The New Intel Core M processors are launching in september which means this macbook could be getting a nice speed upgrade relatively soon.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Could upgrade the 12' Macbook in september
- Thread starter maloy676767
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There's been a few threads about this already, and I won't rehash them save to say:
1) Be weary of what Intel says esp with Broadwell & Skylake in terms of timelines. It's been a bad joke for years on Broadwell.
2) Even if they are "available" is it in volume (esp the type of volume AAPL pulls?) or just sampling?
3) Chip availability does not even come close to translating into actual finished, integrated, and produced product in the market, esp with a system so tightly coupled to its processor
4) Beyond just Intel, AAPL's marketing and planning focus in that timeframe is iPhone and seems this will be born out - I don't see AAPL doing both (not because they can't, but they usually don't and I don't see this changing, independent of technology availability AAPL sticks to some very well defined product cycles and only times these really change is when they are pushed out because the tech isn't available, the opposite situation however does not usually appear to have the opposite effect, e.g. it being available earlier does not tend to shorten them).
1) Be weary of what Intel says esp with Broadwell & Skylake in terms of timelines. It's been a bad joke for years on Broadwell.
2) Even if they are "available" is it in volume (esp the type of volume AAPL pulls?) or just sampling?
3) Chip availability does not even come close to translating into actual finished, integrated, and produced product in the market, esp with a system so tightly coupled to its processor
4) Beyond just Intel, AAPL's marketing and planning focus in that timeframe is iPhone and seems this will be born out - I don't see AAPL doing both (not because they can't, but they usually don't and I don't see this changing, independent of technology availability AAPL sticks to some very well defined product cycles and only times these really change is when they are pushed out because the tech isn't available, the opposite situation however does not usually appear to have the opposite effect, e.g. it being available earlier does not tend to shorten them).
Last edited:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA!!
Wow that was hilarious, thank you for that, needed a laugh before bed.
Wow that was hilarious, thank you for that, needed a laugh before bed.
Q1 2016 is more likely, ultimately much depends on Apple`s strategy regardless of Skylake`s availability.
![intel_skylake_rts_schedule.png]()
Apple will be looking to maintain the Mac`s current momentum, equally Q3 2015 MicroSoft will likely launch Surface Pro 4 and far more importantly Windows 10. You can be sure Apple will be looking to respond strongly in the personal computer "space"
Q-6
Apple will be looking to maintain the Mac`s current momentum, equally Q3 2015 MicroSoft will likely launch Surface Pro 4 and far more importantly Windows 10. You can be sure Apple will be looking to respond strongly in the personal computer "space"
Q-6
Apple usually doesn't update its products that fast. I wouldn't expect anything sooner than 9-12 months if that.
I don't see it happening, for a number of reasons. One major reason that popped into my head when I read the OP is the fact that a refresh that comes so close to the initial product rollout can only be viewed as a failure in the design. There would be more negative reaction then positive. Apple is all about image and while they have refreshed a product in close proximity before (I'm thinking of the iPad), it produced a lot of negative user reactions. I can only imagine how much worse that would be for such a high profile initial roll out as this.
Hopefully Apple learned a lesson from the iPad 3/iPad 4 episode. In any case, Intel's recent track record is not encouraging on the timing front.
I think Broadwell in general was a disaster for Intel, but Skylake has been on schedule. Broadwell might be Intel's shortest-lived processor, and many manufacturers might just skip it altogether for Skylake. I believe the issue was getting yields right on the new 14nm process. Now that they finally got it down, it doesn't really matter whether they stamp out Broadwell or Skylake chips.
Yep. Count me in as one of those angry customers.
They also did this to me with the last 15' PowerBook G4. I bought that, only to hear the Intel announcement, then the first MacBook Pro sporting Intel CPUs a mere 6 months later.
However, I'm quite resilient when it comes to upgrades - my iPad 3 of three years was sold for an iPad mini 2, and my PowerBook lasted a good four years (with me) before I got a 2010 MBP. The PowerBook finally caked it this year, after 10 years of operation.
Well guess what I bought just last night - a rMB. But good thing this one's not for me so no buyer's remorse if it gets upgraded early.
I can't believe there still are people who gets angry when technology gets updated just because they recently purchased something. I wonder what the world would look like if everyone had to reach consensus before something was "allowed" to be updated?
Faster horses? Larger quill-pens?
It could happen. Incremental updates have precedent (late 2007 - early 2009 Macbook models). But I think since it's a new product it will last for about a year.
