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 Reportedly 'Just Started Formal Development' of M4 MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure what you are hoping for, but I think the current design is damn near perfect. 🤷♂️
Sorry but how does he know this stuff. Does Apple release info exclusively to him?
Bloomberg's Mark Gurman today held a Q&A session focused on the Apple Car, in which he revealed that the vehicle's chip would have been equivalent to four M2 Ultra chips combined. He also said the vehicle had an underlying "safetyOS" system that was one part of the overall operating system, but he did not elaborate.
Folks gonna get upgrade fatigue at some point, it's way too fast to be releasing new M Pro and Max chips once a year.
I keep seeing this "18 months cycle" of M chips on MacRumours when Macbook Pro's are clearly on 1 yr cycle.
Macbook Pro 14"/16" M1 Pro/Max - October 2021
Macbook Pro 14"/16" M2 Pro/Max - January 2023, org planned - October/November 2022
Macbook Pro 14"/16" M3 Pro/Max - November 2023
Macbook Pro 14"/16" M1 Pro/Max - October 2021
Macbook Pro 14"/16" M2 Pro/Max - January 2023, org planned - October/November 2022
Macbook Pro 14"/16" M3 Pro/Max - November 2023
I agree. Same spec and with same experience and 86% with 575 cycles, there would have to be something extra, extra special to win me over.
Apart from that tiresome nag for something new, the only downside has been the weight when traveling - solved that via purchase of a pre-loved MBA M1 16GB in excellent condition at a bargain price.
This isn't new as basically every tech company does this and has been doing this for a long while. Apple was even doing this before 2020 with most of their products (not all).
Macbooks had yearly updates forever. Not sure why suddenly it will get fatiguing. No one is forcing anyone to update every year just for some improvements when it comes to chip. I much prefer to have the option to choose something that is absolutely on the bleeding edge, especially when technological development is so fast.
Lose the absurd notch. Bring back Space Gray. Put whoever was responsible behind bars. Thanks.
Download TopNotch and boom! Notch disappears. Are we still debating that extra screen estate with a necessary divider in 2024?
(I appreciate that great nickname 😂)
Notches in large screens will forever be silly and unnecessary. Add 2mm to the top bezel if required. Use the extra space for battery in the lower part of the frame.
Edit: It wouldn't have been as bad if they'd actually given us FaceID along with the notch...
Not sure I understand. The menu bar screen is an extra screen estate to the 4:3 screen. Notch is not in the 4:3 zone, it's in the additional screen bar, you get an extra screen. There are some Windows laptops where the camera is on top of the screen or is smaller in the bezel. It's always with a compromise in quality or overall design.
2mm extra bezel would have looked a lot less ugly... They compromised the design and the quality for many of us.
They probably can go to a yearly release (they do it with the iPhone, and they're related designs) - but they can't do BOTH yearly releases AND "every release is a big deal".
They may end up doing something like "chips release yearly, but desktops only get updated every other chip". The danger there is something being off-cycle. For example, a cycle where the base chip is the main beneficiary, but the iMac is already recent and the Mac Studio needs an update.
Or, as just happened, a Max-centric cycle, but the Studio and Pro were just released (they REALLY should have held those machines 4.5 months, skipping the M2 generation). There may be an embarrassingly long gap when the M2 Ultra models are "current", but no faster than the M3 Max MBP on many tasks. Even if they get those machines out at WWDC, about as early as they could, they will have existed as "ghosts" (current models, but clearly superseded) for twice as long as they were really current. The M2 wasn't even a big update over M1 for the big chips - the Studio and Pro could have easily waited for the right chip.
They'd need to get very good at coordinating their chip design efforts to avoid this (and they aren't right now). If they really had control of cadences, they could do something like this:
Year One: Chip that is based on making the individual cores faster and on efficiency, with no major changes in core counts (maybe some extra e-cores somewhere). Lead with the MacBook Air and either the iMac or the Mini right after the iPhone. MacBook Pro and the other small desktop in January by press release. No update to Studio or Mac Pro.
Year Two: Chip that is focused on the "big" versions, adds P-cores or significant numbers of GPU cores to the Max (etc). Lead with the MacBook Pro right after the iPhone. Big desktops either join the MBP or aim for January. Air squeezed into an iPad launch. No update to iMac or Mini.
That leaves them with laptops every year (although on an odd cadence with some short-lived models), desktops every two, and everything getting the most relevant chips.
They may end up doing something like "chips release yearly, but desktops only get updated every other chip". The danger there is something being off-cycle. For example, a cycle where the base chip is the main beneficiary, but the iMac is already recent and the Mac Studio needs an update.
Or, as just happened, a Max-centric cycle, but the Studio and Pro were just released (they REALLY should have held those machines 4.5 months, skipping the M2 generation). There may be an embarrassingly long gap when the M2 Ultra models are "current", but no faster than the M3 Max MBP on many tasks. Even if they get those machines out at WWDC, about as early as they could, they will have existed as "ghosts" (current models, but clearly superseded) for twice as long as they were really current. The M2 wasn't even a big update over M1 for the big chips - the Studio and Pro could have easily waited for the right chip.
They'd need to get very good at coordinating their chip design efforts to avoid this (and they aren't right now). If they really had control of cadences, they could do something like this:
Year One: Chip that is based on making the individual cores faster and on efficiency, with no major changes in core counts (maybe some extra e-cores somewhere). Lead with the MacBook Air and either the iMac or the Mini right after the iPhone. MacBook Pro and the other small desktop in January by press release. No update to Studio or Mac Pro.
Year Two: Chip that is focused on the "big" versions, adds P-cores or significant numbers of GPU cores to the Max (etc). Lead with the MacBook Pro right after the iPhone. Big desktops either join the MBP or aim for January. Air squeezed into an iPad launch. No update to iMac or Mini.
That leaves them with laptops every year (although on an odd cadence with some short-lived models), desktops every two, and everything getting the most relevant chips.
An extra bezel on top would mean you have to have a higher case. A higher top case means a higher bottom case and higher mass. It's all a compromise, you add/subtract in one place means you have to add/subtract in the other too. I will take the current design instead of other compromises any day of the week. Also like I said earlier - just download TopNotch and that notch completely disappears from your eyes.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I'd risk the extra 2mm of mass with 2mm more space for battery.
My thoughts exactly. I think the current design is pretty much perfect in every way. Sans notch would be nice but it's not really even an issue.