
An ARM-based MacBook SE could destroy Chromebooks and mid-priced Windows laptops - tosh
https://www.tomsguide.com/opinion/a-macbook-se-will-destroy-chromebooks-and-windows-laptops-in-one-fell-swoop
======
jasoneckert
I seriously doubt that Apple would release an ARM-based laptop that would
"destroy" the massive low/mid-tier Chromebook and Windows laptop market for
three reasons:

a) They'd have to release it at the same price point or less than those
products (that's not The Apple Way)

b) Chromebooks have a huge market share in the educational space, and Windows
low-end laptops have a massive market share everywhere else (and in general,
the first person to a market usually maintains their lead for a long time,
even given other factors - just like Apple with the iPhone)

c) This would require users to switch from one app ecosystem to another on a
different platform that attracts developers that want to monetize directly
compared to the app ecosystem on most Chromebooks and low-end Windows laptops
(which are still x86_64-based and have a plethora of free/FOSS productivity
apps)

~~~
newacct583
Point a) need to be elaborated a bit: the reason they can't release it at a
very low price point is that, while sure, it might "destroy" the chromebook
and low-end windows laptop market, it would also destroy much of the MacBook
and iPad market for the same reason.

Who's going to buy the $1k macbook when a $300 one works just as well? This
isn't going to happen. Apple is a company built on high margin products, they
aren't going to change that.

~~~
mgh2
Worried about cannibalization? Of course, like the iPhone SE, there are some
sacrifices compared to the premium devices, because these are non essentials
for the target demographic: commoners.

------
jrockway
Apple's chips are really impressive. I would love to see them in a general
purpose computer so that developers can really take advantage of the power.
Whatever is in my iPad Pro would make a great development workstation if I
could connect two monitors to it and ... run Linux. It is power-efficient,
very lightweight, and has built-in 4G. In those categories, it beats the pants
off of any Intel-based laptop I've ever had. But I still have to SSH to a real
computer to work, which is an artifact of Apple's OS policies, not what sort
of workload the chips they put in there are capable of.

The unfortunate reality with all of these stripped-down computers, though, is
that nobody is writing software for them. While the CPUs are powerful enough
to run pretty much anything, nobody is porting their AAA games or CAD software
or video editors. Maybe Apple's ability to dynamically recompile Mac Store
apps to ARM will help, but I still think MacOS is seriously lacking compared
to Windows. So the best Apple can hope for is a "budget Mac" which power users
won't buy (and power users write all the software), and they'll just be an
expensive Chromebook. (ChromeOS doesn't have a lot of native software either,
but at least you can run a normal Linux environment in a container and write
software on the device. And, I don't think any person goes out to buy a
Chromebook... they just get them for "free" from their school or company. It
is an interesting segment of the market that can be profitable, but I really
want to see these chips in something I can sink my teeth into. Set up a
development environment, write software, and run the same software in
production on those chips too.)

My takeaway is that it's a shame that this amazing CPU-design division exists
inside a company that is all about dumbed-down user experiences. They could
probably kill Intel overnight if you could just buy the chips on their own,
but instead they insist on putting these chips in devices that are hamstrung
by arbitrary policy. Obviously they are playing a long game, but as someone
who just wants the best possible equipment... I can't afford to wait. (And I
don't think the end result of the game -- Apple makes the CPU, laptop, OS, and
software -- is very good for anyone.)

~~~
arkanciscan
Do you really suspect that Linux would run as well as iOS? Isn't iOS optimized
for the A17 and vice versa? It's out of my wheelhouse, but I suspect that this
synergy is the only reason they seem so fast.

~~~
jrockway
I am going by compute benchmarks, which should be relatively unaffected by the
OS. (The OS could slow them down if it really wanted to, I guess.)

Random example: [https://www.macrumors.com/2018/11/01/2018-ipad-pro-
benchmark...](https://www.macrumors.com/2018/11/01/2018-ipad-pro-benchmarks-
geekbench/)

~~~
iNate2000
Those benchmarks don't seem to account for batteries.

I hook my 2018 MacBook Pro up to a 4K TV to present to a meeting and the
battery goes down to about 35% after two hours.

~~~
fooker
2 hours is a reasonable amount of time for something like this.

------
bluehatbrit
A few years ago I picked up a second hand 12" Macbook. Without a doubt it has
been my favourite laptop I've ever owned. I'm pretty sure this is as close as
they'll go to a chromebook competitor. I wouldn't want it as my main machine
but for programming and general use on the go it's a joy to use. The
dimensions are brilliant, it feels lighter than any chromebook I've used, and
it has a "more full" OS than an iPad. I was so sad when I found out they'd
discontinued the line.

The battery is on it's way out now and the keyboard is getting worn out but
I'm pretty sure I'll get it repaired rather than picking up anything else. I'm
not one to buy apple products usually but I've been so happy with this
purchase, I'm not sure another laptop will ever top how great this one has
been for me.

------
danaris
This...feels very much like the old canard of "Apple _must_ release a cheap
computer to compete with all the shoddily-made Windows computers!"

Apple's not shooting for marketshare. They never have been, they (probably)
never will. And, conversely, it's very unlikely that _most_ people with
Chromebooks and Windows laptops today would be interested in switching to a
Mac—the software's either not there, or very different.

And I say all this as a devoted lifelong Mac user.

------
LeifCarrotson
A MacBook SE could also destroy a lot of market for MacBooks and MacBook
Airs...

~~~
disiplus
what if they put ios on it and not a full macos

~~~
grey-area
The two are getting closer and closer. Witness the gradual creep of iOS apps
onto Mac OS int he last couple of iterations. This will continue:

[https://www.cnet.com/news/macos-catalinas-ipad-apps-for-
the-...](https://www.cnet.com/news/macos-catalinas-ipad-apps-for-the-mac-are-
here-but-the-story-is-just-getting-started/)

At some point they will merge iOS and Mac OS, given that iOS makes them all
the money, and is now capable enough (with a different UI toolkit) to provide
both phone and desktop programs.

~~~
Hamuko
> _At some point they will merge iOS and Mac OS_

And just outright kill a bunch of applications?

~~~
grey-area
Yes, as they eventually did with the OS X transition, the 64bit transition etc

They'll support older apps for a long time though, it just won't be the
preferred sdk and will gradually be phased out.

The situation they have right now is madness - two parallel slightly different
UI toolkits and SDKs, one of which makes vastly more money.

~~~
Hamuko
> _two parallel slightly different UI toolkits and SDKs, one of which makes
> vastly more money._

And one which has a longer history. Should every Cocoa application be written
in UIKit to continue working?

~~~
grey-area
Yes, in the same way as all Pascal apps had to be rewritten to the C API a
long time ago, and all Mac OS 9 apps had to be rewritten as cocoa (NextStep),
or all Objective-C apps will have to be rewritten as Swift as that is the new
blessed SDK. In practice it won't be a huge burden as older apps will not be
phased out for a long time - see the Objective-C to Swift transition - there
will be a very long transition period.

I'm not saying this is great for developers, I'm saying it makes economic
sense for Apple and the signs are they are moving in this direction.

------
downvoteme1
If it is a MacBook, it will start at a minimum of $999. That is the price at
which most chrome books end up for higher end pricing . The entry level chrome
books for schools etc start at $250 where Apple competes with the entry level
iPad

------
egypturnash
I feel like “Destroying Chromebooks” requires competing with the Chromebook
price point of around $300, despite the link near the top of the article to a
list of “the best Chromebooks in 2020” that goes up to $1200.
([https://www.tomsguide.com/best-picks/best-
chromebooks](https://www.tomsguide.com/best-picks/best-chromebooks))

Apple is picky about what it puts in its machines and what it makes them out
of; can they make one of their signature milled aluminum cases cheaply enough
to be a part of a BOM that lets them make a decent profit at $300? I can’t
find much data on estimated BOMs for the Air (I feel that’s the closest thing
in their line to this category) beyond a 2010 estimate of about $750 for
machines sold starting at $1000. That price to users has remained consistent
so I feel I can assume the cost to Apple hasn’t changed much. Some quick and
sloppy searching shows that Intel’s prices on the CPUs in the current Airs are
somewhere in the $150-300 range, if I make the best-case assumption that the
cheapest Air’s CPU costs Apple $300 and that the cost of a desktop-level Apple
CPU is _zero_ , that’s still a BOM of ~350 for the rest of something built
with the same specs as the cheapest Air. I guess you could bring in a mid-
range Prestige Chromebook at that cost? Maybe? I have no idea what the
Chromebook market is shaped like.

A plastic enclosure would probably lower the cost, but would they do that? I
think the last time we saw plastic MacBooks was the “toilet seat” iBook back
in the days of the gumdrop plastic iMac.

~~~
jen20
The last plastic Mac laptops were the original MacBook (circa 2006-2008 or
so?) rather then the toilet seat ones.

~~~
egypturnash
Ah thanks, I wasn't really keeping much track of laptops back then.

------
giarc
I would love to see this. I currently use a Chromebook as my 'around the
house' laptop. It's great for that but once you start doing things like
installing apps or having multiple users it breaks down fast.

For example, the Google Play store app is only accessible by a single account,
and apps aren't available across users. So if another user wants to install an
app, you have to log out all users and they need to log in as the primary
user. It's super annoying.

------
z3t4
Still too expensive. Chromebooks are $200 and could probably go lower. If you
want to compete on quality you must also compete on software/apps. The new
Ipad pro would be interesting though, if it where not for the price. Maybe
when everyone is going SAAS Apple could go with classic licenses, where
software is run on the user machine rather then some very expensive server.

~~~
ghaff
Chromebooks are $200 at the low end. Something like the Pixelbook Go is $600+.

~~~
keymone
And iPhone SE has better specs than pixelbook pretty much all around except
ram at the same price. How does that even work?

~~~
bluescrn
Economies of scale. A 'high-end Chromebook' is an extremely niche device, they
aren't going to sell many.

~~~
danbolt
I wonder how many $1000 MacBook buyers would actively prefer a $700 version
with MacOS.

------
arkanciscan
Macs still don't have games.

~~~
wffurr
Demonstrably false.

A quick glance at the front page of Steam shows at least half the games
support Mac and Linux:
[https://store.steampowered.com/](https://store.steampowered.com/)

It's never been easier to write a cross platform game with toolkits like
Unity.

~~~
cameronbrown
Half of those games marked as macOS don't work anymore after the forced
32->64bit migration. My Steam library is useless on my Macbook.

~~~
fouc
Hmm, another reason to stay on High Sierra rather than upgrading to Catalina.

------
michalf6
I don't quite get why "entry level" products are being made. In almost every
conceivable category, if your budget is limited, buying used premium products
is most likely the best option. A few years ago I would consider myself rather
poor (think ex-eastern block), and me and almost everyone I knew was buying
used stuff - be it cars, phones, computers, tools etc.

If you aim at the entry level market, you either make something that will soon
be obsolete, or cut corners on manufacturing - both options lead to the
landfill rather soon.

~~~
5555624
Because "used" is not the same as "new."

The definition can vary. What one person defines as "normal wear and tear" is
not necessarily what someone else would define it as. A small crack on the
corner? A dead pixel? A loose hinge? Scratches?

In addition, buying used is fine if you can support it; but, what if someone
can't? A warranty can be a good thing, as can tech support.

I've bought a number of used Thinkpads and it takes work.

~~~
michalf6
Good point about support - I think this scenario could be more realistic if
there were regulations in place which force manufacturers to enable third
party repair (schematics, sale of parts etc).

It's working well already with cars - in places where labor is cheap things
like older BMWs get extended life, as the same repairs wouldn't be affordable
in other places, and as a consumer you get the benefit of driving a decent car
for a reasonable price.

I see quite a bit of refurbishers in my area selling ex-leased laptops for a
low price with a warranty, so it looks like the market finds a way.

My point is, there are upsides to buying new, but I think the environmental
downside is much much greater.

------
maallooc
This could be a real game changer if Apple succeeds in expanding their mobile
toolkit to the ARM Mac.

To be honest, I'll buy an ARM Macbook right now if I can use Microsoft Office,
Safari and VS Code.

------
Yetanfou
Only if the machine lent itself to the installation of alternative operating
systems, whether that be some form of Linux or Windows or anything else. That
would imply the hardware would need to be open enough for drivers to be
developed. The chance of Apple launching something like this seem slim, they
may have started as a hardware company but by now they are well hooked on
spreading their 'ecosystem' as well as on their secondary income streams from
the app store etc.

------
Mindwipe
Pretty weak article.

Tries to argue the Windows transition failed because of the lack of a walled
garden app store. But Windows on ARM did have a (to all intents and purposes)
mandatory app store. Indeed, as the Mac App Store has broadly failed it had
more of one.

Apple is going to have the same issues with third party software transitions.
The reality is that consumers don't seem to really like the idea of a "proper"
computer that can't run everything.

~~~
adrianmsmith
Right, and I'm really not sure what this paragraph from the article means, or
if it actually has any meaning at all.

> With iPadOS now offering macOS-like features, as well as keyboard and
> trackpad support, it’s arguably not too much of a challenge for Apple to
> rework macOS to run on RISC and ARM.

~~~
braythwayt
I can answer that. Apple already has macOS running on ARM, and has had for
years.

This gives them two things:

1\. Leverage on pricing with Intel;

2\. The ability to ship ARM macs whenever they are ready.

So the next thing is, "what's the definition of 'ready'?" Opinions about that
vary. I side wth tthe popular speculation that the 'problem' with macOS on ARM
is not macOS, but all the legacy apps that need to be recompiled or run in
some kind of emulation or need some other magic solution to "just work."

It's easy to ask every developer to recompile, but people have lots of
shareware apps, unsupported old apps, enterprise apps, and apps from
developers who aren't making enough money to justify putting a lot of work
into supporting a new chip.

So for now, we have this weird situation where phones and tablets have
enormous amounts of computing power but require less power and thus provide
longer battery life for a given mass... Mostly to support computational
photography.

p.s. Completely spitballing here, but I wonder if their hesitation to ship
with an emulator—as they did when they made the PowerPC -> Intel switch—is
because on a mobile device, emulation might be a heat source and power hog.
With desktops, they didn't have the same concern about power draw or heat.

------
norswap
Their regular laptops are priced at 2x or more the market for similar specs.
The Mac Pro is more than 4x.

Unless they align themselves with market price (within a premium range, maybe
up to 50% more than median), I don't see how they can "destroy the market"
(they could still be a commercial success though).

The prime selling point of cheap laptops/chromebooks is their price.

------
1MachineElf
I worry that any non-x86 MacBook would make it significantly harder to
virtualize macOS on KVM.

------
karmakaze
When I'm not using a MacBook 15", I'm on a Surface Go for it's
ultraportability. If Apple made effectively an iPad Go that ran an ARM macOS,
I'd use it. I don't care for apps, I make them usually for web.

------
m-p-3
And it would become a great and cheap portable option for iOS developers that
just needs an Apple system to develop and compile and publish mobile apps.

I get (but I don't agree) that Apple wants to lock developers into their
platform.

------
tpetry
They are missing a very crucial point: even if apple will sell a cheaper
macbook se it will still be a lot more expansive than the cheap windows
notebooks bought. Apple will not make a 400-500$ notebook.

~~~
tosh
They do make iPhones and iPads in that price range

------
sandoooo
the page contains a redirect to a page telling me to turn off adblocking.
Evidently this is because my adblocking didn't go far enough. It goes away if
I disable scripts on the page altogether.

~~~
grezql
get uBlock origin. Not adblock, adblock plus or uBlock. But uBlock origin.

------
kingkawn
MacBook SE already exists, it’s an iPad with an external keyboard

~~~
bluescrn
No. For now a real MacBook is still a computer in the traditional sense, you
can run your own code on it. An iPad isn't.

~~~
kingkawn
Lol yes I know

------
unangst
Chromebooks hold the trifecta: \- K-12 market share +60% \- G Suite ecosystem
(admins/users) \- Pricing (Sub $180 HP G8 (AMD))

~~~
new_realist
According to Wikipedia, Chrome OS usage share is just 0.18%. Yes, that’s just
one fifth of one percent. And their K-12 share is nowhere near that high,
worldwide.

~~~
ghaff
In the US ChromeOS seems to have about 4-6% market share [0] with about 60%
share in K-12. As you say, those are US numbers and the K-12 figures are much
lower (single digits) elsewhere. Of course, not sure what availability and
promotion to school systems even looks like outside the US.

[0] [https://calacanis.com/2019/01/02/chrome-os-is-the-
ultimate-p...](https://calacanis.com/2019/01/02/chrome-os-is-the-ultimate-
productivity-hack-will-exceed-mac-os-marketshare-but-can-it-challenge-
windows/)

------
Theodores
An affordable Ferrari could put VW, Ford, GM and Toyota out of business.
Imagine if that was possible, would everyone want it? Or would they buy
themselves another Golf?

Given the choice of a deluxe Apple computer (never mind an SE one) I would
still take the regular PC or the Chromebook. Sounds mad but I like ChromeOS,
Chrome and the normal PC keyboard. I don't actually want MacOS and I would pay
to not have it. I am not alone in thinking this way.

------
hamilyon2
Could it be that it is linked to expiration of some Intel patents?

------
jankotek
Macbooks dont even have a touchscreen.

edit: why downvotes? machines like that are also replacement for a tablet.

~~~
bluescrn
Not having a touchscreen is a big plus point these days. It usually means you
get to use much more precise input devices instead!

Touchscreen devices with touch-centric operating systems/UI systems will never
replace 'proper computers' for 'serious software' as everything has to be so
completely dumbed-down for touch, simply because you can't build a complex and
feature-rich UI for such a limited input device.

~~~
flipcoder
I don't think this will always be the case. Applications like Bitwig Studio
have both traditional and touch interfaces. It's only a change in GUI. I can
see most applications in the future having "responsive" gui layouts like how
web designers deal with screen sizes, but for touch interfaces.

