A return of the large screen MBP, something along the lines of an 18" model...?
The point is the all-new Mac Pro Cube featuring the Mn Extreme, we think you're going to love it...!
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.
Why does Apple hate Mac Studio and Mac Pro users?
- Thread starter M4M
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A return of the large screen MBP, something along the lines of an 18" model...?
The point is the all-new Mac Pro Cube featuring the Mn Extreme, we think you're going to love it...!
Hope springs eternal.
wccftech.com
M4 Ultra GPU Is Estimated To Beat The RTX 4090 Across OpenGL And Vulkan APIs, But Its Advantage Could Only Be Witnessed In One Benchmark
Apple's M4 Ultra chip is expected to surpass the performance levels of the RTX 4090 in both OpenCL and Vulkan APIs.
wccftech.com
Hope springs eternal.
M4 Ultra GPU Is Estimated To Beat The RTX 4090 Across OpenGL And Vulkan APIs, But Its Advantage Could Only Be Witnessed In One Benchmark
Apple's M4 Ultra chip is expected to surpass the performance levels of the RTX 4090 in both OpenCL and Vulkan APIs.
It's a WWCFTech article citing Vadim Yuryev (from the YouTube channel Max Tech) as their source, so take it with two massive grains of salt...? ;^p
I'm hoping for the rumored Hidra chip and a monolithic Ultra with an UltraFusion connection that will enable putting two Hidra chips together for an Extreme chip...
Or, an all-new chiplet design with one chiplet being the CPU/NPU/etc. cores and three chiplets being the GPU cores; something to really boost the GPU core count...
And a maximum of 960GB LPDDR5X ECC RAM, meaning an actual RAM capacity of 1TB, using an inline-scheme to enable the ECC capability...?
It's nothing personal to the Pro users of desktop Macs, it's just business.
I believe what you really mean is "why doesn't Apple show much love the Pro desktops users"? Because Mac Studio is only 1% of sales! Why would they "love" the 1% the same way they "love" the 99%?
M4 Ultra is a complex chip - it's physically impossible to release at the same time as the other three M chips.
I think you should change your attitude by 180 degrees.
We are blessed that Apple still creates these very powerful desktop Macs, even though Mac Studio is only 1% of sales. They have to design, manufacture, market, sell & support them. Just wait until you'll have your Mac Studio with M4 Max in the spring (maybe summer, but I hope spring). Make sure your buying choices are wise, so you're not in this position when you have to upgrade next time.
It's a privilege to be able to own such an amazing product. Good things come to those who wait.
Last edited:
I suspect that I am using very little on the computing power of my M2 Ultra Studio. Replacing it with a M4 would only result in less money in my bank account.
I was going to start a thread on being left out of the party as it truly has been a party for the Mac mini, MacBook Pro and iMac.
I don’t like this just because batteries instantly reduce the service life of any device.
They don't hate you. Shoot they love you! I mean if I made an inferior product and locked you out from perhaps improving it. And priced it an absurd amount over competition that offers an immensely more robust and capable product. ANd you STILL choose to come back and pay that premium time and time again DESPITE me rubbing it in your face by designing it to appear to be conducive to upgrades, then blocking your ability to do so with no plan of changing that policy. I mean how blindly do you have to worship a corporation to pledge that level of devotion.
Another thing that gets me is when the cook in these restrictions and people talk about "well they did it for cost reasons" Or "security" Running a company of that scale is hard.
Yet literally EVERY other manufacturer out there overcomes the hurdles with a fraction of the capital that Apple has at it's disposal. They pump out innovation that apple copies and presents as their own, then tries to squelch them, through litigation of issues as frifilous as trying to copyright a fckin shape! If they diverted even a morsel of the flow of revenue they throw at their legal team to R and D. They might be able to claim they actually innovated something besides technological planned obsolescence, and actually be doing so truthfully.
Yet literally EVERY other manufacturer out there overcomes the hurdles with a fraction of the capital that Apple has at it's disposal. They pump out innovation that apple copies and presents as their own, then tries to squelch them, through litigation of issues as frifilous as trying to copyright a fckin shape! If they diverted even a morsel of the flow of revenue they throw at their legal team to R and D. They might be able to claim they actually innovated something besides technological planned obsolescence, and actually be doing so truthfully.
As much as I like my Mac’s, I have five of them three of which are Ultra Mac studios. People have mentioned Apple’s lack of focus is because low sales. Well they have been doing pro users bad since 2013. Maybe if their desktops didn’t cost a fortune they would get more sales. My most expensive Mac Studio was $8,000. Could you imagine what Windows PC I could have for that money? Enough to severely blow away any Mac Studio ever capable of doing.
At least update the Max Mac Studio. macOS is very horrible with docks and hubs so I need the ports available on either the Mac Studio or Mac Pro.
At least update the Max Mac Studio. macOS is very horrible with docks and hubs so I need the ports available on either the Mac Studio or Mac Pro.
I like my iMac Pro for the 4 x USB-A and 4 x USB-C. My Studio has almost all of the ports in use. I have it connected to my monitor port hubs and I have enough but the monitor port hubs are not as consistent in terms of power and connectivity as direct connect.
Calling others who disagree with you worshipping tells me all I need to know really. Tribalism at its finest.
I'm sorry but the logic here doesn't add up. If the Mac Studio is such a niche product, surely Apple would be able to produce enough of the Mac Studio to support the small demand for these units.
It's basically Apple being Apple IMO. Buying 2 gen old silicon at full price is just silly IMO, unless you absolutely need it know. Apple must be loosing a lot of sales because of this strategy, but I guess they get most of the profits from their laptops and iPads anyway.
Unfortunately, Apple went to far with the size of the new Mac Mini, if you want to unbinned Pro chip to run quietly under demanding tasks - so I'm stuck waiting for the Mac Studio anyways. You do get more performance for nearly the same price though, once you start to max out the Mac Mini specs.
Having said that, the Mac Pro is almost useless at this point (and probably becoming a bit anachronistic), when you can get a maxed out Mac Studio Mx Ultra - unless Apple finally comes up with an "extreme" version of the M4.
Your logic makes no sense. I said they don't have enough production lines to meet the current demands of the higher revenue generating products. They are at max capacity on order. Why on earth would Apple have them stop production lines for a niche product that doesn't generate anywhere near the same revenue?
Thats literally what I just said in my original post. 🤣 They don't care about any sales decline on the Mac Studio/Mac Pro when it means they make far more from meeting the demands of a combination of iPhone/iPad/Mac Books/iMac and Mac Mini. They are going to release the Mac Studio and Mac Pro when they are ready which is next year. If Apple being Apple means they are operating as a publicly traded company who's interest is in making the most profit then yes that is what they are doing.
They would get more sales if they keep it updated. It’s becoming less and less of a good idea to buy a studio two generations old. Ultra should only be purchased and even then some workloads the M3 Max is better than it.
There is a good chance they just don't shift enough volume of these so they will only update them every other generation otherwise the performance increases simply don't make sense. There aren't going to be that many people buying the mac pro/studio ultras in the first place and then how many of those are going to update every year.
I assume the engineering involved isn't trivial. The volumes small and the demand small so why update them every year when you have a range of devices that cover 99% of users which sell in large volumes.
The takeaway from the launch of the M4 Pro and Max seems to be that the vast majority of people would still be absolutely fine on the M1 series which tells you how good these Apple Silicon machines have been.
I assume the engineering involved isn't trivial. The volumes small and the demand small so why update them every year when you have a range of devices that cover 99% of users which sell in large volumes.
The takeaway from the launch of the M4 Pro and Max seems to be that the vast majority of people would still be absolutely fine on the M1 series which tells you how good these Apple Silicon machines have been.
I think that there's a non-trivial number of people that kick the tires on the M4 mini and M4 Pro that find out it doesn't have enough GPU for them and then get stuck in the conundrum of buying M1, M2 or waiting for M4. There have been a number of treads on this on the Reddit mac subs.
The iMac Pro was never updated. The 27 inch iMac was never updated though the migration path for that was the Studio + Studio Display. The Mac Pro was never really upgraded to where you could get 1.4 TB of RAM. Apple never solved the RAM issue and maybe there weren't enough potential customers to solve the issue.
I can throw 512 GB of RAM in my iMac Pro if I want to though I see no need for more than 64 GB.
I was making a point, that Apple *could* release an M4 Mac Studio very close to the MacMini and MacBook Pro release, *if* they wanted. Again, this is done IMO to avoid competing with their own products, more than anything else. To keep pushing M2 Mac Studios at full price into the middle of next year is just dumb. How many people are going to buy that machine now with M4 availble, until mid 2025? Not very many, is my guess.
Btw. chill down with the keyboard warrior rhetoric. I think the Mac Mini M4 is an excellent machine for light to medium-tasks. For doing sustained heavy CPU loads and wanting a silent experience, Mac Studio is now the default desktop option as far as I'm concerned. That's the one I'm holding out for anyway, with my aging Mac Mini i7 limping along...
Last edited:
You consider this a heated conversation?
I'm just stating facts on how Apple operates not theoretical ways of how Apple operates. Apple doesn't release products like you are suggesting(just a partial spec version of the product). Could they do it? Sure but they don't operate this way so speculating on a company completely changing how they operate doesn't make sense to me. They will never release a Studio/Pro without the higher end chip. This is the same company that has no issue letting a pro computer sit for 6 years without an update.
Like I said they have over demand from TSMC already in 2024 using the new nm process for the iPhone, iPad, Macbook Pro, Mac Mini, iMac. They are not going to release a partial spec version of the Studio/Pro in addition to this when they don't even have the Macbook Airs out with the M4.
Count me in as one of those people. I'm still on a M1 Pro mac, don't want to drop the money on the M2 Ultra whilst thinking the M4 Ultra will be around the corner, so I've been waiting out a machine that's increasingly struggling with my workload (32GB RAM isn't cutting it lately), flirting with the idea of a M4 Pro Mac Mini or buying an M4 Max MBP, but what I really want is to max out the GPU because I know I'll use it.
Fingers crossed Apple will make me happy early in the next year.
Yields.
They need the yields (percentage of successful chips harvested from a wafer) to get good to
- get the volume required to satisfy the bulk of the market
- get the cost down and availability up to the point that the risk of breaking two full-spec, high grade chips in the process of joining them together with ultrafusion is not way more expensive in terms of opportunity cost
Trying to do ultras early in the cycle would be throwing away a large quantity of high grade max chips when they need all the max chips they can get, to sell in MacBook pros (of which they sell far more units than studios or desktop pros).
Making ultra machines isn't easy. You need two working max chips that you then risk both of by joining them together. The joining process won't have a 100% success rate!
Alternatively, they are already putting aside max chips and attempting to build/test ultras (don't forget, these chips will all need to be validated a second time once they've been joined together) right now - in advance of accumulating enough successful ultras to launch and sell with reasonable supply.
No need for a secondary validation if the new Ultras are monolithic Hidra chips, unless Apple is stitching two together for an Extreme variant...! ;^p