Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Future Apple Silicon Macs Rumored to Include Redesigned 14-Inch and 16-Inch MacBook Pro, 24-Inch iMac, and Smaller Mac Pro

ValueArb said:
If the ARM transition is consistent with the PowerPC to Intel transition (and so far it's been dead on, including new CPUs in existing form factors), the last major update to MacOS that will support Intel will be next years. After that Intel Macs will receive at least three years of OS updates for their last OS release.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Apple finished the transition to Intel on August 7, 2006 when it introduced the Mac Pro and an intel powered version of the xServe (remember xServe?!). The first version of OS X that required an Intel Mac was Snow Leopard, which was released in August of 2009, three years later. So based on history macOS won't drop support for Intel Macs until at least 2025, assuming the Intel to Apple silicon transition finishes two years from when it was announced at this summers WWDC.

Beyond that Apple may continue supporting macOS on Intel longer if the installed user base remains high, it will depend on how quickly users transition to new hardware. Consider that iOS 14 still supports the iPhone 6s, which is a 5 year old device. Apple won't support Intel indefinitely, but its not going to pull the plug when a significant number of users are still dependent on Intel machines.
 
I’ll wait until a 27in iMac. I don’t mind not being able to boot into Windows as I have a windows laptop for work. I’d really like Target Display Mode to return. Otherwise I’m gonna buy the mac mini.
 
I guess they will kill the macbook pro 13 after 14.1 is out so we will have

13 air entry level
14.1 macbook pro
16 macbook pro

i think that makes sense, but please apple allow 32gb ram and no touchbar on 14”
 
It seems unlikely to me that they would add a 14” MBP, too close to the 13”. The 13” or 16” looks like a sufficient choice.
 
mscice said:
I guess they will kill the macbook pro 13 after 14.1 is out so we will have

13 air entry level
14.1 macbook pro
16 macbook pro

i think that makes sense, but please apple allow 32gb ram and no touchbar on 14”
Click to expand...

Apple expect the 13.3’ Pro model to be discontinued by next year.

People will be able to differentiate the 13.3’ Air and Pro with the new 14.4’ display.
 
Last edited:
I'm still running a 2013 Mac Pro (trashcan) for my studio, it's fully loaded with dual cinema displays, 2TB drive, 64GB RAM, D500 and I've a 24TB of attached storage on SATA SSD drives (plus spinning rust for backups). It cost a fortune when I bought it all back in 2014 and TBH it's still for the most part very usable. I think that buying an Intel machine now is going to have a short shelf life.
So if there was a Mini 'Pro' with 64GB RAM & 2TB storage and I added those dual LG screens on, I would have enough ports on everything to hook up the storage and the rest of the studio. There's just the worry about how much software will run under OSXI
Fingers crossed for 2021!
 
AppleWarMachine said:
no 12" Macbook (2 pounds) with M1 for $799 ? :(
Click to expand...
How about a 12” Pro for $1199? And as close to 1.75 lbs as possible.

Is there enough demand? Pre-pandemic maybe, as 12” was nice for airplane tray tables. But with presumably less business travel, who knows. In any case, I’m not sure we’ll ever see it.

But I want one, Air or Pro, whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericwn
jonnysods said:
It would make sense to turn the 13” MBP into a 14” as they are so close in specs to the MBA’s now. Especially with only 2 TB3 ports...
Click to expand...
Why introduce a 13” M1 just to turn around and discontinue it for a 14” model in 6-9 months though? They could have just introduced the Air and mini.

Maybe that long-rumored 14” miniLED Pro model that will replace the higher end 13” Pro is going to be a little higher spec/more expensive, and they want to keep a Pro model (this new 13” M1 Pro) at the $1,299 price point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbirdparis, CWallace, Bea220 and 1 other person
panjandrum said:
Apple does indeed obsolete hardware that is perfectly capable of running current operating systems by ceasing to support them for no reason other than they can't be bothered (or, if we wan't to attribute more nefarious motives, because they wish to force new hardware purchases before they would otherwise be necessary.) This is demonstrated over and over as again though third-party efforts that make these systems absolutely usable with excellent performance. (However, the vast majority of Apple users will never even be aware of, let alone use, any of these.) Being unable to update the OS causes a snowball effect when other app developers stop releasing updates for older version of the OS. Thus; a) Apple stops bothering to support older machines on current OS even though it is perfectly possible to do so. Then b) apps eventually stop being updated for older versions of the Mac OS. Then c) A perfectly good piece of equipment is rendered obsolete needlessly once the critical apps can no longer be kept up to date. Sometimes this isn't a big deal as the older app versions might be perfectly good. In other cases, however, such as out-of-date browsers, it becomes essentially impossible to continue using a piece of equipment which still otherwise works and is still sufficiently powerful in all regards. It's simply been forced into obsolescence. That's bad for you, me, the planet, and everyone except Apple.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have never worked in the computer industry if you think the only reason is they can't be bothered or "nefarious" reasons. Supporting older hardware requires additional resources: money, time, and people. Testing alone is going to be a significant cost. You know what those third party efforts don't have to worry about when they hack "support" for the OS on to older hardware? Verifying it actually works. Oh it might work some or even most of the time, but when it doesn't? They aren't responsible for fixing it. If something goes catastrophically wrong? They aren't responsible for fixing it. They might. But they don't have to. Apple would. Apple can't get away with just releasing some hack like these 3rd parties can.

If you have some mission critical system that needs to be able to run on hardware that doesn't change for over a decade, then yeah, you are right, MacOS isn't for you. Buy something else. But this is not forced obsolescence, its the law of diminishing returns. Sinking more and more money into maintaining support for an increasingly smaller number of devices makes no practical or financial sense. And again, your Mac can keep running for years on older OS, many people do that too. The situation you posit, where some mission critical piece of software becomes completely unusable is an edge case. A fraction of a fraction of a percent. If its important to you, then by all means, hack the system to keep it running. Go for it. Work with those 3rd parties. But to expect Apple to support hardware indefinitely is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chazzle
Krizoitz said:
Clearly you have never worked in the computer industry if you think the only reason is they can't be bothered or "nefarious" reasons. Supporting older hardware requires additional resources: money, time, and people.
Click to expand...

Krizoitz said:
But to expect Apple to support hardware indefinitely is absurd.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the original post; I quite specifically refer to hardware Apple abandons and is then proven to work perfectly well once third-parties create patches and drivers to get them working. That's just Apple being lazy (or incompetent) at best, nefarious at worst. (Never used the word "indefinitely" - you put those letters in my keyboard. You can't just pretend someone else said something and then argue against that fictional thing you pretended someone else said. Also please stop calling me a wombat. I'm a human damnit, a human!)

But it's really just a part of a bigger issue of unnecessary obsolesce. I've worked in the computer industry since the late 80s and I see this behavior cause waste (financial, time, ecological) year after year after year and it's incredibly frustrating. It's especially hard on individuals and markets that can't easily bear the added costs of artificial obsolesce, such as the non-profit and education sectors. We are talking specifically about Apple here, but it's certainly not just an Apple issue; Chromebooks stop getting OS updates and the exact same spiral of reduced-usability occurs. And it is not an edge case. Software compatibility and file-format issues can begin to creep in quite quickly (i.e. "you need Pages version x.x to open this file" except you can't run that version of Pages because Apple doesn't make that version of Pages for your abandoned Mac) and in certain markets there is commonly used software that supports only the most recent couple iterations of an OS. I work a lot in Education and see older Macs, iPads, and now Chromebooks unable to access, for example, state-mandated testing apps. Imagine a school with a fleet of Macs, iPads or Chromobooks that are only 6 or 8 years old that suddenly can't do ONE critical thing due to the snowball effect of being cut off from OS updates. It's a much bigger issue with iPads and Chromebooks than Macs, as those are, at least, supported for a longer period of time. But those other devices might work just fine for everything else, but now MUST be replaced at huge cost to the financially strapped. So this really is a big issue that should be addressed by companies (not just Apple) doing what is *right* - not from a financial point of view - but from an ethical point of view. I know, what a freaking shocking concept! If you believe Apple, and if fact ALL computer companies should not support their hardware which can actually run their current OS just fine, then how about backing that up with some money so you can see how big a problem this really is. Send me a PM. I can help you arrange to buy our school all the replacement equipment we need as Apple abandons it. That would be very kind of you.
 
Last edited:
The Barron said:
I'm am so ready for a new iMac and a 24" version would be ordered immediately when announced.
Click to expand...
Same here It is getting close for a new computer, I get a new one around 8 to ten years and my 2012 iMac still runs great and does everything I ask of it but I gotta say these new silicon Macs are tempting. I was going to go 27" for my next computer but now with this expected 24" I dunno now. Guess I'll patiently wait and see how this all plays out... I might just wait till 2022 before taking the plunge.
 
Jury said:
Apple underestimated the popularity and potential demand of new 12’ Macbook with Apple-designed SoC for this holiday season.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure about that since they’ll know the popularity of the product better than anybody.
 
PickUrPoison said:
Why introduce a 13” M1 just to turn around and discontinue it for a 14” model in 6-9 months though? They could have just introduced the Air and mini.

Maybe that long-rumored 14” miniLED Pro model that will replace the higher end 13” Pro is going to be a little higher spec/more expensive, and they want to keep a Pro model (this new 13” M1 Pro) at the $1,299 price point?
Click to expand...

It sounds crazy, but look how many iPad screen size variants there are... it could happen! And heck they released 2 15/16 MBP models within 3 months of each other last year. I'm with you it may not happen. I just can't see how you justify the difference between an MBA and the 13" MBP. Maybe its sustained processor usage where that fan would come in handy on the 13" MBP?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison
I can't help but notice the persistent lack, in these rumors/analysis, of any mention of a large-screen iMac. No plain or iMac Pro, in 27" or larger (preferably larger next time around).
 
randian said:
I can't help but notice the persistent lack, in these rumors/analysis, of any mention of a large-screen iMac. No plain or iMac Pro, in 27" or larger (preferably larger next time around).
Click to expand...

There were rumors of a 27" 5K MiniLED display earlier this year. Speculation was it would go into an updated Intel iMac Pro, but I think we can say that there will not be an update to that model.

As such, I believe it is intended for a 2021 27" ASi iMac which will use the "Mt. Jade" SoC and "Lifuka" GPU. Said ASi iMac might very well become the new "iMac Pro".

This is the model I am waiting for, but I might be forced into buying a 2020 Intel iMac to replace my 2017 iMac 5K because our Work from Home has been extended to next July and our team manager is trying to make WFH permanent for us.
 
randian said:
I can't help but notice the persistent lack, in these rumors/analysis, of any mention of a large-screen iMac. No plain or iMac Pro, in 27" or larger (preferably larger next time around).
Click to expand...
Well everyone seems to want bigger screens so I guess that means we’ll see a 30-ish inch iMac, in approximately the same size enclosure as the 27”.
 
Last edited:
Marco Klobas said:
I'd accept a price up to $4K / $4.5K. No more.
Click to expand...

Might be too expensive for a AS-based machine, that may come without dedicated GPU... and maybe no ports on the inside, at all.
Aren't they more and more pushing the modular aspect, and expect users to pile up everything on the outside through TB/USB devices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back