Five Years Ago Today, Apple's Uncharacteristic Apology Set the Stage for the Mac's Renaissance

[opeter]

Apple's roundtable discussion with reporters will forever be a turning point in the Mac's history.

How much did Apple pay you for writing that sentence? ?

 

[Spock]

I was still using a 2014 MacBook Pro until about 6 months ago. I had wanted to update it for a while but I didn't think that Apple had a machine that was reliable enough or in my price range to replace it. That changed with the release of the M1 MacBook Air and that was the second time that I noticed a major performance boost with basic tasks. The first time is when I went from a indigo iBook G3 to a PowerBook G4. While I do disagree with some of the choices that Apple has made over last couple of years. Ironically, getting rid of Intel was the best thing they have done since they went to Intel over PowerPC.

 

[digidude]

I just got my Mac Studio Ultra, and it is just the most amazing computer I've ever owned, hands down. I was about to build an $8,000 desktop computer that wouldn't have been as powerful. I have yet to see a single beach ball even with multiple 8k streams, every Adobe program open with large raster files in memory... this thing is a beast. We forgive you, Apple. If this is what the future looks like, we can't wait to see what you do next!

 

[Schizoid]

They started to make computers their customers wanted, rather than what Jonny wanted.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Well I am glad this reckoning occurred. The Mac Pro represents a good amount of Apple’s standing with technology prowess to its customer base.

The majority of folks buying things from Apple are buying non-Mac things. Those who ARE buying Mac things are, by a large margin, buying laptop Mac things.

Neither of these quite substantial groups care much about a non-mobile, expensive system well beyond their performance needs or budget.

 

[digidude]

I was still using a 2014 MacBook Pro until about 6 months ago. I had wanted to update it for a while but I didn't think that Apple had a machine that was reliable enough or in my price range to replace it.

This is what PC people don't get. I just had a conversation recently with a friend of a friend who said that "$1,000 is ridiculous for a laptop, and MacBook Pro people are just nuts." Well... so she spends $600 to $800 on PC laptops from Costco. I asked her how often she replaces her computers - once a year! So my last Mac lasted me 7 years, so for her that's $4,900. Viruses, failed hard drives, driver problems - my Macs are tanks. You get what you pay for. When I last worked for a company, I switched them to iMacs and our support expenses (and hardware TCOS) went down 2/3rds!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It was pretty shocking to me that Apple had allowed their Pro lineup to languish into a state of outright dilapidation.

Not shocking at all, really. Mac Pro’s have always made up a single digit percentage of sales (closer to 1% than 9%). Understanding that, it makes sense that, just like with the Apple Silicon refresh, they start with and focus on those mobile systems that make up 80% of their sales.

 

[Ubele]

I've used both Macs and Windows PCs since the beginning -- mostly Macs at home and PCs at work. I much prefer Macs, but there was a time about four years ago when I was considering switching to PCs for home use because Macs seemed overly expensive to me for what they offered, and I wasn't yet convinced that Apple planned to support the Mac platform over the long term. I'm glad I didn't make the jump. In 2019, they dropped the prices on their iMacs, and I got a great deal on a refurbished 27" iMac, which I love. I expect it to last several more years, and then I'll get something with an M2 (or M3 or M4) processor.

 

[Boil]

This is what PC people don't get. I just had a conversation recently with a friend of a friend who said that "$1,000 is ridiculous for a laptop, and MacBook Pro people are just nuts." Well... so she spends $600 to $800 on PC laptops from Costco. I asked her how often she replaces her computers - once a year! So my last Mac lasted me 7 years, so for her that's $4,900. Viruses, failed hard drives, driver problems - my Macs are tanks. You get what you pay for. When I last worked for a company, I switched them to iMacs and our support expenses (and hardware TCOS) went down 2/3rds!

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.” ​

― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms: The Play

 

[BornAgainMac]

The lack of updates during those years was likely Apple already doing the work needed to migrate from Intel. Wasn't the first Mac mini developer prototype running from a A12? I am sure that wasn't the first prototype in-house.

 

[jameslmoser]

And the 2012 Mac Pro wasn't even a new system; it simply added a new CPU option to the existing 2010 model.

Which was basically the 2009 model...

 

[Realityck]

The lack of updates during those years was likely Apple already doing the work needed to migrate from Intel. Wasn't the first Mac mini developer prototype running from a A12? I am sure that wasn't the first prototype in-house.

Not at all, it was that Apple turned all its attention to making iPhones. How to you think their value grew so fast, as year after year the iPhone was the centerpiece to their technology prowess, instead of Mac computers. Of course now that smartphones are plateauing the Mac lineup is now headed for a renaissance with the AS transition.

 

[tcphoto1]

And yet, the MBP cannot be upgraded by consumers. Remember when you could buy cheaper RAM and SSD and upgrade them yourself? Remember those beautiful matte displays that helped Photographers, Editors, Graphic Designers and others edit their work without reflections? Yes, the new offerings look great but as a freelancer, I cannot afford to upgrade every couple of years.

 

[Mousse]

The true test of how much Apple listened will be the Mac Pro and what Apple considers "modular" vs. what the entire rest of the world considers modular.

If the MacStudio (which Apple called "modular") is an indication, "pros" are going to be MIGHTILY DISAPPOINTED! I have a MacStudio, and while I absolutely love it, it is NOT modular by any reasonable definition with regard to computers... it just has a few extra ports.

Preach on, brutha. Apple keeps using that word.

If Apple somehow figures out how to have Apple Silicon along with user replaceable RAM, video cards, expansion slots, and additional storage drives, pros are going to be SOILING THEIR PANTS WITH EXCITEMENT!

Aye. Gimme RAM slots so that I don't have to use my SSD as RAM. It ain't built for that sort of thrashing. The current RAM would be L3 or L4 and our add on memory will replace the SSD as temporary storage. Let the SSD do its main job: long term storage.

 

[AxiomaticRubric]

From what I recall from when the M1 was first launched, this was the point at which Apple also realized they could not rely on Intel. They had designed these great machines, but due to Intel not being able to get a process shrink, they couldn't be kept cool with these designs, and Intel was failing to materialize other gains that they had promised Apple. With the A-series being as powerful as it was, with as little heat and power requirements, it seemed to Apple to be poised to take over, and the process started.

The initial plans for moving to Apple Silicon started much sooner than this, when Steve Jobs was still alive. However the points regarding Intel failing to deliver on promises still stand.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

John Gruber is not a "reporter." He's not a "journalist." He's a mostly political writer now who occasionally dabbles in Apple things. Basically, a hack

 

[nylonsteel]

glad aapl upped the game on the hardware

 

[scoobs69]

I was waiting for the 2022 iMac 27" M1 - never materialized. My 2011 iMac and 2012 mac pro may be my last Macs. I've had 9 since 1984. Sad day.

Tim Cook has been riding on old designs and tweeking them for the last 11 years. Time for a change and a better approach.

The new Studio Display and Mac Studio is for such a narrow audience. Tim Cook really need to be replaced.

The Mac Studio is for about as wide an audience as Apple could create: starting with a $2,000 M1 Max option that fits perfectly within 90% of what photographers, graphic designers and video editors (read content creators) need. For those where the M1 Max is overkill, you have the Mac mini and the 24" iMac to fill the void. For those that need more oomph! with heavy duty video editing and 3D rendering software, you have the Ultra.

That is hardly a narrow audience.

If you can't figure out how a $2,000 Mac Studio + $800 Viewsonic 4K 27" (100% Adobe RGB) display can fill the void of the 27" iMac, I don't know what else to say, other than you're literally going out of your way to find a tiny fault with this line-up that doesn't really exist, and pretend it's a mountain of problems.

 

[jeffpeng]

Personally I think that the best decision Apple has made for the Mac is to understand that there doesn't have to be an either-or situation when it comes to the Mac Pro. It doesn't have to be either a rather affordable, compact system that has limited-but-yet impressive capabilities OR a big upgrade-able expensive power house with technically nigh unlimited capabilities - it can be both.

The Mac Studio really is, as other have noted above, the spiritual successor to the Cube and Can (I really liked the Can design-wise, so no Trash), which catered to an audience that just wanted a compact-yet-powerful computer. I'm that audience as I don't need a giant boulder of compute I can put extension cards into. And since they seem to be committed to the Mac Pro, and, yes, I guess we'll see an update/grade path for the existing 2019 Mac Pro, there also is that for those that need an actual workstation-class computer and want it to be a Mac for whatever reason.

I just hope that they give the mini a little bit more love with the next iteration and actually offer the Mx Pro for it. That system would fit the bill for most customers in the market for a desktop computer. If they actually do that and get the Mac Pro "right", Apple probably has the most consistent and practical Mac lineup they ever had ranging from office work to full on rendering powerhouse.

 

[CosmoCopus]

It seems these guys were way out of touch….And you can’t upgrade anything on these newer Macs in the future unless you shell out $6000 for the entry level Mac Pro. My 2012 MacBook Pro is a way more versatile machine than what they offer now.

 

[scoobs69]

This is what PC people don't get. I just had a conversation recently with a friend of a friend who said that "$1,000 is ridiculous for a laptop, and MacBook Pro people are just nuts." Well... so she spends $600 to $800 on PC laptops from Costco. I asked her how often she replaces her computers - once a year! So my last Mac lasted me 7 years, so for her that's $4,900. Viruses, failed hard drives, driver problems - my Macs are tanks. You get what you pay for. When I last worked for a company, I switched them to iMacs and our support expenses (and hardware TCOS) went down 2/3rds!

You can upgrade your Apple computers more frequently than every 4-7 years. If you sell your machine after 2 or 3 years of use, you reduce the cost of the new computer. Pay $3,000 for a new Mac. Sell it for $1,500 in 2 years, and buy a new $3,000 machine for $1,500 out of pocket. Sell that for $1,500.... and you get the point...

 

[bergert]

As a test, I got a M1-Mini last year: the $699 Mini renders video twice as fast, as a $4K 6/12-core INTEL Xeon. After 4 hours of rendering, the Mini is cool. After 10 minutes, the INTEL slows down(thermal throttle) in order not to destroy the CPU.

I just replaced my 2013 MacPro with a macStudio. Was a good run of 8 years. Renders about 4 times as fast as the 6/12 core INTEL macPro. Compressor uses the GPU it's 10-20x times faster. Life is good, with M1Max (8 cores). The ARECA disk (USB-C), and 4K 32in display are still the same, no need to change. I'm not sure if even need the new M1-MacPro, the bottleneck now is how many hours I edit the video. 10min of rendering is no longer a bottleneck.

 

[CarlJ]

I was highly disappointed when I saw how much thicker the new MBPs are compared to the older models.

I had to compare the measurements recently, because my 2021 MBP16 is using a case I originally bought for a 2012 MBP15 (a Tom Bihn Brain Cell, sadly long since discontinued). Compared to the 2012 MBP, the 2021 MBP is 3.1mm narrower, 1.2mm deeper, and 1.2mm thinner. I was curious, because I've heard this thickness argument repeated a number of times, so I looked it up:

• Unibody MBP15 (2008-2012) is 0.95" (24.1mm) thick.
• Retina MBP15 (2012-2015) is 0.71" (18.0mm) thick.
• TouchBar MBP15 (2016-2019) is 0.61" (15.5mm) thick.
• Intel MBP16 (2019) is 0.64" (16.2mm) thick.
• M1 Pro/Max MBP16 (2021) is 0.66" (16.8mm) thick.

So, the current M1 MBP16 is 0.6mm (less than 1/32") thicker than the 2019 MBP, and 1.3mm (about 3/64") thicker than the TouchBar MBP15 (and it's thinner than all the pre-2016 models). I don't get how 1.3mm qualifies as "so much thicker". I'd venture a guess that if we gave you (or most anyone) a 15.5mm thick block, in one hand, and a 16.8mm thick block in the other, you'd be hard pressed to tell which one was thicker, without putting them next to each other.

 

[AlexMaximus]

I love the core team and most of all Craig’s subtile humor. What ever happens guys, I’ll buy Apple till I die. There is just no better and cooler brand out there. And no brand has a better legacy as the one of Steve Jobs. Steve is my personal hero, it’s the essence of the American dream of live in California. Nothing on the planet can match that. And - they have been honest.

 

[Boil]

Apple has a gaping hole in their desktop lineup right now...

M1 Mac mini
???
M1 Max Mac Studio
M1 Ultra Mac Studio
Intel Mac Pro

For those who say a "max spec M1 Mac mini" (8/8/16/2T/10GbE/$1799) is almost the same price as the Mac Studio, so there is no real gap...

Uh, no...

Max-Spec M1 Mac mini - $1799	Base M1 Max Mac Studio - $1999
8-core CPU - 4P/4E	10-core CPU - 8P/2E
8-core GPU	24-core GPU
16GB LPDDR4X SDRAM (upgrade - $200)	32GB LPDDR5 SDRAM
68GB/s UMA	400GB/s UMA
2TB NVMe SSD (upgrade - $800)	512GB NVMe SSD
10Gb Ethernet (upgrade - $100)	10Gb Ethernet

So the $1799 M1 Mac mini comes nowhere close to the base $1999 M1 Max Mac Studio, excepting cost (and the higher SSD capacity, which is the only thing driving the overall Mac mini price up)...

Meaning there IS a huge gap just waiting for a Mn Pro-powered Mac mini to come along and fill...!

Base M1 Pro Mac mini - $1099	Max-Spec M1 Pro Mac mini - $2499
8-core CPU - 6P/2E	10-core CPU - 8P/2E (upgrade - $200)
14-core GPU	16-core GPU (upgrade - $100)
16GB LPDDR5 SDRAM	32GB LPDDR5 SDRAM (upgrade - $400)
200GB/s UMA	200GB/s UMA
512GB NVMe SSD	2TB NVMe SSD (upgrade - $600)
Gigabit Ethernet	10Gb Ethernet (upgrade - $100)

Apple could also decide to just jump forward to the M2 Pro SoC for a high-end Mac mini offering...?!?


In closing...

• Base M1 Mac mini = $699
• Base M1 Pro Mac mini = $1099
• Base M1 Max Mac Studio = $1999
• Base M1 Ultra Mac Studio = $3999
• Base Intel Mac Pro = $5999