Are yearly M-series refreshes a success?

[Tyler O'Bannon]

So far we’re looking at 1.5 yrs + delays. Not sure if apple is aiming for 12 months or closer to 18 months.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

I don't think they were ever looking at a yearly refresh cycle. They never have done that. That's why they were always behind in performance when on intel.

 

[Gudi]

Because your statement is akin to saying "oxygen is harmful to biological systems and will decrease your lifespan". Which is most likely true according to the state of the art medical research, but hardly helpful or useful. What you do is reiterating facts without putting them in a relevant context, which is a form of manipulation. A more complete version of the statement is: "Heat is still the mortal enemy of electronics and will shorten their lifespan, but this is not practically relevant at the temperatures of 105C or lower consumer electronics operates on".

Well, isn't that pure nonsense? Only because you can run one cpu-core at 105°C for prolonged time, doesn't mean the entire computer can withstand these temperatures. The CPU is just a source of heat, but the damage can appear somewhere else entirely. Some LCD panels can't withstand temperatures above 60°C before the Liquid Crystal cells inside the display start to boil, leaving behind black spots. Lots of components shouldn't get much hotter than 40 degrees. If the cooling system can keep the heat away from those areas depends on many things. The form factor is crucial and so is ambient temperature and direct sunlight, but another is the amount of heat generated in the first place, less is better for longevity and not just theoretically.

 

[jonblatho]

Sometimes I don’t know why I bother with this site. I guess Louis Rossmann was was correct.

You made something up — that the Apple silicon transition would mean cheaper Macs — and then chose to get upset when it didn’t come to pass? What does this have to do with Louis Rossmann?

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I don't know why people are annoyed by this and expect Apple to some day switch things up and refresh specs for every Mac annually, at one big event, or even just within 12 months or sooner from dropping the next chip gen.

Apple has never done that and never will.

Apple has always been about creating scarcity and making sure there's wide gaps in value and specs across the entire product line-up, making for a selection of models that vary greatly in use cases and specs despite all just being laptop and desktop computers running MacOS.

Apple would be doing the same for smartphones as they do with Macs if it were not for the fact that the average smartphone is about 2.58 years old, meaning that consumers are still upgrading every 2-3 years.

Macs are commonly much more expensive and require a big purchase of several hundreds or thousands of dollars, or taking up an expensive loan. Whereas most mobile devices can be paid for with interest free loans through carriers.

You really have to give Mac owners a good reason to upgrade. M1 was that and more.

But Apple got too zealous thinking M2 was good enough. But M2 underdelivered.

I think Apple's reaction will be to add even more time between each chip generation, to make sure the "hunger" for new Macs is even bigger and that they can deliver bigger improvements over the previous generation.

We disagree. I do not in any way think that M2 underdelivered just because M1 overdelivered. M2 is a great piece of work, a solid upgrade to M1.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

While being the fastest iMac I've ever owned, it's also my most problematic device. Not enough speed, not enough RAM, not enough storage. Storage has been a real PITA.

We need to plan for the entire 3-6 year life cycle of the box when buying a new computer because speed, RAM and storage demands will always increase over time like they have since PCs began. Underbuying on hardware is seldom cost-effective and leads to the PITA you are experiencing.

Twenty years ago computers were more modular and more upgradable, but also were much slower, partially thanks to that modularity. Apple's Unified Memory Architecture is a prime example.

 

[Alpha God Vonn]

It seems to me that with yearly M-series chips we are also going to see a different kind of sales pattern. Instead of a Mac being on sale in its exact configuration for multiple years, people are expecting the newest M-series chips to trickle down to all configurations, or to get substantial discounts if this doesn’t happen. You can see it in the M1 iMacs and MacBook Pro’s being on sale at steep discounts on Amazon while we wait for the M3.

I can see there are several different groups of Apple customer: those who always want the latest gear and are prepared to pay for it, and those who buy the gear they need when they need it, and price sensitive customers who wait for a bargain. In shifting away from Intel and wanting to do their own chips on a yearly cadence, Apple are catering for the first group, and providing more opportunities to buy discounted gear for price sensitive customers who don’t have to have the latest stuff.

So I wonder if the yearly refreshes are actually a success in driving sales of the Mac? With the recent dip in sales one has to ask, is that a consumer reaction to an underwhelming update, or is it part of the post-Covid supercycle where people have spent their tech budget.

Maybe its too early to tell…

What Apple Needs to do is to add different colors , add new hardware features && redesign the the MacBook Pros every 3 years to drive new sales. If I was charge Face ID 🆔 would have been included on the M2 Pro macs & the sales would have been HUGE! Along with a 1 new exclusive Pro color. It’s the simple things . M3 Pro MacBook 5K OLED Screens, Faster Port speeds, all metal keyboard. M4 Pro MacBook Redesigned from the ground up, 5K OLED touch screen with dual lighting, improved speakers & mics, the keyboard could come off. M6 Pro Mackbook a glowing Apple Logo. M7 Pro Fully functional touchscreen Apple Logo that show notifications etc etc Yall get the picture.

 

[thenewperson]

Yall get the picture.

Picture’s looking more expensive with each gen :/

 

[falainber]

Well, isn't that pure nonsense? Only because you can run one cpu-core at 105°C for prolonged time, doesn't mean the entire computer can withstand these temperatures. The CPU is just a source of heat, but the damage can appear somewhere else entirely. Some LCD panels can't withstand temperatures above 60°C before the Liquid Crystal cells inside the display start to boil, leaving behind black spots. Lots of components shouldn't get much hotter than 40 degrees. If the cooling system can keep the heat away from those areas depends on many things. The form factor is crucial and so is ambient temperature and direct sunlight, but another is the amount of heat generated in the first place, less is better for longevity and not just theoretically.

How exactly does CPU temperature affect LCD panel? Only if the system is poorly designed like needlessly thin iMacs (form over function).

 

[falainber]

We need to plan for the entire 3-6 year life cycle of the box when buying a new computer because speed, RAM and storage demands will always increase over time like they have since PCs began. Underbuying on hardware is seldom cost-effective and leads to the PITA you are experiencing.

Twenty years ago computers were more modular and more upgradable, but also were much slower, partially thanks to that modularity. Apple's Unified Memory Architecture is a prime example.

UMA is a phone-centric design which is impossible to scale (hence no AS Mac Pro let alone AS server).

 

[Abazigal]

"Culmination of a decade" because it's been a decade since Apple started designing their own chips. They can make new iPhone chips every year too, doing the same for the Mac is certainly feasible (especially since the chip families are based on shared architecture), just expensive. The question is whether it's worth the effort and investment.

I do think that Apple plans to introduce a new generation of M-series every year, it's just that the execution has been challenged by many constraints.

I would liken the M-series chips more to the A-x series processors in the iPads (eg: A8x, A9x, A10x, A12x) which get roughly a 1.5 year refresh cycle, rather than the A-chips in smartphones.

Personally, I don't see the point. People are not replacing their Macs at the same rate as smartphones, so I feel Apple is fine sticking to a 2-3 year refresh cycle. Having a new M-chip every year just strikes me as wasteful, since processor design is expensive, and Macs don't sell in sufficient volumes year over year to reap the efficiencies of scale.

 

[Gudi]

How exactly does CPU temperature affect LCD panel? Only if the system is poorly designed like needlessly thin iMacs (form over function).

Needlessly power-hungry 45nm Core2Duos. The iMac form factor is useful to me, Intel inside isn't. And yes, Apple is guilty of building form factors, which couldn't handle heat very well. But they solved that problem in the best possible way, by reducing the heat generated in the first place.

 

[leman]

Personally, I don't see the point. People are not replacing their Macs at the same rate as smartphones, so I feel Apple is fine sticking to a 2-3 year refresh cycle.

I mentioned a possible benefit earlier: regular updates make it more likely to convince users who are on the fence or looking for a justification to upgrade; this might drive more consistent revenue.

Having a new M-chip every year just strikes me as wasteful, since processor design is expensive, and Macs don't sell in sufficient volumes year over year to reap the efficiencies of scale.

This of course a very good point. It is entirely possible that you are right and frequent updates will cost more than what they bring.

 

[Gudi]

The Buyer's Guide is a staple of the Mac platform and Apple Silicon wasn't meant to change that. I know, Steve said fewer models would allow them to put the A-Team on every product and iterate more often. But what he meant was meaningful upgrades, not frequent minor spec bumps. While we might not get new Macs as often as we like, the same people are working on new iPhones and iPads. So overall the customer spends more on his entire Apple ecosystem and gets more value out of it. What if there is no one working on an M2 iMac and we need to wait for the M3 iMac? Is that really a loss to anyone! Eventually all the products which we regard as neglected by Apple will come back to life with amazing capabilities and a flashing green BUY NOW label. If you missed the last great opportunity to upgrade, the next one will only become an even larger improvement to your setup.

 

[PsykX]

We need to plan for the entire 3-6 year life cycle of the box when buying a new computer because speed, RAM and storage demands will always increase over time like they have since PCs began. Underbuying on hardware is seldom cost-effective and leads to the PITA you are experiencing.

Twenty years ago computers were more modular and more upgradable, but also were much slower, partially thanks to that modularity. Apple's Unified Memory Architecture is a prime example.

In fact I was buying a temporary computer so I bought cheap. But Apple's entire Mac lineup is pretty screwed up right now in terms of desktop computers, I had to keep it longer.

I just ordered an M2 Pro Mac Mini Refurbished with 1TB SSD and 32GB RAM. This one I know is well calibrated for my needs and I can keep it for a few years. But I will lose my 5K display and awesome webcam from the iMac, I have to find something equivalent.

I will wait until WWDC before I open it though. We never know what might be released, but I have no hope for anything M3 before 2024.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

In fact I was buying a temporary computer so I bought cheap. But Apple's entire Mac lineup is pretty screwed up right now in terms of desktop computers, I had to keep it longer.

I just ordered an M2 Pro Mac Mini Refurbished with 1TB SSD and 32GB RAM. This one I know is well calibrated for my needs and I can keep it for a few years. But I will lose my 5K display and awesome webcam from the iMac, I have to find something equivalent.

I will wait until WWDC before I open it though. We never know what might be released, but I have no hope for anything M3 before 2024.

I would say you are safe in cracking the seal on it. ha ha. As for monitor, Studio monitor is always a great choice, or the new Samsung M8 for that 'imac' look.

 

[dmccloud]

I don't think they were ever looking at a yearly refresh cycle. They never have done that. That's why they were always behind in performance when on intel.

Intel was more responsible for that then Apple was. One big reason Apple ditched Intel was because they had trouble manufacturing CPUs that would work within the Mac's thermal profile and physical specifications.

 

[dmccloud]

View attachment 2208284
The Buyer's Guide is a staple of the Mac platform and Apple Silicon wasn't meant to change that. I know, Steve said fewer models would allow them to put the A-Team on every product and iterate more often. But what he meant was meaningful upgrades, not frequent minor spec bumps. While we might not get new Macs as often as we like, the same people are working on new iPhones and iPads. So overall the customer spends more on his entire Apple ecosystem and gets more value out of it. What if there is no one working on an M2 iMac and we need to wait for the M3 iMac? Is that really a loss to anyone! Eventually all the products which we regard as neglected by Apple will come back to life with amazing capabilities and a flashing green BUY NOW label. If you missed the last great opportunity to upgrade, the next one will only become an even larger improvement to your setup.

Apple does not have the same people designing the iPhones and Macs. They have separate teams for each product line that handle the design part of things. The Buyer's Guide is not definitive in any fashion, just something people can look at and get a (very generalized) idea of which products may be next to get updated. Listing the 14" and 16" MBPs as "neutral" is sketchy, especially given they haven't even been out for six months yet.

 

[dmccloud]

UMA is a phone-centric design which is impossible to scale (hence no AS Mac Pro let alone AS server).

Yet it does scale on the Mac side, when you look at the M1 and its variants compared to the M2 and its variants. As you go up the SoC hierarchy, the max RAM supported also increases.

 

[Gudi]

Apple does not have the same people designing the iPhones and Macs. They have separate teams for each product line that handle the design part of things. The Buyer's Guide is not definitive in any fashion, just something people can look at and get a (very generalized) idea of which products may be next to get updated. Listing the 14" and 16" MBPs as "neutral" is sketchy, especially given they haven't even been out for six months yet.

Given that they literally use the same M1 chip for iPad and Mac, I find it hard to believe that they have two completely separate teams doing the same work twice. Of course the Buyer's Guide and Rumor Sites are only a hint at when upgrades might happen, which is exactly why they exist in the first place. Mac users must deal with a certain unpredictability of upgrade cycles and are compensated with innovations only Apple can do.

 

[PsykX]

I would say you are safe in cracking the seal on it. ha ha. As for monitor, Studio monitor is always a great choice, or the new Samsung M8 for that 'imac' look.

I would like two monitors. I was thinking either Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 55-inch 8K or 2X ViewFinity S9 or 2X Studio Display or 2X Samsung M8...

I will wait until the G9 8K and ViewFinity are released.
I always had an iMac because I love minimalism in electronics and wires. Studio Display is a bit expensive and poor webcam compared to my current iMac.

 

[senttoschool]

Source? I don’t remember any such statement. At least not for the M series of SoC. The A series is obviously different.

2. Apple Exec said they weren’t bound by previous partners CPU schedule. That does not mean once a year.

I suspect they want to get in a yearly cadence, but the entire industry is behind on 3nm because of the pandemic delays. Not really a good measure of the current status of what apple’s update plans are.

Source? Did they specify which series of SoCs they were referring to? Because they've always had a new A-series SoC each year. That doesn't guarantee that their plans are the same for the M-series.

“The M2 family was really now about maintaining that leadership position by pushing, again, to the limits of technology. We don’t leave things on the table,” says Millet. “We don’t take a 20% bump and figure out how to spread it over three years…figure out how to eke out incremental gains. We take it all in one year; we just hit it really hard. That’s not what happens in the rest of the industry or historically.”

Apple execs on M2 chips, winning gamers and when to buy a Mac | TechCrunch

Apple's M series chips were incredibly well telegraphed when they arrived in late 2020. Apple had been designing its own silicon since the A4 appeared in

techcrunch.com

"Culmination of a decade" because it's been a decade since Apple started designing their own chips. They can make new iPhone chips every year too, doing the same for the Mac is certainly feasible (especially since the chip families are based on shared architecture), just expensive. The question is whether it's worth the effort and investment.

I do think that Apple plans to introduce a new generation of M-series every year, it's just that the execution has been challenged by many constraints.

This is my hypothesis as well. Due to constraints, 3nm delay, new Macbook shortages, covid, new Mac design delays, Apple isn't able to do yearly releases. I suspect that they want to do it, at least for the M, M Pro, and M Max. The M Ultra and "Extreme", I can see them updating it once every 2 years.

We will see. If Apple brings out the M3 at WWDC, then it's a surefire bet that they do have plans to update yearly.

 

[senttoschool]

"Culmination of a decade" because it's been a decade since Apple started designing their own chips. They can make new iPhone chips every year too, doing the same for the Mac is certainly feasible (especially since the chip families are based on shared architecture), just expensive. The question is whether it's worth the effort and investment.

Assuming that the new VR devices will also use Apple Silicon (why wouldn't it?), then Apple Silicon will go into the following devices:

• VR Headset
• Macbook Air 13"
• Macbook Air 15"
• Macbook Pro 14"
• Macbook Pro 16"
• iMac 24"
• Mac Mini
• Mac Studio
• Mac Pro
• iPad Air
• iPad Pro 10"
• iPad Pro 13"
• Rumored iPad 15"

I'm anticipating that the 13" MBP will be deprecated soon so I'm not including it in the list.

That's 13 devices and half of Apple's revenue. It seems to me that updating the base M once a year makes economic sense - especially when they're already doing it for the iPhone. One could argue that updating the Pro and Max versions once a year also makes sense. The Ultra and "Extreme" can be updated every two years.

 

[leman]

One could argue that updating the Pro and Max versions once a year also makes sense. The Ultra and "Extreme" can be updated every two years.

If you are updating Max every year you can do the same for the Ultra. It would even make economical sense. Since Ultra/Expreme is made from Max-type chips, you are wasting fewer chips if you keep them synchronised.

 

[The point and shoot pro]

I would like two monitors. I was thinking either Samsung Odyssey Neo G9 55-inch 8K or 2X ViewFinity S9 or 2X Studio Display or 2X Samsung M8...

I will wait until the G9 8K and ViewFinity are released.
I always had an iMac because I love minimalism in electronics and wires. Studio Display is a bit expensive and poor webcam compared to my current iMac.

2 Studio displays mounted on a deskmount to keep the desk clear would be AWESOME. I am using two 24" dells right now, and I love it for somethings, but writing is not one of them. As there is a line right where I want my program to be opened. Now, for editing it's great as I have two screen setup for resolve.