How about refreshing the entire laptop lineup with 120hz OLEDs across the board
That would create a sales bump
The two most pleasurable and noticeable upgrades for me in the last 15 years have been going SSD and going OLED
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.
M4 Macs Are Expected to Launch in This Order Starting Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How about refreshing the entire laptop lineup with 120hz OLEDs across the board
That would create a sales bump
The two most pleasurable and noticeable upgrades for me in the last 15 years have been going SSD and going OLED
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I suspect even the fans have grown a sense that more than base specs are needed. The staunch defenders will not admit it but I think they know. Base specs let Apple tout a not-too-ridiculous price vs. PC. Spec upgrades are priced so sky high by Apple, increasing them at their own pricing makes Mac seem "too expensive" relatively. So Apple clings to base specs for marketing AND exploitive pricing for upgrades for those who know better (to pay up).
If prospective buyer- like me- is not married to Mac (or bust), step up those specs even one notch in a Mac vs. PC comparison and one sees what can only look like ripoff. In generally, it's 3X-5X more for Apple RAM or SSD vs. the same capacities in PC. It smacks you right in the face... as it did me: a 24-year Apple everything guy, when I was ready to replace a MB last year. Result? I didn't buy. Instead, I put a $55 battery in my old MB to squeeze another year or two out of it, resulting in no new Mac money for Apple.
If one isn't married to Apple, upgraded PCs are quite compelling in 4 dimensions:
- Relative value: it will be HUNDREDS if not more than a THOUSAND dollars difference for an upgraded computer. The more one desires in upgrade specs, the greater the relative price gap. For example, since I needed a PC too, I purchased a whole, gaming PC with TEN TBs of SSD storage and 32GB of RAM for LESS than the cost of only the Apple 8TB SSD upgrade alone (not including the Mac or Mac RAM- just that one part upgrade). The 8TB I put in that PC cost under $700 retail vs. $2200 as an upgrade price from Apple (buying in huge quantity vs. retail quantity 1).
- Flexibility: PC buyer can generally upgrade RAM & SSD later if they come to discover they need more of either... unlike us Mac people who would have to toss the entire computer to make the same change. Yes, some PC makers are "copying" apple with soldered parts but not ALL of them. The PC I purchased is ready for more RAM or more SSD should I ever need more of either... easily changed myself too.
- Power: Us Mac fans bend over backwards to key around PPW because Apple will win that contest every time, but PC offers POWER. In computing, Power generally translates into speed of computing: more power means getting same tasks done faster on PC. Yes, more power may come with fan noise. Yes, more power may use a little more electricity than our Macs (and it really is only a little). Yes, user may suffer "3rd degree burns"
on the lap from using that power for long. Etc. But still, power means FASTER. PPW means efficient use of energy, better battery life, etc. In an objective scenario, getting computing done faster is usually more important than sipping a little less energy or being able to use a computer unplugged for 20 hours instead of only 10. I doubt very many of us work 20 hours/day. I doubt many of us work unplugged for more than 10. Since I had to pick up a PC anyway (with Silicon killing bootcamp and ARM Windows is not equal to full Windows), I find myself handing more and more intensive processing tasks that COULD be done on my Mac to that PC. Why? Because it gets them done faster. That wasn't the plan but I find POWER over PPW useful in many situations. - Compatibility: PCs run the world. Our Macs are niche. There's far more software for PC than Macs... which includes many of the important Mac apps not made by Apple (though a few made by Apple are there too).
I agree with you: new M-series doesn't automatically make Macs much more desirable (except to fans). Apple needs to bring new features & benefits to Mac, macOS, etc not nearly as good on Windows or immediately replicable on Windows by agile cloners around the world. What are those? I don't know... but I'm doubting that "A.I." is it.
I'm in the market for a new laptop. 5+ years ago, I'd only be thinking MB vs. MBair. However, per the above- especially in the aggravation of "company store" upgrades pricing, a PC laptop is now getting full consideration. I don't want to go there but I don't want to farrrrrrrrrrrr overpay for commodities like RAM & SSD either. Another way to make more Macs sell is to "throw customers more bones"... instead of seemingly focusing all on delighting shareholders. I'd like to see a better value proposition which means better pricing or MORE for existing pricing.
Last edited:
@HobeSoundDarryl
With you on all that
I use a Hack desktop and my 2015 15" MBP (of which I now have a primary and a backup I picked up for a song)
I'd be interested in new Apple hardware if the "rip off meter" gets dialed down a fair bit at some point.
If one could swap in your own SSD, I'd likely already have an ASi "something" (preowned purchase)
There is no universe where I'm paying Apple's absolutely extortion level SSD prices.
"rip off" almost doesn't accurately convey the situation
With you on all that
I use a Hack desktop and my 2015 15" MBP (of which I now have a primary and a backup I picked up for a song)
I'd be interested in new Apple hardware if the "rip off meter" gets dialed down a fair bit at some point.
If one could swap in your own SSD, I'd likely already have an ASi "something" (preowned purchase)
There is no universe where I'm paying Apple's absolutely extortion level SSD prices.
"rip off" almost doesn't accurately convey the situation
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I don't know if it would be "ideal" but only assume this rumor could play out mostly revolving around the "most profitable" bit of rationalization. I suspect many will not pay way, way, way up for Ultra (like I did myself), so they'll just bide time for the followup releases that are much more affordable (relatively).
Perhaps another way to see this is Apple currently offers small, (then) medium, large. This rumor suggests flipping that to large, medium, small. Many will probably still not buy "large" and just wait for Medium or even Small. However, that little pocket of "on the fence" buyers who burn for "latest & greatest" ASAP may "find" the money to go ultra even if they used to choose PRO or MAX... or even base.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, I was trying to be a bit "soft" to reduce the number of pitchfork & torch-bearing villagers coming to storm my castle for daring to convey a personal opinion that is not only gushing praise & worship.
I'd love to see a Mac built solely to delight customers... with minimal consideration for shareholder maximization, "another quarter of record..." and the whole cannibalization concept. I suspect if Apple opted to build THAT Mac, they would sell a LOT of them... and maybe learn another way to achieve "another record quarter..." results.
Maximizing profit per unit sold is one approach. The other is to make a product so good, volume at a bit lower margin ends up yielding more total profit and revenue. Modern Apple has been locked on the former for 5+ years now (margin has evolved from a relatively sky high 38%-40% to 47%-48% over that time). Maybe it would be a good time to take a fresh try at the other approach? Selling more Macs leads to purchases of additional Apple things... so it's more than only how much can Apple make in single transaction.
Imagine a Mac focused on volume sales... without so obviously looking like it by being too pared down in core features & benefits. Someone might counter "that's Mac Mini"... but then spec up that Mac Mini a bit and compare it to a comparably specced Mac Mini-like PC from vendors like Minisforum. Example at 1TB and 64GB RAM for $589... with an open SSD slot in which one could insert an 8TB ssd for a total of 9TB whenever they like. Or buy bare bone for $349, then (easily) add up to 16TB of fast SSD for a lot less (about $700/stick) than the 8TB SSD upgrade pricing by Apple, and add 64GB of fast RAM for far less (about $200) than 64GB of Apple RAM, etc.
We can't even configure a Mini like that but the loaded Mini we can configure with 32GB + 8TB is $4,099. How much is that PC alternative with 64GB + 16TB: $349 + $1400 + $200 = $1949. Or line up an equivalent Minisforum Mini: $349 + $700 (for 8TB) + $100 32GB of RAM = $1149 or about 72% off Apple pricing. Oh, and you'll have a free SSD slot if you need more storage later, and can easily- and very cheaply- turn that 32GB into 64GB without replacing the entire computer.
IMO: Modern Apple is intoxicated on the quarterly shareholder show of "another record quarter" reporting... so much so that they have to keep squeezing and squeezing more and more out of a niche volume of sales. Even long-term Apple-everything people like me don't like the evolution in that direction (unless we prioritize our shares over our tech). I don't love feeling like most of the money paid for a new Mac is not buying any part of that Mac... just dumping into the cash vault as ever-fattening margin. It's not long until average margin hits 50%... HALF! Good for Apple Inc, Executives and Shareholders. Growing margin to that degree does very little for us Apple customers... excepts lightens the load in our wallets... if not drive us away to consider other tech options.
Last edited:
That's what's so frustrating
Tim "the Hammer" Cook has decided there is only one type of nail to hit
According to reports there is no M3 Ultra, as the M3 Max was never designed with an Interposer to make Ultra chips, as the entire M3 family was built on a prototype and dead-ended node, just to be first to 3nm. And the work done for that node cannot be translated to the main-stream 3nm nodes.
What is likely going to happen, is that we will see the M4 Ultra, Mac, and Pro come out around WWDC. These will be in the Mac Pro (which due to changes in the M4's structure, will actually be better able to justify its existence), the Mac Studio, and perhaps the MacBook Pro. I would then expect to see the M4 for the MBA and Mac Mini in the fall, so as to not cannibalize sales of the higher-end chips, which has happed for the previous generations.
It is also possible, if not probable that there will not be a Pro chip at WWDC, with the Max and Ultra eschewing efficiency cores (or most of them), in favor of performance cores, as the Ultra chip is exclusively for desktops, and have little need for efficiency cores. If there are any, it will be 2-4 at most, which will likely impact battery life for future MacBook Pros.
What is likely going to happen, is that we will see the M4 Ultra, Mac, and Pro come out around WWDC. These will be in the Mac Pro (which due to changes in the M4's structure, will actually be better able to justify its existence), the Mac Studio, and perhaps the MacBook Pro. I would then expect to see the M4 for the MBA and Mac Mini in the fall, so as to not cannibalize sales of the higher-end chips, which has happed for the previous generations.
It is also possible, if not probable that there will not be a Pro chip at WWDC, with the Max and Ultra eschewing efficiency cores (or most of them), in favor of performance cores, as the Ultra chip is exclusively for desktops, and have little need for efficiency cores. If there are any, it will be 2-4 at most, which will likely impact battery life for future MacBook Pros.
Seems apple reaches a point when more and more people feel having “overpaid“ for a product. I had that feeling with my 1TB 14PM which could not run latest apple promoted games only one year later.
A device which isn’t capable to run all apps only one year later wasn’t worth the price I paid for.
Lets see if the story repeats with my M3 MBA when M4 comes out in a few months.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
As is, I'm now a Silicon Mac desktop + PC desktop + old MB guy... nearing the time to replace the latter... and very seriously considering doing so with a PC laptop.
A few years ago, I had ZERO PCs with the last one owned back in maybe 2003 or so. Now, I'm looking at potentially becoming a 1 Mac + 2 PCs guy.
Why is PC makers getting my "Mac" money?
A few years ago, I had ZERO PCs with the last one owned back in maybe 2003 or so. Now, I'm looking at potentially becoming a 1 Mac + 2 PCs guy.
Why is PC makers getting my "Mac" money?
- The desktop got it because Silicon essentially killed the fantastic "bootcamp" option and ARM Windows is not full Windows. So "old fashioned bootcamp" became essential as soon as I opted to join the Silicon party.
- The laptop to be purchased may get it by the relative value differences simply getting too far apart. I don't want to farrrrrrrr overpay for RAM & SSD vs. market rates for the same. Owning a desktop PC has reminded me that Windows is nowhere close to as bad as popularly spun by fans. And, unlike them, owning a PC means I have access to software not made for Mac, including all those games "we" want for Mac that are probably never coming. Getting reacquainted with Windows/PC, a PC laptop doesn't seem nearly so "absolutely NO!" as it might have even 5 years ago. In fact, it's just the opposite: in my considerations right now, a PC laptop is winning favor. For the same Mac price, I can either buy a LOT more PC... or I can match RAM & SSD for a desirable Mac and pay much less for a PC (WHILE retaining flexility to upgrade RAM or SSD later if needed).
Perhaps, but not that much, most people don't care and the biggest sales are the MacBook Air laptops and those buy it because of the price, won't buy a new one if it has 120hz.
Biggest problem is the whole computer/laptop branch sales people don't buy them anymore because of phones, tablets, or really budget laptops and if they do they hold on to it for more than five years.
A better screen, cpu or whatever isn't gonna change this.
I am more concerned this M line of cpu's is Apple happy with it? Or is it even profitable enough seeing the rising cost being nr 1 at TSMC going for latest and greatest and sales going down. Designing those Pro and Max and Ultra chips is quite expensive, would be interesting to see how much and does it fall under that high margin they want to achieve or more likely they dropped that.
I would much prefer if they doubled down on features in stead. Whatever marginal gain the M4 will bring won't get me to upgrade. Oled, face unlock, keys that don't turn shiny in three months, pro amounts of memory to name a few would make a difference.
M4 won't be a massive leap forward in raw computer performance.
But I'm pretty sure Apple will position it has having some uniquely powerful Neural Engine, with more cores than ever, and thus only A18/M4 iPhones, Macs, and iPads get all or most of whatever Apple is adding to the respective OSs in terms of AI features.
Apple may be generous with AI and give it to all current devices. But forcing an upgrade to get the best AI features, unique to Apple's ecosystem, would be a very easy fix to get everyone to upgrade despite owning very new and capable devices that just aren't A18/M4 powered.
If you don't care about AI then it obviously won't make a difference to you. But if you do then it would probably be worth holding out for.
Supposedly the M series line, which replaced the AX line, saves Apple an absolute crap-ton of money compared with paying Intel fees back in the day. They're designing A series chips regardless, which is the bulk of the cost, and the M series can piggyback on top of that work. Ditching Intel meant Apple could have lowered Air and Pro prices, but instead they raised the Pro prices substantially. Meanwhile RAM and SSD prices also plummeted to almost nothing. Yay for shareholders, boo for consumers.
At the bleeding edge, the Ultra possibly sells comparatively very few, hence the extreme pricing on devices with Ultra chips in them.
The lack of FaceID on Macs is very annoying, despite the stupid notches. They need to find a way to miniaturise that tech, or at least on the Pro laptops just thicken the enclosure a fraction. On iMac there is zero excuse.
Keys turn shiny now? They need to return to their old plastic I guess 😅
Unfortunately, history has proven that Apple can deliver much less than that and simply market and advertise its way to a sale.
Destroying sales of high-end Macs by giving "Pro" features to mid and low-end Macs is also something Apple will never do in a million years.
120hz on anything other than the Pro devices only happens after the Pros have abandoned 120hz for something much newer and better.
Last edited:
Or when it becomes the industry de facto standard... they won't be able to keep that feature away from Air buyers much longer. It's a feature moving from premium to obligatory.
They better get it out sooner than later - at the rate things are going, we're at the saturation point where even dogfood bags are AI-enhanced and by the end of Summer, anything AI will trigger a collective gag reflex.
Taking an article with a rumour that says that the M4 Ultra Mac Studio and Mac Pro will be coming out mid, to late, 2025... and suggesting that they will be coming out in a couple months... seems like quite a leap.
I live to be surprised.
With what I've been reading and watching, Apple is fed up with the baseline M chips basically pulling the rug out from the higher end chips, and want to go the other way. Plus, there is literally no way to make an M3 Ultra, since the M3 Max isn't made to be fused together.
All the while selling a $2,500 laptop with 500 GB in 2024. Interesting how Steve Jobs was able to innovate while keeping prices down while Cook "innovates" once every 10 years while prices continue to go up.
I could see Apple transitioning to...
Tablets, laptops, & low-to-mid-end desktops will stick with the "mobile" oriented SoCs:
Tablets, laptops, & low-to-mid-end desktops will stick with the "mobile" oriented SoCs:
- Mn = iPads, laptops, iMacs, & Mac minis
- Mn Pro = Laptops & Mac minis
- Mn Max = Laptops & Mac Studios
- Mn Ultra = Mac Studios & Mac Pro Towers
- Mn Extreme = Mac Pro Cubes & Mac Pro Towers
I think M4/Pro/Max in late 2024 makes sense if any of the following are true:
- Apple wants to switch asap to N3E (for better yields / cheaper) so needs to iterate the M3 design anyway
- On device AI is Apple's 'next big thing' and it needs more AI speed than M3 has to deliver it
- Apple feels threatened by Intel/AMD's 2024 CPU line-up and wants an instant response
- M3 sales have been sluggish and it wants to drive upgrades (perhaps some new OS features will be made not to work on M1 generation?)
However Apple seems to suffer from delays so even if it wants a new Mac chip in 2024 it might not ship it until 2025.
I suspect AI is the most likely reason Apple could be looking for a relatively quick move to M4. The NPU on M3 is below what MS is requiring for on-device Co-Pilot, so it may well be underpowered for whatever Apple is planning in that regard.
- Apple wants to switch asap to N3E (for better yields / cheaper) so needs to iterate the M3 design anyway
- On device AI is Apple's 'next big thing' and it needs more AI speed than M3 has to deliver it
- Apple feels threatened by Intel/AMD's 2024 CPU line-up and wants an instant response
- M3 sales have been sluggish and it wants to drive upgrades (perhaps some new OS features will be made not to work on M1 generation?)
However Apple seems to suffer from delays so even if it wants a new Mac chip in 2024 it might not ship it until 2025.
I suspect AI is the most likely reason Apple could be looking for a relatively quick move to M4. The NPU on M3 is below what MS is requiring for on-device Co-Pilot, so it may well be underpowered for whatever Apple is planning in that regard.
This is exactly what I did. I was looking for a 16'' MBP, in Italy. The base 16'', adding a 1TB SSD is priced at 3.329 € after taxes. I endend up buying an ASUS 16'', with 16 GB of expandable RAM, a replaceable 1TB SSD, aluminium body, fingerprints reader and a bunch of ports, plus backlit keyboard. How much did I pay? 1.100 € after taxes. Exactly one third od MBP's price. I'm not tied in Apple ecosystem, I only use bi-platform software; so - grudgingly - now I have a machine that is obviously slower than (and with a screen not as good as) MBP. But I believe that for my needs this is a compromise I can happily live with. And to be honest, my PC is outstanding.
I will soon replace my 6th generation iPad that I mainly use as a organ music sheet reader, I need a bigger screen. 12,9'' iPad Pro with 256 GB costs the frightening price of 1.599 € (or 1.199 € for 11''). I suppose - at this rate - I will buy a cheaper android tablet. Here in Europe - especially Italy and some other country - Apple is sadly pricing its products at a level that most people can't or don't want to buy.
My G5 PM and my 27'' iMac were expensive computers, no doubt. But, after all, not as much. Ad they were easily upgradable. Today... well, I don't really know if I will ever buy another Mac desktop. And for me this is a very sad thing.
Last edited: