Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New MacBook Pros Reportedly Launching Alongside macOS 26.3
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Outside CEOs are the death of companies. They don't understand the business, they only think about short term shareholder value, and they'll run the companies into the ground to get it.
1. Big die size = too expensive and extremely low yield.
2. No high-end chip to rival RTX 5090 and workstation GPU.
3. No expandability. Ultra Fusion is a failure and that's why they can't make Mac Pro's chip.
4. Limited power consumption for high performance.
5. Poor repairability = They gotta replace the entire motherboard.
6. No ECC memory.
7. Poor modularity. You don't need all parts in 3nm and you can't just upgrade specific parts.
Actually just thinking about this as my MBP M1 Max analyzes video on AE. I believe it’s time to upgrade.
Have you forgotten the last time they put an M5 computer in charge of something?
It is really more about improvement than innovation. The former is good enough for me. New does not necessarily mean better.
I don’t need the MacBook Pro to be thinner. I wouldn’t mind the OLED display but honestly the current iteration is near perfect for my needs and I would consider myself a power user. I like the port configuration on the mbp right now, and battery life is pretty great.
I have touch on my windows laptop and it’s so rarely used that I don’t personally need that.
If I need lighter I will use my iPad or buy a MacBook Air. Keep the MacBook Pro a professional level laptop pleeeeeease Apple!
I have touch on my windows laptop and it’s so rarely used that I don’t personally need that.
If I need lighter I will use my iPad or buy a MacBook Air. Keep the MacBook Pro a professional level laptop pleeeeeease Apple!
Please list all the laptops with an RTX 5090 and workstation CPUs. That GPU draws 575 to 625 watts. The recommended power supply is a kilowatt. Not a laptop configuration.
If you actually need that performance level you are not buying a Mac in any case.
Last I heard the M4 was running about $50. Hardly too expensive. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D prices have settled to about $450. It draws about 100 watts with spikes higher.
There is always a trade off between power consumption and performance. Apple went for battery life in a laptop and you clearly want all out power and have the budget for the electricity for the system and the air conditioner (or you live up north and need to heat the house anyway.)
Take this 12", thin the bezels, give it with a M5 cpu, and I'll open my wallet fast. I went with the 14" M1 Pro because it was a hell of a machine even as a daily driver but Intel just upped their game hard and if it wasn't for Windows 11 continually sucking more and more I'd already have switched. If only there was the native level support for messages and airdrop with windows I'd be out of MacOS. I hate the file structure setup. But a light and portable 12" macbook pro would be incredible for me. With new types of batteries coming out being more energy dense it's time to bring it back.
Excellent choice. I've been a mac laptop user since 2005 (PowerBook G4). I tend to buy the latest and greatest apple laptop of the "current generation". I used that laptop for almost 10 years before getting a 2012 MacBook Pro with the super drive and all the ports. I still have that laptop but needed to upgrade to apple silicon a year or so ago due to software limitations. (M3 MacBook Air 15")
I'm tempted as well as to picking up an M5 Pro. It will be the last of the "current gen" tried and true, with no first iteration jitters that will likely come with the M6 refresh. These computers will last a decade or more if spec'd right. I suggest going for 48gb of Ram, especially with local AI potentially becoming a thing. Storage is fine at 1TB with cloud services and external hard drives. My 2cents. Best of luck.
It's an understandable request, but as someone who carries one around a lot and travels regularly, I'm all for having a MBP that is as light as possible, and I don't need more ports than it already has. I'm guessing that a thicker, heavier, more decked-out model would only ever appear as an additional niche model. Are there really that many people who would prefer to buy one? Maybe people who do a lot of on-the-go audio and video editing (but have vehicles)?
So it's "faulty" in the sense that it doesn't cater to your, Rando On The Internet's, needs.
Fadell created the iPod prototype and concept. Steve brought him in. Fadell was shopping the concept and its workings around silicon valley. Steve would take Fadell on walks talking about the future of Apple including the potential for Apple to make a car. Steve knew talent when he saw it. Fadell is a designed focused engineering personality. He collects watches and is passionate about how they look and work. You cannot teach such passion, it’s a born trait. Tony has put his hat in the ring and has said he’s available and willing for the position.
He’s the only former employee from Apple I’m aware of to create a multi-billion dollar hardware business that completely changed an industry (thermostats) where all existing plays were forced to innovate and copy his product.
Currently he’s from outside the company, so he will come in with fresh eyes and clear ideas. Something Apple needs right now. They appear somewhat rudderless at the top and it is because those at the top lack those innate qualities that cannot be thought. I’m suggesting him as CEO—at least until I hear a better suggestion.
I’m not suggesting it should be thicker or heavier. I’m suggesting it should retain its current thickness and advancements should be included into this case as they are available. So the machine would naturally become more powerful and more upgradable. A thick chassis as-is allows for bigger fan, bigger battery, bigger speakers and roomier cooling than a thinner model, should the rumours be true. Physics. Apple if they make it thinner will be doing so for some weight reduction, but largely they will be doing for looks, to try to make the machine look good, which to me is missing the point, and especially so because the thin machine exists (MBA) and will naturally improve with time.
Keep the Pro its current thickness and double-down by including all advancements into it and as the machine naturally becomes more powerful add another physical thunderbolt 5 port and discontinue the standard M chip model, putting the standard M chip in MBA and not MBP making the model line distinction more clear.
Last edited:
Sorry if this has already been discussed but might this be of concern, or do I just not understand how Apple internal model codes work?
I'm a bit concerned that there are only two model numbers mentioned. Shouldn't there be at least 4 and probably 5 - one for the 14" M5 Pro model, one for the 16" M5 Pro model, one for the 14" M5 Max model, one for the 16" M5 Max model and then perhaps also a fifth model number for the 16" version of the baseline M5 MacBook Pro that we've already seen released?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how Apple internal model numbers work but if not then isn't this indicating that this rumoured release, if true, still won't fully flesh out the M5-based MacBook Pro range vs what we had before with the M4-based MacBook Pro lineup?
Fadell wanted the iPod to form the basis of the iPhone. Forstall instead saw Mac OS X as a better basis. Both would've ended up being ARM-based devices, but in one case, we would've gotten a Pixo-derived "embedded" OS, whereas in the other case, we got the first smartphone with a full-blown OS.
And how's that company doing?
Not everything Fadell touched turned to gold. The iPod was a massive success, and Fadell did play a role in that, but it's not at all a given that he'd be the right personality to run a company as complex as Apple. It's not even clear he was the right person to be CEO (rather than, say, CTO) at Nest Labs.
Tell me which Apple Silicon Mac has RTX 5090's grade performance? NONE. All Apple Silicon chips have limitations with power consumption and even M3 Ultra is no where near RTX 4080 and since when do we needed battery life on desktop?