats the chips as if they're sold to Apple from a 3rd party (such as Intel or Qualcomm) that produces general purpose processors, and secondly assumes that Apple aren't beholden to the effects of competition. (Analysts seemingly forget that when enumerating all of the included hardware, Apple's devices are competitively priced, especially in the Pro range.)

    But back to chips for a moment, we can already see how Apple are able to offer rapid development of processors such as the Apple Watch's SoC, by channeling their existing R&D into designs that normally would not be commercially viable. Evidence of this is how Qualcomm have stalled development of chips for wearables, not because they lack R&D craft, but because the business model doesn't add up. Another example of a relatively cheap device that offers specialised technologies is AirPods. If a company wanted to product the H1 chip from scratch, or by sourcing chips, the cost of their earphones would be astronomical and the size would also be physically larger. It's most likely that the cost of Apple's mac lineup will remain unchanged, and the Pros would be priced to match market expectations (like they are already!)

    In terms of performance I find that people are being too myopic here - the Mac is no longer required to follow the traditional concept of a powerful general processing unit tied to an array of secondary specialised hardware. Instead you are more likely to see an approach that mirrors the iPad, with the central processor taking on wide fields of specialised processing functions that Apple tailor to their device function. This is why you can put an iPhone next to a Qualcomm based device and the iPhone will smoke it, benchmarks will need to be redesigned for end-use speed, not just crunching numbers in a bunch of different scenarios.
    macplusplusmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 32
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    The issue is going to be how many of Apple Silicon systems will Apple sell? 

    I replaced my legacy MBP and iMac two years ago, and my daughter's legacy MBP and my wife's 6 years old MBP within the last month. 

    Okay, no way am I going to need to spend the money to upgrade anything in the next two years. 

    Apple's transition to two years must be based on some estimate of their customers' upgrade cycles. Unless they and their developers offer very strong reasons to upgrade, that transition will take quite a while. 

    So, what customers are Apple going after? My guess is legacy Windows users owning iPhones and iPads, for one. People owning iPhones and iPads, but no computer. Chrome computer users? 

    The Mac Pro is upgradeable by design. So, if Apple puts out a 32-core Apple Silicon board, you might get a transition there. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 32
    larryjw said:
    The issue is going to be how many of Apple Silicon systems will Apple sell? 
    The graph that they showed in the presentation would be a solid selling point: desktop class performance with laptop class power consumption. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 32
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    dysamoria said:
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.

    He said cost, not price.    Only a piece -- likely a minority piece -- of the cost of any Apple product is the hardware.   You are also paying for the OS & other software as well as ongoing access to Apple's infrastructure and support -- as well as a markup based on what traffic will bear.

    Their price is not based solely or even mostly on direct manufacturing hardware costs.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 32
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    eriamjh said:
    dysamoria said:
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.
    Kuo didn’t say that.  He said it would cost Apple more.  If you assume Apple passes this cost to the customer immediately, prices may go up.  Although, it is a reasonable assumption.  

    This headline is a bit misleading.  Of course, new models and new tooling cost more than reusing similar designs.  That’s the very nature of any new design.   Obviously, the added costs of the transition are taken into account by Apple. 

    I dont see anything non-obvious or materially relevant in this article.   Just comments about what is normal.  


    Also, the costs of Intel processors are reduced due to their very high volume -- covering almost every personal computer these days.
    Macs are only a small part of that market.   And, even iPhones are a small part of the smart phone market.   So, it is reasonable that the cost per unit of an Apple Chip will be higher than that of an equivalent Intel chip.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    FatmanFatman Posts: 513member
    Complete BS - the cost will be far less for Apple in the long term, that’s one of the major reasons for the migration! Cheaper, faster, cooler. The 28 core Intel Xeon processor in the Mac Pro’s top configuration retails for $3400 - just the cost of the CPU part alone! Then add all those dang cooling fans :-) I bet Apple will be making a performance equivalent 3nm multicore14z at 1/10th the cost by this time next year. We will see more Macs at the $999 price point and below in the next couple of years - choosing ARM over Intel will be a no brainer!
    tmayrundhvidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 32
    FatmanFatman Posts: 513member
    Complete BS - the cost will be far less for Apple in the long term, that’s one of the major reasons for the migration! Cheaper, faster, cooler. The 28 core Intel Xeon processor in the Mac Pro’s top configuration retails for $3400 - just the cost of the CPU part alone! Then add all those dang cooling fans :-) I bet Apple will be making a performance equivalent 3nm multicore14z at 1/10th the cost by this time next year. We will see more Macs at the $999 price point and below in the next couple of years - choosing ARM over Intel will be a no brainer!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 32
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    dysamoria said:
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.
    Nope. My guess is the machines will cost the same. 
    tmayqwerty52Beatsnarwhalwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 32
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    If you make your own silicon designs, then you have two costs - upfront research, design, testing, and then manufacturing.

    The more you sell, the more you amortise the first cost over all of the sold devices. Apple is already investing the money into the first part for the iPhone/iPad SoCs - it is an incremental additional cost to do a new design for Macs. But let's say it's $500m for a 5nm design at this stage. Apple will ship 16m Macs a year. That's $31 per Mac. It'll be lower because a lot of that cost is shared with iPhone SoC. 

    A 5nm wafer processing cost might be $12k (dropping as it matures) right now. It's 80% denser than 7nm. Let's assume they use that for the additional CPU cores and GPU cores the desktop chip would have and the resulting chip is 10.1mm x 12.6mm just like the A12Z. Even with poor yields you get over 300 fully working die per wafer out of ~450. That's a fabrication cost of $40 for each fully working die (and you'll get partially working dies as a bonus as well, for your lower-end products).

    I imagine that Apple want to grow the Mac business and will use lower priced Macs with those recovered dies to achieve that - although there's a certain level of quality that Apple won't go below.

    How much does Apple pay Intel for the chips in their laptops currently? Sure, it's discounted over list price, but it will be far, far higher than $71.

    These numbers are extremely rough estimates.
    tmayAppleSince1976GeorgeBMacnarwhalrundhvidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 32
    davebarnesdavebarnes Posts: 366member
    How much more?
    Without a $ figure just useless speculation.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 32
    Of course, the new Apple Silicon computers will cost more! The Intel prices are pretty high but Apple had pay Intel for the processors! Apple pays a license fee to ARM in Japan and pays TSMC to build the chips! It will be more expensive despite everybody dreaming of lower costs! Apple wants everything proprietary and hence perceived control but I believe that will hurt them like it hurt Sony years ago! 

    I don’t know what world you lived in; but the PPC —> Intel transition could not have gone more smoothly.

    Sure, Rosetta was a bit pokey (owing greatly to the difference between Little Endian and Big Endian representation between Intel and PPC G5 CPUs). But, other than that, there were few real problems.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 32


    In terms of performance I find that people are being too myopic here - the Mac is no longer required to follow the traditional concept of a powerful general processing unit tied to an array of secondary specialised hardware. Instead you are more likely to see an approach that mirrors the iPad, with the central processor taking on wide fields of specialised processing functions that Apple tailor to their device function. This is why you can put an iPhone next to a Qualcomm based device and the iPhone will smoke it, benchmarks will need to be redesigned for end-use speed, not just crunching numbers in a bunch of different scenarios.
    This is a potential issue I see going forward.

     Both Qualcomm and Intel are capable of hiring the talent necessary to create their own versions of Apple’s “subsystems” present in their Ax SoCs. So why don’t they?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 32
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,309member
    hattig said:
    If you make your own silicon designs, then you have two costs - upfront research, design, testing, and then manufacturing.

    The more you sell, the more you amortise the first cost over all of the sold devices. Apple is already investing the money into the first part for the iPhone/iPad SoCs - it is an incremental additional cost to do a new design for Macs. But let's say it's $500m for a 5nm design at this stage. Apple will ship 16m Macs a year. That's $31 per Mac. It'll be lower because a lot of that cost is shared with iPhone SoC. 

    A 5nm wafer processing cost might be $12k (dropping as it matures) right now. It's 80% denser than 7nm. Let's assume they use that for the additional CPU cores and GPU cores the desktop chip would have and the resulting chip is 10.1mm x 12.6mm just like the A12Z. Even with poor yields you get over 300 fully working die per wafer out of ~450. That's a fabrication cost of $40 for each fully working die (and you'll get partially working dies as a bonus as well, for your lower-end products).

    I imagine that Apple want to grow the Mac business and will use lower priced Macs with those recovered dies to achieve that - although there's a certain level of quality that Apple won't go below.

    How much does Apple pay Intel for the chips in their laptops currently? Sure, it's discounted over list price, but it will be far, far higher than $71.

    These numbers are extremely rough estimates.
    You might be close on the CPU cost for the low end models, but I'd guess that Apple is going to need multiple configurations, with a very large die for a Mac Pro. Then there's the integration of the CPU into the SOC, and that is likely to be a comparatively large package compared even to the iPad. Apple could see some real savings once the new Mac line has been established.

    That said, I agree with Rayz2016. Pricing of new models comparable to current models will be very close to the same.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 32

    larryjw said:
    The issue is going to be how many of Apple Silicon systems will Apple sell? 
    The graph that they showed in the presentation would be a solid selling point: desktop class performance with laptop class power consumption. 
    larryjw said:
    The issue is going to be how many of Apple Silicon systems will Apple sell? 
    The graph that they showed in the presentation would be a solid selling point: desktop class performance with laptop class power consumption. 
    eriamjh said:
    dysamoria said:
    So, as predicted, these new machines will cost customers more, too. No surprise.
    Kuo didn’t say that.  He said it would cost Apple more.  If you assume Apple passes this cost to the customer immediately, prices may go up.  Although, it is a reasonable assumption.  

    This headline is a bit misleading.  Of course, new models and new tooling cost more than reusing similar designs.  That’s the very nature of any new design.   Obviously, the added costs of the transition are taken into account by Apple. 

    I dont see anything non-obvious or materially relevant in this article.   Just comments about what is normal.  


    Also, the costs of Intel processors are reduced due to their very high volume -- covering almost every personal computer these days.
    Macs are only a small part of that market.   And, even iPhones are a small part of the smart phone market.   So, it is reasonable that the cost per unit of an Apple Chip will be higher than that of an equivalent Intel chip.
    If the price of Intel’s CPUs is “reduced”, I’d hate to see what they would charge otherwise!
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.