What is wrong with Apple right now? Where are the new products?

[chrono1081]

...and so is Apple (Apple Silicon SoCs, MacOS/iOS etc.) - it's just that they only supply parts/OS software to themselves (or commission them from TSMC if you prefer).

Roadmaps from PC parts/software makers tell you a lot about what end-user products are coming and when. Windows end-of-life dates are published years in advance.

Even with Intel Macs you could go onto Intel's Ark website and see "Oh look, the Gen 16 i7 variant with 60W GDP and Iris pro-plus graphics isn't shipping until Q4 so we won't be seing a new i8 MBP until at least then" (made up stats, but there were definitely times when this sort of thing explained the non-appearance of Mac models).

Post-Apple Silicon, Apple's future products (who's features are largely determined by the SoC) are an entirely closed book - the M5 Pro/Max/Ultra SoC could be coming out next week, next fall or never. Effective end-of-life for MacOS Tahoma will come whenever updates stop trickling out... maybe when the last Intel Mac turns vintage/obsolete (or maybe not).

You're misunderstanding what I mean by parts supplier. Apple sells you the entire package, you can't just buy a CPU from them. All the other companies you named supply components to others (chips, graphics cards, etc).

 

[G5isAlive]

...and so is Apple (Apple Silicon SoCs, MacOS/iOS etc.) - it's just that they only supply parts/OS software to themselves (or commission them from TSMC if you prefer).

Roadmaps from PC parts/software makers tell you a lot about what end-user products are coming and when. Windows end-of-life dates are published years in advance.

Even with Intel Macs you could go onto Intel's Ark website and see "Oh look, the Gen 16 i7 variant with 60W GDP and Iris pro-plus graphics isn't shipping until Q4 so we won't be seing a new i8 MBP until at least then" (made up stats, but there were definitely times when this sort of thing explained the non-appearance of Mac models).

Post-Apple Silicon, Apple's future products (who's features are largely determined by the SoC) are an entirely closed book - the M5 Pro/Max/Ultra SoC could be coming out next week, next fall or never. Effective end-of-life for MacOS Tahoma will come whenever updates stop trickling out... maybe when the last Intel Mac turns vintage/obsolete (or maybe not).

So what you are saying is parts providers supply road maps to their customers….who is the customer for apple silicon chips? Apple! I bet they do get a roadmap.

 

[Schismz]

I think there is a particular problem with the pro desktops where they have a dreadful track record of releasing one-and-done products like the trashcan, iMac Pro and 2019 Mac Pro, leaving them to go out of date then going off in some radically different direction with the "successor" that won't necessarily support the same workflow. If you have to spend a year planning/budgeting/writing proposals for a large project that will run for several years, it's rather useful to know that the equipment that you specify in the proposal will still be available in some recognisable form 3 years later if you need replacements or additional seats. Even Apple's position on end-of-life for MacOS versions seems to be a case of guessing based on past performance. E.g. although we know that Tahoe will be the last Intel-compatible MacOS we have to just assume that it will get 3 years support - and nobody really has a clue if there will still be a PCIe Mac Pro this time next year. It would be a very "courageous" move to plan an important project that assumed there will be a drop-in replacement for the current Mac Pro or Studio Ultra for the next 3-4 years Apple doesn't need to make an announcement for people to assume that the M5 MBP announced in October means that M5 Airs and M5 Pro/Max MBPs definitely probably might be coming soon - and even people who don't scour the interwebs for rumors are going to ask why the cheaper MBP is "M5" while the more expensive one is only "M4" - so some "Osbourning" will be happening anyway. I guess Apple are pretty confident that people who delay buying will hold onto their monnot be tempted to spend it on anything

Just to focus on this single part of your message. If you work for a company and spec out a roadmap predicated upon Apple's release cycle for Mac Pro computers, let me be kind and say that's a terrible idea and taking into account Apple's track record over the past 15+ years, it may be that you have questionable judgement.

My sig is from 2012 and was ironic back then (the 5,1 was basically a 4,1 with extremely minor changes). Then... the trashcan; Cheesegrater 5,1 to 7,1... that upgrade took a decade.

Just... ignore the Mac Pro. It lives in an alternate universe where time runs at different speeds, it gets an "upgrade" 2x a decade, and will be cancelled/ignored, left to drift along in limbo, and then eventually resurrected <in a random form factor> whenever enough studios who purchased enough of them light a fire under Apple's a$$ and go like, "We're STILL using Logic Pro! And Need That!"

Over here in 2026 I just purchased a maxed Studio and called it a day, because I need something that will mostly serve my purposes for everything that can't be done remotely (but the 7,1 still holds 1.5-2TB RAM, and is far superior in many ways, which is just sad, because it's a 6 year old computer). Current AS Mac Pro = Mac Studio with built in slotbox for PCIe cards, but you can't use 3rd party graphics cards, can't move past the upper RAM limit, can't... a lot of things. Also, it still has a M2 chip ... kinda, sorta, making it obvious how low on Apple's priority list it ranks.

It's just... bad. And there's no way I'm buying this thing -- Mac Pro -- in 2026. You really shouldn't either, especially if you're making this decision on behalf of a co and it's your responsibility. It's a very poor choice unless you have a really compelling use case that can't utilize other hardware. Just sayin'

I'm coming from a place of personal experience and having lived 20+ years in the twilight zone of Apple's "high-end" hardware. Click my profile, scroll back through my messages over last 16 years, 95%+ pertain to Mac Pro.

It's Apple. They sell products to consumers, most of whom just buy whatever they need at a Apple Store, or online, or wherever and don't read roadmaps for incoming hardware. They have infinite money printer with iPhone and as of 2026 no particular sense of direction whatsoever with many in senior management having bailed, or have one and a half feet out the door.

Apple's "pro" gear is a rounding error in their financials. iCrap + Services is what drives revenue + share price.

 

[theluggage]

So what you are saying is parts providers supply road maps to their customers….who is the customer for apple silicon chips? Apple! I bet they do get a roadmap.

The point is that Apple are, in effect, a parts manufacturer (or, at least, the sole commissioner of Apple Silicon from TSMC) and their decisions on what SoCs to make have a massive effect on future Mac products in the same way that Intel and NVIDIA's decisions affect the PC market. So, large, professional customers would benefit from a "for external use" (even under NDA) roadmap - as produced by companies like Intel.

As I said, this is more of an issue with (say) a company wanting to kit itself out with Mac Pros than Mom & Pop choosing a "bact to school" laptop.

Aside from roadmaps that aren't available to the general public (unless they leak - in which case they're rather more informative than an "analyst's" guesses) - there is far more official technical data publicly available about Intel and AMD chips than Apple Silicon. E.g how many thunderbolt ports and PCIe lanes a particular processor supports. Easily looked up on line for Intel, has to be deduced from Mac specs and tear-downs for Apple Silicon.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention to Apple's annual release cycles for its products but I'm certain if you ask Tim Cook nicely he'll gladly divulge Apple's product plans to you 🙄

Maybe Tim Cook will also divulge the introduction of the Apple car to the market 🙂

~Just kidding with you.

 

[8483011]

Sure you did buddy. You of course knew that they meant it simply wouldn’t open.
That’s why you replied to them with your thoughtful, or at least entertaining, comment.
And it was so obvious that you did, that they posted that video simply because they had nothing better to do.
In any case, your sarcasm needs some work, if it truly was.

It's never been that serious lmfao

 

[G5isAlive]

The point is that Apple are, in effect, a parts manufacturer (or, at least, the sole commissioner of Apple Silicon from TSMC) and their decisions on what SoCs to make have a massive effect on future Mac products in the same way that Intel and NVIDIA's decisions affect the PC market. So, large, professional customers would benefit from a "for external use" (even under NDA) roadmap - as produced by companies like Intel.

As I said, this is more of an issue with (say) a company wanting to kit itself out with Mac Pros than Mom & Pop choosing a "bact to school" laptop.

Aside from roadmaps that aren't available to the general public (unless they leak - in which case they're rather more informative than an "analyst's" guesses) - there is far more official technical data publicly available about Intel and AMD chips than Apple Silicon. E.g how many thunderbolt ports and PCIe lanes a particular processor supports. Easily looked up on line for Intel, has to be deduced from Mac specs and tear-downs for Apple Silicon.

Nope the point is Apple is the customer as it relates to parts it makes. so why would they tell us their roadmap?

Because the advantage Apple has is its own chip provider is its ability to pivot.

I get you want a road map. But there is no reason for Apple to provide one. Zero. Nada. You want it, cool. But will you get it. Nope. Shrugs.