cloudguy

Take a step back a bit. Qualcomm's best laptop chip (used in Windows Surface type devices and soon in Chromebooks) is the 8cx and it has benchmarks comparable to the Intel i5.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Qualcomm-s-Snapdragon-8cx-amasses-respectable-score-on-Geekbench-and-closes-in-on-Intel-s-Core-i5-8250U.434104.0.html

And the 8cx came out in early-mid 2019 on the 7nm process, making it equivalent to the Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 that is in the Microsoft Surface Duo phone/tablet and last year's flagship Android phones like the Pixel 4 and OnePlus 7. Meaning that the next Qualcomm Snapdragon laptop chip - which will come out this year on a 5nm process and contain the new Cortex X1 super core jointly designed by ARM Holdings and Samsung - will match the Intel Core i7. Early benchmarks from Qualcomm and Samsung chips are in that use the new Cortex X1 design and 5nm process which state that the increase in performance over the 865 - the same basic architecture as the 8cx - is significant. 

So the ability of smartphone SOCs to surpass AMD and Intel CPUs in clock frequencies and benchmark tests has been no big deal for quite some time. For example, Snapdragon CPUs in Android phones surpassed the 1.1 GHz dual core Intel Core i3 that is in the MacBook Air some time ago. The question is whether these ARM CPUs can have similar or better performance when running a laptop operating system - macOS as opposed to iOS - with equivalent workloads - i.e. true multitasking/multithreading and heavy I/O that Apple doesn't allow on iOS or even an iPad Pro running iPadOS. For example, running a demo full stack application that has the client app, server app and middleware in separate containers ... the sort of thing that college students in web development classes run all the time. 

THAT is what everyone is waiting to see. The Windows on ARM devices don't give us any indication because the app support is terrible, and the first ChromeOS device on Snapdragon 8cx won't hit until 2021. So next week is when everyone is going to find out how much better Apple Silicon is going to be than i5, i7 and possibly i9 chips on professional workloads.

Detnator said:

TL;DR:  They won't sell a $799 laptop.  Apple's own chips in these ASi Macs aren't going to drive the prices down, they're just going to drive the performance and features up at similar prices to today.

Yep, someone who gets it. Let me explain why.
Intel makes the following: Xeon, i9, i7, i5, i3, Celeron, Pentium. So, the chip in the lower half of what Intel charges OEMs for.
Qualcom is confusing - especially lately - but released the following this year: 865, 765, 750, 732, 690, 662, 460. The 765 is their #2 chip in cost.
How much does Qualcomm charges OEMs for the 765? $45! And it costs $35 to make!

I know that you all regard Qualcomm as inferior ... to Apple. But compare it to the Intel Core i3. The one that is in the MacBook Air? Dual core on a 10nm process that runs at 1.1 MHz. The 765? 8 cores, 7nm process, 2.4 MHz. Want to compare benchmarks? (You really don't, trust me.)

So, you would expect me to believe two things.
1. That Intel charges a lot more for the Core i3 than the $45 that Qualcomm charges for the 765.
2. That TSMC charges Apple A LOT LESS to make the A14 than the $35 that they charge Qualcomm to make the 765.

Now both of these have to be true for Apple Silicon Macs to cost less than Intel-based Macs. But there is a much greater chance that neither of them is true. There is a much greater chance that:

3. Intel charges OEMs less for their #5 chip than Qualcomm charges for a chip that provides superior performance while using less power, less heat and providing 5G.
4. TSMC charges Apple more to make the 5nm A14 than they charge Qualcomm to manufacture their #2 7nm chip.

mjtomlin said:

Who knows maybe we’ll see a MacBook line that follows the iPad, iPad Air, iPad Pro 11”/12.9” playbook...

MacBook 12” - lowest performance, highest battery (2 high-cores, 4 low-cores, 20 hrs) $799
And that “lowest performance” would match if not outperform the A14.

Nah. We know based on the entry level Mac Mini and MacBook Air that Apple requires 8 GB of RAM and 256 storage minimums for macOS devices. Anything less and no one has any idea how they would perform, especially after 4 years and 3 updates.

We also know that the iPad Air - with your hexacore Apple Silicon chip - costs $750 in the 256 GB configuration and only 4 GB of RAM. Sure you ditch the 10.8" touchscreen, but you add a 12" Retina screen back, so marginal savings there. Add the 4 GB of RAM, a keyboard with trackpad plus a motherboard with a pair of Thunderbolt 3 ports and you are well over $799. $899 minimum and possibly even $949. 

Make the case that this proposed MacBook will have 128 GB of storage, 6 GB of RAM and perhaps even a single Thunderbolt 3 port then we can start talking about knocking real money off what a MacBook Air currently costs. Otherwise we know based on iPad pricing that merely switching from the Intel Core i3 to an A14 won't save a bit of money.

Look, an iPad Air with 256 GB of storage costs $750. dewme said:

It’s so nice to have something to look forward to these days. I felt there was something lacking from the October announcements.

I’d imagine Apple would want to resurrect the MacBook with Apple Silicon, ideally with a cellular radio (at least LTE but perhaps 5G). But who knows, people aren’t traveling as much as they used to and I always saw the MacBook’s primary appeal being traveling business people.

I may as well go crazy and say that I’d like to see Apple deliver a white plastic (or whatever it was made of - but with other colors available too) Apple Silicon version of the MacBook again, but this time with the primary focus being on serving the educational market. Something like a MacBook SE, a full frontal assault on the ChromeBook and low-end Surface market. I’d even consider putting an LTE radio in it so users/students who don’t have access to broadband at home can at least get connected via cellular networks. There has never been a time in computing history where the need to support remote learning has been more important. Hey, maybe call it the MacBook RE, for remote education. Ideally, something in the $599 (WiFi only) and $699 (WiFi + LTE) would hit a sweet spot without having to cost reduce materials or build quality.

First off, schools buy Chromebooks at bulk rates for as little as $80 a unit and rarely over $150 a unit unless their procurement people are terrible. Also even the #1  Chromebook sold commercially to consumers this year starts at $279. So offering an entry level MacBook that costs more than 5 times the ones that schools buy and twice what a rather well-built and decent performing consumer one costs accomplishes what?

Second, thinking that because the iPad Air starts at $599 you will be able to do the same with a MacBook Air is ... strange. Say the "remote learning edition" only requires 64 GB of storage. Since it won't be doing much in the way of local processing, what on earth would be the purpose of an A14 chip and macOS on what is going to be a cloudbook anyway? But I will grant that to you. You will also need a 13.3' Retina screen instead of a 10.9' screen (costs more even though it isn't touchscreen), a keyboard with trackpad and 2 USB-C ports. You are right back at $749 easy. And that is with 64 GB storage. At 256 GB you would have ... what a MacBook Air currently costs. Or just about. 

People, please quit speculating that Apple is going to save all this money by dumping an Intel Core i3 chip that is in Windows and ChromeOS 2-in-1s (meaning 1080p touchscreens with 270' hinge bodies) that cost like $550, and cost $450 for devices that match the MBA form factor (nontouch screens and traditional clamshell hinges). If anything, the 5nm A14 costs more than what Intel charges for their 10nm Core i3.

Beats said:

I would LOVE to have a company that makes 1% profit of Apple's products.

Excellent. Then you realize the position of the many companies that makes Android phones and tablets that you deride as failures for selling only - say - 25 million units a year.

But specific to this issue, you are not considering FoxConn's plight here. 1% of Apple's profits is fine if you are a small outfit like the aforementioned Android manufacturer whose expenses are only 0.75% of Apple's. But if you are a massive company with huge intrinsic expenses like FoxConn, you are skating on thin ice. Any number of things beyond your control - exchange rates, political decisions, natural disasters, issues with your own suppliers, economic downturns etc. - can erase your profit margin. Low profit margin over a period of time means you will lose your best talent, be unable to make the sort of R&D/equipment/facilities investments necessary to stay ahead of the competition, etc. 

Seriously, stuff like this results in Apple suppliers going out of business more often than people realize. When it happens, Apple just moves on to the next supplier and end users buy the products just the same. Because of this, suppliers need to look out for themselves because no one else - including Apple - is going to.