I don’t really get it, from a consumer perspective, unless the idea is mass education sales. They already sell enough Macs for economy of scale to kick in.
Calling it an iPhone processor doesn’t explain anything by itself, and wouldn’t save much money. Is the screen cheaper? The keyboard? The SSD?
I suppose the point would be to farm and beta test a base of new, cheaper, slower, less reliable components, and then find the path to making them acceptable for retail.
There is a gap in Apple's offerings. Casual computer users like students probably can't justify dropping nearly a K on a MacBook, so they go for these 400-600$ dell/hp laptops, or a Chromebook. This fits that hole.
iPhone processor is surely cheaper from an economies of scale perspective, they are likely way easier to produce en masse and they already produce bajillions of them for the iPhone.
Over time the price of even a high quality LCD like on the existing MacBook Air will have decreased enormously. Apple is setting up to move to OLED on the rest of the line, so using existing LCD tech is likely to save a lot too
> There is a gap in Apple's offerings. Casual computer users like students probably can't justify dropping nearly a K on a MacBook, so they go for these 400-600$ dell/hp laptops, or a Chromebook. This fits that hole.
I could say the same about their cell phone lineup. If I have $400 to spend on a phone, what can I get from Apple?
A $400 iPhone would certainly increase market share--but Apple does not seem to want that market. Too low margin, I would think, or maybe too high a risk of "cheapening" their overall brand. Or maybe both.
One thing that is different is that carriers regularly subsidize phones. I paid 0 for my current phone, an iPhone 13 mini (when it was relatively new), partner paid nothing for theirs, latest pixel.
Now, lower cost carriers do less of this, and you need to get the high end plan, so it’s not good advice for everyone to get the free phone deal. It is one way a laptop is different. A decent chunk of people aren’t directly paying for their phone.
That off requires committing to a $65/month plan for 36 months instead of paying $25/month with someone like Visible for an equivalent plan. So really you're paying $1836 for that iPhone 16.
There’s no free lunch here, cheap plans are noticeably worse in various ways, but like cable companies carriers don’t want to give you a good plan without bundling phone upgrades.
Visible’s $25/month plan mentions unlimited Hotspot for example, but good luck finding they always cap you at 5 Mbits on their website. Suddenly it makes more sense why someone might bump up to their $45/month plan for 3x the Hotspot speed. Even then 15Mbps isn’t that bad, but it’s a long way from 5G could provide.
The budget offering is a used MacBook from the massive aftermarket stock, but I take your point - it doesn't scale and some people are averse to buying used goods.
Would it be consistent with this plan to continue to make the same M1 Air at the current price, stuffing it with whatever phone processor they happen to have a few extra million of?
Yeah that's one potential route they could take - repurposing the existing M1 air shell and components.
But I actually believe they'll do a completely new shell for this device, and one reason being they could probably save even more money and cut even more costs than the current prod cost of M1 airs.
My mom would never drop $1k on a laptop. Gen alpha is doesn't seem to have a mass interest in computers that aren't just Screen. A $1k entry point is basically a nonstarter for many people. Apple would be wise to reuse their older tech to devour the $500 laptop market.
I might be a buyer for something like that. I carry a laptop all the time so small and light is good, and mostly use it for web stuff and word/excel so nothing too demanding performance wise. I've got an M1 Air now but miss the size and weight of the 11" Air.
Apple used to rule mass education sales by offering steep discounts on the Apple II line, a pricey option for home users, to schools. Their latest effort along that line was the eMac, an early 2000s all-in-one similar to the original iMac but done in inoffensive opaque white, whose spirit still remains with us as many Hackernews inadvertently let their iPhones autocorrect "Emacs" to "eMacs". The eMac was originally for the educational market but after a few months Apple would make it available to everyone. It'd be nice to see Apple target education again, though admittedly mainly for nostalgia's sake and as a hedge against data thieves like Google.
An 11" version of this proposed A-series chip Macbook is exactly what I would want to see, and would more likely expect to see from Apple's sales perspective, than an iPad that is capable of running MacOS.
A tiny Macbook that I can slip into a sling bag is more preferable to me than an iPad for many tasks.
I think the reverse offering on the Apple device roadmap would be interesting.
A MacPad and a MacPhone. Given its eventually going to be completely the same silicon this would enable them to offer a non App Store experience for people who want to experiment with alternative app stores like Epic.
In that way they could keep the average Apple target iPhone/iPad customer within the walled garden of iOS while being able to point specifically to EU regulators that they are allowing alternative app stores on the MacPhone/MacPad platform.
Offering something like that would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong (or lying) about their motivation for locking the system down with no user choice, that it's for the protection of the user. I don't see that happening.
Interestingly it's popularity or unpopularity would prove out two things - both of which are somewhat of a win win for Apple:
1.) If MacPhone/MacPad is popular then it would prove that there does exist a currently untapped, unaddressed market who wants Apple HW and are willing to pay a premium but do not want the locked down iOS garden which means more money for minimal effort.
2.) If MacPhone/MacPad is unpopular then it would prove that their motivation and hypothesis was correct - people do indeed come to Apple and pay the premium precisely for the walled garden and the convenience it affords.
If its indeed unpopular you could keep it around for a couple of years as an EU regulatory compliance device. Then you can say to any future regulator who wants to tear down the iOS walled garden - we tried that back in 2026 and nobody wanted it.
Except it doesn't run MacOS, and it doesn't allow you to install any application you want to - only those that Apple allows you to. And you're still forced to use Safari in every browser you install.
Fairly confident the CPU has never been the reason you can't install whatever you want on an iOS/iPadOS device. Also not the reason you can't install macOS on it either.
If you want macOS, you buy a Mac. You want iPadOS, you buy an iPad. And if you want an iPad Pro that can double up as a Mac in a pinch, you feel awkward while Tim Cook death stares at you until you empty your pockets.
In all seriousness though, I have an iPad Pro and a MacBook (as a lot of people here do I'm sure) and it would make a poor laptop. And how do you switch between macOS and iPadOS? I don't see a way to have that not be clunky because of all the different metaphors. I'd rather just have both (actually I'd rather just have the MacBook as the iPad sits largely idle, as I'm also sure a lot of people's do).
>Fairly confident the CPU has never been the reason you can't install whatever you want on an iOS/iPadOS device. Also not the reason you can't install macOS on it either.
Are you lost? Did you reply to the wrong comment? My comment says nothing about CPU or anything about hardware, at all.
The thread above my comment is talking about a "MacPad" which means running MacOS on Apple tablets and phones.
Of course Apple prevents this even though it's entirely possible to do it, because Apple is going to do Apple things.
>In all seriousness though, I have an iPad Pro and a MacBook (as a lot of people here do I'm sure)
Reality distortion field in effect?
> and it would make a poor laptop.
Uh... all you would need to do is add a keyboard and mouse and it's a laptop, and all of that is already possible to do and has been possible for a very long time.
>(actually I'd rather just have the MacBook as the iPad sits largely idle, as I'm also sure a lot of people's do).
Honestly, I'm not even an Apple fangirl and that thing is a great computer. I bought one for work and it served me better than any other $999 computer ever did. It's apparently $599 now? Great value, in my opinion.
Having just switched up to the M4 air you're not wrong. Unless you have the 8GB version and it's causing you memory pressure (which it may not be), or you really need that extra display output (I did), it's a wonder machine still 5 years later.
Also, that wedge design might be peak laptop. It's just soooo nice when lifting off a surface. I know that sounds ridiculous but the attention to detail that went into that design is next level.
Even though I'm not in the market, part of me really hopes the MacBook SE (or whatever they call it) uses the wedge design to clear chassis parts like they did with the SE iphones (although I doubt it).
Interesting. If they'll come with a cutdown version of the os like the iPads, it'll limit the target audience and the success of the device. On the other hand if it'll be powered by a fully fledged MacOS it'll make it more arbitrary the decision not to have the same features on iPads.
I think that ship has sailed. They already make iPads (the pro line) with M-class processors just like the laptops that run full-featured macOS. This change is to add laptops that run A-class processors like run the iPhone. If all Apple cared about with regards to what capabilities they expose in an OS was what processor was in a device then the iPad Pros would be able to run macOS, but they don’t view their products that way.
> If all Apple cared about with regards to what capabilities they expose in an OS was what processor was in a device then the iPad Pros would be able to run macOS
That's my point, and I think this hybrid Mac with iPhone chip will make this even more blatant. You are effectively paying more for less features just because they know what's best for you.
Why? There are already iPads and iPhones more expensive that Macs and Apple is not trying to justify anything. The capabilities of the OS have nothing to do with the chip of course.
If you think this is worth the investment in the ecosystem go for it. It just makes me quite sceptical to touch anything apple. I don't think they have their customers best interest in mind, and it shows time and again. Not a big fan of this paternalistic approach to product design, but this is just me.
Go for what? I would just find it surprising if they release a laptop which is running anything but Mac OS. You can already get an iPad with a keyboard and a touchpad anyway...
> have their customers best interest in mind, and it shows time and again.
Of course, neither does Dell, Lenovo or HP. Or especially Google for that matter (at least in that case Apple's and their customers interests somewhat align since they aren't making money by selling their data to third parties).
Sorry, I should have said if it makes sense for people they should go for it, I just find it weird to cripple devices like that just for the sake of market segmentation.
I already have an M3-powered iPad Air; Apple currently produces iPad hardware that could, theoretically, run full MacOS. The decision is already about as arbitrary as it gets.
> StikDebug works around those restrictions by using a local VPN profile to manage the JIT process securely within the app. Once you approve the VPN configuration, StikDebug can communicate with sideloaded apps and activate JIT automatically when you launch them. This means that users on iOS 26 can finally enjoy the same performance benefits that developers used to unlock only through Xcode or jailbreaking.
How much difference is there between an M4 chip and something like the A18 regarding pricing? I assume a lower end screen and maybe a plastic body would reduce the price further.
People who buy high-end MacBook Pros are still going to buy MacBook Pros. The idea here is to pick up sales that would otherwise go to cheaper PC laptop brands, by competing at a lower price point than the MacBook Air currently does.
Right now, Apple still (quietly) sells the MacBook Air M1 at $599 to keep a toe in that lower-end market, but I doubt many people who are considering a Pro or an M4 Air are persuaded to choose that instead.
They're anything but visionless. This is a departure from an upwards sell trajectory but if it sold in volumes, it goes to the classic quote "quantity has a quality all of it's own" -usually taken in context it means giving up the quality drive, but in reality it's neutral to the other product line.
It may cannibalize SOME of the existing market, yes. all of it? I don't think my peers on M4 boxes with 32GB+ are going to go for this any more than they did when the Air came out and they had powerful boxes.
Not disagreeing re: vision for quality software and new products. However this segmentation is pretty good. Most everyone buying a Macbook today wants "M" performance. Most everyone who does not care about "benchmarks" and is price sensitive (likely a surprisingly large number of folks), is put off by MB pricing. So you gimp the processor, lower the price, take a bit of a margin hit on net profit for hware, but capture lots of sales and canabalize virtually no "M" sales. Plus I would guess the Apple has done enough market analysis to understand that the folks buying this new Macbook are likely to want to subscribe to something Apple offers which will offset the lower hware margin.
"Most everyone" is pointless anecdotal talk. Most of the people I know have a mbp cuz their company buys it and they couldn't care less about a powerful computer if it wasn't for working or gaming (but that's not Apple's turf anyway).
It doesn't change anything with their higher tier sales. Those are bought for a reason that a lower tier device cannot satisfy.
My worry (from Apple's POV) is that all the people who buy the cheapest Mac (currently for $1k) will instead go for this new "base model". And I suspect there's a large cohort of people who "just want a Mac".
I don’t really get it, from a consumer perspective, unless the idea is mass education sales. They already sell enough Macs for economy of scale to kick in.
Calling it an iPhone processor doesn’t explain anything by itself, and wouldn’t save much money. Is the screen cheaper? The keyboard? The SSD?
I suppose the point would be to farm and beta test a base of new, cheaper, slower, less reliable components, and then find the path to making them acceptable for retail.
There is a gap in Apple's offerings. Casual computer users like students probably can't justify dropping nearly a K on a MacBook, so they go for these 400-600$ dell/hp laptops, or a Chromebook. This fits that hole.
iPhone processor is surely cheaper from an economies of scale perspective, they are likely way easier to produce en masse and they already produce bajillions of them for the iPhone.
Over time the price of even a high quality LCD like on the existing MacBook Air will have decreased enormously. Apple is setting up to move to OLED on the rest of the line, so using existing LCD tech is likely to save a lot too
> There is a gap in Apple's offerings. Casual computer users like students probably can't justify dropping nearly a K on a MacBook, so they go for these 400-600$ dell/hp laptops, or a Chromebook. This fits that hole.
I could say the same about their cell phone lineup. If I have $400 to spend on a phone, what can I get from Apple?
A $400 iPhone would certainly increase market share--but Apple does not seem to want that market. Too low margin, I would think, or maybe too high a risk of "cheapening" their overall brand. Or maybe both.
Why is a laptop different?
One thing that is different is that carriers regularly subsidize phones. I paid 0 for my current phone, an iPhone 13 mini (when it was relatively new), partner paid nothing for theirs, latest pixel.
Now, lower cost carriers do less of this, and you need to get the high end plan, so it’s not good advice for everyone to get the free phone deal. It is one way a laptop is different. A decent chunk of people aren’t directly paying for their phone.
Without trade in AT&T has iPhone 16 @ 11$/month * 36 months = 396$. iPhone 16e @ 6$/month * 36 months = 216$. https://www.att.com/buy/phones/browse/apple/
Without any contracts an unlocked (renewed) iPhone 15 through Amazon 400 - 500$.
That off requires committing to a $65/month plan for 36 months instead of paying $25/month with someone like Visible for an equivalent plan. So really you're paying $1836 for that iPhone 16.
Hardly, you could do a one time payment of 500$ in a new iPhone 16e or 730$ for a iPhone 16 with AT&T’s prepaid annual 20$/month plan. https://www.att.com/buy/prepaid-phones/browse/apple/
There’s no free lunch here, cheap plans are noticeably worse in various ways, but like cable companies carriers don’t want to give you a good plan without bundling phone upgrades.
Visible’s $25/month plan mentions unlimited Hotspot for example, but good luck finding they always cap you at 5 Mbits on their website. Suddenly it makes more sense why someone might bump up to their $45/month plan for 3x the Hotspot speed. Even then 15Mbps isn’t that bad, but it’s a long way from 5G could provide.
The budget offering is a used MacBook from the massive aftermarket stock, but I take your point - it doesn't scale and some people are averse to buying used goods.
> so they go for these 400-600$ dell/hp laptops
I feel that these inexpensive macs will increase market share, perhaps this will pressure Microsoft to improve the Windows performance and ad bloat.
Would it be consistent with this plan to continue to make the same M1 Air at the current price, stuffing it with whatever phone processor they happen to have a few extra million of?
Yeah that's one potential route they could take - repurposing the existing M1 air shell and components.
But I actually believe they'll do a completely new shell for this device, and one reason being they could probably save even more money and cut even more costs than the current prod cost of M1 airs.
I imagine this will be the new "MacBook" which has been absent from the lineup since 2019.
And probably still starting with the same 8GB RAM and 256GB storage...
My mom would never drop $1k on a laptop. Gen alpha is doesn't seem to have a mass interest in computers that aren't just Screen. A $1k entry point is basically a nonstarter for many people. Apple would be wise to reuse their older tech to devour the $500 laptop market.
I might be a buyer for something like that. I carry a laptop all the time so small and light is good, and mostly use it for web stuff and word/excel so nothing too demanding performance wise. I've got an M1 Air now but miss the size and weight of the 11" Air.
My kid's high school provides each student with a MacBook while they're enrolled. I'm sure they'd be an ideal market for this.
Apple used to rule mass education sales by offering steep discounts on the Apple II line, a pricey option for home users, to schools. Their latest effort along that line was the eMac, an early 2000s all-in-one similar to the original iMac but done in inoffensive opaque white, whose spirit still remains with us as many Hackernews inadvertently let their iPhones autocorrect "Emacs" to "eMacs". The eMac was originally for the educational market but after a few months Apple would make it available to everyone. It'd be nice to see Apple target education again, though admittedly mainly for nostalgia's sake and as a hedge against data thieves like Google.
An 11" version of this proposed A-series chip Macbook is exactly what I would want to see, and would more likely expect to see from Apple's sales perspective, than an iPad that is capable of running MacOS.
A tiny Macbook that I can slip into a sling bag is more preferable to me than an iPad for many tasks.
I think the reverse offering on the Apple device roadmap would be interesting.
A MacPad and a MacPhone. Given its eventually going to be completely the same silicon this would enable them to offer a non App Store experience for people who want to experiment with alternative app stores like Epic.
In that way they could keep the average Apple target iPhone/iPad customer within the walled garden of iOS while being able to point specifically to EU regulators that they are allowing alternative app stores on the MacPhone/MacPad platform.
Offering something like that would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong (or lying) about their motivation for locking the system down with no user choice, that it's for the protection of the user. I don't see that happening.
Interestingly it's popularity or unpopularity would prove out two things - both of which are somewhat of a win win for Apple:
1.) If MacPhone/MacPad is popular then it would prove that there does exist a currently untapped, unaddressed market who wants Apple HW and are willing to pay a premium but do not want the locked down iOS garden which means more money for minimal effort.
2.) If MacPhone/MacPad is unpopular then it would prove that their motivation and hypothesis was correct - people do indeed come to Apple and pay the premium precisely for the walled garden and the convenience it affords.
If its indeed unpopular you could keep it around for a couple of years as an EU regulatory compliance device. Then you can say to any future regulator who wants to tear down the iOS walled garden - we tried that back in 2026 and nobody wanted it.
The "MacPad" already exists. It's called the iPad Pro. It uses the M5 chip.
Except it doesn't run MacOS, and it doesn't allow you to install any application you want to - only those that Apple allows you to. And you're still forced to use Safari in every browser you install.
Fairly confident the CPU has never been the reason you can't install whatever you want on an iOS/iPadOS device. Also not the reason you can't install macOS on it either.
If you want macOS, you buy a Mac. You want iPadOS, you buy an iPad. And if you want an iPad Pro that can double up as a Mac in a pinch, you feel awkward while Tim Cook death stares at you until you empty your pockets.
In all seriousness though, I have an iPad Pro and a MacBook (as a lot of people here do I'm sure) and it would make a poor laptop. And how do you switch between macOS and iPadOS? I don't see a way to have that not be clunky because of all the different metaphors. I'd rather just have both (actually I'd rather just have the MacBook as the iPad sits largely idle, as I'm also sure a lot of people's do).
>Fairly confident the CPU has never been the reason you can't install whatever you want on an iOS/iPadOS device. Also not the reason you can't install macOS on it either.
Are you lost? Did you reply to the wrong comment? My comment says nothing about CPU or anything about hardware, at all.
The thread above my comment is talking about a "MacPad" which means running MacOS on Apple tablets and phones.
Of course Apple prevents this even though it's entirely possible to do it, because Apple is going to do Apple things.
>In all seriousness though, I have an iPad Pro and a MacBook (as a lot of people here do I'm sure)
Reality distortion field in effect?
> and it would make a poor laptop.
Uh... all you would need to do is add a keyboard and mouse and it's a laptop, and all of that is already possible to do and has been possible for a very long time.
>(actually I'd rather just have the MacBook as the iPad sits largely idle, as I'm also sure a lot of people's do).
You seem to be sure about a lot of things.
Surprising to read the the original M1 Air is still sold through Walmart.
Honestly, I'm not even an Apple fangirl and that thing is a great computer. I bought one for work and it served me better than any other $999 computer ever did. It's apparently $599 now? Great value, in my opinion.
Very much so. I still have my M1 bought in 2021, haven't felt like there is any need to upgrade to any of the newer ones.
Having just switched up to the M4 air you're not wrong. Unless you have the 8GB version and it's causing you memory pressure (which it may not be), or you really need that extra display output (I did), it's a wonder machine still 5 years later.
Also, that wedge design might be peak laptop. It's just soooo nice when lifting off a surface. I know that sounds ridiculous but the attention to detail that went into that design is next level.
Even though I'm not in the market, part of me really hopes the MacBook SE (or whatever they call it) uses the wedge design to clear chassis parts like they did with the SE iphones (although I doubt it).
Amazon is selling them new for $440; refurb at Best Buy for $330.
Having just moved from my M1 Air to a M4 Air for the extra screen output and more ram, $330 for a M1 Air with a warranty is the deal of the century.
They are renewed, not new on Amazon.
Interesting. If they'll come with a cutdown version of the os like the iPads, it'll limit the target audience and the success of the device. On the other hand if it'll be powered by a fully fledged MacOS it'll make it more arbitrary the decision not to have the same features on iPads.
I think that ship has sailed. They already make iPads (the pro line) with M-class processors just like the laptops that run full-featured macOS. This change is to add laptops that run A-class processors like run the iPhone. If all Apple cared about with regards to what capabilities they expose in an OS was what processor was in a device then the iPad Pros would be able to run macOS, but they don’t view their products that way.
> If all Apple cared about with regards to what capabilities they expose in an OS was what processor was in a device then the iPad Pros would be able to run macOS
That's my point, and I think this hybrid Mac with iPhone chip will make this even more blatant. You are effectively paying more for less features just because they know what's best for you.
Why? There are already iPads and iPhones more expensive that Macs and Apple is not trying to justify anything. The capabilities of the OS have nothing to do with the chip of course.
If you think this is worth the investment in the ecosystem go for it. It just makes me quite sceptical to touch anything apple. I don't think they have their customers best interest in mind, and it shows time and again. Not a big fan of this paternalistic approach to product design, but this is just me.
Go for what? I would just find it surprising if they release a laptop which is running anything but Mac OS. You can already get an iPad with a keyboard and a touchpad anyway...
> have their customers best interest in mind, and it shows time and again.
Of course, neither does Dell, Lenovo or HP. Or especially Google for that matter (at least in that case Apple's and their customers interests somewhat align since they aren't making money by selling their data to third parties).
Sorry, I should have said if it makes sense for people they should go for it, I just find it weird to cripple devices like that just for the sake of market segmentation.
I already have an M3-powered iPad Air; Apple currently produces iPad hardware that could, theoretically, run full MacOS. The decision is already about as arbitrary as it gets.
JIT workaround helps UTM VMs and iSH/ashell (Linux emulation), https://onejailbreak.com/blog/stikdebug-ios/
> StikDebug works around those restrictions by using a local VPN profile to manage the JIT process securely within the app. Once you approve the VPN configuration, StikDebug can communicate with sideloaded apps and activate JIT automatically when you launch them. This means that users on iOS 26 can finally enjoy the same performance benefits that developers used to unlock only through Xcode or jailbreaking.
Seems such a waste, such a powerful device held back by an OS chained to an App Store and still so touch-centric.
iPadOS has certainly got a lot better over recent updates, but there's no sign of 'apps' catching up with serious desktop software any time soon.
I think by "cheaper" they mean "just a tiny bit less expensive"
How much difference is there between an M4 chip and something like the A18 regarding pricing? I assume a lower end screen and maybe a plastic body would reduce the price further.
It would be nice to see a renaissance of 12” laptops
Arent M4 Airs already $800 on sale? Im afraid the low end model will again push 8GB ram.
What's the point?
This would only cannibalize their higher tier sales with a low margin product. I don't get it.
This company is visionless.
People who buy high-end MacBook Pros are still going to buy MacBook Pros. The idea here is to pick up sales that would otherwise go to cheaper PC laptop brands, by competing at a lower price point than the MacBook Air currently does.
Right now, Apple still (quietly) sells the MacBook Air M1 at $599 to keep a toe in that lower-end market, but I doubt many people who are considering a Pro or an M4 Air are persuaded to choose that instead.
People who bought MacBooks and were forced into MBPs now can go back to MacBooks.
The argument goes both ways.
They're anything but visionless. This is a departure from an upwards sell trajectory but if it sold in volumes, it goes to the classic quote "quantity has a quality all of it's own" -usually taken in context it means giving up the quality drive, but in reality it's neutral to the other product line.
It may cannibalize SOME of the existing market, yes. all of it? I don't think my peers on M4 boxes with 32GB+ are going to go for this any more than they did when the Air came out and they had powerful boxes.
Not disagreeing re: vision for quality software and new products. However this segmentation is pretty good. Most everyone buying a Macbook today wants "M" performance. Most everyone who does not care about "benchmarks" and is price sensitive (likely a surprisingly large number of folks), is put off by MB pricing. So you gimp the processor, lower the price, take a bit of a margin hit on net profit for hware, but capture lots of sales and canabalize virtually no "M" sales. Plus I would guess the Apple has done enough market analysis to understand that the folks buying this new Macbook are likely to want to subscribe to something Apple offers which will offset the lower hware margin.
"Most everyone" is pointless anecdotal talk. Most of the people I know have a mbp cuz their company buys it and they couldn't care less about a powerful computer if it wasn't for working or gaming (but that's not Apple's turf anyway).
It doesn't change anything with their higher tier sales. Those are bought for a reason that a lower tier device cannot satisfy.
My worry (from Apple's POV) is that all the people who buy the cheapest Mac (currently for $1k) will instead go for this new "base model". And I suspect there's a large cohort of people who "just want a Mac".
I'm guessing firstly it won't be a lot cheaper and secondly it may appeal to the very large number of people who buy cheaper windows laptops.
And who cares about such a segment? There's very little money to make there.
It's highly competitive, the audience is budget oriented, in fact not sure if they are why would they consider the cheap but sure pricier MacBook.
Maybe they should only offer MacBook Pros, then.
Google is converging ChromeOS and Android in 2026 Qualcomm Arm laptops by HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc.
Probably to take back a bunch of the education market, which was lost to Chromebooks.
Yes, Apple is visionless.
creative destruction at work.
More locked down nanny-ware from Apple. Why the excitement?
It’s always funny to me when people on hackernews assume that all technology created is intended for their use.