I actually think this would make sense- to lead with M5 MAX & ULTRA instead of saving ULTRA for last in a line. As an ULTRA owner, I would not do it again, knowing that Mnext MAX is no more than 6 months away and is likely to be about as powerful and cost substantially less. IMO: the (up to) 6 months as "king" is not worth it.
However, flip the apparent release schedule slots of BASE vs. ULTRA and that seemingly fixes everything, including maximizing profit for Apple too. MAX & ULTRA first, PRO & MAX in the usual October slot, BASE the following spring. In this flip, one could confidently pay maximum (revenue & profit) for an ULTRA, knowing they have at least a year (maybe even 1.5 years) of perceiving their Mac is most powerful Mac. Bread & Butter MBpros, etc launch on the very same Fall schedule as they do now, so no effect on them. Lowest price (and presumably lower profit) BASE Macs roll out last.
Among other things, this creates the natural pressure to pay up for a higher tier chip (and thus more profit per unit sold for Apple) vs. waiting around for the "bargain" Macs... which would then be the ones bumping into the impending Mnext release speculation. As is, BASE first facilitates "bigger number" rationale further fueled by cheaper pricing for BASE Macs. In other words, for a few months, cheapest price buyers can have the next generation number and still be on "latest generation" (number) for the longest time while other, pricier Macs only step up to the same number... or linger 2 numbers behind.
Speaking just for myself: I would never buy ULTRA again based upon the reality that Mnext no more than about 6 months away is likely to be about as powerful and perhaps more in select ways. So all the extra profit realized from me with that ULTRA purchase will not be realized again without ULTRA owning the crown for longer than a half year or less. No, that is not a call to delay launches at all- just consider flipping the releases around. And no, that should have little-to-no effect on the all-important Fall releases which could still hit at the exact same time.
Presumably, ULTRA is not able to be built first and BASE must come first, then PRO/MAX and lastly ULTRA. But whether that's technical limitations or just how it's been done so far is the big question. It seems Apple could target ULTRA first and then the rest would be engineering derivatives of it over the next year... instead of starting with BASE and building up to ULTRA over the same period of time.
And yes, I know well the counterpoint about market share to try to make sense of the "as is" schedule. I don't know that market share would change much with this concept either... but average profit per unit sold might go up and that seems all-important to modern Apple. 💰💰💰
For example, if guy who might typically buy MBair can't stand the wait for BASE, perhaps they move sooner to MBpro to get "latest chip power" and thus deliver greater revenue & profit for Apple. Maybe guy who might typically buy a Mini is pulled up to a MAX or even ULTRA Studio vs. waiting until the end of a generation to still buy Mini. Etc.
