Agreed. Good lord Apple needs to give more focus to the Mac. M1 was amazing. But this year has been so disappointing.
It’s the whole AR/VR attention that’s making macs lose focus. Apple is doing too much.
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 Silicon Mac Pro Reportedly Not Coming at WWDC, Mac Studio Refresh Likely Delayed Until M3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s the whole AR/VR attention that’s making macs lose focus. Apple is doing too much.
I suspect that M1 Ultra Mac Pro didn't ship because Apple figured the M2 Quadra would be ready... and it wasn't.To me, the two most-likely reasons for this are:
While I find both reasons odd, #2 seems more odd to me than #1. But then again, we're all just guessing here.
- the M2 Ultra is not ready, or
- Apple still has not been able to create a compelling reason to market this model of Mac Pro
Maybe the M2 Ultra package is fine, but there are challenges with the PCIe bridge. Getting higher generation if PCIe working over the motherboard, and Apple just being really gun-shy about releasing the Mac Pro with an M* Ultra and not having the M* Quadra to really "sell it".
The struggle is only down to update for Studio Mac and getting the Mac Pro out there. Both could be shown at WWDC.
Is it just me or are the updated processors a complete mess? Wouldn't one think processors would trickle down from high end device to low end device, or is that just rational thought?
Regarding the MBA I have no reason at all to upgrade my M1, 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM. It is so good already. I could easily go another couple of years with it. The only thing that would make me upgrade is a significant improvement in battery life.
Slips like this accumulate and may result in macOS ultimately supporting Intel architecture for an extra year on top of what it otherwise would have.
You forgot about 10 topics about AR/VR in between each of those!
Maybe, but the iPhone is easily the most important product Apple has, so it gets all the love, and the new stuff first. So low power to high power it is...
Only if you love running 32 bit App compatible Windows 11 with its Direct X 12 support. Macs are ARM based, and MS Windows 11 for ARM is 64 bit can only do Direct X 11.
Last edited:
We should see more attention to the pros vs the cheapest models. Without pros, macOS will lack software which will make it a dead platform to begin with so it causes the MacBook Air purchasers to not want macs too.
Who the heck cares really if the Air gets updated every year. Where is your focus to the pro market?
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
This is so true!!!! Facts 👇
9to5mac.com
It's been over 400 days since Apple SVP John Ternus said 'Mac Pro' is 'for another day' - 9to5Mac
Turns out John Ternus wasn’t kidding when he said “that leaves just one more product to go: Mac Pro, but...
9to5mac.com
Right? Especially since Apple has competition in the high end vs the energy efficient laptop segment/phones.
Apple needs to compete with AMD and Intel on their flagship processors, yet is waiting for fall to launch their first processor based off the A17 cores and its for a phone, which they are crushing all metrics in already..
How so? My M1 Max and M1 Ultra Studio computers are fabulous. Very reliable and very fast. I don't give a darn if the new Intels are 50 times faster. What difference would it make to me or 90% of users? And just how would you propose Apple make a transition back to x86?
No, it'd make perfect sense. It would outperform their current Mac Pros and wouldnt cost 50 THOUSAND dollars. Effing insanity.. beyond insanity. Tim Cook's gone completely mental thinking an outdated desktop should cost that much.Releasing a 13900K Mac Pro would be pointless...
However, the Xeon W-3400 chips that Intel just released this year WOULD be a perfectly valid upgrade for the existing Mac Pro line.
Of course, the chance that Apple does that is somewhere around 2%
To the contrary… the products ‘that matter’ are the ones which sell in higher volumes. Those are the ones they are puting out.
Windows and Linux and BSD capability future proofing the expensive hardware.
It's not so much rational thought as it is how we have been conditioned to think due to the CPU and GPU product strategies of Intel and nVidia/AMD where they develop the most-powerful processor first and then "de-rate" it by removing cores or slowing them down for the "value" models.
Apple Silicon is designed around the iPhone SoC because that is what is most important to Apple. Once that SoC is done, they take the CPU and GPU core architecture and "up-rate" it with more cores at higher clock-speeds for the Mac SoCs (and add in the additional functions that a Mac needs and an iPhone does not).
I don't think that will happen, it just seems so wrong to maintain macOS x86_64 for one single computer, and that being the one with the lowest sales numbers.
Apple has no way to compete to the top end market. Look I love my macs. I have 4 M1* and in some ways (ahem video editing) it’s better than my 13th gen i9 and 4090 desktop. But in many many MANY other areas, that Intel system is better by a factor of multiples.
How about if I need some work done my only choice is Windows. Apple needs to focus more on the Mac Pro level of devices. Because right now, it’s jus Windows. AMD graphics cards still give me issues so it’s only Intel and Nvidia for my windows systems.
Note we are talking about desktops Mac Pro like systems.