What the Apple Silicon M1 means for the future of Apple's Macs

Posted:
in macOS edited November 2020
Now that more details about Apple Silicon have been revealed, it's clear that even the giddiest expectations fell far short of Apple's real ambitions in building its System-on-a-Chip brains for a new generation of Macs.

Apple M1

Not the iPad Mac

For several years now, long-term Mac fans have fretted that their beloved, 40-something-year-old graphical computing platform was being sidelined as all of Apple's attention was being focused on the youthful new future of iPads. Apple's CEO Tim Cook has frequently expressed his affinity for the mobility of iPad, causing some to worry he might someday abandon the Mac as a complex relic of the past.

Apple has promoted the iPad as an effortless to use, ultra-light, super thin, long-life computing experience for mainstream audiences. Over the last ten years, the iPad burst onto the scene and radically shifted how educators teach, how salespeople market, how the enterprise deploys digital tools for its workers, and how individuals relax with technology at home.

While iPad has ballooned into a huge new computing platform of hundreds of millions of users, it hasn't replaced the venerable Mac. Rather than being "cannibalized" by iPads the way that the markets for netbooks and basic PCs were, Mac sales have grown alongside iPads-- and not by accident.

Clouds of insistence from analysts and columnists claiming that Apple would-- or even should-- let go of Mac sales to concentrate on iPads turned out to be ill-informed noise. The idea that Apple needed to merge or integrate its two computing platforms into a "refrigerator toaster" hybrid also proved to be wrong.

Instead, Apple has continued to maintain macOS and iPadOS as separate platforms differentiated by their user interface and the core tasks they perform for different audiences. At the same time, the company has increasingly brought new technologies from one product to the other, making adjustments as needed to fit each's unique characteristics.

When Apple shipped its first Developer Transition Kit at WWDC, some were surprised that it was effectively a Mac mini enclosure with the internals of an iPad. That again reinforced fears that the future of the Mac might be just a big iPad-- similar to how the original iPad ten years ago was dismissed as "just a big iPod touch."

However, that's not what Apple will be shipping as its new M1-based Mac mini later this month. Instead, the machine boasts an entirely new chip explicitly optimized for the Mac. And it's more than just a chip. As a "System on a Chip," Apple's new M1 leverages the power of shrinking down and tightly integrating various components into a single part. That's the real secret that has enabled semiconductors to transform technology and advance the future of computing-- the often forgotten partner of the software running above it.

The Big Sur prize

On top of building its silicon, Apple is also unique in the industry as its own software developer. A lot of computing companies once did both-- DEC Alpha; SGI and MIPS; IBM and POWER; Sun Sparc and Solaris. But for many years, most PCs shifted to the duopoly of Intel and Microsoft. Developing custom silicon or an original OS software platform just seemed like too much work.

Apple's new M1 is specifically optimized for macOS Big Sur. While the chip enables Macs to natively run apps developed for iOS and iPadOS for the first time, Big Sur also includes Apple's Rosetta 2 technology for translating existing Intel apps to run seamlessly as well-- in some cases even faster than they would run on Intel chips.

macOS Big Sur
macOS Big Sur


Moving an existing platform to a new processor architecture is a lot of work, fraught with problems. Microsoft has been struggling to get its Windows platform to run effectively on ARM chips since the total failure of Windows RT back in 2012, despite setting expectations for compatibility quite low. Sony experienced some headaches with its new generations of PlayStation video game consoles moving from MIPS to PowerPC to AMD, even with limited expectations of backwards compatibility.

Today, Apple has to deliver a seamless, effortless transition that runs effectively all existing Mac apps on an entirely new CPU architecture. Apple isn't just shifting from Intel to new CPU cores -- it's also moving the Mac to its own Apple GPU architecture for the first time, while also debuting its Neural Engine on the Mac along with custom ML acceleration blocks, plus a variety of other specialized hardware controllers, codecs, a new image signal processor, a new memory architecture, and a freshly custom-developed Thunderbolt controller supporting the new USB 4 specification.

Reports from Reuters to the Wall Street Journal have tried to suggest that all Apple is doing is moving from Intel chips to a "design from ARM Holdings," which is entirely false. The new M1 Macs are the most uniquely custom-developed Macs ever, with altogether new blocks of logic all crammed into the most advanced development node available anywhere. ARM doesn't sell an M1.

TSMC's state of the art 5nm process for manufacturing ultra-dense semiconductor designs is newly enabling Apple to shrink down an entirely new and incredibly advanced Macintosh logic board into a single chip. This is orders of magnitudes far more sophisticated than Microsoft compiling Windows to run on a Qualcomm 8cx chip "customized" only in the sense of running at a different clock speed.

The last time we saw an entirely new PC this novel and uniquely advanced compared to the status quo was perhaps Steve Jobs' NeXT Computer back in 1988, which similarly incorporated custom logic chips to handle new kinds of processing that had not been done before in a desktop computer.

Apple's iOS Silicon

All of the new technology on display in the new M1 chip is not, however, merely a version 1.0. Apple has spent the last dozen years perfecting and enhancing its increasingly bespoke silicon designs, including new processing engines, new microcontrollers, and novel security features. Across a decade of iPhone and iPad releases, the company has relentlessly advanced the state of the art within its SoCs while critics continually credited this work to "ARM," most recently suggesting that Nvidia had somehow snatched up this asset with its acquisition of ARM Holdings.

Nothing could be further from the truth. No other ARM licensee, or manufacturer using chips from some other ARM chip maker, has yet matched the sophistication and pace of Apple's silicon engineering. And it hasn't been for want of trying. Samsung dumped massive investments into an effort to build its own M series chips before giving up.

Furthermore, Huawei and other Chinese makers have manufactured ARM reference designs under their own brand names, without achieving Apple's results. Nvidia desperately tried to beat Apple with its Tegra chips before throwing in the towel in smartphones. Qualcomm has been embarrassed by its fall from mobile chip leader to merely a runner up by Apple ever since it was caught flat-footed by the 64-bit A7 back in 2013.

Intel once spent billions subsidizing Android licensees to produce tablets with its mobile x86 Atom chips before giving up on mobile. And now, Apple is taking its mobile expertise developed to power iOS devices and using it to drive its notebook and desktop Macs, starting with the MacBook Air, 13 inch MacBook Pro, and Mac mini. The company expects to complete a transition over the next two years. That would be hard to believe from anyone else, certainly after Microsoft's eight-year struggle to make little progress with Windows for ARM.

But for the company that pulled off a transition to PowerPC processors while crippled with beleaguerment in the 1990s, then rapidly transitioning to Intel chips in 2006 while in parallel launching iPhone, despite still be regarded dismissively by the industry in the mid-2000s, using its new tier of custom silicon to build a new generation of Macs just looks too easy for the two trillion dollar company that now sets standards and defines the products that the rest of the industry meekly seeks to copy.

MacBook Pro notable features list
MacBook Pro notable features list


As I outlined before the M1 announcement, Apple's move to its own SoCs isn't just a chip migration. It's a radical rethinking of desktop PCs that leverages massive amounts of engineering work already completed to deliver iPhones and the light and thin iPad platform, to make them ultra-responsive, radically mobile, and blur the line between hardware and software.

M1 brings ML acceleration, NSP, and a unified graphics architecture to the Mac desktop. And, notably, it optimizes macOS to take advantage of all these technologies from iOS while also freshly optimizing Apple's iOS SoC silicon to serve Mac tasks, most notably Xcode development, but also Metal-enhanced gaming, hardware-accelerated video editing, iPhone-class digital imaging, and incredibly fast new custom storage and memory architectures. It also brings advances in security, lightning-fast wake from sleep, and dramatically increased battery life-- all while also being faster than comparable Intel chips.

Let AppleInsider know what you'd like to know about Apple's new series of M1 Macs.
JWSCdewmeForumPostwatto_cobra
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,022member
    It will be interesting to see what kind of bill of material reduction Apple is seeing with so many circuit card components being replaced by one single chip.
    HirsuteJimwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 33
    JWSC said:
    It will be interesting to see what kind of bill of material reduction Apple is seeing with so many circuit card components being replaced by one single chip.
    It sure would be interesting to see this, but nobody outside of the very internal core of Apple has any real numbers. The BOM that will inevitably get "estimated" will be total conjecture. Previous iPhone BOMs threw out figures like "$15 - ARM chip" that were total hogwash. 

    While Apple is certainly saving money over using multiple chips, or paying Intel and AMD a premium for their IP, I'm not sure that Apple is immediately saving huge sums building a some slice of their own processors in this first batch. 

    Apple has supported custom SoC development for iPads by selling massive volumes of them, while sharing a lot of the expense with even higher volumes of iPhones--inclding sharing most of the work to write/optimize iOS. For the M1, Apple had to do a LOT of very custom work unique to the Mac and macOS, which it will only initially ship across its entry notebooks and mini, perhaps half (?) of its total Mac shipments. Even if they might sell at a higher margin, the company sells a lot fewer Macs than iOS devices. That suggests it will take longer to amortize the initial costs of developing M1 and all the work in Big Sur and elsewhere. 

    However, that also means that as it expands to deliver an "M1X" for higher end MBPs and iMac, it will have done much of the foundational work already. Each new M generation should add to the cost savings and perhaps erase more of the expensive third party components in its Mac lineup (higher end Intel CPUs and AMD's discreet GPUs). 

    So while M silicon should help drive down Apple's costs over time, I don't think it is making vastly higher margins on these first models. And it can certainly afford that, of course. It's also useful to point to that very few other companies could assume the risk of taking on such a massive project with the hope of it paying off, and at the risk of Intel   or AMD pulling ahead and erasing the value of that work. Just assembling the silicon talent to start on M1 effectively took 12 years of making +$1Trillion on iOS shipments.  

    That's why these reports that announced that "Microsoft also has a custom ARM chip!" were so grossly misleading. 
    williamlondonScot1JWSCRayz2016cornchipdewmemuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 3 of 33
    What specific things will the Apple Silicon Mac’s not be able to do that the preceding Mac’s could?
    Obviously we won’t be able to BootCamp and run 32-bit applications with an older system, but what else will not be possible?
    Will we still be able to boot off an external device? I assume with the integration of system memory that memory upgrades on desktop Macs will be a thing of the past too. So much for getting around Apple’s overpriced memory premiums, or will this be still possible somehow? What might this mean for PCI based expansion cards? Will these still work when in a thunderbolt enclosure or directly installed in a Mac Pro? 
    It’s an exciting new step but I will like to know how these things will be restricted too. Faster is good, but is it still extendable like our current and past Macs or are these more commoditized devices that will run Mac software but not the same types of Hardware?
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 33
    I was quite surprised by the Thunderbolt/USB4 and RAM limitations. I see in the slide that they did show “Up to 16 GB” which I missed during the presentation. But the single external display and only 2 TB/USB4 ports came as a real surprise. 

    The performance of these SoCs is lovely and industry changing but I would love an explanation why they only wanted to release low end SoCs for the first round. It doesn’t have to be detailed but it shouldn’t look like they can’t do much better right now which is what it does look like. Apple’s dedication to secrecy doesn’t seem particularly helpful right now. Either you assume that they will come out with a higher end SoC for the next round which means it isn’t very secret or you assume that they can’t which is worse.

    I was pretty dissatisfied with the level of technical detail in the keynote. They could have done better. 
    edited November 2020 williamlondon80s_Apple_Guywatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 33
    Bravo. Thanks for writing this clear Big Picture of the transformation that is underway and hiding in plain sight. 
    Dan_Dilgerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 33

    One part of me wants to buy the new M1 MacBook Pro NOW, but I want to know things like… 

    • What is the speed of the SSDs?
    • How much faster will the actively cooled M1 MacBook Pro perform compared to the passively cooled M1 MacBook Air?
    • How long will the M1 MacBook Air be able to run under full load before being throttled for heat management?
    • Do all M1s have the same specifications (e.g., clock speed, RAM speed, SSD speed, etc.)?
    • Does the entry-level M1 MacBook Air really only physically have 7 GPUs, or does it have 8 with one of them disabled in some fashion?
    • Are the ports Thunderbolt 3 with USB 4, or are they Thunderbolt 4, which includes USB 4?
    • Does Unified Memory Architecture in some way allow more to be done with less RAM (e.g., Is 16 GB “enough” RAM)?

    AND… 

    • WHAT WILL BE THE DEVELOPMENT/RELEASE CYCLE FOR THE M SERIES❓❓❓ Will they be on a yearly cycle like we have come to expect with the A Series? Inquiring minds want to know!

    Another part of me wants to wait for the M2 MacBook Pro(s) (hopefully) with things like… 

    • FOUR Thunderbolt 4 ports
    • 32 GB RAM (64 GB??)
    • 4 TB SSDs
    • Discrete GPUs (or integrated GPUs that rival or exceed traditional discrete GPUs)
    • Support for external GPUs
    • Support for two external UHD monitors
    • Support for virtualization(?)

    As I type out this list, I think I have answered my own dilemma  …  I think I’ll keep my 2018 15” MacBook Pro until the M2 starts shipping.


    Regards,

    Jim
    edited November 2020 80s_Apple_Guymuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 33
    Could some explain why they were not able to update the higher end MacBook Pros with the M1?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 33
    2morrow said:
    Could some explain why they were not able to update the higher end MacBook Pros with the M1?
    JFC, patience man!
    cornchipthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 33
    It’s going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. A desktop/laptop is not a phone. One of the reasons the Mac never gained much traction was compatibility. People had to share documents with each other and, even though there have been enormous strides over the years, particularly in the office documents realm, there are still annoying differences. In the phone world it didn’t matter. The only document most people shared from a phone was a picture or video and that was already in a universal JPG or H.264 format so operating systems or processors didn’t matter.  It was the user experience that made all the different hence Apple, with its unparalleled user experience, completely changed the phone world. Desktops/laptops are much more dependent on interacting with each other and the annoying differences affect the user experience. When Apple changed to Intel, those differences were much less significant and were mitigated by the fact you had bootcamp and if you really needed to, you could run Windows. I’m in IT so people would ask me what kind of computer to buy and I would alway tell them to get a Mac because you and run Windows on a Mac but not MacOS on a PC. Now the world has changed since the introduction of Intel Macs but it will be interesting to see if the lack of ability to run Windows will affect sales. I do hope companies like VMware introduce an emulator. 
    williamlondoncornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 33
    What specific things will the Apple Silicon Mac’s not be able to do that the preceding Mac’s could?
    Obviously we won’t be able to BootCamp and run 32-bit applications with an older system, but what else will not be possible?
    Will we still be able to boot off an external device? I assume with the integration of system memory that memory upgrades on desktop Macs will be a thing of the past too. So much for getting around Apple’s overpriced memory premiums, or will this be still possible somehow? What might this mean for PCI based expansion cards? Will these still work when in a thunderbolt enclosure or directly installed in a Mac Pro? 
    It’s an exciting new step but I will like to know how these things will be restricted too. Faster is good, but is it still extendable like our current and past Macs or are these more commoditized devices that will run Mac software but not the same types of Hardware?
    Some of the limitations you're seeing are also present in the models replaced. Intel MBA shipped with 8 or 16 GB RAM unexpandable. 
    Thunderbolt essentially is a PCIe slot over a cable. Until now, it was an Intel technology that required Intel silicon (a TB controller chip). That's why iPad Pro doesn't support TB3.

    With the new TB4 spec, Intel decided to begin licensing it like USB, and allowing third parties to implement their own controller. Apple created support for TB (apparently lacking full support for the whole new TB4 spec, as it only calls it TB, plus USB4. This suggests that future Apple Silicon Macs could perhaps support PCIe compatible slots or TB-based connectivity to external PCIe slots. M1 Macs do not support eGPUs (PCIe GPU cards in an external box connected by TB), but that's could be simply because it hasn't been implemented yet. It also might not ever make sense for Apple to do the work to support eGPUs, giving it a monopoly over Mac GPUs. Seems like this is not what Apple is trying to do here tho.

        
    williamlondoncornchipaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 33

    jdb8167 said:
    I was quite surprised by the Thunderbolt/USB4 and RAM limitations. I see in the slide that they did show “Up to 16 GB” which I missed during the presentation. But the single external display and only 2 TB/USB4 ports came as a real surprise. 

    The performance of these SoCs is lovely and industry changing but I would love an explanation why they only wanted to release low end SoCs for the first round. It doesn’t have to be detailed but it shouldn’t look like they can’t do much better right now which is what it does look like. Apple’s dedication to secrecy doesn’t seem particularly helpful right now. Either you assume that they will come out with a higher end SoC for the next round which means it isn’t very secret or you assume that they can’t which is worse.

    I was pretty dissatisfied with the level of technical detail in the keynote. They could have done better. 
    If you look at iPad 1,2,3,4 they kept getting better in sequential order. You have to walk before you can run.
    williamlondonchia
  • Reply 12 of 33

    2morrow said:
    Could some explain why they were not able to update the higher end MacBook Pros with the M1?
    They wouldn't be higher-end with the same M1. 
    williamlondonchiacornchipJWSCentropysaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 33
    2morrow said:
    Could some explain why they were not able to update the higher end MacBook Pros with the M1?
    The computers that weren’t updated — the 16” MBP and the iMac, basically — both have the expectation of being higher-performing computers with discrete GPUs, which will require something akin to an “M1X”. Even Apple has constrained resources. 
    JWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 33
    “Instead [... of just an iPad A14]… an entirely new chip explicitly optimized for the Mac. And it's more than just a chip. As a ‘System on a Chip’...”

    I don’t think this article makes the case that there is anything “entirely new” about the M1 at all. How is it any more or less than an A14 (also a SOC) with eight cores instead of six, and an eight (or seven) core GPU? Thunderbolt, maybe?

    Regarding eGPUs... if support was coming, there would need to be drivers, and so far there isn’t even a hint of the existence of ARM ATI drivers in Big Sur. 

    i think Apple showed their hand with the Mac Pro “Afterburner” card. What’s that old aphorism, “people don’t want a drill, they want a hole”? Instead of support for “Radeon cards,” Apple is thinking about what people actually want to accomplish with them, and developing a product around that. Which kinda sucks IMO, I don’t think Apple can second-guess the needs of all buyers like that, and it’s an expensive path for consumers...
    williamlondoncornchipDetnatormobirdmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 15 of 33
    I’ve said this a while ago right after WWDC2020 about how this would be sort of a big industry shift. For the better. Not a dooms day scenario for the Mac like many have anticipated. What people needs to wrap their heads around Apple Silicon moving forward is that Efficiency means better performance. 

    Take a basic example. An office with staffs sorting mail for delivery. With limited amount of people, you can only do so much at a given time. So instead of just simply throwing more people to increase the speed (which would drive cost up and is what Intel does), you eliminate unnecessary jobs and streamline the process so that they can achieve more. Then if that’s not enough, you add a few more people so it can overall improve the speed of sorting mail. This is efficiency. You can do more if you’re efficient. 

    We have to move away from judging all this as a direct comparison with other vendors who just quote Gigahertz. Big gigahertz numbers is useless unless they can be fully exploited. Apple doesn’t need to build the highest gigahertz cpu on the planet if they can already achieve better real world usage. It’s better than having high clock counts just so that you can say you have the highest count. A shift to “what are people really using it for? They need faster coders for video editing right? How about digital stabilization tool for post editing that needs to be faster, ok! We’ll throw in ML acceleration so that our devs can use that to accelerate that process”. I think this is the right way to go moving forward. Custom solutions for specific tasks. So that those tasks is faster without sacrificing on low power consumption and HEAT. Less heat means they can sustain the higher speed for a longer time. The iPhone and iPad had always had less RAM and clock speed compared to their competitors. They don’t even put that into their slides. Yet, they always outperform their competition in real world usage. Like Apple vs. Samsung and Qualcomm for mobile devices, this will be Apple vs. Intel. We just have to learn how to decipher comparisons in a different way. 

    System on a chip is a very innovative shift for microprocessors. However, from the lack of info so far on the M1 regarding RAM resource management between GPU and CPU is a concern of mine. How does the operating system prioritize which is more essential? what happens when the RAM is full? Will they use SSD’s as virtual memory? Will apps need to be written or rewritten in such a way that targets both CPU and GPU at the same time to get the most benefit from the efficiency and speed of the Silicon? Where some apps prior to this may be 85% on CPU and 15% on GPU. 

    These are some of the questions I wished I had more info. I’m not too worried about the future GPU. Having said that, GPU performance is very important to me. Probably due to how the software that I use requires it to be. Not yet optimized. Not factoring unified memory approach so therefore needing beefier GPU than they really need to. The other point that weren’t mentioned is Ray tracing. I think Apple needs to address this in their upper tier SoC. This particular Graphics technology goes well beyond just gaming. If Apple wants to remain relevant in this arena, they need to address this. 

    Apple isn’t showing the SoC for the 16” MacBook Pro in this event because they are giving them selves time to release. Probably wanting to wait and see Ampere and RDNA2 too but most likely not wanting to release all at once. It is 2020 after all. But to say that they don’t have anything to fight those beefier GPU would be unjustified for Apple. Somethings cookin in their labs. We just haven’t had the luxury of seeing it apart of Sruji. Ampere and RDNA2 will be the sort of benchmark performance they need to match or exceed.  If the Air can gain drastic performance upgrade, I can’t wait to see the silicon that will go into the new 16” MacBook Pro 2021. 

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 33
    XedXed Posts: 1,063member
    I’ve said this a while ago right after WWDC2020 about how this would be sort of a big industry shift. For the better. Not a dooms day scenario for the Mac like many have anticipated. What people needs to wrap their heads around Apple Silicon moving forward is that Efficiency means better performance.

    […]
    Beyond the benefits of the HW changes I think that this will create more "switchers" from Windows than the move from PPC to Intel with the eventual inclusion of Boot Camp and VM support ever did with that capability as a backup in case macOS didn't work out.

    In almost 1.5 decades we've seen the focus on desktop OSes shift to advance mobile OSes, of which iOS and iPadOS are the most coveted. Many of those users have given up on even getting another WinPC because the utility of their Apple device is so good.

    Along with enjoyment of Apple's products is the financial investment into App Store apps, which makes leaving the ecosystem more of an issue, which is why iOS and iPadOS apps running on the M1 Macs is such a compelling reason for iPhone and iPad that still haven't used a Mac to finally take that plunge without fear of not having the apps they use the most available to them or have to deal with a totally unfamiliar experience. Now, since it's not a touch screen it may be a great solution, but I think it will be good enough for most if Apple is willing to allow these apps to run on these Macs.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 33
    System on a chip is a very innovative shift for microprocessors. However, from the lack of info so far on the M1 regarding RAM resource management between GPU and CPU is a concern of mine. How does the operating system prioritize which is more essential? what happens when the RAM is full? Will they use SSD’s as virtual memory? 

    This was a throwaway line in the presentation, but one thing to consider is that since the CPU and GPU are sharing the same memory space and the same data formats, all they need to do is hand off a pointer from the CPU to the GPU for rendering and presentation. As opposed to working with a discrete GPU where you actually have to spend time copying data from one to another. Further, you can use the same paging mechanisms for both, which means recently unused textures (as just one example) can be offloaded as needed.

    See 15:28 in the presentation.
    edited November 2020 williamlondonJWSCDetnatorSkylightActiveFileMakerFellerwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 18 of 33
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,158member
    2morrow said:
    Could some explain why they were not able to update the higher end MacBook Pros with the M1?
    Because:
    • the M1 is currently Apple’slow end chip. That it is being compared with, and can compete with,  higher end alternative chips is just marketing gravy.
    • It is a new architecture and Apple needs a lot of people to get on the journey with them to create momentum. Thus the low end highest volume sellers.
    • purchasers of high end macs use specialised software that may take a while to go native. High end needs x86 for a while.  
    • Mainstream apps like MS office will be much quicker to get a native version, simply because of the volumes sold to consumers.  That said, the high volumes of consumer level M1 macs sold will make it easier for developers to justify to the bean counters that that specialised bit of software should be updated to run natively on M1. The bandwagon effect.
    • Once it is established even low end macs are among the fastest, and there is high end software available, you release the kraken! Sorry the higher end versions of the M1.
    edited November 2020 Detnatoraderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 33
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,158member
    I still fear for the Mac long term though. There is no reason these low end M1 chips couldn’t end up in an iPad Pro. Then the iPad Pro would get thunderbolt.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 20 of 33
    2morrow said:
    Could some explain why they were not able to update the higher end MacBook Pros with the M1?
    COVID, supply chain overwhelm with new products take your pick! 😜
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.