Apple Didn't Release Any New Macs This Quarter for First Time Since 2000

[james2538]

I always thought the 13” MBP was never comparable to the larger MBP models. The 13” MBP is very close to a 13” MBA in design. They are much more likely to see updated models than the larger models. Since we have ceased to use the Intel platform with laptops, we really have no baseline to how far apart AS platform macs will be released. The 18 month interval for the 13” MBA/MBP has only had one change so far. It’s not like we can reliably predict the AS platform releases, we wish it was more predictable but pandemic made a mess of Apples rollouts. Hoping 2023 has what we want.

I wouldn't count the AS 13" MacBook Pro as part of the professional lineup now that the 14" and 16" are out. It honestly just needs to be killed off since it only occupies a weird middle ground. Especially since it lacks the fast charging and larger screen from the MacBook Air, and the professional chips from the 14"/16".

In regards to updating yearly during the Intel era I think it's fair to include the 13" Pro in the conversation since besides lacking a discrete graphics chip it had decent feature parity with the 15" model.

 

[theinsaneworld]

Once again... not everyone is upgrading from the M1. You still have a ton of Apple users still on Intel Hardware.

And the current offering is actually really strong. The M1 in its various forms are at minimum competitive with Intel, if not outright outperforming them, especially regarding performance-per-watt.

You’re also ignoring all the actual factors that exist globally. The majority of the market has actually had a lackluster year. Even Microsoft, which so much of the tech industry likes to compare Apple to, had pretty mediocre releases this year.

Ultimately, it is what it is. The world is increasingly complicated, with a lot of moving parts - geopolitically and economically.

I’m pretty sure Apple (and every manufacturer for that matter) would love to release every single upgrade exactly the way they plan it, but life isn’t like that.

If there’s one thing that all of this helps push Apple to do, it’s to diversify more of their production and be less reliant on China, which is great.

 

[cb3]

Hard to get products out of China at this time. Next several months will be slow due to COVID.

 

[docbop]

The fourth quarter of 2022 this week becomes the first with no new Mac models in 22 years as previously anticipated devices like the next-generation MacBook Pro and Mac Pro models have apparently been pushed out to 2023.

Historically, Apple released at least one new Mac model every year in the fourth quarter that runs between October and December, starting in 2001 with the launch of the iBook G3. This means that there has been a new Mac toward the end of the year for the entire lifespan of product lines including the iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch. The last Mac that Apple released is the M2 MacBook Air, which launched on July 15. Depending on how long Apple waits to launch its next Mac, the time following the launch of the MacBook Air could be among the longest periods with no new Mac models at all.

While it was widely rumored that new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro models would emerge before the end of the year, a time frame seemingly supported by some mass production forecasts, as 2022 draws to a close, it is now almost certain that these devices have been substantially delayed. The MacBook Pro delay first became apparent when Korean blogger "yeux1122" cited a supply chain source saying that the updated 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models will not launch until around March next year. The picture became clearer when Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said in October that the next wave of Mac releases will now take place in the first quarter of 2023, including updated versions of the MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and Mac Pro.

Overall, this constitutes a delay of up to six months over what was originally expected for the next-generation MacBook Pro models. Gurman expects the next MacBook Pros to have few other upgrades beyond the M2 Pro and M2 Max chips, but high-bandwidth memory and ports with newer specifications seem plausible.

The Mac Pro is another device that was once strongly believed to launch before the end of the year, not least because this would have aligned to Apple's wish to transition the entire Mac lineup to Apple silicon within two years. At its "Peek Performance" event earlier this year, Apple even directly teased the launch of the Apple silicon Mac Pro, saying "that's for another day." While Apple reportedly had an M1-variant of the Mac Pro ready to launch earlier in 2022, the company appears to be waiting for an even bigger performance and efficiency jump next year.

Multiple reports from Gurman about the Apple silicon Mac Pro's chip options and specifications provide a fairly straightforward picture of what to expect from the new flagship Mac, but little is currently known about the device's design, ports, performance, and potential for modularity and customization. Most recently, Gurman said that Apple had likely scrapped plans for an "M2 Extreme" chip, but M2 Ultra configurations of the out

Article Link: Apple Didn't Release Any New Macs This Quarter for First Time Since 2000

I think we'll see a lot of M3 3nm Mac's in 2023. Intel backed out of their 3nm deal with TSMC that was the funding TSMC needed to fund the 3nm buildout. Intel backingut screwed Apple's 3nm plans. So Apple had agree to buying to the same terms at the Intel deal. Intel sells chips to lots of companies so they had lots of customer to sell the chips too. Apple doesn't sell chips to any other companies so the have to use all those chips themselves, so lots of 3nm chips for all of Apple products.

 

[Stevenyo]

Anyone who thought we'd get more updates on AS than intel was deluded. Apple regularly used intel chips far after intel had created new generations and skipped whole generations all the time. The "problems" with intel were they refused/were unable to match Apple's power efficiency, and costs. Apple was paying to develop an "X" or "Z" variant every other year for higher end iPads. Once the performance of these caught up to intel's 15-25 watt parts, it was much cheaper to compile mac OS to run on an iPad chip than to keep paying intel for chips, IP, and spending money to develop x86 laptop boards.

But since those "X" and "Z" variants only came out every two years, it shouldn't be a shock that the M series that replaced them is also on a slower cycle. In fact, as the volumes drop at the more expensive end of the product stack, I wouldn't be entirely shocked if the "Pro" "Max" and beyond update even less frequently. We hopefully get a 3nm series of Pro and beyond chips next year, but it would not shock me if they dragged out into later in the year, got the new GPU design and were branded as "M3," then not updated until 2026 when an "M5 pro" comes out on another much better node with major improvements again. The real issues here are the small volumes comparative to the R&D costs and the fact that Apple is competing with no one in the laptop space. No one actually cross shops a Mac and a PC, just like no one gets stuck choosing between a microwave and an airfryer. Sure, both are "computers" (or "cooking appliances") but beyond that they are totally different tools with totally different functions.

I've had to try out some windows laptops this year. Even high end ones (machines that cost at least as much as a MacBook with similar specs from top tier builders) are still loud, janky and barely last a couple hours when doing basic tasks. Apple's battery life, build quality, software/hardware integration, and more are on another planet than any other portable computer builder, all with performance that at worst is highly competitive with the latest from intel or AMD. (I truly believe there's only two reasons anyone uses Windows, games and idiotic, stuck-in-the-last-century corporate IT systems. It's amazing how bad all windows is at basic tasks when compared to a Mac or even a decently set up Linux distro on the same hardware) They're not losing any sales by not rushing out an "M2 pro" that would cost many billions in R&D for a tiny spec bump on what's still the best chip/laptop on the market in most metrics. They should wait and release the new generation on 3nm with big improvements. I'm hoping for the next gen MBP to have 3nm chips with the ray tracing GPU, up to 12 cores, and generally 25%+ performance improvement with longer battery life.

 

[svish]

Expecting to see many new Macs in the near future!

 

[ghanwani]

They were busy working on CSAM and Apple Car.

 

[Westside guy]

Thank god. A slowdown at last. Make it every three years and we will still survive.

But won't somebody please think about the poor stockholders?

 

[falainber]

And here we are...everyone thought Apple would release new Macs regularly since they don't depend on Intel anymore.
Seems like Intel was not the problem.

Indeed, it's possible that Apple decided to drop Intel because they wanted to slow down the release of new models. When they used Intel processors, the new models were coming few and far between too. So, very often the Macs were one or two generations of Intel processors behind the competition. It was embarrassing. Now they are always on the latest generation of Apple Silicon (however old those chips are)!

 

[Abazigal]

And here we are...everyone thought Apple would release new Macs regularly since they don't depend on Intel anymore.
Seems like Intel was not the problem.

Apple's not a very hard company to read. First start with Apple, then look outwards. Too many people tend to do the opposite (They cover an industry, then attempt to draw a link to Apple from time to time), and I feel this often leads to inaccurate analysis or unrealistic expectations.

Processor design is expensive, and a company typically recoups that huge R&D expenditure through volume. With the iPhone, Apple sells them in sufficient quantities to justify a new chip every year. With the iPad, we saw a refresh every 1.5-2 years.

As for the M1 chip, it's currently used in the iPad Air, iPad Pro, Mac mini, MBA and iMac. Given the volumes that they sell (which is likely nowhere near iPhone sales), it simply doesn't justify a new chip every year. It's just wasteful. Not to mention that after 2 years, nothing even comes close to the M1 chip in terms of performance and power efficiency.

The new MBA got an M2 chip in a new form factor, and it makes sense that Apple will prioritise said product as it is likely their most popular product line. I am also guessing that with the supply chain constraints in China, Apple doesn't have enough M2 chips to update the Mac mini and iMac, or they may be planning a more significant redesign to go along with it (ie: new form factor + new processor to sufficiently differentiate it from the previous model). Either way, desktops are their least popular products, so I expect Apple to pay the least attention to them.

The M1x chip in the 14" and 16" MBP and the Mac Studio sell in even lower quantities, so I am puzzled by people expecting an annual refresh here when they just came out last year. It's likely that these products will initially see a 1.5-2 year refresh cycle, which will eventually extend to every 2-3 years.

Again, it helps that Apple has a unique value proposition here in terms of performance per watt, which the competition is either unable or unwilling to match. So if you want the long battery life and great sustained performance uniquely found with MacBooks, there's not really much of a choice here, even if the chip is over 2 years old at this point.

Apple is clearly aware of this, and they tread a fine line between updating their hardware just often enough to keep them relevant, and stretching out the upgrade cycle long enough to reap the economies of scale of their chip manufacturing.

Like I said, Apple is not a very hard company to read.

 

[opeter]

You know, what would be interesting? If Apple wouldn't release any new/updated Macs in 2023. At all.
And, as I already wrote in another thread: for instance, the Mac mini will get a 3 to 4 year update cycle.

 

[Trusteft]

Must be Intel's fault.

 

[T Coma]

This article was written to prove a dire narrative. Here’s where the current line-up stands. The target demographic for the Mac mini is still well served with most buyers rarely hitting the limits. For those that do need something more, they released the all-new Mac Studio, that was fairly supply constrained for most of the year. The iMac is in the same boat as the Mac mini.

No it is not. If the Studio is a step-up for the Mini (which I agree it is), then the iMac is certainly not in the same boat. There is no real next level iMac beyond the entry-level 24" offering.

Macbook buyers aren't a single, monolithic entity. There are some who buy a new one every year. Others are on a different cycle, so the lack of a new model this year creates a bit of a problem for them... buy a year-old model, or wait until next year to buy the new model.


Do you have any data to back up that claim?

I've often wondered the same, like what data or polling so many of the MR folk have access to, as I have not been able to find it (link needed). I've seen so very many references to the tech needs of "most users," "most buyers," "99% of mac owners," and my personal favorite, "a ton of users" (so, like 10 or 15?) that many here use to bolster their arguments. I also cannot find the sales numbers that Apple apparently publishes for items across their product line, since it seems to be common knowledge around here in various discussions, just how popular or unpopular Apple devices are, in relative or absolute numbers.

Of course, there are many conclusions based on "everyone I know," "my whole family," or a few years' experience in, say, this one company's IT department, or maybe with some time in purchasing. Personally, I too have worked in positions tangential to the Mac world, in very high volume tech manufacturing and supply chain in Japan and China for longer than I care to remember, and I still can't imagine being presumptuous enough to think that my exceptionally narrow perspective of that world gives me any authority to pontificate on what ANY other mac user needs/ wants/ does, much less what EVERY other mac user needs/ wants/ does.

But who knows, maybe Apple management is here, anonymously participating in these discussions with their direct knowledge of the data, in which case I retract the above.

Because lame, unfunny comments like this are certainly innovative…oh wait.

Oh, the irony.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

Didn’t even need to release a new system this quarter considering how much new stuff came out this year. Too many releases too soon is bad business. They have to stagger releases.

 

[MacAddict1978]

I can accept and even want a slower hardware refresh cycle especially if it gives apple more time to write better software with fewer bugs.

What does the hardware product cycle have to do with software bugs??? Why would you want hardware engineers who don't write code working on software?
These are two very different teams.

Sure, there is some driver and software writing necessary to make the OS work with new hardware, but even that is probably a totally niche carved out group siloed to keep new hardware secrets from leaking (because Apple is so great at leak control...)

 

[rpmurray]

Personally I fear there will be no expansion slots in the Mac Pro. I think they are just going to talk about how powerful it is and ignore the expandability issue entirely.

I agree that it will probably be as expandable and "modular" as the Mac Studio, only bigger.

 

[MacAddict1978]

I wouldn't count the AS 13" MacBook Pro as part of the professional lineup now that the 14" and 16" are out. It honestly just needs to be killed off since it only occupies a weird middle ground. Especially since it lacks the fast charging and larger screen from the MacBook Air, and the professional chips from the 14"/16".

In regards to updating yearly during the Intel era I think it's fair to include the 13" Pro in the conversation since besides lacking a discrete graphics chip it had decent feature parity with the 15" model.

The 13" really doesn't make sense. Apple has a lineup problem. They do need something between the Air and the $1999 price point but it needs to distinguish itself more, and should probably have a 14" screen as well and some more ports. I think the real problem is the 14" is WAAAAAY overpriced. They need to kill the 13", and over a few versions in the 14" that have a pricing spread (and all with ports).

 

[Abazigal]

The 13" really doesn't make sense. Apple has a lineup problem. They do need something between the Air and the $1999 price point but it needs to distinguish itself more, and should probably have a 14" screen as well and some more ports. I think the real problem is the 14" is WAAAAAY overpriced. They need to kill the 13", and over a few versions in the 14" that have a pricing spread (and all with ports).

I think the 13” MBP made sense earlier this year in the context that it’s an M2 Macbook that was ready to go right out of the gate (since it’s essentially the same product with a chip swap), while the new MBA faced supply constraints.

I do agree that the touchbar should go (it’s both unpopular and serves to further jack up the price) and the 14” MBP could use at least a $100 price drop. Here’s the pricing in my country and there’s quite a spread between the two.

 

[_Spinn_]

The supply chain issues probably played into this.

 

[lovehateapple]

Why would you want hardware engineers who don't write code working on software?

I never said I wanted hardware engineers to work on software. My original post said I can accept longer hardware refresh cycles if it gives the code writers more time to perfect the software. Even a single word can change the meaning of an entire sentence and every word counts.

 

[phenste]

(re: all the b*tching here; thank you to the people who have a shred of common sense) the government is doing an incredible job at making people think the pandemic—and the supply chain shortages that come with it—are over, I really must applaud them

”you’re back outside, but they still lied…”

edit: also, for the love of God, stop talking about what Apple would look like if Steve were still around. he’s dead. move on.

 

[Scoob Redux]

The high end mac mini is already here. It is called ”Studio”.

Except the Studio and the Mini have very little in common. The Studio sits right below the Mac Pro in the lineup. Perhaps the footprint confused you - otherwise, it's certainly not anything like a Mini.

 

[Hrududu]

Fret not, the software team will release an “all new version of MacOS” this fall that will EOL plenty of good working computers.

 

[Abazigal]

Except the Studio and the Mini have very little in common. The Studio sits right below the Mac Pro in the lineup. Perhaps the footprint confused you - otherwise, it's certainly not anything like a Mini.

I am not sure there's a market for a product that stands in between the Mac mini and Mac Studio. What would you like from a high-end Mac mini, that would dissuade you from simply purchasing the entry level Mac Studio and calling it a day?

 

[bollman]

Except the Studio and the Mini have very little in common. The Studio sits right below the Mac Pro in the lineup. Perhaps the footprint confused you - otherwise, it's certainly not anything like a Mini.

So, uh, how would you fit a "high end mac mini" in the lineup? Below the Mac Pro and above the standard mac mini sounds just about right.
There will never be a higher end Mac with the mini form factor. Why would they make a direct competitor to the Studio?