Aye; WIFI 4/5 is more than sufficient (for me (and everyone else with whom I interact)). Everyone I know is more concerned about consistency, rather than that of capacity.
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.
Waiting for New Macs? Apple Just Shared Bad News
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Aye; WIFI 4/5 is more than sufficient (for me (and everyone else with whom I interact)). Everyone I know is more concerned about consistency, rather than that of capacity.
I am simply giving an example of a common strategy that Apple under TC could bring in more latest features but they decided not to on purpose. Similarly, the maximum RAM is limited to higher end machines, etc.
People saying Macs would be refreshed more often (or would be cheaper without paying an “Intel Premium”) were purely conjecturing. Apple seems to be settling into a yearly upgrade cycle for its chips and Macs, but external factors can cause delays. The M1 and M2 rollouts were heavily impacted by Covid disruptions and corresponding shutdowns in China. Then TSMC struggled with their initial 3nm process node (hence why the A16 was on a “4nm” node which was really just a super enhanced 5nm node).
What's the point of releasing Apple Intelligence-ready HomePods or Apple TVs when the software won't be ready until next year? They can use the holiday season to sell down remaining inventory and then release the updates when updated hardware might actually be useful.
Now with Macs, I would guess they just aren't ready yet or they are not yet getting M5 chips in high enough volume.
Now with Macs, I would guess they just aren't ready yet or they are not yet getting M5 chips in high enough volume.
Yes and no. You'd typically have these chips very very very physically close together and interconnected via some incredibly fast and high bandwidth fabric. Done well, the latency is negligible.
Intel (ew, I know) is already doing this with their Foveros stuff. They have a silicon interposer that their smaller, specialized dies sit on and talk to each other via. We'll see this in action soon in Panther Lake (Intel Ultra 300), which has SKUs that use the same CPU die but mix-and-matched GPU and I/O dies.
I mean, they could say it’s not comparable if they release them later. But yeah, at this point it’s very likely early 2026.
I’m still hoping we might get Apple TV (the hardware box product) in early November. I didn’t realize that I missed an Apple TV generation at some point, and when I installed a new home theater late last year I moved out the crappy TV downstairs, put the old box upstairs on our old primary TV, and put the newer box downstairs on the newly primary TV. And the old box was first gen 4K, which was fine for the old 1080p when I moved it downstairs years ago, but nowadays is kinda laggy on 4K, and the remote is garbo.
I’m still hoping we might get Apple TV (the hardware box product) in early November. I didn’t realize that I missed an Apple TV generation at some point, and when I installed a new home theater late last year I moved out the crappy TV downstairs, put the old box upstairs on our old primary TV, and put the newer box downstairs on the newly primary TV. And the old box was first gen 4K, which was fine for the old 1080p when I moved it downstairs years ago, but nowadays is kinda laggy on 4K, and the remote is garbo.
Apple didn't release the M5 base for us. This is a flex to appease investors. Qualcomm is nipping on its heels, and Apple needs to show it has the muscle to stay on top. Whether M5 Pro or Max is released this year doesn't matter. Now, investors know it's coming and won't panic when X2 Elite is released and Qualcomm reveals more about its AI-focused chips. Short-term corporate mission accomplished.
True, but the article is suggesting Apple's Mac-specific financial statement is setting expectations for the remainder of the year. If correct, then perhaps Jan or Feb.
Safe to say that we can interpret into the CFO's statement that no big Mac announcements are planned for the remainder of the year, or that they'll be so late in the quarter that they won't factor into the quarterly results much.
So, it could still be that we see the M5 Pro/Max MBP in late November (doesn't seem likely, though; if they were almost ready, why release the M5 non-Pro MBP in October?), or that we do get the rumored low-end A19 Pro MacBook before EoY, but that they don't expect it to be a big bump this quarter.
Yet the shortages never hit the A chips for iPhones, which are higher volume (or so it seems)
Not trying to argue with you or anything. Just making an observation that computers are not Apple's primary focus anymore.
Should be interesting. I'm wondering if I'll wait for the M6 model (rumoured new design) or get the M5.Yep.
Can't wait for the M5 Pro, though.
I'm somewhat worried they mess it up like the 2019 design. I currently have the M1 Pro 14-inch, and will happily upgrade to the M5 Pro 14-inch, hoping it runs just as cool.
For the same tests it should run cooler, if you really push it though you might be able to run it slightly hotter apparently. I would prefer tbh if the new design wasn't rumoured and I had no choice to make there. For people who really need a "Pro" machine thinner often isn't better. For me I just want the ports the machine has such as SD Card and the better speakers in terms of how I will use the machine, but I won't be really doing "Pro" stuff with it per se. For my use case where I have two desktop Macs upstairs for more work stuff, thinner isn't necessarily a negative. I would have maybe preferred they gave MBA some of those ports (MBA used have SD Card) and keep MBP chonky and double-down on its pro-ness—cooling, power and everything else.
That's my worry, and Apple has a history of overshooting. Which is fine on the Air, but for the Pro, I kind of need to get my work done.
Exactly — see the iPhone 17 Pro vs. iPhone Air. The Pro gets to be chonky and high-end.
True. On iPhone Pro I reckon they should go even thicker and rename it iPhone Ultra, keeping it consistent with Apple Watch. Then again, I think iPhone 16e or iPhone Air shouldn't exist, nor should sub-naming and numbering.
Just iPhone in three sizes, and iPhone Ultra in three sizes. Like how the iPad Pro line and MacBook Pro line are merely distinguished by screen size. This (along with less advanced battery chemistry) was one of the reason for such poor iPhone 12 mini and 13 mini sales—the name "mini". If it was 5.6" instead of 5.4" and had modern battery chemistry and was available in consumer and Ultra incarnations it would sell much better.
iPhone 5.6", 6.2", 6.8" (KISS)
iPhone Ultra 5.6", 6.2", 6.8" (go crazy)
Last edited:
I agree. I would welcome Apple, doing a 2-3 year hardware upgrade cycle instead, focusing on bigger jumps in performance and design (which is essentially skipping a gen or two now). And rolling out entire lineup updates at once per category. In between the hardware updates, just focus MORE on software stability and features. If they staggered the release of product groups (1 year all the Macs, the next year all the iPhones, the next year all the iPads and so on..), they might still be able to meet volume metrics with suppliers and bring in shareholder value? Apple SOC has brought them enough performance headroom, in most use cases.