Rogue01

Reading the comments is always amusing.  When Apple switched to their own processor, people loved to complain about delays caused by Intel.  Yet Apple updated their products more consistently with Intel than they have done with their own chips.  The iMac had an M1 for over two years before finally getting an upgrade.  The Mac mini had the M1 for over two years before getting an upgrade, and the mini was the first model switched to Apple Silicon, then Apple ignored it for another two years before updating it again.  Apple claimed a MacBook Air with a 15" display was 'new', yet they shipped it with a year and a half old M2 chip.  The Mac Studio had the M2 for almost two years before getting an upgrade, and the Mac Pro is just an embarrassment still using an M2 Ultra.  M3 Ultra came out 4 months ago, still nothing with the Mac Pro, yet Apple still charges a ridiculous $7,000 for outdated hardware.

"Apple had initially expected to release an M5 update later in 2025, but it then shifted the schedule to be a later release."

So now this.  Delays again with Apple using their own chips, but now people seem to be okay with it...because they can't blame anyone else except for Apple.  Yet Apple claimed they would have 'better control' of their products making their own chips, but apparently they don't because they keep delaying their own product releases or flat out ignoring other models.  And rumors floating around about a MacBook using an A18 processor?  Apple will claim it is new, but it is using an iPhone SOC instead of something newer.  Just like Apple using left over iPhone 11 SOC and camera parts for the Apple Studio Display.  That is the reality of it.

Not to mention Apple charging an arm and a leg for memory and SSD upgrades.  You are far better off buying a used Mac because it won't carry over the highly inflated Apple 'Tax' for those upgrades.

"That Walmart M1 MacBook Air officially sells for $699, though it has consistently been listed for $649. This has always been a steal in our opinion based on how solid Apple Silicon is.  It would be great for Apple to start selling this new machine at the same $699 price point."

The article should point out that this low price is the worthless 8/256 configuration.  This is not a 'steal'.  If this new A18 MacBook becomes reality, it does not need Apple Intelligence.  The base model new iPad doesn't have it.  So if Apple wanted to make a cheap laptop, you know they would start it at 8/256, because that is how Apple does business.  People buy these 'low cost' Macs by mistake because they don't realize the 8/256 is not upgradable.  There are hundreds of MacBook Pros, all 8/256, for sale on Facebook Marketplace that all say the same thing, 'I got this a few months ago and I barely used it'.  They realized 8/256 is a worthless machine.  So they are trying to sell them for about $500, sometimes less, and they sit on Facebook Marketplace for months with no buyers.

Apple's idea of 'low cost' is $100 less, and it would be a configuration no one wants.  Add memory and SSD, then you will be better off buying the higher performance model.

greg.edwards69 said:

Personally, I'd love to see Apple revisit the 12" MacBook with this processor instead. It was a brilliant design, just hampered by dreadful performance.

The 12" MacBook was the worst designed MacBook ever.  It was heavily panned for only having one USB-C port.  You could not plug anything into it and charge at the same time.  Apple doesn't use the dreadful butterfly keyboard anymore, but that 12" MacBook started with the worst of all of those butterfly keyboards because they tried to make it too thin.

leehericks said:

I just don’t see the point. M-series chips basically use the same cores but with features attuned to desktop computers. Maybe average users don’t care but I wouldn’t buy a MacBook with an A-series chip. That’s an iPad. Would they not be better having a “lite” M5 chip?

You do know that iPads have M chips, right?

"The A-series have fewer CPU and GPU cores, and are not really built for the same heavy workload as a Mac."

"That would immediately mean that the low-cost Mac would not be suitable for power users, which then implies it would be much more of a casual or consumer device."

Apple can re-work the A18 Pro.  They have done it before, just like they have binned M chips with less cores.  And they lowered the performance of the M chip in the iPad Air.  So they could easily change the cores in the A18 Pro and still call it an A18 Pro.  The performance of the A18 Pro is already between the M2 and M3.  If Apple wanted to make a lower cost Mac, just use an M1 or M2 and lower the cost.  When Apple introduced the 15" Air, they called it 'new', but it had the year and a half old M2 chip.   The Mac mini dev kit had an A12Z, and the M chip is based off the A chip.  All this would do is confuse consumers.

Funny second quote.  The iPad is a casual or consumer device with the limitations of iPadOS, yet Apple puts overpowered M chips in it to jack up the price.  iPads should be using A chips and Macs should stick with M chips.  That is what the M is for. That is what they said at 2020 WWDC, we developed a desktop chip for Macs, the M1.

If this is true, maybe an A-based Mac will be as awful as that 12" MacBook that was painfully slow, and slower than an iPad.