Apple Likely Planning to Skip M3 Mac Mini for M4 Refresh in Late 2024

[tipoo]

Jony Srouji gave a very rare forward looking hint a few months back in an interview, mentioning that with node shrinks slowing down, advanced packaging was the future of advancement. Supply chain research out of Taiwan also said there were higher orders for advanced packaging expected to come from Apple. And then add the last clue where M3 Max didn't have the Ultrafusion bridge to make an Ultra out of 2 of them.

I wonder if the M4 line will introduce tiles, allowing different parts to be made on different nodes. Particularly IO and caches haven't been shrinking well and there's benefits to this approach, and also different nodes are better suited to either CPUs or GPUs or low power IO etc.

Please at least 12GB for base M4 too though.

 

[Motorola68000]

skip m3 mini? i don't know... they're still selling 8 gigs of ram with 256 gigs of storage for around $1k. it would be more likely that they'd release last year's hardware and charge full price for it rather than make the same money on something newer.

I wonder that too, but they are in a difficult place now that a hardware security flaw has been confirmed in the M1-M3 range, but no doubt if the price was right many would still purchase.

If they skip the M3 on other configurations they may end up with a surplus of M3 chips, as I believe they bought a considerable amount from TSMC, and I understood from Gurman that they had been testing the Mac M3 mini some time ago?

 

[bodhisattva]

Just patiently waiting for the Studio M4 Ultra to drop... one day. Then I'll be posting that I'm patiently waiting for the M6 Max MBP in a couple years. The cycle never ends.

 

[citysnaps]

Suggesting 'the majority of Apple customers 8Gb will be just fine' does not make it true and with the best will in the world, I don't believe Apple can be considered independent arbiters of that, as there's a massive beneficial interest involved.

Many of the software packages now for Apple silicon already exceed 8Gb recommended RAM, and if Apple are serious about Gaming then 8Gb will prove to be a major bottleneck, and even Apple's assertion about video editing and basic tasks, it is likely to involve swapping.

If they too now downplay it from the original 8Gb equivalence, to suggesting on basic tasks, it demonstrates they are walking back that ridiculous original comment, and where I note Apple never provided ANY factual evidence or tests on 8Gb performance degradation with increased swapping.

Independent tests show a large drop in performance for 8Gb over 16Gb on many occasions, let alone the swapping overhead on the SSD.

Likewise, if its just basic tasks, then to sell 8Gb on a device you've named the MacBook Pro seems mis selling.

16Gb base would benefit all users, because whilst some suggest that basic tasks can be adequately performed with 8Gb, that doesn't account for future proofing at all, and Macs usually have a good longevity, but that's of no use if the base RAM then doesn't allow that longevity to be usable.

We have updated OS's, increased RAM requirements from an increasing number of software, some already suggesting base 16Gb.

The argument that base users who can survive 8Gb, is flawed, because in all likelihood a good number of these people may not be sufficiently skilled in Mac OS, leaving multiple tabs, multiple applications as my daughter does and inevitably even on the base 8Gb it relies on swapping.

Apple instead of seemingly being so grossly greedy, could steal a march on their opponents, and make more sales. By cutting out the 8Gb range it not only saves from removing that configuration it will increase the 16Gb run significantly, reducing costs of a much bigger run, and ensure usable longevity, and if Apple are to be believed over being serious in gaming, that 16Gb could mean the difference between a usable computer or an obsolete one that doesn't do the job.

Yes, Apple could increase the price of increasing the base from 8Gb to 16Gb, but it could be an insignificant amount, because of the production savings. Quite possible to do that with just a $20 increase, but raising the base from 8Gb to 16Gb which would benefit all users, including those who believe they are CURRENTLY ok with 8Gb.

Steve Jobs wanted products that were eminently usable and brought back Apple from the brink, currently I believe Apple are pitching themselves AGAINST their customers which is diametrically opposite to what Steve's intentions were. Having a reputation that Apple had, of producing the best computers you could buy, with the best operating system, its sad to see that reputation tarnished by abject greed.

For many with modest computing needs, 8 GB will work just fine. As many here have attested in previous posts.

As I said previously, people debating 8 GB of RAM have choices. Simply make one.

 

[citysnaps]

I know I have a choice. Do you think that's a good strategy for Apple? Admitting that most users don't need a new computer and there's nothing new they can provide?
I mean, that kind of user is perfectly fine with an M1 if Apple doesn't mess with software.
Fine, I have a choice, Apple has one too. And I hope it's not to stop upgrading.

Please write a thoughtful letter to TC and let him know that Apple is blowing it as a successful tech company with their RAM decisions. You might help save Apple!

 

[truthsteve]

Other companies have managed to expand the base spec without it being a huge cost issue to consumers. I'm old enough to remember 640kb as the base memory on a PC. Its moved on since then and so can Apple.

No. It's unified memory. Not your standard ram.

And I find it quite funny you think other companies just eat the cost of adding more ram instead of offsetting it elsewhere in the product.

 

[cicalinarrot]

Please write a thoughtful letter to TC and let him know that Apple is blowing it as a successful tech company with their RAM decisions. You might help save Apple!

There’s No Quick Solution To Apple’s Disappointing MacBook Sales

Apple is facing up to MacBook shipments falling short of predictions. And there’s no obvious answer to turn this around until 2024.

www.forbes.com

I'm just expressing an opinion based on what I see, that's what this forum is dedicated to.
And, yes, I accept that random annoying smart-asses may come and make sarcastic remarks about how my irrelevant my opinion is, instead of just explaining why they disagree. It's happened dozens of times and their comments looked exactly like yours.

 

[Neil J. Squillante]

Apple’s use of the M# system for its chips results in some Osborning because it cannot or does not want to update all Macs at the same time as it does with the iPhone.

 

[citysnaps]

There’s No Quick Solution To Apple’s Disappointing MacBook Sales

Apple is facing up to MacBook shipments falling short of predictions. And there’s no obvious answer to turn this around until 2024.

www.forbes.com

I'm just expressing an opinion based on what I see, that's what this forum is dedicated to.
And, yes, I accept that random annoying smart-asses may come and make sarcastic remarks about how my irrelevant my opinion is, instead of just explaining why they disagree. It's happened dozens of times and their comments looked exactly like yours.

I've explained many dozens of times. I'm was being serious about writing TC a thoughtful letter. You'll likely get a thoughtful reply.

 

[Motorola68000]

For many with modest computing needs, 8 GB will work just fine. As many here have attested in previous posts.

As I said previously, people debating 8 GB of RAM have choices. Simply make one.

As explained in other posts I have. However, when you define 'many' here have attested, I doubt many of those have even checked to see what the overhead is, or whether there's a significant drop in performance as the system swaps, or the long term implications of increased swapping, and how many with 16Gb regret not getting 8gb.

And as for working just fine that needs to be with the caveat AT PRESENT, because sure as eggs is eggs more and more software will have increased RAM requirements, and whilst they may believe its fine now, unlike previous versions of Mac devices their longevity may be compromised, because they can't add RAM after the event and obsolescence becomes a real possibility much quicker.

When Apple now ride back on the original claims 8Gb equivalence to 16Gb on PC, now suggesting only that 8Gb is suitable for basic tasks, then I can't see how anyone can support 8Gb on a device they named as MacBook Pro with Pro being the shortened PROFESSIONAL?

 

[Del Varner]

If we "think different," there's probably another choice than only increasing the price at the price Apple charges for that upgrade now. For example, what if Apple just ate the probably $8-$15 added cost to make 16GB base and spun it as "we heard you" value add in the rollout pitch? How well would that go over with pretty much EVERYONE? Then this entire whine goes away (this is called spending a little money to grow customer goodwill). Perhaps overall Apple margin slides from north of 47% to perhaps 46.X% if they can't find $8-$15 per unit somewhere else... but traditional Apple margin was already relatively sky high back when the target was 38%-40%. And there's plenty of marketing punch in 'leading' the industry to 16GB base.

Apple's cost is not $200... not even close. That's just the price they demand from buyers. To get a sense of Apple's approx. cost, shop 16GB RAM on Amazon and then estimate some profit to Amazon and some profit to the manufacturer to shave off of retail pricing... AND consider this is quantity ONE unit pricing instead of buying in Apple volume. I'll save anyone interested the trouble (and this is not even the cheapest option)...

View attachment 2370490

Isn't that a little disengenuous? Mx chips have their memory on the chip and not on some plugin

 

[cicalinarrot]

I've explained many dozens of times. I'm was being serious about writing TC a thoughtful letter. You'll likely get a thoughtful reply.

Oh. Well, I sincerely apologize then...

 

[theluggage]

Price anchoring on DIMM prices is more delusional than rational here.

Your numbers are disconnected from reality.

We can't know the actual cost price without insider information, so we have to rely on plausible estimates based on available information - and plausible estimates do put the cost of an 8GB upgrade at, ball-park, $20. Could be $10, could be $30 - that's what 'ball park' means.

If you actually have evidence - beyond marketing puff - that Apple are really using custom RAM chips that actually cost them enough to justify the $200-for-8GB upgrade price then that would be end-of-argument, of course, but that is the extraordinary claim that needs the extraordinary evidence. That price was already eye-wateringly high back when they were using bog-standard Micron DDR sticks in Intel iMacs and Minis that we could price check. Apple didn't develop Apple Silicon for kicks and giggles - it's highly implausible that they'd accept lower margins on upgrades for Apple Silicon machines than they could get with Intel (where they have no competition from 3rd party upgrades). The realistic assumption is that Apple Silicon machines have a lower marginal cost to Apple than Intel Macs did.

Sure - @HobeSoundDarryl low-balled it by comparing DDR5 with LPDDR5 - but they also took the price for 16GB of RAM when what Apple are charging for is the difference between 2x4GB and 2x8GB chips - so they also over estimated by a factor of 2.

As for LPDDR5 - Looking at this site, 64Gb (i.e. 8GB) LPDDR5 chips go for around $54 each in quantities of 1000-2000 vs. around $35 for 32Gb (4GB) - So the difference between 2x4GB and 2x8GB should be about $40 - ball park.

And that's if John Doe walks into a component reseller and buys a one-off reel of 2000. If Tim Cook - one of (if not the largest buyers) of LPDDR RAM calls the original manufacturer, with whom he already has squillions of bucks worth of business, directly and orders a few million units, I'm pretty sure he could knock at least 50% off that - the $40 already includes a reseller markup.

Do I know that those are the same chips that Apple uses? No, in fact they are almost certainly not - but they are certainly LPDDR5 chips with comparable density to the ones Apple uses - and RAM prices tend to be 'commodity based' just like oil or gold, based on the market rate-per-GB rather than actual production cost. Custom packages? Maybe - but that's not an issue in the quantities that Apple is likely to order - they've already decided that using totally custom processor *dies* is a better deal than buying in standard Intel CPUs.

We can't know the actual cost price without insider information, so we have to rely on plausible estimates - and plausible estimates do put the cost of an 8GB upgrade at, ball-park, $20. Could be $10, could be $30 - that's what 'ball park' means.

 

[citysnaps]

As explained in other posts I have. However, when you define 'many' here have attested, I doubt many of those have even checked to see what the overhead is, or whether there's a significant drop in performance as the system swaps, or the long term implications of increased swapping, and how many with 16Gb regret not getting 8gb.

And as for working just fine that needs to be with the caveat AT PRESENT, because sure as eggs is eggs more and more software will have increased RAM requirements, and whilst they may believe its fine now, unlike previous versions of Mac devices their longevity may be compromised, because they can't add RAM after the event and obsolescence becomes a real possibility much quicker.

When Apple now ride back on the original claims 8Gb equivalence to 16Gb on PC, now suggesting only that 8Gb is suitable for basic tasks, then I can't see how anyone can support 8Gb on a device they named as MacBook Pro with Pro being the shortened PROFESSIONAL?

With respect to the above, you are not the only tech-oriented person on this forum that would check for that. The general world population, yes. Here, no. Many here have actually commented on that in the past and found no degradation.

"When Apple now ride back on the original claims 8Gb equivalence to 16Gb on PC, now suggesting only that 8Gb is suitable for basic tasks, then I can't see how anyone can support 8Gb on a device they named as MacBook Pro with Pro being the shortened PROFESSIONAL?"

You may not be aware that "Pro" is simply a marketing term used to tier laptop features and price. It has nothing at all to do with a laptop being more or less suitable for people in a very wide spectrum of professions.

 

[nylonsteel]

i agree with the m4 chip route - i could use the time to save up for one
bring back space grey though - or another color

 

[dandeco]

So, would this be announced in October or November 2024, when Apple has their Mac and iPad-related fall event? I still need to recoup after postponing my plans for buying an M2 Pro Mac Mini when buying a car after I had to get rid of my old one, and so the new Mini won't be until either the end of this year or maybe some time in winter 2025.

 

[Motorola68000]

With respect to the above, you are not the only tech-oriented person on this forum that would check for that. The general world population, yes. Here, no. Many here have actually commented on that in the past and found no degradation.

"When Apple now ride back on the original claims 8Gb equivalence to 16Gb on PC, now suggesting only that 8Gb is suitable for basic tasks, then I can't see how anyone can support 8Gb on a device they named as MacBook Pro with Pro being the shortened PROFESSIONAL?"

You may not be aware that "Pro" is simply a marketing term used to tier laptop features and price. It has nothing at all to do with a laptop being more or less suitable for people in a very wide spectrum of professions.

Citysnaps. I disagree with you, but you are polite and respectful in your reply, which is to be commended.

Now comes the however. However I haven't seen tech-oriented professionals on this forum finding no degradation, as its down to physics, and its physically not possible there is no degradation with any swapping? It might be negligible on some basic use, but then would a tech-oriented person be commenting on their 'basic use' system. I doubt it.

As far was naming the MacBook Pro with the pro just as marketing feature, yes, but there is such a thing as 'legitimate expectation', and if 8Gb is only suitable for basic tasks, then it does not realise that legitimate expectation in the name, along with the advertising about the MacBook Pro? 'Mind blowing, head turning" Three giant leaps "Brings more pro performance and capability" "a huge performance boost". Yet throughout all of this there is no caveat using Apple's latest comments about 8Gb being suitable for basic tasks?

So in my opinion that does represent a legitimate expectation of the word pro.

If that were not the case then Apple could name all their chips with different names, such as M3 Pro, M3 Max, M4Extreme, but use the same chip, as if its only a marketing name it doesn't by your reckoning confer any expectation of a greater performance?

I draw your attention to the recent Italy anti trust case which cost Apple 10,000,000 euros for 'aggressive and misleading' advertising but on iPhones where the company advertised several iPhone models were water resistant without clarifying they were only so under certain circumstances, where customers bought with a legitimate expectation of water resistance. Not a lot different to buying an 8Gb computer designated PRO, then finding it has significant performance drop when advertising made no caveat about 8Gb for basic tasks?

I've been proud to have been associated with Steve Jobs & Chuck Geschke who both ironically helped in their own way make the internet we know possible. Steve via NeXT, Chuck for his passion in creating PostScript, where Steve recognised the importance of it for true WYSIWYG, and even what you see is what you can print! Steve incorporated display postscript into his system and Tim Berners-Lee utilised NeXT and is attributed as building the internet we know today and where the NeXT OS is still the basis for Apple's OS's. He helped build a reputation for Apple and I don't want to see that reputation go down the drain through greed. There are chipsets that challenge Apple, and that's great for customers, but Apple need to nurture their customer base, not charge silly prices for upgrading 8Gb that is suitable for basic tasks, to 16GB which would provide a safer base system both in terms of usability and in terms of increasing usable life of the equipment.

Apologies for the sermon, but I've been an Apple user from the outset. Started off as systems director utilising WINTEL only, but once on Apple (Still have a working Lisa) the usability and productivity even for new users to Apple, meant I never looked back. Perhaps I'm too old and getting too sentimental about Apple for bulletin boards.

 

[Jack Burton]

Disappointed that the mac studio is getting less updates. Feels like the intel mac pro days again.

 

[WC7]

iMac M1, M3, … , M5 odd chips
Mac mini except for M1 … M2, M4 evens

unless iMacs are ‘prime’ chips

 

[Realityck]

Disappointed that the mac studio is getting less updates. Feels like the intel mac pro days again.

Even worse is the comparison of a Studio Mac as a replacement of the 27" iMac/iMac Pro. There really is no basis for why the M3/M3 Pro can't be in Mac minis this year and the Studio Mac can't have the M3 Max and M3 Ultra SoC's with the M3 GPU improvements of Ray Tracing/ Mesh Shading along with hardware decoding of AV1. The Mac Pro should be updated also if the Mac Studio does.

M4 is being idolized in wishful ways around hyped AI abilities just as the M3 was thought to be way faster and energy conservative then the M2.

 

[drrich2]

There really is no basis for why the M3/M3 Pro can't be in Mac minis this year and the Studio Mac can't have the M3 Max and M3 Ultra SoC's with the M3 GPU improvements of Ray Tracing/ Mesh Shading along with hardware decoding of AV1.

Interesting. Let's say for sake of argument Apple does that in May 2024, then over in Nov. 2024 (just to pick a late 2024 date) puts out an M4 Max Studio. How much ill will with Apple trigger by making the latest & greatest only lead for a very short time, before selling something substantially better for the same price within the same year?

The issue of resentment of largely unforeseen upgrade cycles that leaves people who spent a lot of money only to find waiting several months would've gotten them a lot more for the money has long been contentious on the forum. Some say 'buy it when you need it, there's always newer and better around the corner,' and some pour a lot of effort into timing their purchase to maximize value.

With the iPhone, we pretty much know the upgrade time frame, but with Macs it's erratic and there's more guesswork.

 

[jkmoses]

Welcome to computers?

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

Has to do with this article:

Please, just get to a point where all Mac’s get new silicon. I know there may be greater sales strategy and that might not ever happen, but uniformity would be nice.

Has nothing to do with this article:

Please bump base RAM to 12GB with M4. Please……

 

[Realityck]

Interesting. Let's say for sake of argument Apple does that in May 2024, then over in Nov. 2024 (just to pick a late 2024 date) puts out an M4 Max Studio. How much ill will with Apple trigger by making the latest & greatest only lead for a very short time, before selling something substantially better for the same price within the same year?

The issue of resentment of largely unforeseen upgrade cycles that leaves people who spent a lot of money only to find waiting several months would've gotten them a lot more for the money has long been contentious on the forum. Some say 'buy it when you need it, there's always newer and better around the corner,' and some pour a lot of effort into timing their purchase to maximize value.

With the iPhone, we pretty much know the upgrade time frame, but with Macs it's erratic and there's more guesswork.

The difficulty lies with Apple announcing improved SoC based Macs at different times each year rather then some plan. The closeness of the M2 MBA and M3 MBA might not be repeated. 1 year is about as close as they go without upsetting consumers. The tardiness with the Mac Studios is a big problem, considering that one model could be released with the M3 Max while the M3 Ultra model is delayed due to that high end SoC availability. The M4 we know nothing really about it, so its introduction is pure speculation.

 

[bearcatrp]

Well, the mini got shafted with skipping the M3. Fine. No problem. But the mini should be 1st of the desktops to get the M4. Let’s hope for at least 64 GB maximum ram.