I thought the company would wait and deploy a later gen chip. Though with the standardization of M1 across such a wide array of products makes me think it is going to be the M1.
So I had thought there may be something learned in the mass deployment that would trigger even minor design changes.
Perhaps those are software issues. Or maybe the M1 as a product name should not be taken literally to describe the SoC in the current lineup.
We know the Secure Enclave component appears to have been updated mid-production this past fall for a host of A-series chips.
Perhaps, if light changes were needed Apple would not see them a sufficient to designate a new moniker.
Or perhaps they are but the iMac and (theoretical) apple silicon-based data centers are intending to build consumer confidence in this bold foray.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/12/apple-security-a12-and-s5-pro...
Also do you know how many machines it would take to outfit a reasonable demonstration scale facility?
Is that number so large that it constrains the ability to just go that much further?
The whole article is about not having to choose between performance and powerusage. With "5000", which 5000 do you mean? A 100W cpu of about the full cost of a macmini?
This is the whole point of the article. Apple made a monster move. Next up: Apple Cloud. M1 based cloud computing. Will save them a couple billion per year on aws which expires in '22 or '23 iirc.