Gurman: Apple Preparing 'Widest Array of New Hardware Products in Its History' for Fall

[theluggage]

Is your thinking that the Intel i5 (3.2GHz 6‑core 8th‑generation Intel Core i7 if you upgrade it) outperforms the M1? I haven’t looked into this model specifically, but I guess I could do some googling at least on the benchmark results.

It's not all about raw CPU power: The higher-end Mini also supports up to 64GB RAM, has 2 more TB/USB-C ports and can support three displays (and while the M1 has far better integrated graphics than the Intel Mini, Intel still supports external GPUs which can outpace the M1). A new high-end Mini will need a M1 Pro to compete with that.

Apple will use the Pro M1 and the Mac Mini will have 16 GB as a base configuration, OR
Apple will use a new chip with Pro M1 and 8 GB…

I don't see much sense in a M1 Pro with only 8GB esp. since one of the big changes from Pro to M1 Pro is more powerful graphics and RAM has to double as VRAM - and since Apple would have to go out of their way to make 8GB M1 Pro packages just for the Mini it probably wouldn't make economic sense. The RAM is still on separate dies, so binning doesn't come into it, but the two still get munged into the same package so they can't mix & match CPUs and RAM at build time.

16GB RAM as base line in a Mn-based Mac mini would raise the price by US$200...

Raise the price from what? The i5 Mini is already $400 more than the M1 Mini, and a new M1 Pro Mini would bear comparison to the i7 version which is $200 more than that. 8GB has been the base configuration for 4 years (and that was pretty mean to start with) so I think Apple could let the high-end Mac Mini start at 16GB without cuttin' their own throat - after all, the high-end 13" MBP went from 8GB to 16GB between 2018 and 2020 without a price bump.

Sure, if there's a BTO RAM upgrade it'll be $200, but that's Apple's go-to upgrade price (it's the same across the range whether it involves supplying a different M1 or just replacing a $30 retail DIMM with a $50 one in an iMac) and has little to do with the actual cost or the price point of the base model. It's 2022, 16GB isn't an expensive, specialists-only luxury and and a > $1000 Mini (so, no display, keyboard, battery etc.) with only 8GB would be laughable.

I wouldn't put it past Apple to cheap out like that - but having to specially make 8GB M1 Pro chips would be a bit of a deterrent and I suspect that - if Apple were so inclined - they'd have done an 8GB version of the 14" MBP which would probably shift in larger numbers than the Mini.

Then, of course, if Apple pitches this as the Mac Pro Mini rather than the Mac Mini Pro, we'll be counting down from $5999 rather than counting up from $1099... I hope not.

 

[theluggage]

Yes, but the iPod lineup proved that Steve didn’t follow de original 4 product grid, instead expanded it to cover “niche” markets. Apple of today is doing the same exact thing, but in every product line

I think people are being way too simplistic about Jobs' "principles" - and just cherry-picking the parts of complex, situation-based decisions that fit nicely on a Keynote slide. The "4 quadrant" idea has to be taken in the context of a time when Apple had systems like the Performa 6400/200 VEE (and a horde of its similarly-named brethren) on its books.

Apple was in dire financial straits, the new version of MacOS (Copeland) had turned into something that software developers tell their kids about to give them nightmares and while lots of people loved Apple laptops, the desktop range (far more significant in 1998 than it was today) was a dumpster fire of random beige boxes that would make Dell proud. They'd licensed MacOS to third parties in the hope that they'd make low-end machines that would win over Windows users but, what a surprise, the result was high-end workstations for established Mac users that undercut Apple's own products and which nobody raised a finger to promote to Windows users. D'oh!

If Apple had, at the time, had a few billion in ready cash stuffed in the mattress, the Newton might have been worth saving - but it was a bit before it's time and not a luxury that Apple could afford. Likewise the Quicktake - but the big camera makers were starting to cotton on to digital and, face it, if you were buying a camera in the late 1990s were you going to buy one with "Apple" on the label when you could buy one with "Nikon" or "Canon" on it? Or a Sony with a Zeiss-branded lens (plus Sony's own rep in the video camera market)? Apple would have needed to buy - or at least license - a big-brand camera/lens name to stick on its cameras (like Panasonic did with Leica). That would have taken money.

The iPod was a classic case of knowing when to tear up the rule book - plus luck (& praying that Doonesbury didn't do for the iPod what they did for the Newton!).

It's like the "Jobs hated expandability/modularity and wanted everything to be a sealed appliance" nonsense. That made sense for products like the original Mac and the iMac (...and not only because they contained CRTs with lethal high-voltage circuitry that stayed live even after they'd been unplugged, so they had to no-user-servicable-parts-inside) but doesn't explain why the "Pro" towers and XServes released well into Jobs' reign all went the extra mile to provide tool-free access and were an absolute delight when it came to adding RAM, storage or expansion cards... The idea that everything - even pro systems - should be sealed and non-modular is a post-Jobs "innovation". Some Jobs-era products were designed as sealed appliances, others weren't (heck, even the NeXT cube was modular).

 

[bobtem]

A foldable car, please. If not this year, then soon.

 

[James Godfrey]

Who promised you that?
Tim Cook never stood on stage and said "The MacBook Air will be updated every 12 months, with absolutely no fail."
The "M" series of chips is a clear replacement for the old "A-X" series, which were updated every 18-24 months or so.
A9X: September 2015
A10X: June 2017
A12X: October 2018
M1 (basically the A14X): November 2020
It was never a 100% annual upgrade.

Yeah I fully agree here, it’s extremely likely the M series line ups will only get updated every 18 months to 2 years for the foreseeable future IMO.

To be honest, with the power of Apple silicon working hand in hand with first party software, there isn’t much of a reason to have annual upgrades any more… I wouldn’t be surprised if the iPad Pro starts seeing 24 month refreshes also with possible minor incremental upgrades in between.

For example, I can definitely see Apple launching the M1 iPad Pro 11” with an XDR display alongside the iPad Air, then not refreshing the iPad Pro line up until spring 2023, that is definitely a possibility at the moment especially since they have just registered enough model numbers for two iPad devices.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's not all about raw CPU power: The higher-end Mini also supports up to 64GB RAM, has 2 more TB/USB-C ports and can support three displays (and while the M1 has far better integrated graphics than the Intel Mini, Intel still supports external GPUs which can outpace the M1). A new high-end Mini will need a M1 Pro to compete with that.

Absolutely correct and clear to me now that a suitable system to replace it hasn’t been introduced.

I don't see much sense in a M1 Pro with only 8GB esp. since one of the big changes from Pro to M1 Pro is more powerful graphics and RAM has to double as VRAM - and since Apple would have to go out of their way to make 8GB M1 Pro packages just for the Mini it probably wouldn't make economic sense. The RAM is still on separate dies, so binning doesn't come into it, but the two still get munged into the same package so they can't mix & match CPUs and RAM at build time.

I don’t either. Especially since, like you say, they’d have to do something special in order to make an 8GB M1 Pro. As the current Mini CPU’s are repurposed from other systems, I’d think they’d do the same for any future Mini.

 

[gonsawa_]

I think people are being way too simplistic about Jobs' "principles" - and just cherry-picking the parts of complex, situation-based decisions that fit nicely on a Keynote slide. The "4 quadrant" idea has to be taken in the context of a time when Apple had systems like the Performa 6400/200 VEE (and a horde of its similarly-named brethren) on its books.

Apple was in dire financial straits, the new version of MacOS (Copeland) had turned into something that software developers tell their kids about to give them nightmares and while lots of people loved Apple laptops, the desktop range (far more significant in 1998 than it was today) was a dumpster fire of random beige boxes that would make Dell proud. They'd licensed MacOS to third parties in the hope that they'd make low-end machines that would win over Windows users but, what a surprise, the result was high-end workstations for established Mac users that undercut Apple's own products and which nobody raised a finger to promote to Windows users. D'oh!

If Apple had, at the time, had a few billion in ready cash stuffed in the mattress, the Newton might have been worth saving - but it was a bit before it's time and not a luxury that Apple could afford. Likewise the Quicktake - but the big camera makers were starting to cotton on to digital and, face it, if you were buying a camera in the late 1990s were you going to buy one with "Apple" on the label when you could buy one with "Nikon" or "Canon" on it? Or a Sony with a Zeiss-branded lens (plus Sony's own rep in the video camera market)? Apple would have needed to buy - or at least license - a big-brand camera/lens name to stick on its cameras (like Panasonic did with Leica). That would have taken money.

The iPod was a classic case of knowing when to tear up the rule book - plus luck (& praying that Doonesbury didn't do for the iPod what they did for the Newton!).

It's like the "Jobs hated expandability/modularity and wanted everything to be a sealed appliance" nonsense. That made sense for products like the original Mac and the iMac (...and not only because they contained CRTs with lethal high-voltage circuitry that stayed live even after they'd been unplugged, so they had to no-user-servicable-parts-inside) but doesn't explain why the "Pro" towers and XServes released well into Jobs' reign all went the extra mile to provide tool-free access and were an absolute delight when it came to adding RAM, storage or expansion cards... The idea that everything - even pro systems - should be sealed and non-modular is a post-Jobs "innovation". Some Jobs-era products were designed as sealed appliances, others weren't (heck, even the NeXT cube was modular).

I agree with you, but I think that Apple stills retains part of that philosophy. While the naming scheme is terrible, the majority of products have clear distinct target markets.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's like the "Jobs hated expandability/modularity and wanted everything to be a sealed appliance" nonsense.

This one does have some merit, though. It’s said he didn’t want the Apple II to have slots and, even though they proved to be a valuable asset, he eschewed them as quickly as possible with the Mac. And, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the first Macintosh II with slots was released after Steve Jobs had left (and work had started on it without his knowledge). Another one of Steve Jobs’ personal projects, the PowerMac G4, was also slotless.

He can personally have disdain for slots while, at the same time, ensuring that if they shipped anything with slots it was made with a higher level of fit and finish than seen in most of the rest of the industry.

 

[theluggage]

And, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the first Macintosh II with slots was released after Steve Jobs had left

...yet, after leaving, he produced the NeXT - with slots.

Another one of Steve Jobs’ personal projects, the PowerMac G4, was also slotless.

The PowerMac G4 had 3 PCI slots, later versions had 4x slots and AGP (remember AGP?) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4

...even the XServe - a new class of product released well after Jobs had his feet back under the table - had slots.

 

[theluggage]

Yeah I fully agree here, it’s extremely likely the M series line ups will only get updated every 18 months to 2 years for the foreseeable future IMO.

I don't think it was ever about more frequent CPU updates, more the right CPU updates for the Macs Apple wants to make. Plus, Apple will be the first to know if there are any delays to the CPU upgrade cycle, and plan around them.

ISTR there were several times where Intel was plugging "N+1th Generation" CPUs before they'd got around to delivering the Nth generation variants with the specific TDP and GPU configurations needed for Macs. Some of the big box shifters could offer N+1 gen systems long before Apple by not being so choosy about whether they were a real, all-round upgrade from the previous generation - thanks to Intel's reductive i3/5/7/9 labelling you really had to dig into the small print and look up the chips on Ark to compare like with like. The 2018 Mac Minis were partly knobbled by the lack of the desktop equivalent of Iris Pro/plus/whatever graphics.

Apple have a slight risk of doing it to themselves with the M1/M2... naming system if they start releasing M2 systems before they've got the higher-end iMac, Mini and Mac Pro replacement out of the door. Although, practically speaking, the M1 Pro/Max will still outperform the M2 on the sort of "pro" multicore/GPU-centric workloads that they're sold for, the M2 might well beat them on single-threaded benchmarks and it won't look good, marketing-wise.

 

[jackietreeh0rn]

We at Apple have heard your request, and as a result are throwing all our development efforts into adding blinking to most of the UI elements in the upcoming version of iOS. We think it'll be the most blinkingest version of iOS we've ever made. You're welcome.

Much obliged, dear "we at Apple"!

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

That is nothing compared to the Apple of today. Nothing lol.

Isn’t it?
Sure, most of the iPods are gone, but…
Four iPads: regular, mini, air, pro. Pro just comes in 2 screen sizes.
Three iPhones: SE, regular, pro. The regular and pro just happened to come in two different screen sizes.
Two main laptops, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro. The MacBook Pro is a bit of a mess right now, but this article literally says that it will be cleaned up this year by replacing the old midrange 13 inch model.
Three desktops: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
Those are their main products, that’s it. Not a big sprawling lineup or anything, 3 main iPhones, four iPads, two laptops, three desktops.
When Steve left in August 2011 it was:
Four iPods, three laptops, three desktops, one iPhone, one iPad.
Not that much more or less complicated

 

[Dydegu]

I’m here for it. I’m sure we’ll get a processor refresh of the high end MacBook Pros in the fall as well?

 

[albebaubles]

Purchased the Samsung M7 32" for my 16 MBP but the USB-C connection is clunky - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Lots of plugging in and out then waiting... restart and repeat.

I have this problem as well. I find if I use the top left USB-C port it is pretty reliable.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Yeah I fully agree here, it’s extremely likely the M series line ups will only get updated every 18 months to 2 years for the foreseeable future IMO.

To be honest, with the power of Apple silicon working hand in hand with first party software, there isn’t much of a reason to have annual upgrades any more… I wouldn’t be surprised if the iPad Pro starts seeing 24 month refreshes also with possible minor incremental upgrades in between.

For example, I can definitely see Apple launching the M1 iPad Pro 11” with an XDR display alongside the iPad Air, then not refreshing the iPad Pro line up until spring 2023, that is definitely a possibility at the moment especially since they have just registered enough model numbers for two iPad devices.

In fact I would say that 18 Dash 24 months is way better than it used to be. With Intel, they might not update their computers for almost 2 years and then give it two updates in the span of eight months.
It was an absolute mess of an upgrade cycle.
Just looking at it is frustrating me.
Between October 2013 and May 2015, so 19 months, the MacBook Pro was updated three times… and then wasn’t touched again until October 2016, 17 months after that.
It was literally never a good time to buy, because there was either always an update right around the corner, or an update over a year away. Almost no predicting.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

...yet, after leaving, he produced the NeXT - with slots.

The PowerMac G4 had 3 PCI slots, later versions had 4x slots and AGP (remember AGP?) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Mac_G4

...even the XServe - a new class of product released well after Jobs had his feet back under the table - had slots.

Sorry, I forgot to add Cube And, like I said, he could have a disdain for slots (I mean, they wouldn’t actively hide them from him if it’s something he doesn’t care about one way or another) while still selling systems that have them. In the end, he was a businessman. And, if he could be convinced that having slots were good for business (for example, Steve Wozniak wouldn’t quit) at Apple or NeXT, then he’d go with it!

From the people that worked directly with him, it’s clear that Steve Jobs saw computers as appliances with little internal configurability. The XServe had the number of slots that he wanted the Apple II to have (makes me wonder if it would have been 2U with more slots if he wasn’t involved?). Even doing a search for “steve jobs loved slots”, one can’t come away from those search results with the idea that Steve Jobs didn’t care one way or another about internal configurability.

In the end, it seems his feeling in this area was spot on. The vast majority of systems that Apple ships and, indeed even the systems shipped by the wider industry, have little internal configurability.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

In fact I would say that 18 Dash 24 months is way better than it used to be. With Intel, they might not update their computers for almost 2 years and then give it two updates in the span of eight months.
It was an absolute mess of an upgrade cycle.
Just looking at it is frustrating me.
Between October 2013 and May 2015, so 19 months, the MacBook Pro was updated three times… and then wasn’t touched again until October 2016, 17 months after that.
It was literally never a good time to buy, because there was either always an update right around the corner, or an update over a year away. Almost no predicting.

This is a good point. Not only did they miss shipping high performance mobile processors, those processors once shipped were missing critical features that made them most useful, like missing support for high capacity LPDDR4. With Apple Silicon, if Apple decides that supporting LPDDR6 two years from now is a thing that’s important for their performance, the system builders can be assured that the CPU support will be there.

 

[appleArticulate]

What joyful spin.

Another way of putting would be "Apple struggles to keep its self-imposed deadline of completing it's Apple Silicon transition by the end of 2022, as several important machines are lagging behind."

 

[albebaubles]

No love for the Apple TV?

They don't get it -- If Steve figured it out - as he supposedly said on his death bed -- Cook didn't get the message.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They don't get it -- If Steve figured it out - as he supposedly said on his death bed -- Cook didn't get the message.

I was reading this while drinking coffee and, out of nowhere, I had the image of Steve holding Cook’s hand and, very earnestly saying, “On pancakes. TV on pancakes,” and lost my coffee.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

I’m here for it. I’m sure we’ll get a processor refresh of the high end MacBook Pros in the fall as well?

No?
The M2 is supposedly launching in the fall.
The M2pro and max most likely wouldn’t follow for at least another six months or so, so early to mid 2023.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

What joyful spin.

Another way of putting would be "Apple struggles to keep its self-imposed deadline of completing it's Apple Silicon transition by the end of 2022, as several important machines are lagging behind."

Not sure how you got that, if the high-end Mac mini and the 27 inch iMac are updated in the spring, and then the Mac Pro comes at WWDC, that’s two years.
That’s right on target, every Apple computer updated to Apple Silicon within two years.
Not sure how that’s lagging behind on anything, Tim said it would take two years, and it looks like it’ll be finished within two years.

 

[lepidotós]

Michael Spindler says hallo.
Personally, I would love to see Apple making more than the same five computers it's been making since 2001, but this seems like just the Performa 62xxyz series all over again.​

 

[tennisproha]

Widest array of bug fixes would be nice

 

[avetisk]

Feels like Gurman is just reading the Buyer’s guide like us and throwing some obvious logical conclusion.

The guy is a scam.

 

[The Game 161]

I’m not expecting anything groundbreaking. Sounds like notch going away at last is the only thing that will be really interesting this year. iPad Pro’s 12.9 will be the same. Guessing air pods pro will be better and hopefully we see something different. Series 8 better have better battery life.