M4 Mac Studio and Mac Pro Launching in Mid to Late 2025

[MacBH928]

Why not?

If you want a laptop, you can get the consumer Air or the pro Pro. Then you decide on the screen size. And finally, you decide on how much oomph you require.

For a desktop, there are granted more choices to make. Do you like an AIO? You can get any size you like, as long as it’s 24 inches, and you also only get the mid-range SoC. Do you want the very high end for specialized needs? Get the Pro. For everyone else: how much power do you require? If the answer is medium, configure a mini. Otherwise, configure a Studio.

The question lies that the consumer can not figure the difference between M2, M3, Ultra, Pro, Max. MB Air has M2 and M3 option. Which should I pick? M2 enough or need M3? or need Macbook M3 max?

obviously the higher number the better but its difficult to point where my needs lay. If John Doe asked me for the best mac to buy I won't tell him Mac Pro

 

[chucker23n1]

obviously the higher number the better but its difficult to point where my needs lay.

But that wasn’t any different under Jobs. Even the original iMac could be configured with different amounts of RAM. The G4 Cube came with different clock rates, amounts of storage and RAM, and even GPU options.

So even at peak simplified line-up, there weren’t just those four models. You had to configure them.

 

[Tagbert]

The question lies that the consumer can not figure the difference between M2, M3, Ultra, Pro, Max. MB Air has M2 and M3 option. Which should I pick? M2 enough or need M3? or need Macbook M3 max?

obviously the higher number the better but its difficult to point where my needs lay. If John Doe asked me for the best mac to buy I won't tell him Mac Pro

For most customers, they need to decide if they want an Air or a MacBook Pro, after that, they will buy what they can afford. The specific chip is not so important and will align closely with the different price point.

If they are a more sophisticated customer and might need a Studio or Pro, then they can easily learn about the different chips and pick an appropriate one.

i do think that the names are not helpful and a clearer hierarchy would make it easier but most people are best off choosing by price and not worrying about the details of the tech.

 

[MacBH928]

But that wasn’t any different under Jobs. Even the original iMac could be configured with different amounts of RAM. The G4 Cube came with different clock rates, amounts of storage and RAM, and even GPU options.

So even at peak simplified line-up, there weren’t just those four models. You had to configure them.

The problem is in the naming and lingo. With Jobs you knew higher GHz is better. The mini is the small.

Today I who have been following tech news for 20+ years have no idea what does it mean if the chip has 4 cores or 6 cores. And which one is actually the top: Ultra, Max or Pro. On the iPad side of things, iPad Air is actually the better version than the iPad but the "Air" moniker has been used historically to be the entry model.

i do think that the names are not helpful and a clearer hierarchy would make it easier but most people are best off choosing by price and not worrying about the details of the tech.

Yes, this is what I am talking about. You have to understand that John Doe has no idea whats going on. He would rather have the Job's Matrix "This is for consumer, this is if you use your laptop for work like video editing and 3D" . This is much clearer. Max and Ultra, 4 cores and 6 cores are not clear.

This problem is not Apple Specific. Intel has a weird naming of i5-2434 and i3-2432 whatever else.

 

[dguisinger]

Much more complex than that. Post #18 discussed just some of the issues with manufacturing the chip. Once you have the chip then:

1. Logic board likely needs to be redesigned to support the new chip. Pin changes (?), memory bus, etc.
2. Other possible improvements requiring even more logic board changes such as WiFi 7, Thunderbolt 4, Bluetooth 5.4, etc.



There has been some discussions as to why combining 2 max chips does not result in a 2x performance gain. Apple might be considering not combining 2 chips but just creates a single monster SOC.

Sure its more complex....

But the thing that has bothered me about Apple for a decade now is how freaking cheap they are. Look at the Intel eco-system and motherboard manufacturers out there. Look at how many motherboard variations they make every cycle, not just under their own brand but a ton of OEM boards for PC manufacturers as well. Surely Apple sells more of each computer than most vendors sell of each DIY motherboard variation.... yet they make it work financially.

Sure its not easy - its a lot of work, its also not rocket science. It just takes a slightly larger team to handle the workload.

Apple repeatedly has shown that they'd rather skip updates on platforms where they could do a meaningful update every year, and sell old, obsolete products at their original list price long after other products in their lineup surpassed them in performance/technology. And they really like to do it for their premium products.... Its Tim Cook's hose your highest paying customers because they will still pay it philosophy.

Also, they aren't changing the logic board for the memory bus.... thats the whole point of the SOC.

 

[fontman]

Yeah, it's a bummer but it just goes to show that. Maybe there's not enough performance benefit and they're tricking upgrading when you don't need to..

 

[multipasser]

I can't stretch my imac 10core Pro anymore untill mid 25.. ffs. It's dying