Rumor: New 14-Inch and 16-Inch MacBook Pros Delayed Until Next Year

[Allen_Wentz]

Most customers don’t care that much about the specific chip. M1 vs M2 is not going to make much difference in how most customers use their computers.

Yes, customers will attempt to use their computers similarly whichever chip iteration is in it. And on day one running last year's apps either chip will present hella stronger than the old box did. However v1, M1 versus v2, M2 will always perform stronger. All those tens of thousands of hours Apple engineers spent improving M1 to M2 will make a difference.

-Any new tech device starts aging out the day it is bought. An M1 device starts out a year behind M2 and will always be a year behind. The useful life of M2 will be a year longer. That is significant in life cycle cost analysis.
-M2 performance will be stronger; every day, for the life of the box.
-The future software that a new box will be tasked with over its future 3-6 year life will run better on M2 than on M1.

Edit: The above are simple realities. I will also add my personal opinion that v2 of most tech things tends to be hella preferable to own than v1.

Also, I think customers buying $4k MBPs are generally aware of the state of tech like M2 coming. Such MBPs are tasked with heavy computer work, and users doing the kind of heavy tasks that require top MBPs are very aware that MBP horsepower, RAM, etc. will affect their workflows.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

This.

1. I’m due for a new Mac.
2. What’s the current one? Will I hate that for any reason?
3. Buy it.
4. Hey, neat upgrade.

“Oh, but if I had read the rumors, I’d know that a new thing may or may not come out between today and the heat death of the universe” is irrelevant.

Not true. Folks only buy $4k+ MBPs every 3-6 years, and "Due for a new Mac" can easily cover a 12-month time period or longer. Not to coordinate one's purchasing to expected new product availability and the subsequent old product discounting that follows new product availability would be just flat stupid decision making.

Also note that by definition one cannot make a sound purchase decison M1 versus M2 before M2 product and pricing is known. Only if upgrading becomes an urgent necessity due to hardware failure does your just buy it now suggestion make any sense.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Most customers don’t care that much about the specific chip. M1 vs M2 is not going to make much difference in how most customers use their computers.

Pretty much. People that are looking for a specific feature of a product aren't usually shopping for the capability, but are shopping for bragging rights. At the recycle a bike I worked at we had a guy come in looking for a Bendix red band coaster brake bike. It HAD to be a red line coaster brake hub, nothing else would do. That hub was legendary, but would I pass on other great bikes to get one? No... One kid in high school had to have a car with a 4 barrel carb. Buying a car with one was rather hard to come by, and besides that the only carb worth having isn't likely to be sold on a stock car. But he HAD to have it. *shrug* Most 4-barrel cars were altered after purchase at that time as I remember. So buy a 'hot car', and swap out the intake manifold and add a Holly racing carb. Pretty simple.

But bragging rights. It's so short minded. Hmm...

 

[Nords777]

How do you know the M2 Pro will have faster memory?

(The M1 Pro already has the speed the M2 got. They might go to LPDDR5X, but they also might not.

Don’t buy based on rumors and assumptions.

It was here on macrumors:

Next-Generation MacBook Pros Rumored to Feature 'Very High-Bandwidth' RAM

Apple's next-generation 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with M2 Pro and M2 Max chips will be equipped with "very high-bandwidth, high-speed RAM," according to information shared by MacRumors Forums member Amethyst, who accurately revealed details about the Mac Studio and Studio Display before those products were announced.

14 vs 16 inch mbp m2 pro and max feature 1
The current 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models are equipped with LPDDR5 RAM from Samsung, with the M1 Pro chip providing up to 200 GB/s of memory bandwidth and the M1 Max chip topping out at 400 GB/s. On a speculative basis, it is possible that the next MacBook Pro models could be equipped with Samsung's latest LPDDR5X RAM for up to 33% increased memory bandwidth with up to 20% less power consumption. This would result in up to 300 GB/s memory bandwidth for the M2 Pro and up to 600 GB/s for the M2 Max.

Next-Generation MacBook Pros Rumored to Feature 'Very High-Bandwidth' RAM

Apple's next-generation 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with M2 Pro and M2 Max chips will be equipped with "very high-bandwidth,...

www.macrumors.com

Can you explain to me why Apple wants people to buy M1 for another 6 months, they need to sell off their old parts?

 

[Nords777]

So it is a want, not a need then

You're free to use your money however you want, just don't make the assumption that everyone else will make the same decision as you

Ok, look, macbook air is already on M2, iPad pro is on M2, and now they are trying to tell that we should buy macbook pro on M1. There is already paid articles that "it's good that apple has not released a new macbook pro", but this is just ridiculous. Now they want us to buy laptops in next six months, which should already leave the line, but the question was why the release was postponed? Macbook Pro M2 now was logical from the point of view of the release of all other products on M2. And in 2023 the Air M3 aleady will be released. Buying and investing now in M1 as Apple wants is stupid.

 

[chucker23n1]

It was here on macrumors:

Next-Generation MacBook Pros Rumored to Feature 'Very High-Bandwidth' RAM

Yeah, so it's a rumor. That hasn't been corroborated much. Could be right. Could be made up. Could be a plan they had at a time but punted on.

Waiting five months because of the assumption that 1) a new model will arrive then (could be; could not be) and 2) it'll have higher memory bandwidth (maybe; maybe not) strikes me as silly. If you can wait, sure, wait. If you need a good laptop, Apple has one to offer today.

Can you explain to me why Apple wants people to buy M1 for another 6 months,

…because it's a good product?

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

…because it's a good product?

No, that can't be it. There has to be some nefarious impulse of Mr Apple to get people saddled with inadequate tech because he is evil incarnate and wants to screw everyone to save his job. And in case someone thinks I'm being serious: /sarcasm

 

[Carlson-online]

Ok, look, macbook air is already on M2, iPad pro is on M2, and now they are trying to tell that we should buy macbook pro on M1. There is already paid articles that "it's good that apple has not released a new macbook pro", but this is just ridiculous. Now they want us to buy laptops in next six months, which should already leave the line, but the question was why the release was postponed? Macbook Pro M2 now was logical from the point of view of the release of all other products on M2. And in 2023 the Air M3 aleady will be released. Buying and investing now in M1 as Apple wants is stupid.

The M2 is not as good a chip as the M1 Pro/Ultra/Max....

Also, did they come out 4 months after the M1? are was there over a year wait?

 

[chucker23n1]

The M2 is not as good a chip as the M1 Pro/Ultra/Max....

That depends. The M2 has higher single-core performance for p-cores, and especially e-cores and GPU cores.

But the M1 Pro/Ultra/Max have more cores. So if your workload is highly parallel, those are a better choice. For consumers, the M2 is.

Also, did they come out 4 months after the M1? are was there over a year wait?

The Pro and Max came almost a year after the M1. The Ultra came another half year later. The M2 came soon after that.

 

[Carlson-online]

That depends. The M2 has higher single-core performance for p-cores, and especially e-cores and GPU cores.

But the M1 Pro/Ultra/Max have more cores. So if your workload is highly parallel, those are a better choice. For consumers, the M2 is.



The Pro and Max came almost a year after the M1. The Ultra came another half year later. The M2 came soon after that.

Yes, i'm aware, that was my point.

Either way, all I was trying in general to say is you do you. If you want to wait in the hope of them releasing in march, go for it. I just disagree with people that cast wide aspertions that their thought process and their use case is the same as everybody elses.

As for the comment someone made about them not increasing prices next time.
a) The USA isnt the only country in the world.
b) Look what just happened to the ipad
c) Inflation is a thing right now, so just because you think it didnt happen in the past ( which it has anyway, as it wasnt that long ago that MBP were in the 1-2000 range and now they are in the 2-3-4000 range!), doesnt mean it wont happen again.

 

[chucker23n1]

it wasnt that long ago that MBP were in the 1-2000 range and now they are in the 2-3-4000 range!

Sort of… it's hard to compare since the models have been shifting around.

The "mid-range" MBP has actually been fairly consistent.

2021: 14-inch starts at $2000.
2020: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2019: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2018: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2017: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2016: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2015: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2014: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2013: 15-inch starts at $2200.
2012: 15-inch starts at $2200.
2011: 15-inch starts at $1800.
2010: 15-inch starts at $1800.
2009: 15-inch starts at $1700.
2008: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2007: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2006: 15-inch starts at $2000.

If you take just the 15-inch one, it gets trickier since sometimes it included a discrete GPU and sometimes it didn't, and then comes the question if the 14-inch or the 16-inch is the successor.

 

[Carlson-online]

Sort of… it's hard to compare since the models have been shifting around.

The "mid-range" MBP has actually been fairly consistent.

2021: 14-inch starts at $2000.
2020: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2019: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2018: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2017: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2016: mid-range 13-inch starts at $1800.
2015: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2014: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2013: 15-inch starts at $2200.
2012: 15-inch starts at $2200.
2011: 15-inch starts at $1800.
2010: 15-inch starts at $1800.
2009: 15-inch starts at $1700.
2008: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2007: 15-inch starts at $2000.
2006: 15-inch starts at $2000.

If you take just the 15-inch one, it gets trickier since sometimes it included a discrete GPU and sometimes it didn't, and then comes the question if the 14-inch or the 16-inch is the successor.

That's also USA pricing. Again, not the only country in the world!

 

[chucker23n1]

That's also USA pricing. Again, not the only country in the world!

I’m quite aware, what with me not typing this from the US.

 

[Nords777]

Yeah, so it's a rumor. That hasn't been corroborated much. Could be right. Could be made up. Could be a plan they had at a time but punted on.

Waiting five months because of the assumption that 1) a new model will arrive then (could be; could not be) and 2) it'll have higher memory bandwidth (maybe; maybe not) strikes me as silly. If you can wait, sure, wait. If you need a good laptop, Apple has one to offer today.



…because it's a good product?

I don't say the M1 is bad, it's a great macbook, but the whole logic was on the side launch of the M2 right now. If rumors about faster memory will confirme, M1 will lose its significance. And this will happen at once after release. Apple makes great products, but their marketing department does not understand that tasks require productivity improvements now. Stretching out releases over long cycles do not work more and slows down work. As soon as new technology and improvement appear they should immediately go to be intoduce. Apple marketing politic slows development Apple technologies.
It's amazing what is possible...
Moreover, someone from Apple's management even admitted that Apple's profits will fall before the end of the year due to a decline in sales of the M1.

 

[chucker23n1]

I don't say the M1 is bad, it's a great macbook, but the whole logic was on the side launch of the M2 right now. If rumors about faster memory will confirme, M1 will lose its significance.

Yeah, well, in computing, newer products tend to be better than older products. You can also wait for the M3 Pro and the M10 Pro.

I understand that the M1 Pro is about a year old now and some are hoping to see a replacement. On the one hand, the average days between releases are 391, so there's reason to expect that (though we've also seen plenty of years where it took a year and a half or longer). On the other hand, all high-end Apple Silicon CPUs (the A*X series, e.g. the A12X, and the M series) so far have had a release schedule of about 18 months.

That's why I never really understood why some people seemed so convinced that a new release in late 2022 was a given. Possible, yes. Guaranteed, no. And on top of that, nobody who actually has an M1 Pro seems to say that it's terribly slow or has other weaknesses.

Moreover, someone from Apple's management even admitted that Apple's profits will fall before the end of the year due to a decline in sales of the M1.

What they're saying is that the jump from Intel Coffee Lake-H to Apple M1 Pro/Max was an outlier, for multiple reasons (including that there were almost two years between those releases), and that this winter won't be like that. Which, yeah. Single-core performance jumped 61%. Multi-core performance jumped 79% on the 10-core models. You're rarely gonna see that.

They could be releasing an M2 Pro right now and they still wouldn't have the same kinds of sales, because the upgrade simply isn't going to be as exciting. You're lucky if you see a 25% gain.

 

[theorist9]

That's also USA pricing. Again, not the only country in the world!

I think it would be interesting to do an analysis of cases in which US pricing stays the same, but pricing in other countries goes up. One might find that this is not a case of Apple increasing pricing in those countries, but rather price increases due to changes in the exchange rate or the country's VAT. I.e., if Apple is charging constant dollars, then I would say the price increase isn't due to Apple raising prices.

 

[theorist9]

Ok, look, macbook air is already on M2, iPad pro is on M2, and now they are trying to tell that we should buy macbook pro on M1. There is already paid articles that "it's good that apple has not released a new macbook pro", but this is just ridiculous. Now they want us to buy laptops in next six months, which should already leave the line, but the question was why the release was postponed? Macbook Pro M2 now was logical from the point of view of the release of all other products on M2. And in 2023 the Air M3 aleady will be released. Buying and investing now in M1 as Apple wants is stupid.

I recall reading they planned a fall release of the M2 Pro/Max MBP's, but weren't able to make it because of supply chain issues. So it got pushed back to spring. Nikkei Asia reports that the spring release will be on N3 (3 nm).

Since 3 nm (likely) wouldn't have been available for the fall, does that mean Apple's original plan was to release 5 nm M2 Pro/Max MBP's in the fall, and then do a spec bump to 3 nm in the spring? [Back when the MPB was on Intel, there was a time during which we did get spec bumps every 6 months.] Or does it mean that, if they had been able to release 5 nm M2 Pro/Max MBP's in the fall, that would have been it for the MBP's until M3?

Nikkei Asia adds that the M3 products are slated for release 2H 2023, and will be on N3E (a more advanced 3 nm process).

I gather Nikkei Asia is a reputable publication (they're a sister organization to the London-based Financial Times), so it seems notable that they're reporting this as fact rather than rumor.

They do get this wrong—the A16 is on N4P, which is a 5 nm process—but then that's a common mistake caused by TSMC's misleading nomenclature:

"In 2022, only the premium iPhone 14 Pro range has adopted the latest A16 core processor, which is produced by TSMC's 4-nm process technologies, the most advanced currently available."

Apple to use TSMC's next 3-nm chip tech in iPhones, Macs next year

Move will mark industry's first adoption of updated production technology

asia.nikkei.com

 

[theorist9]

I know there's a view that the "average Joe" (i.e. "regular folks", not us crazies here on MR ) doesn't care about harwdware improvements (and, in particular, chipsets). But consider these:

1) When the average Joe (whom I'll abbreviate AJ) is aware of such improvements, they often do want to get the latest model. E.g., suppose it's mid-June, and AJ decides its time to upgrade his 4 year old iPhone. Some AJ's will just simply buy a new iPhone. But others will say "you know, I think I'm going to hold off until October so I can buy the next gen model". The reason AJ's can do this is that it's well–publicized that iPhones upgrade every fall. If Apple could get the Macs on such a regular upgrade cycle, then we'd see that behavior occur commonly for the Macs as well.

2) The people who buy MBP's* aren't your AJ's. They're a more select and informed clientele. I.e.., I'd say the fact that someone's buying an MBP means that, by definition, they do care about the chipset—since (other that a larger/better display), the better chipset is the only reason to buy an MBP instead of an MBA. All the bennies of the MBP—faster processing, more display support, more ports, higher RAM capacity—are due to its having an upgraded chipset. So to say MBP buyers don't care about performance/chipsets doesn't make sense to me.

*By MBP I mean the 14"/16" (which is what's being discussed in this thread), not the 13"

 

[chucker23n1]

The people who buy MBP's* aren't your AJ's. They're a more select and informed clientele.

Most computer sales, including MBP, are institutional. IT department sees employee’s laptop is three years old, buys new, rotates. Neither the IT person nor the employee cares about specs beyond “does it run the workloads I need”; for example, they might care “hey, this doesn’t come with USB-A, so let’s buy a hundred docks for a bulk discount”.

Enthusiasts exist, but they’re the minority.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I recall reading they planned a fall release of the M2 Pro/Max MBP's, but weren't able to make it because of supply chain issues. So it got pushed back to spring. Nikkei Asia reports that the spring release will be on N3 (3 nm).

Since 3 nm (likely) wouldn't have been available for the fall, does that mean Apple's original plan was to release 5 nm M2 Pro/Max MBP's in the fall, and then do a spec bump to 3 nm in the spring? [Back when the MPB was on Intel, there was a time during which we did get spec bumps every 6 months.] Or does it mean that, if they had been able to release 5 nm M2 Pro/Max MBP's in the fall, that would have been it for the MBP's until M3?

Nikkei Asia adds that the M3 products are slated for release 2H 2023, and will be on N3E (a more advanced 3 nm process).

I gather Nikkei Asia is a reputable publication (they're a sister organization to the London-based Financial Times), so it seems notable that they're reporting this as fact rather than rumor.

They do get this wrong—the A16 is on N4P, which is a 5 nm process—but then that's a common mistake caused by TSMC's misleading nomenclature:

"In 2022, only the premium iPhone 14 Pro range has adopted the latest A16 core processor, which is produced by TSMC's 4-nm process technologies, the most advanced currently available."

Apple to use TSMC's next 3-nm chip tech in iPhones, Macs next year

Move will mark industry's first adoption of updated production technology

asia.nikkei.com

There was a huge thread here about the fallacy of smaller is better. When I was in the IEEE, smaller had a lot of problems. Heat being the largest. It's like 'wafer scale integration'. Sure, it made a lot of sense, but wow, it is still not likely a thing yet. Physics on a molecular level is stopping a lot of innovation. But those laws of physics are laws you can't break. (Or get AppleCare)

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Most computer sales, including MBP, are institutional. IT department sees employee’s laptop is three years old, buys new, rotates. Neither the IT person nor the employee cares about specs beyond “does it run the workloads I need”; for example, they might care “hey, this doesn’t come with USB-A, so let’s buy a hundred docks for a bulk discount”.

Enthusiasts exist, but they’re the minority.

Some of my clients had notebooks that were really quite old. It was awkward to try to talk clients to pay more money for notebooks. Oh, and getting 'coverage' was the last thing they thought of. I sold ToughBooks to a client, and half of them were 'misplaced' (STOLEN) and they stopped buying their maintenance people 'rugged' notebooks.

But for large companies, they buy in mass, and hand them down until they either are dead and not recoverable, or TA DAH!!! An app or OS update drops them. Wonder why Windows dropped so many previous models/previous hardware? It's not because they aren't usable (mostly) it was trying to open corporate purses to get more sales. I doubt that Microsoft (and Apple) actually work with hardware vendors to increase sales, but it sure tends to look that way! Ugg...

 

[theorist9]

Most computer sales, including MBP, are institutional. IT department sees employee’s laptop is three years old, buys new, rotates. Neither the IT person nor the employee cares about specs beyond “does it run the workloads I need”; for example, they might care “hey, this doesn’t come with USB-A, so let’s buy a hundred docks for a bulk discount”.

Enthusiasts exist, but they’re the minority.

That wasn't the subject under discussion. It was whether individuals who make their own purchase decisions care about the chipsets or not.

Also, do you have any data to support your contention that most MBP sales are institutional? It's my understanding that, with a few notable exceptions, Apple shops are rare among large employers.

 

[theorist9]

There was a huge thread here about the fallacy of smaller is better. When I was in the IEEE, smaller had a lot of problems. Heat being the largest.

Thermals are better with smaller processes. Smaller processes generate less heat for the same performance. Smaller is only a thermal issue if you generate the same thermal energy from a smaller volume, or if the smaller process is less heat-tolerant.

There are places where larger is better—in high-radiation environments, larger processes are more robust. That's why NASA continues to use the radiation-hardned RAD750, which is 150-250 nm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750). If you're using your computer in the type of high-rad environment where this is a concern, you've got bigger problems than potential chip corruption.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

That wasn't the subject under discussion. It was whether individuals who make their own purchase decisions care about the chipsets or not.

Also, do you have any data to support your contention that most MBP sales are institutional? It's my understanding that, with a few notable exceptions, Apple shops are rare among large employers.

I sold several clients on using MBP for their traveling executives and sales people. Why? If they get to Hoboken and are prepping for a client meeting, their night of porn doesn't crash the whole deal. PLUS MBP's are real metal, not some fake metal looking plastic. I was surprised how easy it was to sell clients on products I couldn't directly sell them.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Thermals are better with smaller processes. Smaller processes generate less heat for the same performance. Smaller is only a thermal issue if you generate the same thermal energy from a smaller volume, or if the smaller process is less heat-tolerant.

There are places where larger is better—in high-radiation environments, larger processes are more robust. That's why NASA continues to use the radiation-hardned RAD750, which is 150-250 nm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750). If you're using your computer in the type of high-rad environment where this is a concern, you've got bigger problems than potential chip corruption.

There are two ways to deal with heat: slower speeds and lower voltage. (Well, larger heat sinks, but) So who among the readers here would want to get a slower MBP because it's using some new fangled 'smaller scale'? Not me. How many people would want a lower voltage notebook that might be more susceptible to extraneous EMF. Not me. Or haul around something with huge heat sinks and fans? Not me.

Rad hardened chips are also built on really old technology. Like 80286, 80386, and early early Power PC chips. Yeah, some satellites are less powerful than an Apple Watch. But they are a niche product.