Talk:Apple M6

Next Apple silicon chip

We now have Apple M6, but Apple M7 currently redirects to a section on Apple motion coprocessors.

If Apple did announce the M7 Apple silicon system-on-chip, the Wikipedia article title will have to be disambiguated. The article title about the SoC should be called e.g. "Apple M7 (chip)" or "Apple M7 (system-on-chip)". And the Apple M7 motion coprocessor can be moved to "Apple M7 (coprocessor)". I don't think the M7 coprocessor is a (primary) chip.

If both articles are disambiguated, then Apple M7 can be a redirect to M7, a disambiguation page. The same can be done to the Apple M8, too. I think the motion coprocessors go up to M11 (seen on the iPhone 8 and iPhone X).

What do you think? Slackintosh (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Future speculation

It is generally not-encyclopedic to include content about a company's speculated future plans that have yet to materialize or be addressed by the company.

That said, the paragraph I removed also falsely claimed that the Apple M6 was the first M-series chip launch without a -Pro variant launched at the same time. Historically, Apple has only ever launched a -Pro variant concurrently once, with the M3 and M3 Pro. All other -Pro chip launches were well after the base chip launch. ~2026-48957-12 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

As a reminder, rollbacks are prohibited from being used for content disputes. If you have constructive contributions for this article, do feel free to make them, @AriuCH: and @Streetr4:. Thanks! ~2026-48957-12 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

This is your final warning. If the behavior is repeated, you will be reported to WP:AIV. AriuCH (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with characterizing this one-sentence edit as vandalism. Under WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverified speculation or rumors. Removing unsourced or speculative claims is standard routine editing aimed at maintaining article quality, not deliberate site disruption (WP:VANDALISM).

Further, dropping a "final warning" template as a first interaction violates WP:CIVIL and as well as WP:BITE. If you believe the content should remain, please discuss its encyclopedic value here on the article talk page, rather than using template warnings inappropriately.

You may not be aware of these things, so I wanted to take a second to catch you up. Please do reach out to AIV if this doesn't make sense. I am confident they can provide you with some great guidance for the future. Thanks! ~2026-48957-12 (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2026 (UTC)