Any rumors or a new Mac Pro?

[deconstruct60]

.. I am of the opinion Apple wanted to release the MBP at WDCC and then launch a new version with Kaby Lake 9-12 months later when Intel released the CPUs, but the Touch Bar wasn't ready so they had to wait until now. Chances are we'll still see a KL update by WDCC 2017.

Unlikely. There are Gen 7 (Kaby Lake) processors that Apple could have bumped the MacBook with now.

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/95543/7th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors#@Mobile

and didn't. MacBook was just bumped April 2016 and Apple didn't feel the need to bump them just 6 months later. Just as unlikely they will feel the need to bump the MBP 6 months later also. It isn't like the follow on to Kaby Lake is coming very fast in Intel's pipeline. Taking your time presents less risk.

As for the Mac Pro, I honestly wonder just how much better the machine would be with Haswell-E and the AMD W7100/W8100/W9100 (D310/D510/D710) series GPUs. It looks like the main benefit Haswell-E brings is DDR4 memory, but with the drawback that it is reported to draw more power and generate more heat than the Ivy Bridge-E and that might have been an issue for the Mac Pro's power and cooling systems.

Xeon E5 v3 Haswell-EP (won't be using -E) has been superceded by Xeon E5 v4 ( Broadwell-EP). So no good reason they'd be waiting for that. The reported draw more heat is largely bogus system TDP accounting. The v3-v4 systems have integrated power converters. System wise there is not a net increase. It is just that an additional component has been integrated. You have more localized heat in position but overall there is not a net increase. Haswell is hot so Apple can't use it is a old, tired excuse that just won't die. There is not technical basis for it.

Extreme top end GPU there is not much that would help Apple with their given design constraints ( fixed power , custom embedded design , etc. ) . More probable that it is a GPU hold up on the Mac Pro at the moment.

Unfortunately, Skylake doesn't offer an appropriate CPU (the performance workstation CPUs appear to be designed for dual sockets) and Intel has yet to say what Kaby Lake will offer in the workstation space.

No, there is a single socket Skylake-W Basin Falls .... doesn't look like it is coming before 2H17 though ( Skylake-X may Q2 17 , but the workstation line probably is downstream from that. )

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-and-skylake-w-processors-in-q2-2017.2475298/

 

[CWallace]

Unlikely. There are Gen 7 (Kaby Lake) processors that Apple could have bumped the MacBook with now...and didn't. MacBook was just bumped April 2016 and Apple didn't feel the need to bump them just 6 months later.

I see MacBook as eventually replacing MacBook Air as the entry level machine in Apple's line-up in both cost and performance so I would expect that they're not going to want to immediately jump to Kaby Lake as that will raise the component costs and therefore either the retail price or push back the price reductions necessary to scrap the MBA 13 (now that the 11 is gone).

MBP has a (significant) price premium and is aimed at a more "performance" market so it can justify a much quicker move to KL (and Apple might already be pricing the current model with the expectation of KL CPUs so as to not raise the price even more when they do arrive).

 

[deconstruct60]

I see MacBook as eventually replacing MacBook Air as the entry level machine in Apple's line-up in both cost and performance so I would expect that they're not going to want to immediately jump to Kaby Lake as that will raise the component costs and therefore either the retail price or push back the price reductions necessary to scrap the MBA 13 (now that the 11 is gone).

That perhaps would have been the path of Apple 5-7 years ago. it isn't right now Apple seems more committed to keeping their average laptop sales price above $1000 than they are to being competitive in the sub $1000 laptop market.

They could have dropped the price on the MBA 13". they didn't. So that don't particularly express the notion that substantively older tech is more affordable.

The current MacBook is playing the original MBA did when it came out. Price premium for max lightness priced about that of a normal 13" MBP.

The only "cut' they made was to the 2015 MBP 13" that they left in the line up along with the non-price cut 2015 MBP 15". The 2015 MBP just dropped closer to the ancient 2012 cMBP that they finally dropped after 4 years of stagnation at the approximately the same price point.


What appears to what would have been the 2016 MBA is the "function key" MBP 13". Apple actually shifted the price (and probably margins) higher. Same MBA class CPU but more "pro" stuff to keep the price higher.

"m Class' Kaby Lake is $281
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/95543/7th-Generation-Intel-Core-i5-Processors#@Mobile

"m class" Broadwell is $281
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/94026/6th-Generation-Intel-Core-m5-Processors#@Mobile

Apple is saving nobody nothing by skipping Kaby Lake in new MacBooks right now. The flawed notion is that Apple is trying to revise Mac products on a sub 12 month schedule. They aren't and probably will not from now on. The industry has changed.

MBP has a (significant) price premium and is aimed at a more "performance" market so it can justify a much quicker move to KL (and Apple might already be pricing the current model with the expectation of KL CPUs so as to not raise the price even more when they do arrive).

There are about 400 pages of folks grumbling about how there 2009-2014 MBP is good enough and they aren't touching the new MBP at all. So no there isn't widespread evidence of this market.

Fiutherrmore, as I outlined if Apple jumps to Kaby lake there is little of Intel to jump to after that.

https://www.macrumors.com/2016/09/22/intel-mobile-roadmap-coffee-lake/

Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake are likely to be just as late as Kaby Lake was to its roadmaps a 12-18 months before it rolled out. If Apple revises the MBP too quickly there could easily be nothing to move to for 12-14 months. Intel (and AMD ) are not on a sub 12 month schedule. If the major components are not on a sub 12 month schedule there is little rational reason for the Mac systems they depend upon to be on a sub 12 month schedule.

The overall PC market is slowing down. The frantic haze of systems updating in sub 12 month windows is largely the illusion of PC system vendors whose product catalog is 2-4 times bigger than Apple dribbling their updates over the course of a year rather than something that is market driven. It isn't. Users are holding onto their systems longer these days. Not shorter.

 

[CWallace]

That perhaps would have been the path of Apple 5-7 years ago. it isn't right now Apple seems more committed to keeping their average laptop sales price above $1000 than they are to being competitive in the sub $1000 laptop market.

I agree, but the target price I see for the MacBook is $999. At the moment, it's $1299 so it needs to come down $300 before it can replace the Air.

They could have dropped the price on the MBA 13". they didn't. So that don't particularly express the notion that substantively older tech is more affordable.

It can be more affordable, but rather than drop the price below the $999 target, Apple prefers to improve their margins because they continue to be seen as a "premium" brand that can command higher prices.

The current MacBook is playing the original MBA did when it came out. Price premium for max lightness priced about that of a normal 13" MBP.

Agreed, but the MBA eventually became the new "floor of entry" and so shall the MacBook. Apple's going to want Retina across their product line - the MBA is the outlier right now, but it needs to stay because Apple can't make the margins they want on the MB at a $999 price.

Apple is saving nobody nothing by skipping Kaby Lake in new MacBooks right now. The flawed notion is that Apple is trying to revise Mac products on a sub 12 month schedule. They aren't and probably will not from now on. The industry has changed.

Well Apple used to update their portable line on an annual and even sub-annual basis, but part of it is Intel's release schedule now dragging out across multiple years and Apple's focus on the iOS devices that generates the vast majority of their revenue and profits.

There are about 400 pages of folks grumbling about how there 2009-2014 MBP is good enough and they aren't touching the new MBP at all. So no there isn't widespread evidence of this market.

If Apple gave us a thicker and heavier laptop with nVidia 1080 series GPUs with 64GB of user-upgradeable RAM and easily-replaced SSDs we'd have 400 pages of folks grumbling about how heavy it is, how thick it is, how hot it is, how short the battery life is and how expensive it is.

It's the current state of Apple fandom to complain when you get what you want as much as when you don't get what you want.

Furthermore, as I outlined if Apple jumps to Kaby lake there is little of Intel to jump to after that...If Apple revises the MBP too quickly there could easily be nothing to move to for 12-14 months. Intel (and AMD ) are not on a sub 12 month schedule.

I don't see Apple returning to an annual / sub-annual update schedule going forward. I just believe we're in a special situation now where the new MBP was released three-months later than Apple planned and that they expected to have a new model ready for WDCC 2017 with Kaby Lake and the RX 470/480 just as they expected to have this model (with Skylake and the RX 450/460) ready for WDCC 2016. That way they'd have updated to the "latest" CPU/GPU combination and then legitimately park the design waiting for Intel and AMD.