Previously discussed, and most of use found this article: Biased, Pathetic exercise of Apology.
Appleinsider often does some "stand on head", contrived analysis and it will take long then I have to at the moment to put out the problems buried inside of that piece. However, he also doesn't have a lock on contrived output.
Few Grounds on our opinion are:
The Article DOES NOT MENTION APPLE-AMD TOXIC GPU DEPENDENCY, AMD has throuble updating timely its GPUs being a major factor of Mac delays.
Over half of the Mac line up doesn't have a discrete GPU. So whatever AMD is doing in dGPUs isn't holding up any product there. dGPUs is
not what is the major driver issue here. You are in fan boy smoking something mode if you think so when it comes to the overall Mac platform.
The Article, exercises a pathetic Marketing analysis on the idea about less updated products means user's inventory to keep value longer: this is pathetically false,
Eh? The typical for this forum.... refuted claims that no one made in the first place. The "Mac update cycles are not an accident" section doesn't make that assertion at all.
The 1-1.5 year pacing Apple has typically been on matches up with the description there. What that section in AppleInsiders 'analysis' does not do is explain or justify the the broad lengthening of the cycle. Doing too many too often is a problem ( not false at all). When working well Apple has to tip-toe a line of being predictable (updates coming) but also unpredictable (not 100% sure when they are coming). Too much on one or the other of those is a problem.
Lack of products updates promotes user migration to other platforms where they can run the same application (as photoshop) on faster new hardware or just bring back access to hardware not being offered anymore by Apple (as nVidia CUDA).
1. CUDA is really a software, not hardware, problem. Apple (and others) misfires in software are why that is an issue; not hardware.
2. Really short cycles isn't going to get significant better performance differences. There needs to be some gap to get a bump. Going comatose for 3+ years isn't really about that.
Neither the article explains how a company selling 100x more products than liiliputan Zotac (which develops N custom models each year) dont have interest to update a mac mini or a mac pro, which notwithstanding being the cheapest or less popular Mac both paid many times its development cost.
Apple makes in about two days what Zotac earns in a year. What Zotac is doing won't move the neddle at all at Apple.... or even solely in the Mac division.
It isn't about development cost it is about return on investment.
I have an better explay: Apple Mac business is being mismanaged, by a team of little oversight executives doing almost nothing on time and distracted on thins nott attained to them (as apple media business, which provides similar income but at almost 40x the cost -accounting the costs, beats and music are olympic failures-).
This is fundamentally flawed. The basic structure of Apple is by function unit. It is extremely unlikely the wifi-bluetooth, CPU logic board design, or GPU driver folks are deeply mixed up in iCloud services issues at all. They aren't being distracted.
The "Hollywood' folks Apple has weaved in are problematical, but they aren't the core of the Mac problem.
The number of Macs sold has gone up over last 2 years ( and up even more versus 4 years ago. ). That's actually in a better shape directionally than the iPads. So when wielding the "mismanagement" tag you are going to need better illustrate points than those to get traction. I think AppleInsider is sweeping some of the problems under the rug in that posting ( perhaps I'll get to that tomorrow. ). In short, though the problem here is more so long term versus short term management. The folks managing the Mac have not adapted to the current market environment very well. There are some trends that are in a "happens to work OK" mode at the moment but there are long term issues coming.
The Case of the Mac Pro is very special, this is the machine used by advanced developers, no mac pro means iOS users need to comfy with apps and content developed in iMacs (no imac can run advanced Machine learning, neither do 8K post processing neither 3D AR/VR stuff), even loosing money on the Mac Pro Apple need this product to be continuously updated .
Alot of iOS apps are development on laptops. The notion that Mac Pros are required to get the vast majority of iOS apps out to market is grossly flawed. The "sales pitch" that Apple should dump tons of money into the Mac Pro and loose money on them isn't going to fly inside of Apple. That is about a specularly lame an argument as some of the nutty stuff AppleInsider churns out.
iOS users are consuming 8K content. Really?
iOS users can't do AR? So what were those millions of Pokemon Go users doing? 100's of millions of Snapchat photos?
The workstation market the Mac Pro is in is doing what overall? "special" in so far as it has a unique set of market drivers; yeah to some extent. "special" in that it is a prima donna market and requires not-quite-rational treatment? Nope.
The Mac Pro isn't the Mac market. It isn't the major strategic linchpin to the product line up.
