I don't think "pity." As an ULTRA Studio owner, I'd NEVER buy another if the schedule of releases doesn't flip. Saving Ultra for last of a generation means that only 4-5 months later at most, the next gen MAX generally "catches up" and/or exceeds in some measures. For all of the money Apple demands for ULTRA, it should hold "king of the (power) hill" for longer than that.
So I buy an occasional rumor that Apple will FLIP the seemingly established order by finishing M4 with MBair in the spring and then rolling out M5 ULTRA & MAX around WWDC, essentially putting ULTRA in "most powerful Mac" position until the next generation is announced at least a year later.
In other words, the apparent "pattern" we think we know is:
- Base, then
- PRO & MAX then
- Ultra
This rumor flips that:
- ULTRA & MAX
- PRO & MAX (if MAX didn't also hit with Ultra)
- Base
Why would Apple consider this: presumably the super-high pricing for ULTRA makes them
the most profitable Macs to sell on a per-unit-sold basis. The crowd that burns to own the "latest" and "most powerful" would have to be more tempted to pay up for them instead of doing what many do now... just wait less than half a year and the next generation MAX will be as good if not better for much less cost (and thus less profit for Apple).
Apple likes money. Customers like "most powerful." Flip the order and harvest both without those customers who opt for ULTRA feeling a bit burned when less than half a year later, a better chip is out in the next generation at much less cost.
"But, but, but... MBs are the bread & butter." Yes they are and this concept wouldn't change their Fall release schedule at all... so Apple still gets all they can get from laptop buyers on the
same schedule: MBpros in the Fall and MBair the following Spring.
Who gets to take the psychological hit? The Base chip Mac buyers who wait for those... only to see them followed by the release of the next generation. Why would Apple want that? Presumably base unit buyers are least profit-per-unit sold... and the contrast of comparing "new base" vs. "next generation ULTRA" specs might move more base buyers to at least buy PRO or MAX to not feel like they are buying late for much less power than what is about to hit. If so, that's more profit per unit sold to Apple. Again, Apple likes profit.
At least in my case, the ONLY way I would buy another ULTRA is if it can be "king of the power hill" for longer than less than one half year. So when it comes time to replace this one, I would only consider MAX which typically gets to hold that crown for much longer than half a year or even a full year since ULTRAs don't roll out annually.
What would stop Apple from flipping the schedule? Seems like there's nothing but just
choosing to do it. This change likely makes more profit per Mac sold without impacting the high volume units because they hold to their existing schedule. So this seems to mostly be grounded in a simple corporate
choice to pursue maximum profit per Mac sold.
"Think different"
