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

[CWallace]

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.

Well the new Mac mini Pro case will not be as tall so thermal issues might prevent more than a single SoC.

Add that Gurman has now said that the iMac Pro will only have M1 Pro and M1 Max, if the iMac Pro is not getting "M1 Max Duo" then I do not see the Mac mini getting them, either.

So looks like "M1 Max Duo / Quad" will only be for the Mac Pro.

 

[Ethosik]

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”.

Normal iMac was announced with the iMac Pro in 2017 so I don’t think it gives the impression that it’s terribly underpowered.

 

[Tagbert]

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?

While Apple did make changes to their Arm implementation to improve performance, a big part of what makes Mac OS on Apple Silicon so fast is that the AS chips were optimized for common operations in Mac OS. Another OS running on those chips might not see the same benefit and performance.

that is one of the problems with generics chips like the Qualcomm chips. They are not tuned to any specific OS.

 

[theluggage]

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

Not sure where buying Qualcomm would get them - they're already working closely with Qualcomm, and what we've got from that is the Surface X failing to set the world alight. Maybe they've technically got enough "cash" to buy Qualcomm - but whatever price they paid would reflect Qualcomm's role as a major player in the mobile & wireless industry, of which "high-end" ARM chips are only a small part. I think you could also see a replay of the NVIDA/ARM debacle - the idea of Microsoft getting their mitts on Qualcomm's IP portfolio would scare the living daylights out of the rest of the industry.

Also - MS is a tiny player in the actual PC hardware industry. Apple may not be in the major league with HP, Lenovo and Dell, but Apple are consistently hovering at about #4, whereas MS are buried somewhere under "Other". It's the big 3 who are really in the potential "why don't we make our own processors" club. MS have the problem that any PC hardware they make is competing with their main Windows customers - the Surface range gets a lot of coverage (because Microsoft) and are probably amongst the best PC designs outside Apple, but the prices & specs make Apple look like the economy option and certainly don't compete with Dell & co. and they are infrequently updated.

I'm really not sure Microsoft has any aspirations of becoming a big hardware maker - I suspect their Plan A is to use legacy compatibility to hold onto existing Windows customers long enough to shift them over to their subscription cloud services, at which point MS couldn't care less whether they're logging in from Windows, Android, Mac or Chromebook. But, until MS are ready to shift those customers, they need to keep them in their backwards-compatible comfort zone and not encourage them to think out of the box.

I think Windows/x86 is basically dead - mortally wounded 10 years ago by the growth of mobile and web-based services, while binary compatibility becomes less and less relevant - but it is so big that it's fingernails won't stop growing for a decade or two - and those are big, profitable fingernails.

 

[theluggage]

Normal iMac was announced with the iMac Pro in 2017 so I don’t think it gives the impression that it’s terribly underpowered.

In 2017, regular iMac stopped at 4-core i7 - the iMac Pro started at 8-core Xeon and a better class of GPU. Although there was a hefty price jump there was "clear blue water" between them, performance wise.

By 2020, all that happened to the iMac Pro was that the old 8-core base model had been dropped and the 10-core had taken over its price-point. The regular iMac, however, had seen a couple of CPU and GPU upgrades and now topped out at a 10-core i9 which could bet the iMac Pro in a sprint. There were still "nice" things about the iMac pro - quieter, more TB ports - plus the (expensive) 14- and 18- core options and whatever advantages you got from having Xeon and ECC, but it was the base iMac Pro that underperformed and had become more of an "iMac Deluxe".

With Apple Silicon, there's no obvious equivalent to the Core i/Xeon-W divide (which was all strategic product differentiation by Intel anyway) although the rumoured 2x and 4x Max chips could provide a discriminating factor. However, while the single M1 Pro/Max chips would be a great replacement for the middle of the range, I don't think they'll be up to even the i9 option on the regular iMac, so the 2xM1 Max will have to take off where the single version leaves off. Apple could decide to tie that in with a better screen and a new model name (and it would presumably get more ports and support more displays).

 

[chucker23n1]

Not sure where buying Qualcomm would get them - they're already working closely with Qualcomm, and what we've got from that is the Surface X failing to set the world alight.

Yeah, but right now, Qualcomm's focus is quite different. They have little incentive to do much more than mediocre CPUs, since most of their customers aren't willing to pay top dollar.

Also - MS is a tiny player in the actual PC hardware industry.

Yeah, I know. I pointed that out myself in the part you cut out.

 

[Ethosik]

In 2017, regular iMac stopped at 4-core i7 - the iMac Pro started at 8-core Xeon and a better class of GPU. Although there was a hefty price jump there was "clear blue water" between them, performance wise.

By 2020, all that happened to the iMac Pro was that the old 8-core base model had been dropped and the 10-core had taken over its price-point. The regular iMac, however, had seen a couple of CPU and GPU upgrades and now topped out at a 10-core i9 which could bet the iMac Pro in a sprint. There were still "nice" things about the iMac pro - quieter, more TB ports - plus the (expensive) 14- and 18- core options and whatever advantages you got from having Xeon and ECC, but it was the base iMac Pro that underperformed and had become more of an "iMac Deluxe".

With Apple Silicon, there's no obvious equivalent to the Core i/Xeon-W divide (which was all strategic product differentiation by Intel anyway) although the rumoured 2x and 4x Max chips could provide a discriminating factor. However, while the single M1 Pro/Max chips would be a great replacement for the middle of the range, I don't think they'll be up to even the i9 option on the regular iMac, so the 2xM1 Max will have to take off where the single version leaves off. Apple could decide to tie that in with a better screen and a new model name (and it would presumably get more ports and support more displays).

Really not sure what you are trying to say here. Read what I replied to. The statement was mac mini and iMac would not be announced with a Mac Pro because they would seem underpowered. Yet in 2017 they did just that. iMac vs iMac Pro. I don’t think apple cares about that stuff when presenting products.

That’s all my point was. Having the new Mac mini and Mac Pro being announced won’t make the Mac mini feel underpowered. Mac Pro currently starts at $6,000 so I’m sure the new one will start around that price too compared to a potential $1,299 Mac mini.

 

[CWallace]

With Apple Silicon, there's no obvious equivalent to the Core i/Xeon-W divide (which was all strategic product differentiation by Intel anyway) although the rumoured 2x and 4x Max chips could provide a discriminating factor. However, while the single M1 Pro/Max chips would be a great replacement for the middle of the range, I don't think they'll be up to even the i9 option on the regular iMac, so the 2xM1 Max will have to take off where the single version leaves off. Apple could decide to tie that in with a better screen and a new model name (and it would presumably get more ports and support more displays).

Gurman says that M1 Pro and M1 Max is all we will get with this new model, so sounds like the ASi Mac Pro will be the "real" powerhouse for the small percentage of the macOS userbase who honestly needs that power and is not just interested in "Benchmark Bragging" since in some benchmarks a 2022 M1 Max iMac 5K will have lower scores than the 2020 Intel model.

So sounds like the Apple Silicon Mac lineup will mirror the current Intel Mac lineup:

1. "Prosumer/Professional" Mac line with MacBook Pro (14/16), iMac Pro and Mac mini Pro with a single Mx Pro / Mx Max SoC and up to 64GB of RAM.
2. "High Performance" Mac line with the Mac Pro with multiple Mx Max SoCs and at least 128GB of RAM.

 

[EugW]

I don't understand why anyone would think a Mac mini would get more than M1 Max.

 

[Mr.PT]

Really not sure what you are trying to say here. Read what I replied to. The statement was mac mini and iMac would not be announced with a Mac Pro because they would seem underpowered. Yet in 2017 they did just that. iMac vs iMac Pro. I don’t think apple cares about that stuff when presenting products.

That’s all my point was. Having the new Mac mini and Mac Pro being announced won’t make the Mac mini feel underpowered. Mac Pro currently starts at $6,000 so I’m sure the new one will start around that price too compared to a potential $1,299 Mac mini.

My point was about making iMac Pro+Mac mini presentation “obscured” by Mac Pro were all spotlights and eyes will be and I’ll be deeply surprised if Apple doesn’t present Mac Pro alone. Almost 100% sure about this.
PS: iMac vs iMac Pro is about same product line different specs, like 14”/16” MBP. Mini pro vs iMac Pro vs Mac Pro is about different product lines.

 

[Mr.PT]

Gurman says that M1 Pro and M1 Max is all we will get with this new model, so sounds like the ASi Mac Pro will be the "real" powerhouse for the small percentage of the macOS userbase who honestly needs that power and is not just interested in "Benchmark Bragging" since in some benchmarks a 2022 M1 Max iMac 5K will have lower scores than the 2020 Intel model.

So sounds like the Apple Silicon Mac lineup will mirror the current Intel Mac lineup:

1. "Prosumer/Professional" Mac line with MacBook Pro (14/16), iMac Pro and Mac mini Pro with a single Mx Pro / Mx Max SoC and up to 64GB of RAM.
2. "High Performance" Mac line with the Mac Pro with multiple Mx Max SoCs and at least 128GB of RAM.

You’re probably right, but that kills some folks hopes for a “Mini Mac Pro”😔.

 

[Mr.PT]

I don't understand why anyone would think a Mac mini would get more than M1 Max.

Wishful hopes you could get a Max Duo for $4.5-5.0k😋 aka “Mini Mac Pro”.

 

[Vermelho]

The Mac mini would be a logical suspect for that as it still uses Intel.

Huh? https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini

 

[Boil]

Huh? https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini

Scroll down...

 

[Realityck]

Huh? https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-mini

Really need to scroll down and notice there is a intel Mac mini also.

 

[theluggage]

You’re probably right, but that kills some folks hopes for a “Mini Mac Pro”?.

Well there were also rumours about a Mini Mac Pro which would be a Mac Pro Mini rather than a Mac Mini Pro.

 

[Boil]

Well there were also rumours about a Mini Mac Pro which would be a Mac Pro Mini rather than a Mac Mini Pro.

I could see the new Apple silicon smaller Mac Pro as the Mac Pro Mini, because PCIe slots would need the extra depth of the chassis...

A Mac mini (Pro) that could support dual SoCs, that could be the new ASi Mac Cube...?!? ;^p

 

[Tagbert]

Well there were also rumours about a Mini Mac Pro which would be a Mac Pro Mini rather than a Mac Mini Pro.

This is why we are unlikely to see any Mac Mini called a “Pro”. To much conflict with the naming of the Mac Pro And just too much confusion all around.

 

[Boil]

Maybe Apple decides to change the suffix for the ultra high-end Macs to "Workstation"...! ;^p

• 18" MacBook Workstation (single Mn Ultra SoC)
• 32" iMac Workstation (single / dual Mn Ultra SoCs)
• Mac Cube Workstation (single / dual Mn Ultra SoCs)
• Mac Tower Workstation (dual / quad Mn Ultra SoCs)

Yeah, I know, sounds horrible...? Maybe they steal from Intel and use "WS"...?

 

[Mr.PT]

Maybe Apple decides to change the suffix for the ultra high-end Macs to "Workstation"...! ;^p

• 18" MacBook Workstation (single Mn Ultra SoC)
• 32" iMac Workstation (single / dual Mn Ultra SoCs)
• Mac Cube Workstation (single / dual Mn Ultra SoCs)
• Mac Tower Workstation (dual / quad Mn Ultra SoCs)

Yeah, I know, sounds horrible...? Maybe they steal from Intel and use "WS"...?

That’s some heavy wishful thinking 😛. And Yes sounds terrible, plus nowadays we expect more the reverse about Intel.
My Naming suggestion would be simply Ultra or UP [Ultra Pro]. So when your workload gets heavier you just “Mac UP”.

 

[Boil]

That’s some heavy wishful thinking ?. And Yes sounds terrible, plus nowadays we expect more the reverse about Intel.
My Naming suggestion would be simply Ultra or UP [Ultra Pro]. So when your workload gets heavier you just “Mac UP”.

Something, something, Pixar tie-in...?

 

[Mr.PT]

Well there were also rumours about a Mini Mac Pro which would be a Mac Pro Mini rather than a Mac Mini Pro.

Expectations dual SoC will be available besides Mac Pro.

I could see the new Apple silicon smaller Mac Pro as the Mac Pro Mini, because PCIe slots would need the extra depth of the chassis...

A Mac mini (Pro) that could support dual SoCs, that could be the new ASi Mac Cube...?!? ;^p

Expectations for “affordable” Mac Pro.

This is why we are unlikely to see any Mac Mini called a “Pro”. To much conflict with the naming of the Mac Pro And just too much confusion all around.

I suspect PRO moniker will apply to Mini. Besides specs, Design and price tag will suffice to distinguish.

Despite rumours indicating no dual SoC offers other than Mac Pro, I steel feel there’s enough gap and demand for “headless” Mac under $6k.
My wishful guess would be Apple substitute iMac Pro as you know it, for a $4.5-5k Dual SoC Headless Mac Pro mini/Mini Pro aka “ the cube”, coupled with an “$2-2.5k affordable 27-30” Display). The set would allow for easier in your wallet future updates, as I suspect folks tend to stick with their iMacs for a longtime. Problem would be how to spec and price entry level Mac Pro.

 

[theluggage]

This is why we are unlikely to see any Mac Mini called a “Pro”. To much conflict with the naming of the Mac Pro And just too much confusion all around.

I suspect PRO moniker will apply to Mini. Besides specs, Design and price tag will suffice to distinguish.

If Apple are - as rumoured - going to produce a smaller, cheaper alternative to whatever replaces the Intel Mac Pro then it would make sense for that to get either the 2x or 4x processor. In that case, the replacement for the Intel i5/i7 Mac Mini is unlikely to offer anything more than the single pro/max chips... which would still be a great upgrade from the Intel versions, especially in terms of graphics. Price points aside, the 2x/4x packages are going to be larger and hotter than the regular Max and (presumably) support 2x or 4x the TB4 ports, so they'll need different logic boards, cooling and might not suit the Mini case design.

...but trying to reason beyond that based on which models "deserve" the Pro monicker is pointless. Apple have never used "Pro" consistently in the past (... e.g. 2-port/non-touchbar 13" Intel MacBook Pro, 10-core i9 5k iMac not Pro...)

Let's imagine Apple were going to start using "Pro" consistently. What do they think it means (that's all that counts)?

They have already cast the die (see what I did there ) by calling their mid-range processor "M1 Pro". It has features that make it better than the regular M1 for tasks like media production, 3D, scientific computing, more-demanding development, but which probably won't have much impact on general productivity/comms/media consumption workloads. It also falls short of the requirements for higher-end workstations. So that is what Apple mean by Pro as applied to processors.

In the new Apple Silicon world, it looks like the entire range of Macs will be using M-series SoCs, there's no hard mobile/desktop distinction and the GPU, max number of ports, max RAM etc. are all pretty much determined by whether it's a Pro/Max/x2 or x4 SoC. So, going forward, "Pro" in the model name would logically imply a "Pro" or better processor. Therefore a Mac Mini with a M1 Pro processor or better would be a "Mac Mini Pro" (If the 13" MacBook 'Pro' sticks around with a non-pro M2, a dab of paint would fix something that's been inconsistent since 2016...)

...or, Apple could continue business as usual and just treat "Pro" as a model differentiator with no particular meaning. That's probably more likely - but would makes it pointless to speculate about "pro" being associated with particular processors or features.

I'm pretty sure that they're not actually going to have machines called "Mac Pro Mini" and "Mac Mini Pro" - although we're talking about the marketing department that has already created the M2 vs. M1 Pro confusion and called a chip "M1 Max" when there are still at least two more powerful variants in the pipeline... so who knows?

 

[deconstruct60]

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.

If the $100 was likely I wouldn't have included the $200. $100 is more wishful than likely and also taking into account they may backslide on SSD capacity starting point, just to walk folks back up (e.g., MP 2019 starting at 256GB. Systems likely destine for VMs storage on network storage (512GB of internal storage is huge overkill). Alternatively the gimmick they do on the iMac 24" backsliding to two ports so can walk back up the 4 ports probably would expect. ). $150 is also in that range and you didn't predict that either ( $1459 ) . If Apple felt some pressure on only going $300 up then they would take something away that is being assumed would get.

 

[bizzwriter]

Just give me the new "big screen" iMac already -- take my $$$ Apple!