Gurman: Apple to Launch New Macs Next Month, With More to Come Around May or June

[Realityck]

The best thing about a new 24” M2 iMac is that it will bring down the prices on the M1’s so I’m pretty excited for that to happen. Looking to snatch me a mid range M1 iMac to replace my 2017 4K!

If you watch for deal alerts on MacRumors you'll notice that some stores have already at times dropped the 24" iMac configs below the EDU pricing. Also Apple's refurbished site already shows many 24" iMacs for sale in different configurations.

IMHO the M1 24" refurbished is really holding its value. The 8/8/16/1TB goes for $1779 (new $1959 EDU) is while a 512GB SSD is $1609 (new $1779 EDU)

So based on the prices they are fetching there is little reason for Apple to walk away from the 10 month old 24" iMac with M2 models.

 

[deconstruct60]

Common sense says that WWDC will be the announcement of the "prosumer/professional" models - Mac mini Pro, iMac Pro and Mac Pro. I would expect the mini Pro and iMac Pro to also release at that event, with Mac Pro coming end of 2022 or early 2023.

The iMac Pro appears to have miniLEDs (and display controller ) and the Mini Pro does not. There is not a good reason to couple those together at all in the current disrupted display supply chain. Three years ago in 2019 that could have been a "good idea". In 2022, it isn't. Apple should take some extended time to build decent iMac Pro inventory before launching. It is also helpful in current context to spread out the initial demand bubbles for products over a wider portion of the year. Abnormally large clustered big bang releases aren't going to be helpful if run into a supply chain hiccup. It would just be a bigger bomb crater to climb their way out of. Plus it won't hurt to spread demand bubble revenue spikes over more fiscal quarters.

WWDC is a problem for Apple in answering the question of when going to finish clean out the Intel stuff. Ideally that should have been done before WWDC so didn't have to come up with "dog ate my homework" explanations during limited keynote time as to why not done. At the end of the two year span the discussion should be more solidily grounded in "what going to do next now that finished" rather than "two years isn't really two years . its two end on the calendar years because blah , blah , blah".

Rolling out the bulk of the desktop line up at the last minute is late. ( kind of expected given the last decade's track record that the Mac Pro would be late. That is just status quo. )

So that suggests that March will be the 13.3" MacBook Pro update, be it with M2 or an M1 Pro (and only M1 Pro due to cooling concerns of a single fan - so no M1 Max option).

They should launch what they have inventory to launch for. Apple is suppose to be on a "launch when it is ready" cadence for Macs. That was the given explanation for dropping out of Macworld and other externally fixed time events (e..g., CES ) .

With the iPhone always going in September there is now a bunch of jealous sibling drama where some folks want to slap certain products on WWDC so that will demonstrate they are just as important to Apple as the iPhone is. That is kind of goofy. The iPhone being trapped on September is really not a good thing. It is a very expensive thing to do. It works for the iPhone but at the moment it generates giant buckets of money, but it can turn into a trap if the high growth disappears over time.

 

[Realityck]

The 2020 WWDC keynote was mainly about Apple Silicon hardware. There were strong indicators that the new MBPs were originally planned to be announced at the 2021 WWDC but production delays bumped them into the fall. The 2017 WWDC keynote even announced the HomePod. that was a little odd as it was a consumer product but Apple probably hoped that it would get devs more interested in HomeKit.

that WWDC keynote is often used to talk to the larger professional community and to the press. The actual WWDC conference is much more dev focused. It would not be a surprised if Apple announced some new professional-focused computers in the keynote.

WWDC 2021 was like for all the rumor spinsters their Waterloo. There was so much hype about MBP would be announced it actually caused a lot here to feel sad.

This article details Mark Gruman, Jon Prosser, and Digitimes as the sources

New MacBook Pro Models Coming at WWDC, Suggests Leaker

New MacBook Pro models are coming at WWDC, according to leaker Jon Prosser who has a mixed track record when it comes to predicting Apple's plans. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Prosser provided no additional information, but there are new 14 and 16-inch MacBook...

forums.macrumors.com

I think we all are a bit more reserved then thinking anything has changed for the better with WWDC 2022 against product releases. Apple can readily scheduled events before and after as needed.

 

[CWallace]

Nah, I wouldn't expect they would cluster all of the "Pro" desktops at WWDC. I don't think that is "common sense" at all.

*shrug*

We've seen MacBook Pros announced at WWDC (2017). Same with the original 2017 iMac Pro and the last two Mac Pros (2013 and 2019). Heck, we have seen MacBook and iMac announcements at WWDC (2017).





As to the "Mac mini Pro", speculation and rumors have been rampant that it was ready last Summer, but was deliberately held back to allow the MacBook Pros to have the spotlight (originally at WWDC and then in October). So maybe they held it (again) until March so they would have something actually "new" to talk about other than just pure product refreshes (iPhone SE and iPad / iPad Air will just be SoC upgrades). In past years, this stuff would have been a Press Release, not an Event, but then some of these events are now mostly just "video Press Releases".

 

[EugW]

That is highly doubtful. M1 Pro means can't sink any lower than 16GB of memory. The current 16GB Intel model starts at $1,299. That is $600 more than the starting M1 version. M1 Pro has more performance so probably looking at another $100-200 on top of that. ( it is a bigger die (2x the size) and four stacks of RAM in two more customized packages that is more expensive to make so Apple is likely to charge more than a simple Intel RAM upgrade for it).
Apple isn't about lowering prices with Apple Silicon. Probably even less so with substantive inflation kicking in.

I'm talking about US$300 more than the similarly spec'd 16 GB machine.

The M1 Mac mini with 512 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM is US$1099. So $300 more than that is $1399. $1299 would be great.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'm talking about US$300 more than the similarly spec'd 16 GB machine.

The M1 Mac mini with 512 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM is US$1099. So $300 more than that is $1399. $1299 would be great.

Doesn't make much sense from Apple's pricing policy on M-series.

MBA 8CPU - 7 GPU 512GB $1,199. ->. 8 CPU-8GPU 512GB. $1,249 so about $50 for a single GPU core.

MBP 14" 8 CPU -> 10 CPU. $200 upgrade ( about $100 per CPU core )
MBP.14" 10 CPU - 14 GPU. -> 10 CPU - 16 GPU . $100 upgrade ( about $50 per GPU core)

So jumping from M1 to M1 Pro entry.

P cores. 4 -> 6. gap of 2 ( at $100/core would be $200 )
GPU core. 8. -> 14. gap of 6. ( at $50/core would be $300 )

Apple is going to offer what they price for $500 for $300? Probably not. It is actually a bigger die ; not just selling "binned out" cores that are actually already there and Apple is going to throw some huge discount at that? I think you doing lots of wishful thinking. Will it be a full $700 jump over the M1. Maybe not. It is a $700 jump from bottom M1 Pro to full Max. The jump to a binned down Max is $500 between M1 Pro and Max. Something closer to $500 might represent a the "between level" discount that Apple is shooting for. $300 is just way too low given what they are charing per cores. Maybe Apple is feeling nice and it is 'only' $400. (about where the Intel model is sitting plus $200. Perhaps a slight discount on loosing two E cores. . ).


Not going to be a huge SoC discount here because, it is not a relatively high volume SoC. Secondly, when jumping to be binned down M1 Pro die going to be asked to pay for the full die anyway. So again no likely discount. A far more "consistent with Apple" pricing would be to stick with the Apple marked up Intel SoC as a starting point for the M1 Pro, because Apple isn't going to give away "free stuff" on a Pro labeled product.

 

[EugW]

Doesn't make much sense from Apple's pricing policy on M-series.

MBA 8CPU - 7 GPU 512GB $1,199. ->. 8 CPU-8GPU 512GB. $1,249 so about $50 for a single GPU core.

MBP 14" 8 CPU -> 10 CPU. $200 upgrade ( about $100 per CPU core )
MBP.14" 10 CPU - 14 GPU. -> 10 CPU - 16 GPU . $100 upgrade ( about $50 per GPU core)

So jumping from M1 to M1 Pro entry.

P cores. 4 -> 6. gap of 2 ( at $100/core would be $200 )
GPU core. 8. -> 14. gap of 6. ( at $50/core would be $300 )

Apple is going to offer what they price for $500 for $300? Probably not. It is actually a bigger die ; not just selling "binned out" cores that are actually already there and Apple is going to throw some huge discount at that? I think you doing lots of wishful thinking. Will it be a full $700 jump over the M1. Maybe not. It is a $700 jump from bottom M1 Pro to full Max. The jump to a binned down Max is $500 between M1 Pro and Max. Something closer to $500 might represent a the "between level" discount that Apple is shooting for. $300 is just way too low given what they are charing per cores. Maybe Apple is feeling nice and it is 'only' $400. (about where the Intel model is sitting plus $200. Perhaps a slight discount on loosing two E cores. . ).


Not going to be a huge SoC discount here because, it is not a relatively high volume SoC. Secondly, when jumping to be binned down M1 Pro die going to be asked to pay for the full die anyway. So again no likely discount. A far more "consistent with Apple" pricing would be to stick with the Apple marked up Intel SoC as a starting point for the M1 Pro, because Apple isn't going to give away "free stuff" on a Pro labeled product.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but it sounds like you're almost contradicting yourself. Your previous post actually agreed with me.

You originally said Intel $1299 + $100-200, which is $1399-$1499.
I had said $300 over similarly spec'd M1 model, so $1399.
ie. We both suggested $1399.

But once I posted $1399, you said that's unlikely. So basically you're saying your own previous post is unlikely, and then said it's more likely to be $1599, or possibly $1499.

 

[Ethosik]

In particular, Apple have yet to demonstrate how they're going to match the highest-spec Mac Pro CPU, GPU and RAM configurations of the Mac Pro with Apple Silicon.

Yes, and this is precisely something that developers should know.

To be honest, I am very VERY disappointed in the Arm transition and Apple Silicon native apps. There are still SO many that have yet to be completed and its been almost 18 months since the first M1. So Apple needs to address those data analytics/scientific apps where even 64GB of RAM is a limited factor and more that require more than a simple Laptop can handle. How will Apple address that? Will there be new APIs? Are they could to make it 4x M1 Max or something else? From a development perspective, these things need to be answered. Otherwise, Apple Silicon is not going to end well.

 

[Ethosik]

*shrug*

We've seen MacBook Pros announced at WWDC (2017). Same with the original 2017 iMac Pro and the last two Mac Pros (2013 and 2019). Heck, we have seen MacBook and iMac announcements at WWDC (2017).





As to the "Mac mini Pro", speculation and rumors have been rampant that it was ready last Summer, but was deliberately held back to allow the MacBook Pros to have the spotlight (originally at WWDC and then in October). So maybe they held it (again) until March so they would have something actually "new" to talk about other than just pure product refreshes (iPhone SE and iPad / iPad Air will just be SoC upgrades). In past years, this stuff would have been a Press Release, not an Event, but then some of these events are now mostly just "video Press Releases".

Not to mention standard iMacs in the 2017 WWDC not just iMac Pro. Really not sure why people are so focused on the NO HARDWARE at WWDC and seem to be fighting it. The past 10 years we had quite a few of WWDC introduced hardware. Not to mention technically 2020 WWDC introduced the DTK hardware for devs to work on.

 

[Think creative]

I'm very close to buying a new laptop/computer. I would love the MacBook airs to come out so I can compare them versus the 14 inch pro (which if I had to buy a computer today that would be it). Also, I want the mini pro, the 27 inch iMac and the external display to come out so I can figure out which desktop set up suits me best. Bottom line, the apple mac line up is fantastic right now, and a year from now, will be firing on all cylinders.

 

[diamonddnice]

Won't buy any new Mac until Windows can be installed again.

It does. use Parallels.https://www.parallels.com/blogs/parallels-desktop-m1/ it's on version 17 now.
If you're technically savy VMware Fusion can install windows and run non games. https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/2021/09/fusion-for-m1-public-tech-preview-now-available.html

 

[ajfahey]

I am definitely in the market for a 32 inch monitor with a Thunderbolt 4 computer interface that can act as a USB hub capable of USB4 data rates, preferably with no USB type A ports. Take the tech lead on this Apple!

 

[serrharry]

I really hope they release an updated version of Apple Cinema Display. I have tried so many monitors but its just not the same to my 5k iMac or MBP 14inch.. I can't justify the 5k price tag

 

[pankajdoharey]

Dual M1/Max Pro processors based mac mini is what i want. there is so much empty space in mac mini easily 2 or more processors can fit in it.

 

[pankajdoharey]

OTOH, it's possible that Windows on ARM becomes more common. Just… not for a while.

MS has ported windows to ARM but the performance is abysmal, unless the processor situation is improved on the other side of the ARM ecosystem MS is also doing the waiting game.

 

[Mr.PT]

It’s a developers conference. Having a truly pro chip should get attention for developers that the M1 is not good enough to handle. You know the Xeons and desktop class performance. Developers should know these things to start developing or enhancing their product. It’s why the Arm test kit was discussed at WWDC since it’s a developer conference. It’s why Apple announced the Mac Pro and Display at WWDC 2019 too. And why Apple announced not only normal iMacs but iMac Pro in 2017 WWDC.

Agree, hence Mac Pro will be showcased in WWDC. However a simultaneous presentation of all “desktop” Pro’s line would be overwhelming and a waste of “juicy” marketing: Mac Mini and iMac would look terribly “underpowered”.

 

[chucker23n1]

MS has ported windows to ARM but the performance is abysmal,

You mean the performance of emulated x86 apps, I assume? Yeah, but more apps will become native over time.

 

[AbsurdlyJames]

You mean the performance of emulated x86 apps, I assume? Yeah, but more apps will become native over time.

Qualcomm’s chips aren’t competitive with Intel/AMD, though, which is likely holding that back.

Makes me wonder, though. What if Microsoft approached Apple to license M-series processors for use in their Surface line? Who would have to pay what to make that work (assuming Apple was willing to entertain the idea)? Have there actually been meaningful discussions about that?

 

[chucker23n1]

Qualcomm’s chips aren’t competitive with Intel/AMD, though, which is likely holding that back.

Makes me wonder, though. What if Microsoft approached Apple to license M-series processors for use in their Surface line? Who would have to pay what to make that work (assuming Apple was willing to entertain the idea)? Have there actually been meaningful discussions about that?

I'm not sure there's any amount of money you could give Apple for them to be interested.

However, it doesn't have to be a law of nature that only Apple can do ARM designs that are very fast. The reason Apple can do it is: they were willing to put a lot of money into them, and they were willing to be patient. If Microsoft really wanted to, and were willing to wait several years, they could be competitive. Of course, this would be noticeable on the outside — Microsoft would have to start hiring quite a team of hardware engineers. They haven't so far.

 

[Mr.PT]

I'm not sure there's any amount of money you could give Apple for them to be interested.

However, it doesn't have to be a law of nature that only Apple can do ARM designs that are very fast. The reason Apple can do it is: they were willing to put a lot of money into them, and they were willing to be patient. If Microsoft really wanted to, and were willing to wait several years, they could be competitive. Of course, this would be noticeable on the outside — Microsoft would have to start hiring quite a team of hardware engineers. They haven't so far.

I would add the “universal” OS supplier nature of Windows as lagging factor. Unlike Apple It’s not easy for Microsoft to go all in for SoC architecture.

 

[theluggage]

I would add the “universal” OS supplier nature of Windows as lagging factor. Unlike Apple It’s not easy for Microsoft to go all in for SoC architecture.

However, it doesn't have to be a law of nature that only Apple can do ARM designs that are very fast. The reason Apple can do it is: they were willing to put a lot of money into them, and they were willing to be patient.

That's the big issue - Apple can go "all in" because they control the OS and the hardware. Microsoft would have to get Dell, HP, Lenovo and a zillion smaller PC makers on board for a wholesale shift to ARM - and because their key market is a hugely conservative corporate sector for whom software compatibility is king, whatever they produce would live and die on it's ability to run x86/win32 binaries.

Microsoft, x86 and DOS->Windows have enjoyed near-monopoly status almost entirely because they were "made" by the original IBM PC in the 1980s (...and even that was partly thanks to the ease of porting CP/M Z80 code) and have seen off countless, technically better, competitors largely based on (a) their huge base of compatible software and (b) the economies of scale that come from having a single, standard hardware platform. If Microsoft or Intel do anything to compromise those two pillars then they risk having to compete with the likes of Apple, Linux or Google/Android on technical merit. The horror!

It's not an exact analogy, but imagine if Mac OS Monterrey still supported Carbon apps and Rosetta 1, while, instead of worrying about "legacy" 32-bit apps, MacRumours was full of threads bemoaning the removal of Classic mode and Apple II support from Big Sur...

The other thing to remember is that Apple's lead in ARM-based computing didn't just pop out of the ether in 2020. Even if you discount their early involvement with ARM back in the Newton days as too ancient to count for anything, they've been making iPhones since 2007 and iPads since 2010 - products which soon started pushing into PC-like levels of computing and graphics performance. MS and Intel never managed to crack the mobile market, whereas Apple pretty much own the high-end ARM tablet market - the A12 iPad Pro pretty much proved that Apple's chips were already good enough for ultrabook-class laptops.

 

[AbsurdlyJames]

I'm not sure there's any amount of money you could give Apple for them to be interested.

However, it doesn't have to be a law of nature that only Apple can do ARM designs that are very fast. The reason Apple can do it is: they were willing to put a lot of money into them, and they were willing to be patient. If Microsoft really wanted to, and were willing to wait several years, they could be competitive. Of course, this would be noticeable on the outside — Microsoft would have to start hiring quite a team of hardware engineers. They haven't so far.

Agreed that there'd be no amount of money Microsoft could pay Apple for them to be interested—their Surface line accounts for less than $10B of revenue per year and any reasonable license fee would therefore be at best a drop in the bucket on Apple's bottom line. I was thinking more along the lines of what commitments Microsoft could make regarding Windows compatibility on the M-Series processor. Suppose in addition to a licensing fee, Microsoft committed to full forward compatibility with Windows releases, gave Apple a license to include Windows on all of its computers, and on top of that a reasonable fee for each Surface sold? I think Apple would at least return Microsoft's phone call.

If Microsoft wanted to compete with Apple on ARM designs within the decade, their best bet would likely be to purchase Qualcomm—but that would be a big pill even for Microsoft to swallow.

 

[chucker23n1]

Agreed that there'd be no amount of money Microsoft could pay Apple for them to be interested—their Surface line accounts for less than $10B of revenue per year and any reasonable license fee would therefore be at best a drop in the bucket on Apple's bottom line. I was thinking more along the lines of what commitments Microsoft could make regarding Windows compatibility on the M-Series processor. Suppose in addition to a licensing fee, Microsoft committed to full forward compatibility with Windows releases, gave Apple a license to include Windows on all of its computers, and on top of that a reasonable fee for each Surface sold? I think Apple would at least return Microsoft's phone call.

Yeah, a cross-licensing agreement (Microsoft gets the M* chips; Apple gets Windows support) might be more interesting for Apple.

Federighi seems to say they're not entirely uninterested.

If Microsoft wanted to compete with Apple on ARM designs within the decade, their best bet would likely be to purchase Qualcomm—but that would be a big pill even for Microsoft to swallow.

Well, like you said, Surface revenues just aren't that big. This wouldn't just be costly, but it would also only make business sense if they commit to putting serious money into further development.

Plus, they've been burnt like that rather recently, with the Nokia acquisition.

 

[chucker23n1]

That's the big issue - Apple can go "all in" because they control the OS and the hardware. Microsoft would have to get Dell, HP, Lenovo and a zillion smaller PC makers on board for a wholesale shift to ARM

They could, but they wouldn't need to. They could buy Qualcomm and/or hire engineers, then use that for their own Surface line.

The other thing to remember is that Apple's lead in ARM-based computing didn't just pop out of the ether in 2020. Even if you discount their early involvement with ARM back in the Newton days as too ancient to count for anything, they've been making iPhones since 2007 and iPads since 2010

Well, exactly. That's what I mean by patience. They've been working on this since at least 2008 (PA Semi acquisition). They also get to use it in their phones, and tablets, and watches, and headphones, and TV set-top boxes, and now laptops, and desktops. And probably more in the future. This isn't — to anywhere near the same extent — a business that Microsoft is in. They have Surface, but Surface is tiny, at about $6.4B for 2021. That compares to ~$37B for the Mac, and ~$198B for the iPhone. So, I can see why they don't want to invest too much.

 

[SactoGuy18]

We may see the M2 MacBook Pro 13.3", the Mac minis with the M1 Pro and M1 Max SoC's, and a possible internal "refresh" of the 24" iMac with the M2 and possibly M1 Pro SoC's. More powerful Macs like the 27 "Pro" model with the M1 Pro or M1 Max SoC's may not arrive until after WWDC.