True, though Gurman is saying no update until M3, which is a bit different.
That isn't quite what he said. Gurman tacked on an "or dropped/abandon" on the end there. That also implies it isn't conditional on the Mn version.
M3 generation probably isn't coming inside of a 12 month window of the Studio. Even if Apple did talk about an M3 generation Mac in March 2023 , it would likely only be as a 'sneak peak' . And hence no replacement in terms of immediate purchase.
If the Mac Pro and Mac Studio updates both depended upon a relatively wafer scarce TSMC N3b foundation then yeah it would make sense for both moves:
a. do the Mac Pro first (because it is late and it has higher gross margin )
b. use the SoC in both Mac Pro and Mac Studio to get economies of scale ( volume).
If wafers are relatively scarce then really cannot do the second issue first. [ Even if Apple keeps the 'M2 Ultra' on N5P, it is an even bigger chip so really don't do much for saving wafer consumption. It may not be as acute a constraint , but still more than it was. If the initial demand bubble for the Mac Pro lasts too long the Mac Studio could slide to M3 Ultra 'first' if has a early 2024 time frame and let Mac Pro catch up after . If Apple is going to roll out the Mac Pro on a N5P foundation it has big problems. ]
The way Gurman is couching the whole this is twisted if that is the path Apple is on. What he wrote is more so for the sizzle factor of "Apple's going to kill the Studio you like" or "Apple going to kneecap other models to bring iMac back" or etc. to draw out clicks from the respective camps of "my favorite system is in troubled/saved" . It isn't that Apple is 'afraid' of too much Mac Studio / Mac Pro fratricide and more so they just don't have enough SoC packages to go around. (which somewhat lies up with his story about they killing the M2 Extreme due to 'resource management' ( i.e., not enough wafers to assign to the product) rather than it wouldn't technically work.
Dropping the Studio makes about zero sense. Apple needs
MORE desktop products to put the Ultra into to crank up enough volume to justify the chip package; not less. Having the Studio and Mac Pro share the SoC and spread amortization costs over two products (instead of just one) would only help. Any fraticide component would be relatively small because sell of an Ultra inside of a Studio or Mac Pro could count both ways. The systems in the non-interaction area between the two just mean more sales of an already relatively very small volume SoC.
The more subcomponents the Studio and Mac Pro share the less the fratricide matters. Same 10GbE controller, same HDMI subsystem , audio subsystem , primary SSD drive , etc. It doesn't have to 100% overlay to lower the impact. The Mac Pro could have a different power supply , a two input PLEX PCI-e switch (to drive 6 slots), AUX power , etc. That other stuff is enough to drive customer preference differentiation. Both can hold true. they don't have to 100% overlap or 100% not overlap.
Obviously no Mac can get updated to the next M-chip before the chip exists, but once it does, updating the logic boards can’t be that hard - especially with so much commonality between the different machines.
That presumes Apple doesn't do anything dramatic with the enclosure. Going from iMac 21.5" to 24" was complicated by going to an iPad on a stick design metric. As long as it is "oversized" containers with lower coupling between logic boards and enclosure the work is low.
Apple probably needs to tweak the power supply either contractors and/or design a bit. The buzzing power supply problems are not huge, but not negligible either.
Once one machine gets e.g. an M2 update, people looking to buy a model that hasn’t will be inclined to put off their purchase, particularly if it’s a higher-end / more expensive machine. With the MBP, Air, mini and the new mini Pro now on M2, would you want to buy a Studio now? You’d be a bit gutted if the M2 version came out a couple of months later - it would seem rather ‘obvious’ in retrospect.
The higher the priced the Mac system is the more folks should buy it if it fits their business requirements. (not their likes , wants , lust , or 'fomo' factor, real requirements). The hype train on M3 has built up with some that there will be some kind of revolutionary change and there probably won't. M1 Ultra to M2 Ultra (if same base sub-component units on same node as the Max ) will be a evolutionary difference. Same is likely true on general code for M2 -> M3. There will be some relatively narrow targeted areas where Apple does a lot better , but the rest is just a decent bump in performance.
Also, M1 was the first AS chip, the Studio was a brand new model, and the last couple of years have had widely-publicised supply chain issues (GPUs were notoriously affected). Weren’t the M2 laptops intended to have come out in October? It may be too early to identify the ‘typical’ cadence of Apple releases in the AS era.
Which means "waiting on M3 Studio" could easily slide into 2024. It is too early to tell what the 'normal' iteration cycle is going to be , but the expetaction that it is going to be iPhone like isn't well grounded. It takes longer to verify and certify a larger chip package. There is just more stuff to do. So a package that is 4-6 x bigger probably isn't going to iterate on exactly 12 month cycles. Add in larger variations of the die packaging technologies involved and just all the more likely will get a divergence.
