Due to the timeline of how long Apple said they will replace Macs with ASi versions, I don’t think M1 Pro version was really designed. The mini will stay as the consumer computer, the Studio will stay as the prosumer low to medium pro computer, and the Pro will be the high end. The Studio will not cut it for someone who needs 1.5tb of memory and lots of processing power. Yes the Sudio beats some configurations of the Mac Pro. The Studio wasn’t designed in a short time. The Studio took awhile to design and announced when they were ready.
I’m skeptical of this.
The Studio is basically a stretch Mini. They just had to take the Mini CAD files, edit the vertical dimensions, add perforations and port cutouts, and attach a simple tapered and perforated cylinder to the bottom.
The whole thing could have been designed, tested, and machined in a very short period of time, including the big honking fan assembly - which probably explains the numerous fan issues in the first run.
It's a completely different logic board, completely different cooling, completely different port construction. There's no reason to think it went through any less of a design process than any other new Apple product, which would not be "a very short period of time". No way.
Of course those items needed to be laid out and built but it’s a known quantity. Apple was developing the Mac pro and testing likely indicated the m1 ultra or adoubled up version of that wasn’t what they wanted to share a awe as the best they could do. Somewhere in the testing process, the decision was made to not launch at wwdc. And since wwdc I planned far in advance, this gave more than enough time - in a relatively short period of time - to build a stretch Mac mini and have it ready shortly thereafter. It’s not some new avant-garde industrial design and the motherboard isn’t some feat of engineering.
As Gurkan noted, apple planned to launch the Mac Pro at wwdc but then decided against it.
There is no way they would have launched the studio and the pro at the same time. They just needed to buy time with a product that doesn’t have a legacy to live up to and can perform for those who need/want the power.
It’s not bad that it’s a bit of a bridge. It’s just that apple needed to get some serious performance clout but it’s lauded machine is not ready.
In addition to the various points others have made, your theory ignores another aspect of the Mac Studio decision, arguably the most important element—abandoning the larger iMac and/or iMac Pro. That was not something done lightly or in response to hypothetical engineering issues with the M1 Mac Pro.
Most likely, the situation was precisely the opposite of what you describe—the existence of the Mac Studio allowed Apple to put the Mac Pro on hold (for whatever reason).
When did the supply-chain rumors of a “Mini Pro” begin? The Mac Studio was already in development for production when those rumors surfaced. Also the 27" iMac rumor. My understanding is the authors of both these rumors have said everything they were seeing is accounted for by the Mac Studio and the Studio Display.
impressive gymnastics there.
As I’ve said before, a little time will tell the tale. While I expect the Studio to get an update, we will see if it’s still a thing in 3-5 years. It’s a bit of an odd duck. With no big iMac and no Mac Pro, apple needed something. This was it.
It is utterly ludicrous to assume that development, marketing and manufacturing roll-out of this machine could have been achieved in less than two years. It is not a "stopgap" designed to fill in the market until the Mac Pro is fit for release. This is not some preëxisting PC case filled with bunged-together off-the-shelf components, a handful of custom parts, and generic cooling. It's definitely been worked on since before the pandemic.
They might have scrapped the Mac Pro due to release timing issues — it's probably safe to assume that the Mac Studio was delayed by several months, as well.
My guess is that both the Studio and the Mac Pro were intended for release in 2021, and once it became clear that the pandemic would delay the Pro until around the release of the M2 MacBooks, it became a tough sell to bring an M1-based flagship to market.
It is utterly ludicrous to assume that development, marketing and manufacturing roll-out of this machine could have been achieved in less than two years. It is not a "stopgap" designed to fill in the market until the Mac Pro is fit for release. This is not some preëxisting PC case filled with bunged-together off-the-shelf components, a handful of custom parts, and generic cooling. It's definitely been worked on since before the pandemic.
They might have scrapped the Mac Pro due to release timing issues — it's probably safe to assume that the Mac Studio was delayed by several months, as well.
My guess is that both the Studio and the Mac Pro were intended for release in 2021, and once it became clear that the pandemic would delay the Pro until around the release of the M2 MacBooks, it became a tough sell to bring an M1-based flagship to market.
It’s a bit too close for too-similar products. The Mac Studio puts both the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini in awkward positions. It’s an outlier.
And we were expecting a new iMac at that time. First a 32 inch and then a 27 inch (which was actually due to strategy shift and became the monitor).
There was smoke as to the iMac and Mac Pro for a long time. Not so the Mac studio. Indicative of a strategy shift - as is the QC issues of the first batch.
As I said before multiple times, the next few years will tell the full story from a new iMac to the presence or absence of the Mac Studio.
I'm with Spheric on this one. I would like to first caution everyone, or remind everyone, that we are talking about rumors here. Gurman is good, but he speaks in riddles, and has a milquetoast constitution when it comes to criticism after being wrong. Virtually all of the rumormongers are like this (except for Ross Young I think), so, perhaps it's an emotional defense mechanism for their reputation. Perhaps it is not surprising that when you read these rumors, the language is getting pretty close to language used by a cold reader. And don't get me started on school test questions.
The Apple of the last decade, the iPhone monster, never does anything fast. The 2019 Mac Pro is a collection of off the shelf parts, even the Apple custom parts like the T2 and NAND daughter cards were already available, and that took them no less than 2.5 years to get shipped. It's just a Xeon W workstation with a T2. The iMac Pro, also a collection of off the shelf parts, also took at least 2 years. Then, the past 2.5 years now, there has been a global pandemic that have wreaked havoc on everything. When that happens, you prioritize the most important products. So for Apple, that's iPhone, iPhone and iPhone. After that, Services, Watch, Macbook Air, iPad, Macbook Pro, iPad Pro, headphones, accessories, and uh, desktop Macs are probably near the bottom of the list.
So, it is really doubtful to me that Apple develops any major product in under 2 years anymore, let alone 1. Then, you have to consider the pandemic on top of that. I think they did everything they could do just to get the MBP14/16, M2 MBA, Mac Studio and Studio Display out the door, and counted themselves lucky. That Apple Display with a iPhone SoC rumor was going on for at least 2 years right?
Remember the rumors of the Mac Half Pro, an Apple Silicon Mac Pro that was half the size of the 2019 Mac Pro, or that the Mac Pro was kind of like a stack of Mac minis. That started in the Spring of 2021. That ended up to be the Mac Studio imo. If you read a rumor about Apple doing this or that, that means inside Apple they have been working on it for 6 months, a year, maybe longer. So, two years at the least for Mac Studio development. Gurman himself laid out the 10+16/32, 20+32/64 and 40+64/128 CPU+GPU core strategy in late 2020, as I recall. That means Apple planned that 3, 6, 12 months earlier, if not in 2018. So, that likely means Apple Silicon MBP, Mac Studio, iMac and Mac Pro were all in planning in 2019.
The Mac Pro, not many Apple Silicon rumors for it at all it seems. Good thing Apple said it is coming.
Ross Young has been talking up this 27" ProMotion miniLED for a long while now, whether it is for a large iMac or an external monitor. This part is one of the parts that could easily get nuked by pandemic troubles. I'm still confused as to how a 5120x2880 120 Hz display is going to be driven by Thunderbolt. Doubtful to me that Apple is going to use display stream compression, or make Thunderbolt single directional. So, if if is 120 Hz, I think it is for a large iMac.
What is Apple waiting for? No one currently in tech matches the M-series family of SOC/CPU’s yet Apple seemly can’t or won’t release a coherent range of computers at the same time, it like marketing is making all the decisions, the ENERGY efficiency of these chips screams pressing the advantage aggressively while you have it, it’s like Intel is still there pressing the chip buttons.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware. www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
Those three ex Apple guy’s currently at Qualcomm are right about Arm servers high wattage as the first solution is the past.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
What is Apple waiting for? No one currently in tech matches the M-series family of SOC/CPU’s yet Apple seemly can’t or won’t release a coherent range of computers at the same time, it like marketing is making all the decisions, the ENERGY efficiency of these chips screams pressing the advantage aggressively while you have it, it’s like Intel is still there pressing the chip buttons.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware. www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
Those three ex Apple guy’s currently at Qualcomm are right about Arm servers high wattage as the first solution is the past.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
It's a careful study. of cash flow and consumer desire. People and families have only. so much cash flow in a quarter. So that is metered out in terms of buying power and willingness to part with finances. Apple isn't the only one. And tech isn't the only industry.
They actually sell more of each product this way, believe it or not. It. stinks for those of us who are waiting seemingly forever for the product we know we want. But for many consumers, they don't know what they want until they see the commercial. It's just the way it is, unfortunately.
What is Apple waiting for? No one currently in tech matches the M-series family of SOC/CPU’s yet Apple seemly can’t or won’t release a coherent range of computers at the same time, it like marketing is making all the decisions, the ENERGY efficiency of these chips screams pressing the advantage aggressively while you have it, it’s like Intel is still there pressing the chip buttons.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware. www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
Those three ex Apple guy’s currently at Qualcomm are right about Arm servers high wattage as the first solution is the past.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
There's a chip shortage. They can't get hold of enough for the computers that they're selling. What sense would there be in making bold moves into new areas when they won't be able to fulfil anything?
What is Apple waiting for? No one currently in tech matches the M-series family of SOC/CPU’s yet Apple seemly can’t or won’t release a coherent range of computers at the same time, it like marketing is making all the decisions, the ENERGY efficiency of these chips screams pressing the advantage aggressively while you have it, it’s like Intel is still there pressing the chip buttons.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware. www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
Those three ex Apple guy’s currently at Qualcomm are right about Arm servers high wattage as the first solution is the past.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
There's a chip shortage. They can't get hold of enough for the computers that they're selling. What sense would there be in making bold moves into new areas when they won't be able to fulfil anything?
Because your so-called competition isn’t going to remain in the background forever, Intel is gone and Apple evidently still can’t get a basic range of computers out the door, half the problem seems to be marketing slotting computers different area’s (no stepping toes), Intel not there?
What is Apple waiting for? No one currently in tech matches the M-series family of SOC/CPU’s yet Apple seemly can’t or won’t release a coherent range of computers at the same time, it like marketing is making all the decisions, the ENERGY efficiency of these chips screams pressing the advantage aggressively while you have it, it’s like Intel is still there pressing the chip buttons.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware. www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
Those three ex Apple guy’s currently at Qualcomm are right about Arm servers high wattage as the first solution is the past.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
It's a careful study. of cash flow and consumer desire. People and families have only. so much cash flow in a quarter. So that is metered out in terms of buying power and willingness to part with finances. Apple isn't the only one. And tech isn't the only industry.
They actually sell more of each product this way, believe it or not. It. stinks for those of us who are waiting seemingly forever for the product we know we want. But for many consumers, they don't know what they want until they see the commercial. It's just the way it is, unfortunately.
Looking at the quarter results the gaps in the range is hurting Apple, this piecemeal release schedule is not working…Intel not there and I’m thinking more and more it’s a marketing decision and not a tech one because it’s looking same as before when Intel was there.
It is utterly ludicrous to assume that development, marketing and manufacturing roll-out of this machine could have been achieved in less than two years. It is not a "stopgap" designed to fill in the market until the Mac Pro is fit for release. This is not some preëxisting PC case filled with bunged-together off-the-shelf components, a handful of custom parts, and generic cooling. It's definitely been worked on since before the pandemic.
They might have scrapped the Mac Pro due to release timing issues — it's probably safe to assume that the Mac Studio was delayed by several months, as well.
My guess is that both the Studio and the Mac Pro were intended for release in 2021, and once it became clear that the pandemic would delay the Pro until around the release of the M2 MacBooks, it became a tough sell to bring an M1-based flagship to market.
It’s a bit too close for too-similar products. The Mac Studio puts both the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini in awkward positions. It’s an outlier.
The differentiation is pretty much the same between a 14" MacBook Pro and a MacBook Air — you want the Pro or the Max processor, you don't get it in the Air. You want more than two displays? More than two Thunderbolt ports? More RAM? (Note that the 13" Pro is a bit of an odd duck here — there really isn't an argument for it other than the active cooling.)
The Studio offers a very similar upgrade over a mini — a Max and Ultra are only available here, more Thunderbolt ports, massive display support, more RAM, etc.
Why shouldn't Apple differentiate the desktop product lines along similar criteria?
The Big Question is how the Mac Pro will be different. We don't know yet.
9secondkox2 said: And we were expecting a new iMac at that time. First a 32 inch and then a 27 inch (which was actually due to strategy shift and became the monitor).
With all respect: what the public "expects" is utterly irrelevant to Apple's internal development teams — except insofar as a misled public they can blindside with a product like the Mac Studio and have it greeted with such universal acclaim probably fills them with glee like nothing else can.
I would not put it past them to deliberately keep rumours of a 27" iMac replacement alive specifically to distract from their surprise announcement.
9secondkox2 said: There was smoke as to the iMac and Mac Pro for a long time. Not so the Mac studio. Indicative of a strategy shift - as is the QC issues of the first batch.
What "QC issues"? Literally the only thing I can find is a single YouTube video and a handful of reports about high-pitched fan noise on some machines.
Is there some real issue I'm missing that would indicate a short-notice "strategy shift"?
What is Apple waiting for? No one currently in tech matches the M-series family of SOC/CPU’s yet Apple seemly can’t or won’t release a coherent range of computers at the same time, it like marketing is making all the decisions, the ENERGY efficiency of these chips screams pressing the advantage aggressively while you have it, it’s like Intel is still there pressing the chip buttons.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware. www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
Those three ex Apple guy’s currently at Qualcomm are right about Arm servers high wattage as the first solution is the past.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
Two things:
1.) Have you been living under a rock the last two years? Developing a fantasy product and being able to ship it are two completely different things in the best of times. These are not the best of times for anybody manufacturing anything, right now.
2.) Apple used to build servers. They did in the 90s, and stopped, because it just wasn't their business. They did again in the 00s, and stopped, because it just wasn't their business.
2b.) To further gauge their current interest in offering servers, remember that they used to make a server version of OS X…which they eventually condensed into a service package application…which they discontinued late last year.
They're fine with people repurposing their machines as servers, but they're really not into designing specifically for that market. They could sell millions, sure — but what good is selling millions if you're already having trouble shipping what people are buying now, and those millions more you'd sell would hardly make you money due to the cut-throat margins and long-term service agreements? There's a lot more to the server market than just power-efficient boxes and a robust OS.
What is Apple waiting for? No one currently in tech matches the M-series family of SOC/CPU’s yet Apple seemly can’t or won’t release a coherent range of computers at the same time, it like marketing is making all the decisions, the ENERGY efficiency of these chips screams pressing the advantage aggressively while you have it, it’s like Intel is still there pressing the chip buttons.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware. www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
Those three ex Apple guy’s currently at Qualcomm are right about Arm servers high wattage as the first solution is the past.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
There's a chip shortage. They can't get hold of enough for the computers that they're selling. What sense would there be in making bold moves into new areas when they won't be able to fulfil anything?
Because your so-called competition isn’t going to remain in the background forever, Intel is gone and Apple evidently still can’t get a basic range of computers out the door, half the problem seems to be marketing slotting computers different area’s (no stepping toes), Intel not there?
So-called competition? If it's a market Apple aren't competing in then it's not competition at all, so-called or otherwise. Apple have shown no interest in making servers for two decades, and they have no server software product to speak of. And that's on top of the fact that they can't get hold of processors fast enough to ship them.
What are they waiting for? They're not waiting, they're just not interested.
It is utterly ludicrous to assume that development, marketing and manufacturing roll-out of this machine could have been achieved in less than two years. It is not a "stopgap" designed to fill in the market until the Mac Pro is fit for release. This is not some preëxisting PC case filled with bunged-together off-the-shelf components, a handful of custom parts, and generic cooling. It's definitely been worked on since before the pandemic.
They might have scrapped the Mac Pro due to release timing issues — it's probably safe to assume that the Mac Studio was delayed by several months, as well.
My guess is that both the Studio and the Mac Pro were intended for release in 2021, and once it became clear that the pandemic would delay the Pro until around the release of the M2 MacBooks, it became a tough sell to bring an M1-based flagship to market.
It’s a bit too close for too-similar products. The Mac Studio puts both the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini in awkward positions. It’s an outlier.
The differentiation is pretty much the same between a 14" MacBook Pro and a MacBook Air — you want the Pro or the Max processor, you don't get it in the Air. You want more than two displays? More than two Thunderbolt ports? More RAM? (Note that the 13" Pro is a bit of an odd duck here — there really isn't an argument for it other than the active cooling.)
The Studio offers a very similar upgrade over a mini — a Max and Ultra are only available here, more Thunderbolt ports, massive display support, more RAM, etc.
Why shouldn't Apple differentiate the desktop product lines along similar criteria?
The Big Question is how the Mac Pro will be different. We don't know yet.
9secondkox2 said: And we were expecting a new iMac at that time. First a 32 inch and then a 27 inch (which was actually due to strategy shift and became the monitor).
With all respect: what the public "expects" is utterly irrelevant to Apple's internal development teams — except insofar as a misled public they can blindside with a product like the Mac Studio and have it greeted with such universal acclaim probably fills them with glee like nothing else can.
I would not put it past them to deliberately keep rumours of a 27" iMac replacement alive specifically to distract from their surprise announcement.
9secondkox2 said: There was smoke as to the iMac and Mac Pro for a long time. Not so the Mac studio. Indicative of a strategy shift - as is the QC issues of the first batch.
What "QC issues"? Literally the only thing I can find is a single YouTube video and a handful of reports about high-pitched fan noise on some machines.
Is there some real issue I'm missing that would indicate a short-notice "strategy shift"?
The mobile snd desktop setups are completely different scsenarios due to batteries and thermals.
The mba is the low end.
The MacBook Pro is the midrange and high end depending on config.
In the desktop space, you had mini on low end, iMac in mid snd Mac Pro at the high end.
Being that the iMac isn’t out for a while and neither is the Mac Pro, the studio fits right in - and benefits from having no legacy to live up to, so far less criticism or disappointment concerning its shortcomings.
9secondkox2 said: The mobile snd desktop setups are completely different scsenarios due to batteries and thermals.
The mba is the low end.
The MacBook Pro is the midrange and high end depending on config.
In the desktop space, you had mini on low end, iMac in mid snd Mac Pro at the high end.
Being that the iMac isn’t out for a while and neither is the Mac Pro, the studio fits right in - and benefits from having no legacy to live up to, so far less criticism or disappointment concerning its shortcomings.
There really isn't much point in arguing product differentiation based on a hardware architecture that Apple left two years ago.
Intel's architecture differentiates between desktop and mobile PC platforms. Apple Silicon does not — up to the "Max" chips. The "mobile" versions of the Apple Silicon architecture are those used in iPhones etc.
So up to and including the "Max" chips, it looks like the desktop and mobile configurations are identical, differentiated only by form factor.
Above that ("Ultra" and whatever will power the Mac Pro), the chips won't fit in a mobile form factor and will remain desktop-only.
The 24" iMac IS the low end. Its architecture is completely identical to the M1 MacBook Air, 13" MacBook Pro, and Mac mini.
The Mac Studio comes with an M1 Max. This is identical to the M1 Max available in the 14" and 16" MacBooks Pro.
What's currently missing is a "Pro" chip desktop — this looks like a useful future upgrade option to the Mac mini. I assume that they haven't offered it yet because they need all the available chips to be able to ship their MacBooks Pro, plus the Mac Studio is pulling in a lot of customers who were hoping for a souped-up mini.
So up to and including the "Max" chips, it looks like the desktop and mobile configurations are identical, differentiated only by form factor. Above that ("Ultra" and whatever will power the Mac Pro), the chips won't fit in a mobile form factor and will remain desktop-only.
The 24" iMac IS the low end. Its architecture is completely identical to the M1 MacBook Air, 13" MacBook Pro, and Mac mini.
The Mac Studio comes with an M1 Max. This is identical to the M1 Max available in the 14" and 16" MacBooks Pro.
What's currently missing is a "Pro" chip desktop — this looks like a useful future upgrade option to the Mac mini. I assume that they haven't offered it yet because they need all the available chips to be able to ship their MacBooks Pro, plus the Mac Studio is pulling in a lot of customers who were hoping for a souped-up mini.
Yup. I was wondering how they were going to sell an iMac 27 with a 120 Hz miniLED for $2500 let alone the old $1800 starting price for an iMac 5K. A base MBP14 is $2000, with a binned M1 Pro. So, remove the battery and add a miniLED 4x larger? Doesn't sound like it's going to cost $2000. More like $2500.
Or the M2 MBA with 16GB, 512GB is $1700, but make the display 4x bigger? So, about $2000 for an iMac 27, but with a normal 5K LCD and an M2? Essentially replacing the A13 in the ASD with an M2. Is this a good product for a desktop? It will be faster than some of the Intel iMac 27 models, but sounds like a tough sell. An M1 Pro with 5K LCD might be possible at $2200?
I can see why they decided on the Mac Studio rather than iMac 27". The "Extreme" Mac Pro will probably start at $7000 to $8000. A binned Ultra Mac Pro model? Maybe $5000?
There will be no M1 Pro-based Mac Mini since this would severely undercut the Mac Studio and there is no reason for Apple to do this. Secondly, the M1 Ultra never scaled in performance as well as Apple thought it would, therefore an Extreme (2x Ultra) would scale even worse. I believe Apple put the Mac Pro on hold and went back to the drawing board once the Ultra's flaws were recognized. I suspect the M2 Ultra and Extreme have been redesigned to mitigate the performance scaling issues and with the impending release of the iPhone 14 lineup, TMC and Apple are full steam ahead with its A-series processor so I suspect the M2-based Mac Pro will not be released until the end of 2022 (not likely) or more realistically in early 2023.
There will be no M1 Pro-based Mac Mini since this would severely undercut the Mac Studio and there is no reason for Apple to do this. Secondly, the M1 Ultra never scaled in performance as well as Apple thought it would, therefore an Extreme (2x Ultra) would scale even worse. I believe Apple put the Mac Pro on hold and went back to the drawing board once the Ultra's flaws were recognized. I suspect the M2 Ultra and Extreme have been redesigned to mitigate the performance scaling issues and with the impending release of the iPhone 14 lineup, TMC and Apple are full steam ahead with its A-series processor so I suspect the M2-based Mac Pro will not be released until the end of 2022 (not likely) or more realistically in early 2023.
Every report I've read says CPU scaling is very close to linear (almost 2x), and GPU scaling is between 40%-80%.
Do you have any indication whatsoever that Apple thought it would do better?
Can’t be any happier about my M1 Mac Mini 16 GB 1 TB storage online BTO purchase, only days after the announcement. Kind of early on, rumors of a redesign popped up and people held off buying. But … it’s now > 18 months later and still it’s the most recent Mac Mini model on the market. I rushed my order because I was worried that amazing reviews of the M1 SoC would boost sales to the moon.
It kind of did, and thus a combo of short supply, factory lockdowns and high demand for M1 products made it tedious to order M1 Macs. And yes, it’s a great machine. Running it without issues so far on Ventura public beta 2. It only had major issues in Big Sur with Bluetooth.
9secondkox2 said: The mobile snd desktop setups are completely different scsenarios due to batteries and thermals.
The mba is the low end.
The MacBook Pro is the midrange and high end depending on config.
In the desktop space, you had mini on low end, iMac in mid snd Mac Pro at the high end.
Being that the iMac isn’t out for a while and neither is the Mac Pro, the studio fits right in - and benefits from having no legacy to live up to, so far less criticism or disappointment concerning its shortcomings.
There really isn't much point in arguing product differentiation based on a hardware architecture that Apple left two years ago.
Intel's architecture differentiates between desktop and mobile PC platforms. Apple Silicon does not — up to the "Max" chips. The "mobile" versions of the Apple Silicon architecture are those used in iPhones etc.
So up to and including the "Max" chips, it looks like the desktop and mobile configurations are identical, differentiated only by form factor.
Above that ("Ultra" and whatever will power the Mac Pro), the chips won't fit in a mobile form factor and will remain desktop-only.
The 24" iMac IS the low end. Its architecture is completely identical to the M1 MacBook Air, 13" MacBook Pro, and Mac mini.
The Mac Studio comes with an M1 Max. This is identical to the M1 Max available in the 14" and 16" MacBooks Pro.
What's currently missing is a "Pro" chip desktop — this looks like a useful future upgrade option to the Mac mini. I assume that they haven't offered it yet because they need all the available chips to be able to ship their MacBooks Pro, plus the Mac Studio is pulling in a lot of customers who were hoping for a souped-up mini.
The packaging still matters. Quite a it in fact.
that’s why the MacBook Air throttles, the Mac mini had to be stretched and perforated to accommodate huge fans, and why the MacBook Pro doesn’t have the Ultra.
So let’s not go down that road. It doesn’t lead where you think it does.
Can’t be any happier about my M1 Mac Mini 16 GB 1 TB storage online BTO purchase, only days after the announcement. Kind of early on, rumors of a redesign popped up and people held off buying. But … it’s now > 18 months later and still it’s the most recent Mac Mini model on the market. I rushed my order because I was worried that amazing reviews of the M1 SoC would boost sales to the moon.
It kind of did, and thus a combo of short supply, factory lockdowns and high demand for M1 products made it tedious to order M1 Macs. And yes, it’s a great machine. Running it without issues so far on Ventura public beta 2. It only had major issues in Big Sur with Bluetooth.
The best possible deal in computing at that time and perhaps now. Serious bang for the buck. And in a timeless chassis too. Wise choice on RAM and SSD capacities.
Comments
It is utterly ludicrous to assume that development, marketing and manufacturing roll-out of this machine could have been achieved in less than two years. It is not a "stopgap" designed to fill in the market until the Mac Pro is fit for release. This is not some preëxisting PC case filled with bunged-together off-the-shelf components, a handful of custom parts, and generic cooling. It's definitely been worked on since before the pandemic.
They might have scrapped the Mac Pro due to release timing issues — it's probably safe to assume that the Mac Studio was delayed by several months, as well.
My guess is that both the Studio and the Mac Pro were intended for release in 2021, and once it became clear that the pandemic would delay the Pro until around the release of the M2 MacBooks, it became a tough sell to bring an M1-based flagship to market.
The Apple of the last decade, the iPhone monster, never does anything fast. The 2019 Mac Pro is a collection of off the shelf parts, even the Apple custom parts like the T2 and NAND daughter cards were already available, and that took them no less than 2.5 years to get shipped. It's just a Xeon W workstation with a T2. The iMac Pro, also a collection of off the shelf parts, also took at least 2 years. Then, the past 2.5 years now, there has been a global pandemic that have wreaked havoc on everything. When that happens, you prioritize the most important products. So for Apple, that's iPhone, iPhone and iPhone. After that, Services, Watch, Macbook Air, iPad, Macbook Pro, iPad Pro, headphones, accessories, and uh, desktop Macs are probably near the bottom of the list.
So, it is really doubtful to me that Apple develops any major product in under 2 years anymore, let alone 1. Then, you have to consider the pandemic on top of that. I think they did everything they could do just to get the MBP14/16, M2 MBA, Mac Studio and Studio Display out the door, and counted themselves lucky. That Apple Display with a iPhone SoC rumor was going on for at least 2 years right?
Remember the rumors of the Mac Half Pro, an Apple Silicon Mac Pro that was half the size of the 2019 Mac Pro, or that the Mac Pro was kind of like a stack of Mac minis. That started in the Spring of 2021. That ended up to be the Mac Studio imo. If you read a rumor about Apple doing this or that, that means inside Apple they have been working on it for 6 months, a year, maybe longer. So, two years at the least for Mac Studio development. Gurman himself laid out the 10+16/32, 20+32/64 and 40+64/128 CPU+GPU core strategy in late 2020, as I recall. That means Apple planned that 3, 6, 12 months earlier, if not in 2018. So, that likely means Apple Silicon MBP, Mac Studio, iMac and Mac Pro were all in planning in 2019.
The Mac Pro, not many Apple Silicon rumors for it at all it seems. Good thing Apple said it is coming.
Ross Young has been talking up this 27" ProMotion miniLED for a long while now, whether it is for a large iMac or an external monitor. This part is one of the parts that could easily get nuked by pandemic troubles. I'm still confused as to how a 5120x2880 120 Hz display is going to be driven by Thunderbolt. Doubtful to me that Apple is going to use display stream compression, or make Thunderbolt single directional. So, if if is 120 Hz, I think it is for a large iMac.
The so-called competition Intel, Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA, yes even Microsoft are scrambling in the background for an answer to this disruptive combination of in house OS and SOC hardware.
www.youtube.com/...
This step forward won’t last the competition is three to five years behind, because some need to start from the ground up.
The amount of energy you use in servers is becoming even more critical.
Now isn’t the time for two steps forward and one step back.
They actually sell more of each product this way, believe it or not. It. stinks for those of us who are waiting seemingly forever for the product we know we want. But for many consumers, they don't know what they want until they see the commercial. It's just the way it is, unfortunately.
Looking at the quarter results the gaps in the range is hurting Apple, this piecemeal release schedule is not working…Intel not there and I’m thinking more and more it’s a marketing decision and not a tech one because it’s looking same as before when Intel was there.
(Note that the 13" Pro is a bit of an odd duck here — there really isn't an argument for it other than the active cooling.)
The Studio offers a very similar upgrade over a mini — a Max and Ultra are only available here, more Thunderbolt ports, massive display support, more RAM, etc.
With all respect: what the public "expects" is utterly irrelevant to Apple's internal development teams — except insofar as a misled public they can blindside with a product like the Mac Studio and have it greeted with such universal acclaim probably fills them with glee like nothing else can.
What "QC issues"? Literally the only thing I can find is a single YouTube video and a handful of reports about high-pitched fan noise on some machines.
1.) Have you been living under a rock the last two years? Developing a fantasy product and being able to ship it are two completely different things in the best of times. These are not the best of times for anybody manufacturing anything, right now.
2.) Apple used to build servers. They did in the 90s, and stopped, because it just wasn't their business. They did again in the 00s, and stopped, because it just wasn't their business.
What are they waiting for? They're not waiting, they're just not interested.
Intel's architecture differentiates between desktop and mobile PC platforms. Apple Silicon does not — up to the "Max" chips. The "mobile" versions of the Apple Silicon architecture are those used in iPhones etc.
So up to and including the "Max" chips, it looks like the desktop and mobile configurations are identical, differentiated only by form factor.
The 24" iMac IS the low end. Its architecture is completely identical to the M1 MacBook Air, 13" MacBook Pro, and Mac mini.
What's currently missing is a "Pro" chip desktop — this looks like a useful future upgrade option to the Mac mini. I assume that they haven't offered it yet because they need all the available chips to be able to ship their MacBooks Pro, plus the Mac Studio is pulling in a lot of customers who were hoping for a souped-up mini.
Or the M2 MBA with 16GB, 512GB is $1700, but make the display 4x bigger? So, about $2000 for an iMac 27, but with a normal 5K LCD and an M2? Essentially replacing the A13 in the ASD with an M2. Is this a good product for a desktop? It will be faster than some of the Intel iMac 27 models, but sounds like a tough sell. An M1 Pro with 5K LCD might be possible at $2200?
I can see why they decided on the Mac Studio rather than iMac 27". The "Extreme" Mac Pro will probably start at $7000 to $8000. A binned Ultra Mac Pro model? Maybe $5000?
Do you have any indication whatsoever that Apple thought it would do better?
that’s why the MacBook Air throttles, the Mac mini had to be stretched and perforated to accommodate huge fans, and why the MacBook Pro doesn’t have the Ultra.