In my opinion it seems backward thinking to assume that Apple will simply follow the same kind of incremental spec bumping on a predefined schedule that Intel followed with their line of CPUs. There is no reason why Apple would arbitrarily release updated SoCs every 12 months, 24 months, or whatever time increment you want to speculate about for no reason other than the calendar flipping to a new month or year. This is "Intel's Way of Looking at the World," i.e., milking the cash cow, not Apple's way of looking at the world.
Sure, because Apple release iPhones any time they damn well want, not on any kind of easily observable schedule.
I don't think Dewme's basic observation can be quite so easily dismissed. There is nothing in Apple's extensive Macintosh history to suggest they will suddenly change their ways and start refreshing computers like clockwork, like they do for phones. The iPhone is the anomaly here, a product of competitive pressures and sales volumes that don't really translate into the PC realm.
I get the argument for it, but the idea that Apple is going to suddenly start adhering to a regular, predictable refresh and/or redesign schedule for Macs is something that has never been the case in the past. Expecting that to suddenly change just because Apple is designing its own silicon may or may not be a reasonable expectation. But it's definitely not yet "reality" (to quote Muthuk_vanalingam's response to Dewme above).
To put it another way, for example, I am very interested to see what Apple does with the next release of the Mac mini. My keen interest hinges on Apple delivering a certain set of features and capabilities that compel me purchase the mini, not on whether Apple puts the “M2” in the mini. I assume that there is an Apple product (or several) in Apple’s release pipeline that is driving requirements for the “M2” chip.
It really boils down to Apple having the ability to design products with a high level of certainty that the underlying components will be up to the task and will meet what the product owners demand. This is an approach and luxury that Apple never had when they had a dependency on Intel. They had to settle for whatever Intel could fit into Intel’s planning and chip roadmaps. Sometimes Intel had nothing and left Apple sitting on its hands. This is why I see a distinct difference between how Apple deals with its internal Apple Silicon design team versus how they dealt with Intel. It’s now the Apple products and their refresh cycles that are driving the Apple Silicon chip designs and their refresh schedules.
In my opinion it seems backward thinking to assume that Apple will simply follow the same kind of incremental spec bumping on a predefined schedule that Intel followed with their line of CPUs. There is no reason why Apple would arbitrarily release updated SoCs every 12 months, 24 months, or whatever time increment you want to speculate about for no reason other than the calendar flipping to a new month or year. This is "Intel's Way of Looking at the World," i.e., milking the cash cow, not Apple's way of looking at the world.
Sure, because Apple release iPhones any time they damn well want, not on any kind of easily observable schedule.
I don't think Dewme's basic observation can be quite so easily dismissed. There is nothing in Apple's extensive Macintosh history to suggest they will suddenly change their ways and start refreshing computers like clockwork, like they do for phones. The iPhone is the anomaly here, a product of competitive pressures and sales volumes that don't really translate into the PC realm.
I get the argument for it, but the idea that Apple is going to suddenly start adhering to a regular, predictable refresh and/or redesign schedule for Macs is something that has never been the case in the past. Expecting that to suddenly change just because Apple is designing its own silicon may or may not be a reasonable expectation. But it's definitely not yet "reality" (to quote Muthuk_vanalingam's response to Dewme above).
To put it another way, for example, I am very interested to see what Apple does with the next release of the Mac mini. My keen interest hinges on Apple delivering a certain set of features and capabilities that compel me purchase the mini, not on whether Apple puts the “M2” in the mini. I assume that there is an Apple product (or several) in Apple’s release pipeline that is driving requirements for the “M2” chip.
It really boils down to Apple having the ability to design products with a high level of certainty that the underlying components will be up to the task and will meet what the product owners demand. This is an approach and luxury that Apple never had when they had a dependency on Intel. They had to settle for whatever Intel could fit into Intel’s planning and chip roadmaps. Sometimes Intel had nothing and left Apple sitting on its hands. This is why I see a distinct difference between how Apple deals with its internal Apple Silicon design team versus how they dealt with Intel. It’s now the Apple products and their refresh cycles that are driving the Apple Silicon chip designs and their refresh schedules.
I think it's probably going to be more of an interplay between the two, but the point stands that it won't necessarily be a regular, predictable schedule.
I also think the PowerPC product cycles might be more useful as a model, instead of the Intel era. A history of that could provide some insight. I'd love to hear what Daniel Eran Dilger might have to say about that. [Hello? Apple Insider? Can you hire him to write a piece on that?]
I keep thinking about the final Power Mac G5, which provided the form factor for the archetypal Intel Mac Pro. Also the G4 Cube, which may just have been ahead of its time. Plus the distinct evolution of the iMac in that era, leading to the final iMac G5, another form factor that is pretty much what we have today -- a computer inside of a display. So, yeah, new Mac mini!
So I think generally you are right, we will see innovation toward "what product owners demand," as you put it. But there will also be an interplay with what is possible.
As always, it's the software and ecosystem that do the work.
Apple needs to let them catch-up to the M1 before making M2, M3, M4, etc... super chips. Otherwise, with the exception of a few power users, their speed and power will be wasted.
I'm just not reading widespread complaints about "too" performant Apple products, likely because the software will almost certainly surpass device capability prior to end of life; future proofing at work.
I do read that complaint now and again on AI, in a standard dismissal of Apple's performance advantage, and primarily from users of non-Apple products. No one has a gun to your head to purchase a more performant Mac, and if you are unhappy with the state of Apple's software, then why not actually complain about that?
Comments
I also think the PowerPC product cycles might be more useful as a model, instead of the Intel era. A history of that could provide some insight. I'd love to hear what Daniel Eran Dilger might have to say about that. [Hello? Apple Insider? Can you hire him to write a piece on that?]
I keep thinking about the final Power Mac G5, which provided the form factor for the archetypal Intel Mac Pro. Also the G4 Cube, which may just have been ahead of its time. Plus the distinct evolution of the iMac in that era, leading to the final iMac G5, another form factor that is pretty much what we have today -- a computer inside of a display. So, yeah, new Mac mini!
So I think generally you are right, we will see innovation toward "what product owners demand," as you put it. But there will also be an interplay with what is possible.
I do read that complaint now and again on AI, in a standard dismissal of Apple's performance advantage, and primarily from users of non-Apple products. No one has a gun to your head to purchase a more performant Mac, and if you are unhappy with the state of Apple's software, then why not actually complain about that?