tht
About
- Username
- tht
- Joined
- Visits
- 195
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 8,024
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 6,021
Reactions
-
Apple plans low-cost MacBook based on iPhone processor
An A18 Pro is 40% faster than an M1 in single core, the same performance in multi-core, the same performance in GPU, 200% faster in NPU, operates at half the power consumption, and costs half as much to make.mfryd said:
A low cost, entry level Mac is a way of bringing new users into the Apple ecosystem. This is especially helpful if those users are students. If the student learned on a Mac in school, he is more likely to buy a Mac as an adult. Furthermore, someone who uses a Mac, is more likely to buy an iPhone instead of Android.CheeseFreeze said:
Sure, I get the differentiation. And for exactly the reasons you mentioned I am a macOS user primarily. But why another product? The target audience you are describing are MacBook Air or even Pro users.mfryd said:
The difference is that it would be a Mac. At this point the defining attribute that differentiates a Mac from an iPad is that the Mac runs Mac OSX.CheeseFreeze said:I don’t find this very plausible.They could perhaps create a better “iPad + keyboard” combo that offers an attractive package. But Apple already sells three kinds of laptops and three kinds of iPads. Why confuse the consumer with another one that overlaps both classes?
Mac OSX allows a greater flexibility in available software. With additional software, OSX can even run Windows in a virtual machine.OSX is a platform that can be used to teach programming. To my knowledge, Apple doesn't allow users to write traditional software under iPad OS. I have a C compiler for my Mac, I have not been able to find one for my iPad.Similarly, OSX allows one to drop into the command line and explore a bit to see how the machine works under the hood. I don't think the iPad allows this.
You can even run iPad apps on a Mac.All of these make OSX a better choice for many educational situations.Apple could simply stick a M1 in the same form factor and sell it for $100 less and provide at least some parity with the CPU class they offer (easier to develop for), but what do they gain from that? They won’t unlock a new audience segment.The majority of their profits don’t come from marginally cheaper products. It’s the extra memory, the bumped up CPU. That is where they make the big bucks at scale. It’s not an interesting proposition for them to sell us a cheaper laptop. In fact, it’s not their brand strategy. They would have to offer a cheaper screen, cheaper internals, etc to drop $200-$350 and that is ‘un-Apple’. That’s why I find this rumor not plausible.
A parent buying a first computer for a child may want an inexpensive one. Whatever that child gets, they are more likely to stay with that platform rather than switch. Apple doesn't currently offer a product to fit this need.
There are benefits to having products in all market segments.There are economies of scale. Apple sells more iPhones than Macs. Using an iPhone chip in a Mac will cost Apple less than maintaining production of old model M1 processors.It’s not even a decision between the M1 versus the A18 Pro. Use the A18 Pro for everything. Now, if they wanted to use an M3 for a cheap MBA, that’s a much tougher decision.A18 Pro, even A18, is good enough for a $600 to $800 laptop.
-
Apple plans low-cost MacBook based on iPhone processor
36-43 percent is the gross margin across the whole product line, including services. I think the average Mac margin is something like 20 to 25 percent.randominternetperson said:
Apple targets (and hits) margins in the 36-38 percent range for products. (And 75% for services!).Where your margin worries apply is that those competitors can pack more computer into those lower prices... because they are not chasing towards 50% margin on each unit sold. On the other hand, Apple seems to be a margin-foremost company, so a hypothetical $600-$800 A-series MB can't have total costs out the door of more than $300-$400 for the actual computer.The cheaper the product, the lower the margin it has. Eg, a Mac mini at $600 has lower margin than a Mac mini with M Pro SoCs at $1300. Or an iPad Air at $600 has lower margin than a $1000 iPad Pro.If they sell a Mac laptop with A18 Pro and a 13” LCD display, 12 GB RAM and 128 GB storage, they probably can hit $700 and still have 20% margins. It really should be 16 GB and 256 GB. That will make for a long running Mac, usable for 5, 6, 8 years.$300 laptops are even further defeatured. 4 GB RAM, 64 GB eMMC storage, 100 PPI displays. Just crappy machines for our school age kids. Like, their phones are 2x more performant than their school issued laptops. Apple isn’t going to compete in this market, imo.No profits, no margins on the hardware in this market. All the money made is in the support contract and the device management contract. A $600 to $700 product? Profits can be made on hardware sales, and on subscription services. -
Car makers reject CarPlay Ultra as an Apple overreach
Come on Apple. Just stop futzing around with this. In 2021, the window for a new car maker looked to be closing, with Tesla, Rivian and maybe Lucid surviving. I can see why a retreat on being an EV maker and going with the CarPlay Ultra strategy looked like a good course of action.In 2025? The window on being an EV maker has remained open. Tesla has burned down all the bridges with its buyers, Rivian and Lucid are still late, and automated driving isn’t a thing.They never should have tried to do automated driving. That should have been a big no. An EV maker though? That still is possible, and something they should have continued to fund. The number of vehicles who will let you use CarPlay, not CarPlay Ultra, but CarPlay, will continue to dwindle.It’s like back in the 80s when you can buy aftermarket stereos and install them in your car. Automakers gradually made doing this all but impossible and just not worth doing. Heck, even the phone mount accessories need to be specifically designed now, as the things they can mount to are always changing or can’t be mounted to. -
M5 OLED iPad Pro fall release more certain, screen production underway
To me, this is a strange rumor. I would think the M5 iPad Pro is using the exact same display as the M4 iPad Pro. These displays are already being mass produced in the millions of units per year.
So, what information is being used to say that the M5 iPP OLED displays have entered mass production? They are already in mass production. So, the data is an increase mass production? More companies being awarded iPP tandem OLED contracts?
Also, a component can be ready, but the product may not be, as some other part could delay it. Really hoping these M5 iPP do ship in the fall.
-
iPhone 17 Pro rumored to get vapor chamber cooling
Android phones that use vapor chamber still have to use the metal and glass of their bodies to dissipate heat. The heat transfer process is as efficient as the least efficient part of the chain in the heat transfer process.Currently, iPhones use passive cooling by leveraging the metal and glass of the iPhone body. However, during intense usage, this can result in warnings that the iPhone must cool down, preventing further use of the device for a short time.
The new report from Majin Bu -- who has a mixed track record for accuracy -- confirms that the vapor chamber cooling technique will debut in the iPhone 17, expected to debut this fall. While the report claims to be from an "internal source," it hedges its bet by saying that a design is "still evolving, with some challenges to address."
Vapor chambers are used in many Android phones as a way to dissipate heat when the device is under intense usage, such as during gaming sessions. The technique involves allowing a chamber of liquid to absorb heat from the device, causing the liquid to evaporate.
The heat has to go from the SoC chip to the outside air. The vapor chamber takes the heat from the SoC chip to presumably graphene sheets that spreads that heat out across the footprint of the phone as much as possible. The heat then is transferred to the glass and metal, and then to the air, and your hand, a table, a pocket, whatever the outside is in contact with. (If the outside air is 110 °F, well, find some shade).
Moving heat from the SoC chip to the graphene sheet (or other heat spreader) could be a bottleneck as chips are very small while transferring heat through a conduction path with solid metal needs a certain amount of contact area. The higher the power per unit area of the SoC, the more using a solid metal (with a thermal paste interface) becomes a bottleneck. A vapor chamber can address that as it can transfer more heat per unit area. That heat still needs to get out of the phone.
It's really not a sign that Apple is wringing more performance out of the chip, per se. They were doing fine before with dumb metal and thermal paste conduction paths. If they are resorting to vapor chambers, it is a sign that the SoC chip, especially the CPU and GPU cores, are getting smaller, using more power, or both.
The next generation N3P process from TSMC, which the next gen Apple silicon is rumored fo be fabbed on, is a 3rd gen TSMC 3nm process. Improvements in transistor density and power consumption are at best 5% to 10% over N3E (used in M4 gen SoCs), while Apple is trying eek out 10 to 20% improvements. That means these N3P chips need to use more power, relative to N3E, to get those performance improvements, and drives the need for a more performant cooling system. It also would mean your phone would feel hotter more often, unless that can spread the heat across graphene sheets even more.
At least, this how I would look at a rumor of Apple using vapor chambers. The power consumption per unit area is going up, requiring vapor chambers to remove heat to enable performance gains. It's not a plus. It's a mitigation.
