I don’t think it will. I tried this one year, but the product had to be purchased after the holiday policy went into effect (even though I picked it up after the holiday return period started).
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 Announces New 14-Inch and 16-Inch MacBook Pro Models With M3 Series Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is likely true. While most of the time Macs will get seven years of support give or take a year, Apple doesn’t want to keep supporting dual binaries in the OS for much longer. It roughly doubles the size of the OS and requires their engineers to maintain two different architectures. While Sonoma supports some Intel Macs, I wouldn’t be surprised to find macOS will stop Intel support altogether next year. They want to jettison having to support Intel quickly and then soon after that, probably within a year or two, they’ll discontinue Rosetta 2, which pushes app developers to re-do their apps for AS. This was the history when Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel.
I had to laugh when the guy mentioned the intel Macs and suggested an upgrade. They must be desperate! Not to mention they made the argument last week that you should buy a new iPhone every year because it’s “innovation”. Please Apple. You had the whole Mother Nature segment. Don’t p*ss on my back and tell me it’s raining comes to mind. I’m happy with my current apple products of Intel 2019 MBP and iPhone 14, but I’m not sure I will stay on the band wagon when they die.
Apple products are now ridiculously heavy compared to competition. MacBooks, iPhone, iPad, all of them. Carbon fiber chassis? Never heard of in Apple land. Why does the iPhone have to have a glass back? Not for durability since the phone is likely to be replaced in three to four years and plastics and composites work as well. It’s mainly for the shiny looks, at the expense of weight and cost. Apple is a company that makes a great deal about introducing a darker/lighter color every year so it shouldn’t be a surprise to see them place form over function.
Yeah, definitely not upgrading until the technology requires it such as my Intel Mac breaking. I bought my MBP in 2017 and it's still running as fast as I need it to be. Maybe I can run this up to 2027 and beyond! ;-)
My M1 Pro 16 still handles PS/LR and any other things I do with ease. So no, I do not find a need to upgrade, YMMV.
If your Intel Mac is still working for you, I'd say it's fine to wait to upgrade until support runs out. They'll be supported for at least three more years, and for at least another year on a current OS. [That's assuming it's important for you to run on a supported OS—some don't care.]
Any loss of resale value is more than compensated by upgrading less frequently.
I'm not saying you shouldn't upgrade. The AS devices are great machines. I'm saying the fact that support is running out in a few years isn't a reason to upgrade now (unless you run a business and need a lot of lead time to do the transition).
Last edited:
Actually, the reason the MBP's are thicker and heavier than those from the butterfly era is that Apple decided to do the opposite of what you say, and place function (performance) over form.
Yet even though they are heavier, they are still lighter than PC laptops offering equivalent performance. Specifically, you claim "Apple products are now ridiculously heavy compared to competition", but do you know of any PC laptops with ≈14"/16" screen sizes that offer equivalent SC and MC performance, battery life, and max RAM and SSD capacity (128 GB/8 TB) to the 14"/16" M3 Max MBP's, yet are significantly lighter? [You may need to wait a week or so until the GB scores are relased for the M3 Max, but say ballpark 3200+ SC, 21,000+ MC.]
Sure, there are places Apple values form over function, but their laptops aren't one of them.
Last edited:
The 15 Pro is definitely not heavy - its best feature (imo) is its overall lighter feel vs the 14 Pro. But it is most certainly designed for profit by using fancy materials we don’t really need. Phones should be made of materials that don’t require a 3rd-party case for piece-of-mind.
Nah I really doubt it, M1 is a beast of a chip with M2 and M3 not really adding anything substantial. Apple's own marketing claims the M3 is up to 60% faster than the M1, but they tested a 12cpu/18gpu - 36GB M3 MBP against an M1 8/8 - 16GB MBP. Of course the £3000 laptop is faster than something nearly 3 times less!
“M1 is a beast of a chip” -> doesn’t help if apple decides to ditch features first and later OS support completely.
I find 2000 Euros for a 8GB Ram 512 GB standard model not very attractive with no known info about how many years of SW support I will get for the money.
No, they don’t. 1 and 2 are unrelated ( and 3 and 4 etc.) They are footnotes. You need to read the text that the footnote is against.
Apple can ditch features and support any time they want but they usually work on a 6-7 year 'obsolete' cycle, so there's still plent of life left in M1.
You also can't buy an M1 MBP directly from Apple so I don't see your point, unless you mean 2000 euros for something else they sell, but of course it would make sense to buy an M2/3 if you don't already have an M1 laptop. Unless you really need more cores or are worried that Apple will end all support on a 3 year old device, it seems pretty daft to drop M1 over M3.
I may well be wrong, but I was just going off this https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2023/10/apple-unveils-new-macbook-pro-featuring-m3-chips/
*edit* Looking into this further I think you're refering to this page https://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/ .
The footnotes here are actually hyperlinked and it makes it much easier to refer to. Still, even in that case, the testing methodology in footnote 3 (refering to 2.5x rendering times against an M1 MBP16) is not Apples to Apples. -
Last edited:
You can easily edit multiple Word documents on the screen, what’s the problem?
Yes with 2000 euros I meant the new M3 MBP. I would like to know how many years of SW support I will get for the premium price.
And with the release of the M3 for I think the SW support time of M1 is reduced.
Ah I see, yeah the price premium is just the usual Apple sell unfortunatly. If you don't have a laptop, or want to upgrade from something older than an M1, go for a M2 or M3, SW support will be pretty much the same.
The problem is, when you have a dozen documents open at the same time across two monitors, it’s hard to instantly switch to the right one through the single tiny application icon on the dock. The single menu bar at the top of the screen far away from the actual doc window especially on a big monitor also makes it a chore to shift your focus back and forth. All reminiscent of the single task root of macOS that Linux and Windows departed decades ago. For “creators” this may not be a big deal since they usually work with one or two docs/applications at a time, but for real pro’s that do complicated work, this adds to the mental toll and seriously cuts into productivity.
It is hard to navigate all the footnotes, but your original claim is false. There is no place Apple compares a top of the line m3pro to an m1.
I may well be wrong, but I was just going off this https://www.apple.com/uk/newsroom/2023/10/apple-unveils-new-macbook-pro-featuring-m3-chips/
*edit* Looking into this further I think you're refering to this page https://www.apple.com/uk/macbook-pro/ .
The footnotes here are actually hyperlinked and it makes it much easier to refer to. Still, even in that case, the testing methodology in footnote 3 (refering to 2.5x rendering times against an M1 MBP16) is not Apples to Apples. -
The footnote 3 is mentioned multiple times, but it is mainly in this chart where all the info is. Approx 2x faster than m2max, 2.5x faster than m1max and 5.3x faster than the fastest intel macbook pro. Not sure why it is not Apples to Apples, for this particular test they were comparing the fastest machines in each generation taking advantage of each generation’s features.
Last edited:
I agree with SnazzyQ, it feels like Apple rolled this out to get ahead of a possible bad earnings report and Intel dropping a new generation of chips...
Good grief. We're back to 8GB in a "Pro" base model!?!? 🙄
It is high time reviewers (and the public) start becoming more critical of this sort of crap and openly criticise Apple over it. This is so lame!
It is high time reviewers (and the public) start becoming more critical of this sort of crap and openly criticise Apple over it. This is so lame!
I don't think they'll kill Rosetta 2 too quickly, their Game Porting Toolkit relies on it. And they don't want to risk losing games and game publishers.