If that doesn’t seem like a fusillade across x86’s metaphorical bow, consider the issue from a different perspective: According to Apple, the M1 is the right CPU for a $699 computer, and a $999 computer, and a $1,699 computer. It’s the right chip if you want maximum battery life and the right CPU for optimal performance. Want the amazing performance of an M1 iMac, but can’t afford (or have no need) for the expensive display? Buy a $699 Mac mini, with exactly the same CPU. Apple’s M1 positioning, evaluated in its totality, claims the CPU is cheap and unremarkable enough to be sold at $699, powerful and capable enough to sell at $1699, and power-efficient enough to power both a tablet and a pair of laptops priced in-between.
Apple’s willingness to position the M1 across so many markets challenges the narrative that such a vast array of x86 products is helpful or necessary. It puts Intel and AMD in the position of justifying why, exactly, x86 customers are required to make so many tradeoffs between high performance and low power consumption. Selling the M1 in both $699 and $1,699 machines challenges the idea that a computer’s price ought to principally reflect the CPU inside of it.
Joel Hruska
Always amusing to see die-hard Apple fans inventing elaborate narratives supporting Apple’s design decisions, spinning those as some revolutionary step forward in computing. When more plausible reasons would be:
- Apple is using the same processor in multiple devices, from new iPads to new iMacs, purely to optimize manufacturing scale. Last time I checked, Macs are selling an order of magnitude less units than iPads (although maybe not compared to iPad Pros), so it makes sense to streamline CPU production across their lowest selling product lines.
- The M1 chip is relatively new, so there is no reason to assume Apple would not develop new variants and upgraded models in the coming years. The author himself recognizes this, basically undoing his own thesis. And, just two days later, Nikkei Asia reports that the next generation chipset could ship as soon as July!
- The argument that the same chip is powering both a $699 and a $1,699 computer can alternatively be interpreted as: Apple is making fat margins by including the same CPU in higher-end computers selling for $1,000 more. Packaging cheap components into ‘premium’ products has been Apple’s business model with iPhones for years.
The funniest – and closest to the truth – sentence in this junk article: Part of the reason Apple can get away with doing this is that it’s been selling badly underpowered systems at certain price points.
Post a Comment