When to Expect New M4 MacBook Air, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro Models

[jdb8167]

I'm very confused by the above?

That is entirely how the computer industry works? Users absolutely should expect to wait for the M4 to get M4 performance?

Heck, look at intel in the 2010s, they could only dream of getting a 50% performance increase over 4 years with the same power/thermal envelope.

I don't understand where these expectations are coming from.

10% to 20% increase every 18 months or so, is perfectly fine. It adds up to amazing performance increases over the years.

The M2 through M3 are fully justified because:

1) They sold reasonably well

2) They are the stepping stones to the M4

3) The M4's process didn't exist when the M2 came out?

Is everyone here just saying that Apple should only releaese new computers every 4-5 years? Why? Apple can ignore upgraders, they'll probably eventually be in the market for a new Mac. Apple has lots of customers who are looking for a computer now, and marketing to them is what matters.


Absolutely.

Nothing's wrong with waiting a few generations to upgrade. All is good, investment is good, Apple's progress is pretty good.

Apple's BTO prices are ridiculous, but that is a different subject entirely.

You missed my point. Of course most people should wait and then get a 50% improvement in performance but making everyone wait for 4 years when after 2 3 years you could get an almost 40% improvement is not how the computer industry works.

 

[Shirasaki]

The new MacBook Air really needs to meet or exceed the Surface Pro laptop at the same price point. And should really have been released before Christmas/Holidays this year.
View attachment 2404305

MacBook air will far exceed surface pro laptop guaranteed, Including the price. And I say that as a lifelong PC guy. Snapdragon still has a VERY long way to go before they can handle 60% of the x86 world effortlessly, while Apple doesn’t have that kind of concern: they just force drop x86 support whenever they feel like it and users can only suck it with no recourse whatsoever.

 

[jdb8167]

Yeah I remember reading about the supposed gains the M3 was going to bring to battery life, and was planning on holding out for it. Then my 2015 MBP (the famous "best laptop ever") screen died and I replaced it with the 15" M2 Air.
M3 came out and specs were barely different from M2, and the M3 was heavily discounted soon after release. Not sure I would call it a "failure" but it sure wasn't significantly different than the M2. Glad I made my purchase when I did.

Honestly at this point all I'm looking for is battery life improvements (already pretty great on the laptops but pretty bad on ipads and phones). Everything else about the machines (other than ports which Apple is not going to give us) is fantastic. Of course they should upgrade the base RAM above 8GB or come off the absurd $200 RAM premium which is about 10x what RAM costs on the Windows side.

What else does anyone really need from their Macbook that's not here already?

By my measurements with geekbench 6, the M3 gets a single-core improvement of 18% and a multi-core improvement of 21% over the M2. Not going to blow you out of the water but not nothing either.

 

[keldorn]

Meanwhile, the Mac Pro will feature the top-tier M4 chip, codenamed "Hidra,

Hail Hidra?

 

[DavidSchaub]

You missed my point. Of course most people should wait and then get a 50% improvement in performance but making everyone wait for 4 years when after 2 3 years you could get an almost 40% improvement is not how the computer industry works.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, I may have been responding too much to other posts.

But either way, that is still how the industry often works sometimes? A short period of time isn't going to be a big shift?

Especially considering how quickly Apple came out with M4 (something I don't expect to see repeated), the gains look pretty great.

Just looking at Geekbench 6 numbers:

 

[jdb8167]

Just looking at Geekbench 6 numbers:

I use my own measurements because the average numbers on the lists are always significantly lower than what I regularly see with my own equipment.

 

[ryanmp]

The day after I give in and buy a Mac Studio and 27" display will be the day Apple announces the M4 32" iMac. 😭

I've decided to just go for whatever comes next, new Mac Studio or new iMac (27"+). I went into the Apple Store a few months ago to look at the 24" iMac, just to be sure, but they aren't nice at all. It felt like a screen size from last decade.

 

[krell100]

So the most powerful Macs get updated last. Stupid.

 

[Shad0wLandsUK]

And on we go with the obsession with "thinnest form factor"

You want Power? We got you, but at the cost of throttling perhaps, since the form factor is more important to us
You spent $6K on this machine? Sorry about that, we like to look like the most cutting edge company at the expense of our product performance

🤣

 

[Shad0wLandsUK]

So the most powerful Macs get updated last. Stupid.

According to many reports and some digging, this is because they offer the smallest profit to Apple
MacBook Pro and MBA are the ones that sell like hot cakes

Which is why I might trade getting the Mac Studio for the MacBook Pro M4 instead
Though I do want that M4 Ultra Chip to take for a drive

 

[J.J. Sefton]

I've decided to just go for whatever comes next, new Mac Studio or new iMac (27"+). I went into the Apple Store a few months ago to look at the 24" iMac, just to be sure, but they aren't nice at all. It felt like a screen size from last decade.

Same here. I was happy they got a redesign, but bummed that there was only one screen size.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I won't be content until a MacBook is as thin as a sheet of paper said no one ever.

Yet we see folks here all the time choosing MBAs over MBPs and citing size/weight as one of the reasons. I think moving to thinner lighter is a good goal, even though personally I will just cope with the mass necessary to get max performance.

 

[joshuaiz]

Why does everyone seem to forget this in every thread? The M1–M3 chips have a serious hardware vulnerability that can only be partially fixed with software in the M3 and not at all in the M1 & M2 chips.

The M3 chips are not a failure per se but the move away from them has more to do with this hardware issue than any cannibalization with newer chips or anything else. The M4 chips do not have this vulnerability and so it makes perfect sense to push ahead with M4 rather than putting out more vulnerable machines into the world.

Seen in this light, the issue also accounts for the delay in some models not getting updated chips as well as the somewhat disjointed rollout of M4 across the product line.

 

[DavidSchaub]

The M3 chips are not a failure per se but the move away from them has more to do with this hardware issue than any cannibalization with newer chips or anything else. The M4 chips do not have this vulnerability and so it makes perfect sense to push ahead with M4 rather than putting out more vulnerable machines into the world.

I don't buy this. I suspect the quick move off the M3 is entirely due to trying to get off that process node in TSMC. Apple can mitigate enough of the vulnerability of the hardware fault that Apple doesn't really care. This is a company that shipped butterfly keyboards for what, 4 years?

Seen in this light, the issue also accounts for the delay in some models not getting updated chips as well as the somewhat disjointed rollout of M4 across the product line.

Or... Apple **always** releases product lines across chips in a disjointed rollout and that is NORMAL.

Just wait until Apple doesn't release the M5 on all Mac lines... that'll somehow surprise people again.

 

[joshuaiz]

I don't buy this. I suspect the quick move off the M3 is entirely due to trying to get off that process node in TSMC. Apple can mitigate enough of the vulnerability of the hardware fault that Apple doesn't really care. This is a company that shipped butterfly keyboards for what, 4 years?



Or... Apple **always** releases product lines across chips in a disjointed rollout and that is NORMAL.

Just wait until Apple doesn't release the M5 on all Mac lines... that'll somehow surprise people again.

Fair points about the rollout as well as the node process

But I would still argue that root level vulnerability is more serious than a keyboard that people just didn't like and surely had to weigh into the decision. The M1 & M2 chips were already out there so there was nothing they could do.

The M3 "rollout" just didn't make sense even when compared to previous rollouts. I can't know for sure but people were hungry for new M3 desktops and they just didn't happen. So considering the manufacturing issues combined with the vulnerability and that's an easy rug pull.

But here you go: THINNER!

 

[randian]

Apple being dumb again with scheduling. The Mac Studio is a halo item with low volume and high per-unit profit, which makes it ideal for early rampup when CPU availability is tight. It should always be the first to get CPU upgrades, not last.

 

[ksec]

No, it’s not. It’s been too much hype about almost nothing.

While the move to Apple Silicon is a smashing success, there’s simply too little difference between the various generations of M chips to justify all these new chips and Macs with the first, second of third Gen. Apple Silicon SoC.

Consumers tire out on Apple announcing new Mac SoCs when there barely any reasons to buy the newer over the older.

What we get now as M4 should have been the next generation after M1.

Having M2 and M3 in between has created too much supply of new stuff that barely offers an upgrade.

I don't think you know how CPU design iteration and Node developments works. Each are their own subject and independent of each other.

Although you could argue Apple just let their latest iPhone to be faster than all the Mac. Which would have happened without M2 and M3. And I think most people would think would be the wrong move.

 

[Alan Wynn]

If the guesses at timeline are correct and that both ULTRA and rumored EXTEME will be their own chips, my guess is that they will be the first branded M5 to finally resolve the "mess" of rolling out the "ultimate" Macs last only to then somewhat overpower them only a few months later with M-next MAX.

WWDC Introducing M5 ULTRA (and possibly M5 Extreme) and then roll out the rest on approximately the existing (perceived) schedule.

Why do this? Among other things, the Macs touted as "most powerful Macs ever" could actually hold that crown for the entire generational cycle instead of only 3 or 4 months at most.

And before someone slings "low unit sales don't warrant...", yes, they may sell low volume, but Apple makes them anyway and- presumably- they are highest profit per unit sold even if that's not many units. From what I've been told (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) Apple likes maximizing profit.

So, "great leap" (M2 to) M5 for these "mid summer" then the usual M5/M5pro/M5max in the Fall, then the lower priced- presumably lower profit per unit sold- MBairs with M5 in the Spring.

And that becomes the long-term schedule if they want to keep spreading out these launches around the year.

I own a Studio with Ultra but would NEVER buy another knowing M-next MAX is only a few months away and likely to overtake it in key ways. I'd rather wait the few months to get a more powerful, "latest & greatest" and spend a lot less money (so a lot less profit for Apple) too. However, flip this part of the apparent "schedule," and then anyone paying wayyyyyyyyyyyy up for Ultra or rumored Extreme would get at least a year of "king of the Mac power hill" perception before M-next offerings overtake them.

Bonus for Apple: those who can't hardly bear to NOT own latest & greatest and "most powerful" might feel greater pressure to cough up the added revenue for Studio or Pro vs. trying to manage their compulsions the few months until they can buy somewhat "better" and "latest generation" for a lot less money. Again, I hear that Apple likes profit maximization... and Mac buyers shopping for a new Mac for themselves probably buy ONE Mac not both.

 

[phrehdd]

I admit its going to be a long wait for me for the Studio. Meanwhile, I can put more money aside for larger drive and more RAM.

 

[davidhands]

Isn't this hardware upgrade cycle a bit rapid?
It's sunk the price of Apple hardware, second hand. 1st Gen M1 Pro's are going on eBay for around £800. Given how recently they came out this seems quite low.
It does mean the market is now flooded with very nicely priced pre-M chipped Macs.
I paid £150 for a 15" 2014 MBP - perfect working order. Kitchen laptop! Doesn't matter if it gets a bit sticky now and again, and no, that's not what I meant.

 

[fromgophonetoiphone]

Way too slow. M4 is Spring 2025, and it takes until Summer 2025 to finish the M4 refresh? By then M5 is around the corner in fall 2025, no? This is assuming MacBook Pros get updated Fall 2024 per teh article.

 

[opeter]

The Mac computers (outside of the notebooks) are not priority to them, but no surprise here. It is so since years. Remember the Mac Pro 2013 or Mac mini 2014? The first had not seen an update for 6 years, the second for four years. The same was with the iMac line, especially the Pro versions.

They could have update the whole line with the M3 at the same time, but didn't, because the desktop products have for them very low income. Or so they say.

 

[opeter]

Way too slow. M4 is Spring 2025, and it takes until Summer 2025 to finish the M4 refresh? By then M5 is around the corner in fall 2025, no? This is assuming MacBook Pros get updated Fall 2024 per teh article.

M5? Probably 2026 or beyond.

 

[krell100]

Apple have created a perpetual cycle of preventing sales of high(er) end Macs.

By releasing M[x] Ultra/Max last then only 2-3 months later releasing M[y] which is faster with more features (ie ray tracing) potential buyers become super wary of buying which translates to lower sales.

Its an artificially created problem and I can only assume its internal planned policy at this stage.

 

[Giuanniello]

As an M3 Max owner, I can easily say that the machine is a beast and I don't regret the purchase even a little.
I think it's a failure simply from a marketing perspective.

1) Apple is a victim of its own success. Many people simply don't see a need to upgrade from the M1 Max, let alone from the M2 Max.
2) With AI dominating the headlines almost every single day, it simply makes sense to rush to an "AI-capable" chip. Sure, the M3 variants can likely do SOME AI, but the M4 has the supposedly-necessary bump to do it better.

Unless the hardware fails on me, I hope to have the M3 Max be my next 10-year machine in the same way my i7 from 2013 was my previous 10-year machine.

Interesting views which I share, I am waiting for a Studio upgrade to let the 10 years old i7 Mini spend it's last computational power as a media server, just wondering why so long to get a new Studio and I am sure I am not the only one thinking to jump ship as the wait is way too long.

If only Apple would lower the prices I'd sure be happy with an M1 variation of the Studio for photo editing and daily activities