Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.
How about something new and exciting from Apple? No, I don't know what that would be, maybe
- Folding iPhone (multiple folding feature) - Screens that you can use your fingers on - Cool tech gear like that being shown on "Expanse" - How about a cool iPad or laptop that the keyboard slide down exposing another screen under it, now giving you a screen that is twice as big. And the screen automatically knowns if you have slide the keyboard down, and expands the screen or makes it standard size as needed when pushed back up
I have been thinking of waiting for the second gen M-series iPad Pros. But if they aren't going to arrive until fall, or even sprint '23, I think I'm going to have to jump.
I'm holding out. Thought I would get a 2021 iPP12.9, but I'm going to stretch. If there is an M2 MBA in Spring/Summer, I'm betting an M2 iPP will arrive in Fall of 2022. The home button on my iPP10.5 is getting flaky though.
I didn’t. My new iPP should be here at the end of the week along with an Apple Pencil 2 and a Brydge keyboard case.
Let’s stop referring to “artistic impressions” as “renders”. A render would be from the design file; this is misuse of the term to lend improper authority to rumours.
I don't think that's correct. They're referring to artistic renderings, or a 3D rendering -- neither one requires a leaked design file.
render, verb, 3 - represent or depict artistically: the eyes and the cheeks are exceptionally well rendered.
Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.
Unlikely. Apple solders storage chips, which have the benefit of being faster and more reliable than slotted components.
I do have a sweet solution for you tho -- Dell. Thank me later.
It will be interesting to see how it unfolds. My feeling is the strongest rumors are the dual-die architectures for the desktop M1s and 28-inch and 32-inch next-gen XDR displays.
Put these two things together and you get two new iMac Pros, nicely parallel to the MacBook Pros, with everything just doubled.
Keep the same case design for Macbook Air and don't make it look rounded corner like new Macbook Pros. Just take 14" Macbook Pro display,no notch.
We'll see the iMac Pro XDR first, and then later, like around WWDC, the new M2 MacBook Air along with the new M2 Mac mini. A lot of people pooh-poohed the 18-month cycle concept for Macintosh Silicon (™️), but this would fit that precisely.
I don't quite get the rumors of a sort of Mac mini Pro that will replace the 2018 space-gray mini. It doesn't make sense to me. It's not unwelcome, but it steps all over the Mac Pro, whatever they do with that. I don't really get it.
For the Air, colors seem likely, and maybe XDR, but the current third-generation (2018, I think) form factor was designed for Intel thermals. So expect some changes but they will also want to differentiate it from the MacBook Pro. The basic tapered design is likely to stay, I think. It's what makes the Air the Air.
The big unknown is the Mac Pro. There really haven't been any solid rumors, other than some mysterious, cutting-edge silicon on TSMC's roadmap, maybe.
Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.
Unlikely. Apple solders storage chips, which have the benefit of being faster and more reliable than slotted components.
They're perfectly able to do that and have m2 slots.
I don't quite get the rumors of a sort of Mac mini Pro that will replace the 2018 space-gray mini. It doesn't make sense to me. It's not unwelcome, but it steps all over the Mac Pro, whatever they do with that. I don't really get it.
The big unknown is the Mac Pro. There really haven't been any solid rumors, other than some mysterious, cutting-edge silicon on TSMC's roadmap, maybe.
There are a couple of routes they can go. The only parts they need are shown here in green:
They only need 4x M1 Max to reach the GPU performance level of the Intel model, 2x for CPU. Any M2/M3 iteration will exceed it.
- 4x M1 Max - up to 256GB unified RAM - some SSD slots - 500W PSU - single large cooling fan
Apple Silicon is faster than the Afterburner card so no need for this any more. No external GPUs so that takes out the AMD cards. Unified memory so I don't see them offering memory slots.
That won't fit into a Mac mini as it needs a much bigger power supply. It would fit into an enclosure around the size of the 2013 Mac Pro but it can use the 2019 design or the iMac Pro or a new mini tower design.
Apple knows from the 2019 model what spec people have been buying, they only need to match this.
One route they could go is to top out Apple Silicon at the M1 Max Duo. This would be equivalent to the current 28-core Mac Pro with a W6900X, which with the Afterburner card costs $20,599. In an iMac Pro, I'd estimate this model to be priced at $4999. By the time it gets to 2nm in 2025, the Max Duo chips would be around 3x faster again. Apple can easily keep selling the current Intel Mac Pro for a couple of years, EOL it in 2023 and offer maintenance and support for 7 years after that.
If Apple offered an M1 Max Quad, I'd expect it to be priced around $7,999 and it could either be in an iMac Pro or mini tower. I'm not sure that the unit volume will justify making these at all. It's tens of thousands of units vs millions for every other model and it's not 100x the profit. I would like to see either the Cylinder form factor again paired with 32" XDR or 32" iMac Pro.
Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.
I'm going to really labor the following points because they're so fundamental...
As others have said, I'm pretty sure Apple is very unlikely to do this. It goes against many of their philosophies. Apple is heading towards everything being proprietary. You can upgrade the storage in the current Mac Pro, but only with Apple proprietary storage modules. The only "advantage" anyone has with being able to stick any old M.2 drive in a Mac is that you can stick any old M.2 drive in it and not have to buy Apple's option. They have no financial or technical interest in accommodating that, and the advantages that come with virtually all their proprietary solutions to everything are of genuine benefit to everyone in Apple's target market.
A couple of key points there...
The first point is: the benefits of proprietary stuff: Apple doesn't just use their own proprietary stuff just to give the finger to people like you who want more flexibility. Just like with Apple Silicon, there are genuine benefits to most of Apple's proprietary solutions -- it's (a) the very limited choices (fewer choices means less bloat and more performance -- Apple stuff is leaner and faster because it doesn't have to cater to every possible hardware configuration in the world like Windows does), and (b) the tight integration of everything that gives them much more control over making it all work well together. All that is a large part of what makes Apple stuff so much better than PCs, at least for the people that appreciate those particular benefits. (eg. In the case of soldered RAM -- now the RAM is practically soldered to the CPU not just the board, and we've all seen how that improves performance. In the case of soldered drives -- or in the Mac Pro's case, proprietary slotted drives -- it's a lot about security without losing performance, among other things).
Sure some of Apple's customers don't appreciate those benefits as much as they would appreciate losing those benefits for more flexibility, but that brings me to the second key point I'm making. Those particular customers are the vast minority of Apple's customers, and they are not at all Apple's TARGET market. Apple is willing, maybe happy, to have customers that only begrudgingly buy their stuff because even with all the "compromises" it's still "better". But Apple has no interest to catering to those customers, when the vast majority of Apple's customers are the people Apple has always prioritized (since the very beginning in the 70's). It's their "computer for the rest of us" mentality. The vast majority of Apple's customers -- and the people Apple targets most -- are those who buy what they want, turn it on and use it, and NEVER open it up, or fiddle with the Terminal, or change much more than a few of the default settings etc. That's Apple's TARGET market, and Apple will never compromise what they can deliver to those people, and what those people appreciate, for those of us who do want to tinker.
You can't have both. It's not technically possible. No one can deliver the better security, reliability, etc. that Apple delivers, using just standard M.2 drives instead of their proprietary ones, just like no one will ever be able to deliver the same level of performance Apple can deliver without all the tight integration (and lack of upgradeability) that comes with Apple Silicon. So either we prefer Apple's "better" proprietary solutions (without the "flexibility") or we prefer the flexibility at the cost of the tight integration and resulting security and performance. If you're in the latter category, then the Mac isn't for you. Instead, as StrangeDays mentioned, you're better off with a Dell.
Sadly, when this response has been handed out in the past, the people who still want the flexibility say "But I don't want a PC or Windows, I like macOS" or whatever else. That's when you have to realize that the REASON you like macOS is because of the things that are better about macOS, and at least some of those things exist only because of the tight integration with the hardware. Sure, macOS "works" on PC's but there are all kinds of issues. Just ask any Hackintosh builder. Most people who build Hackintoshes, don't mind those issues, but Apple's not going to support them because those issues hurt their brand. So again, it's one or the other. Everything that comes with tight integration, and everything that comes with flexibility, by definition, are technically impossible together.
So no, I really can't see Apple putting M.2 slots in their Macs any more than they're going to put Intel chips in any new ones.
Regarding the Mac Pro, it makes no sense to resize it. Apple only rolled out the new super-modular fMac Pro chassis design a couple years ago. Ideally, someone with an existing modern Mac Pro could be able to swap out their Intel motherboard and replace it with an Apple Silicon motherboard. And some people may want to have the option of booting x86 or booting Apple Silicon. This is what the Mac Pro chassis was designed for IMO.
These are some valid points, but I really doubt Apple are going to do this. The trash can Mac Pro was an awesome idea, in theory, and a terrible one in practice. Two issues: 1. they thought external expandability (via Thunderbolt) could be better than internal expandability (and there's some room for that idea, though it's not one of their best ideas), but more significantly, 2. they didn't anticipate how much hotter newer chips would get. The thermals were revolutionary, but not good enough.
The new Mac Pro reversed both of those, but don't underestimate how much of all that extra space is thermals. Intel's Xeon's are astoundingly inefficient. They suck enormous amounts of energy, and use so little of it for actual processing, which is why the rest of it is emitted as heat. Just ask any 16" Intel MacBook Pro user who difficult it is to use that machine on your lap, as well as how slow things get when it has to start throttling everything.
As evidenced by the new ASi MBPs, if you build a decently efficient chip, you can have extreme performance AND efficiency (and therefore less heat and less throttling) and so the ASi Mac Pro is going to take advantage of that. And again this is all part of how Apple tightly integrates and builds everything specifically to work together. In Apple's engineers' minds, an ASi logic board in the Intel Mac Pro's enclosure is just a hack and they don't do hacks like that.
So they'll either keep it a similar size, strip out all those intense thermals, and use the extra space for more expandability... but let's face it the current Mac Pro's expandability is insane already (and contributes a large part to the cost), that they're much more likely (and this seems to be supported by the rumors), to put all the power of the current Mac Pro (and then some) and similar expandability as the current one, in a smaller enclosure. A lot of cost benefits come with that including even down to things like shipping costs.
Meanwhile releasing a new machine doesn't mean they're abandoning their current Mac Pro users. They'll support the existing Intel Mac Pro users just as long as they've supported any other older Mac Pro users (macOS Monterey still runs in the 2013 Mac Pros, from 8 years ago). But Apple's support of older machines has almost never been about Apple bringing new hardware functionality to them.
Now, there are some interesting ideas there about having both Intel and ASi in one machine. I suspect Apple won't do it because they want to move everyone forward. If you want Intel in your Mac Pro, Intel Mac Pros will be around (used market, refurbished store, maybe even still sold new for a year or two, like they did with things like the non-retina MacBook Pro after releasing the retina ones in 2012), but they won't be improved Intel Mac Pros, they'll just be the 2019 ones not going away.
And existing Mac Pro users shouldn't have anything to complain about. The 2019 Intel Mac Pro will still do everything it could do (and still be upgradeable to everything it could ever have been) for years to come. Sure, there are likely to be continued introduction of NEW features in macOS and new ASi hardware in the Mac Pros that the Intel Mac Pros can't do, but that's always been the case, chip architecture change or not. Apple won't take anything away from Intel Mac Pro users that they already have, and so no one's getting ripped off.
I love the idea of a single Mac able to include both ASi and Intel hardware. Or... if the worst case scenario was someone making decent Intel emulation (software emulation of complete Intel hardware, to run Intel OS's and apps, like Virtual PC and others like it in the PowerPC days, not just translating the API calls like Rosetta does so that Intel Mac apps remain compatible for a while), then that would still be pretty good. There's plenty of Windows stuff that some of us power and/or professional users still need to run that an ASi Mac won't be able to (where an Intel Mac can). And not just Windows apps. Some developers need to run Windows (OS) for the apps we build for our Windows based customers. It sucks that I'm losing the ability to do that in one machine (in my maxed out 16" Intel MBP I can run multiple virtual machines -- no longer possible on ASi MBP). Sadly my solution has to be two machines -- new ASi MBP for all the benefits that brings, and keep the Intel MBP for the Intel required stuff. That part sucks, but I recognize I'm in a tiny minority of Apple's target customer base, and while a lot of us here are also in that category, there's just not enough of us in Apple's target market for it to be worth Apple's while catering to us.
Needless to say, I'd only benefit from that in a Mac laptop anyway. I'm not sure I can see what benefit (to anyone, not just me) there is for ASi and Intel in a single Mac Pro, compared with someone's existing Intel Mac Pro and their new ASi one, sitting on the floor next to each other...?
With rumours of a half-height MacPro maybe the current design should be seen as a double-height case that will take 2 AS Mac Pro modules as a retrofit, refurb or new. The second power supply module and first MPX unit with ports would sneak into the window on the back.
Extra case option is just a shorter version that takes one module only.
Interesting idea... but ... umm... why?
Cost? Any cost savings it might introduce will be more than offset by the extra engineering required to pull it off (not that it's particularly extreme or anything but it's still extra).
Space saving? How different is that really to two new ASi Mac Pros sitting beside or on top of each other? (Especially the rack mount version).
Needless to say, I don't think it's in line with Apple's philosophies. They want to sell new machines, not retrofit old ones. Has Apple in anything in say the last 20 years built anything that fits the word "retrofit"?
Again, interesting idea -- not trying to shoot it, or you, down -- but what's the practical benefit to anyone?
I really like the industrial design of the trash can, and if the new silicon is much thermally cooler perhaps there could be a more viable and upgradable (or an upgrade kit perhaps including fuller dual gpu support?) prosumer headless mac option in that kind of compact desktop format. Of course such might also suggest a mini max, and please oh please give us slotted ram, storage & gpu (or egpu) upgradeability options in suit with Mr. Cook's (and shareholders') recently expressed enthusiasm for the right to repair...
Agreed. Similar to the Mac G4 Cube -- one of which I owned in the early 2000's and absolutely loved. I needed the power without the expandability of the full sized G4 tower. It fit the bill perfectly. Though I understand entirely why it didn't last, and wasn't for everyone -- cost for value more than anything I think.
The trash can Mac Pro is a nice revival of the idea, and were it not that I need portability as well now (so I'm all in on MacBook Pros), I'd have bought one of those trash cans in a heartbeat. At the time. It just sadly fell far too short of the growing thermal needs of Intel's chips.
As you say, a similar design, with Apple's CPU, RAM and GPU combination, would be a great fit I think. Though with the incredible power in the laptops now, I suspect the market for something like that (all the power without the extra space for those who don't need the expandability) is even smaller than it ever was. So I suspect they're not going that way. People who need a Mac Pro, need room for the expansion.
That said, with ASi's efficiency, etc. and therefore without all the thermals the 2019 Mac Pro needs, a significantly smaller, but still expandable, ASi Mac Pro makes a lot of sense. If they want to do some elaborate new design, perhaps something like the trash can, but a bit larger in all dimensions, could fit a PCIe card/slot or two vertically...?
Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.
I legitimately don't know what advantage M.2 has over Thunderbolt 4 (which has 4 lanes of PCIe, meaning 64 Gb/s.) What's wrong with SSDs over TB4? Are they somehow worse than the same storage over M.2?
For Apple to support another interface that has no speed advantage, wouldn't that just raise the price of each Mac? Sometimes Apple pushes specific technology, and in this case I don't see what the advantage to M.2 would be. But I'm not very knowledgeable about these things.
Interesting response to Outdoor's comment.
I'm pretty sure that things like even PCIe3 based 3500 MB/s NVMe drives (let alone the 5000+MB/s PCIe4 drives, which is presumably what OutdoorAppDev must be referring to) can't operate at full bandwidth through TB4. TB3 has a 2800 MB/s maximum throughput for data (and that takes second place to any video that has to go through the 40Gb/s cable), and to my knowledge TB4 hasn't improved on that (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
But then again this is not exactly comparing like to like anyway, right? Both (M.2 and TB) are basically PCIe3 (except for newer PCIe4 NVMe drives which of course require a PCIe4 M.2 slot). M.2 is of course an internal, drive specific, connection (internal to a computer or a drive enclosure), while TB is an external interface/protocol.
Presumably OutdoorAppDev is seeking one or two internal M.2 slots, internal in future Macs, as a supplement to (or instead of) their internal soldered drives. See previous arguments about why Apple isn't going to do that. I suppose you're proposing that anyone can add M.2 to any Mac via thunderbolt using an external TB M.2 enclosure. Not great for laptops of course. And still not as fast as any internal option can be. OutdoorAppDev's problem is Apple just isn't going to do it because Apple builds proprietary solutions (soldered in the case of laptops etc. and still proprietary even in the Mac Pro drive "modules").
On the other hand, for any Mac Pro user (ie. with access to PCIe3's full 16 lanes) who wants M.2, and incredible performance, there's pretty amazing things available like this: https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ssd/owc-accelsior-8m2. I want one.
I really like the industrial design of the trash can, and if the new silicon is much thermally cooler perhaps there could be a more viable and upgradable (or an upgrade kit perhaps including fuller dual gpu support?) prosumer headless mac option in that kind of compact desktop format. Of course such might also suggest a mini max, and please oh please give us slotted ram, storage & gpu (or egpu) upgradeability options in suit with Mr. Cook's (and shareholders') recently expressed enthusiasm for the right to repair...
A Mac mini with M1 Max is probably the most we could really expect. Essentially, just stick the MBP16 guts into a Mac mini box. No slotted RAM, and no slotted NAND. So, get more than you think you need for Apple's devices. This is perhaps not a bad option. The current Mac mini box has stackable docks and storage for it. It would make it somewhat neater on a desk except for me power bricks relative to a big box.
An M1 Max Duo would fit inside a Mac mini box, but it's a stretch for Apple to do this imo. eGPU support for non Apple GPUs isn't going to happen on Apple Silicon. Maybe there is a chance that Apple would ship an Apple Silicon GPU as an eGPU and a MPX GPU for a Mac Pro, but wait and see. Apple's product marketing folks really don't seem to understand why people buy big boxes, and even who buys those big boxes. This half sized Apple Silicon Mac Pro is not a good sign imo. It's fine if they had an actual lineup of mini, small, mid and large headless desktops, but they may put all their eggs into this one half size Mac Pro box, which will only reduce the market size of people who buy it.
I kinda like bobolicious's point about the trash can design (I mentioned that above of course), but I doubt they'll throw out Mac Pro internal expansion again like they did with the 2013 trash can.
I also doubt Apple's going to ship eGPUs of any kind. Other than "I want to add more later" (which Apple isn't particularly interested in supporting) is there any need to? Pretty much any GPU faster than those now internally in a maxed out MBP is not that great in an eGPU case, because it's throttled by limited thunderbolt bandwidth anyway, for the most part. And of course a Mac Pro can accommodate anything you'd put it in an eGPU box.
Of course if you're mentioning eGPU because you fear a new, smaller, ASi Mac Pro won't be as expandable, I'll suggest otherwise. Two reasons:
1. Less expandability required:
Today's most powerful Mac Pro graphics cards take up half or more of the 2019 Mac Pro's expansion capabilities.
I know people have doubts -- but I don't, after what they were able to squeeze into the new MBP's -- that even the Mac Pro version of ASi is going to be integrated (SoC) graphics with enormous amounts of unified memory, and insanely powerful (and efficient) CPU and GPU. They'll keep up with, if not run rings around, the fastest PCIe GPUs. In fact I suspect Apple won't even support third party GPUs in an ASi Mac Pro. (Apple doesn't care about specs, CUDA, or whatever else GPU purists seem to think matters. Apple cares about the practical end result for the user. So if a Mac Pro level ASi GPU delivers, then a Mac Pro doesn't need anyone else's GPU -- card or otherwise).
That means we don't need as many PCIe slots in an ASi Mac Pro to still be as expandable as the 2019 Mac Pro.
The only thing we potentially lose with the GPU on a card that the 2019 Mac Pro offers is the ability to upgrade the GPU later, but we're going to lose that, and RAM expandability anyway, because of the SoC design. That said, Apple really surprised us with how insanely expandable the 2019 Mac Pro was, and restored our faith in the idea that they're not exclusively all about being so tightly integrated that you can't upgrade anything. So with any luck they'll maintain that, and if so -- if there's enough demand for RAM and GPU upgrades in an ASi Mac Pro, and if Apple can acknowledge that -- then I'll wager we'll be able to swap out the entire SoC, meaning we'll be able to upgrade RAM, GPU and now even CPU, albeit all at once, not one piece at a time. I seriously doubt they're going to compromise a future Mac Pro with anything less than their SoC/unified design now.
So yeah... less PCIe slots needed for similar expandability. But also...
2. Less space required
Let's not underestimate what they can likely do with a half-size Mac Pro. A lot of the space in the 2019 Mac Pro is thermals, most of which isn't necessary with ASi. Less thermals required, less space required.
The differences in both performance and thermal issues between the last generation Intel MBPs and these new ASi ones speaks loudly to that -- especially how the 14 can be specced to the same level as the 16, unlike was ever possible with the 13" Intel MBPs.**
So...
I suspect they're going to deliver a box that's significantly smaller than the 2019 Mac Pro box, but still has as much expandability, simply because there's just so much more efficiency, etc. in ASi.
----
**I'll admit, ASi MBP's have lost one feature that Intel MBPs have: The ASi ones can't fry an egg.
DuhSesame said: You won't be able to upgrade more than the upper limit, the current M1 Pro/Max saturates that pretty well. Sequential speed will be whatever the bandwidth allowed and random won't make the system noticeably responsive. I don't see how a slot will improve the performance.
Indeed. Agreed entirely.
DuhSesame said: MPX won't be necessary when you're building 4 dies of GPUs, nor we have that much room after two of them, so shrinking is possible and doesn't mean it'll lose that much of expandability. Apple Silicon workstations will be a rethink rather than pure improvements. A traditional "multi-core, massive RAM" mindset will be challenged in some degree, as more workloads are moving toward GPUs. Many of those traditional specs looks good on paper but never had practical use, and Apple want their products to make profit, too, especially when they make their own silicon.
I read this after my last post. I guess you've said here in much less words what I said in many above. 😉
I particularly agree with your "specs looks good on paper but..." comment.
dewme said: I'm holding out for a beefed-up Mac mini, although I truly believe that Apple should retire the name "mini" because a Mac of that approximate form factor should no longer be considered a "mini" but rather the new "standard" non-AIO desktop Mac. Just call it the "Macintosh."
While they're at it may as well give us some modicum of end-user based upgradability and serviceability. I'm not talking a tower with giant drive bays and lots of slots, just the ability to add a second drive, maybe some more memory, or maybe a modular IO sub-assembly or plug-in slot that can be custom configured by the buyer for different combinations and/or number of ports, e.g., HDMI ports, USB A ports, more TB4 ports, a second Ethernet port for server applications, etc., or just a blanking plate if you're cool with the base configuration. Keep the footprint about the same but adding more thickness would be fine too.
Some nice ideas but my guess is pretty much none of that is going to happen, lol.
I doubt they'll do a Mac mini that's beefed up so much it needs to be bigger. If anything I think the rumors are pointing to a smaller Mac mini, still with more performance. And we've seen what they can squeeze into even a 14" MBP. Even a maxed out 14" MBP's guts, (including ports, and remembering that about half of a MBP is battery) all in a Mac mini, half the height of the current one, seems very feasible.
I'll be VERY surprised if they give us any more upgradeability in a Mac mini. I'll bet it's going all out soldered and SoC everything, like the MBP's. Again, I'll bet the best we'll get in a Mac mini will be a 14" MBP sans battery & display, and the only non-AIO desktop Mac up from that will be a smaller (and with any luck a little cheaper at least, but probably not much) Mac Pro (see some of my other thoughts on that above).
wood1208 said: Apple, please please in 2022 when you upgrade Macbook Air than keep the same look of enclosure/case style as current Macbook Air. Don't screw it up and make it look like new Macbook Pro's case. I liked previous Macbook Pro's square corner, more flatish enclosure design. Increased screen size to edge-to-edge is welcome feature like 14" Macbook Pro.
Nah... We've seen the rumors for new colorful MBAs, with no taper. My guess: still 13" not 14". If they reduce the bezels, it'll be to make the whole thing smaller than the current one, not increase the screen size. And the whole point of the MBA originally was it was supposed to be the smallest, lightest it could be.
They kinda went a bit south trying to apply the MBA philosophies to everything (hence the ill fated 2016-2020 MBPs), and it's good that they've started reversing that. But the MBA's original purpose was supposed to prioritize form over function, though not unnecessarily compromising function, only what's required to make it as small and light as reasonable. The original MBAs did that spectacularly and did it even better as they went on, to a point. The 2018 MBA was a disappointment in my mind, because the differences between the MBA and the lowest end MBP were so minimal I felt it was pointless. Even the differences between the 2020 M1 MBP and MBA came down almost entirely to the fan. That was kinda pointless to me.
Frankly I wish, for the MBA, they'd go back to (something like) the 2015 MacBook. That's what an Air was supposed to be, IMO. They took it a little too far, especially with the keyboard, but I think that was the most Air machine they've ever made, and the modern machine most like Steve's intention for the original MBA.
I think the ideal MBA would be something as close to the 12" MB size and form as possible. It needs a little more space for (a) decent keyboard, and (b) two ports instead of one: MagSafe 3 + 1x thunderbolt. It would work well I think if the extra space required could be added by making it no (or barely) thicker than that 12" MB was, at its thickest, but removing the taper so its that same thickness throughout (and therefore that much thicker than the 12" MB was at its thinnest).
With whatever they'd done to shrink the bezels on the new 14 and 16 MBPs, they could do the same to make the display a little bigger than that 12" MB was, without needing to increase the enclosure much, if at all.
Who knows, maybe these new rumored colorful MBA's are almost exactly what I'm describing here anyway (I know it's 13" but don't know if these rumors are speaking to its physical size beyond screen size comments). This is exactly the sort of machine perfect for someone like my wife, or many students, or my 60yo neighbors, etc. So with any luck that's where they're taking it...?
A bigger version as well, that is everything the above is but with a 14" or 15" display would be a great addition as well (kinda like when they made the 11" and 13" MBAs alongside each other, and alongside 13" and 15" MBPs). Sadly, there's been talk of that for years, with no sign of it, so I won't hold my breath. But who knows.
Since Apple is likely removing the option to add RAM to their systems, how about throwing us a bone and giving us access to a M2 SSD slot or two? SSDs are in rapid development right now. The last one I bought (for my PS5 which does have a M2 slot) was slightly more than 6 GB per second read bandwidth. It would give the Mac a longer use life if it could be upgraded with faster and larger SSDs in the future as they become available and more affordable. M2 SSDs are about as small as a stick of RAM and even easier to install. Most users could do it with a screw driver.
Nope, sorry.
Sincerely,
Tim
Dear miserable fake Tim,
Kindly fuck off with your negative bullshit.
Thanks,
Everyone
I don't know if "Everyone" is accurate there. Yes, Sometimes lkrupp is overly negative. But IMO sometimes he's spot on, even if a little ... assertive ... perhaps even obnoxious ... sometimes in his delivery. In this case, I kinda think he actually nailed it.
Comments
Kindly fuck off with your negative bullshit.
Thanks,
Everyone
- Folding iPhone (multiple folding feature)
- Screens that you can use your fingers on
- Cool tech gear like that being shown on "Expanse"
- How about a cool iPad or laptop that the keyboard slide down exposing another screen under it, now giving you a screen that is twice as big. And the screen automatically knowns if you have slide the keyboard down, and expands the screen or makes it standard size as needed when pushed back up
render, verb, 3 - represent or depict artistically: the eyes and the cheeks are exceptionally well rendered.
I do have a sweet solution for you tho -- Dell. Thank me later.
Put these two things together and you get two new iMac Pros, nicely parallel to the MacBook Pros, with everything just doubled.
I don't quite get the rumors of a sort of Mac mini Pro that will replace the 2018 space-gray mini. It doesn't make sense to me. It's not unwelcome, but it steps all over the Mac Pro, whatever they do with that. I don't really get it.
For the Air, colors seem likely, and maybe XDR, but the current third-generation (2018, I think) form factor was designed for Intel thermals. So expect some changes but they will also want to differentiate it from the MacBook Pro. The basic tapered design is likely to stay, I think. It's what makes the Air the Air.
The big unknown is the Mac Pro. There really haven't been any solid rumors, other than some mysterious, cutting-edge silicon on TSMC's roadmap, maybe.
They only need 4x M1 Max to reach the GPU performance level of the Intel model, 2x for CPU. Any M2/M3 iteration will exceed it.
- 4x M1 Max
- up to 256GB unified RAM
- some SSD slots
- 500W PSU
- single large cooling fan
Apple Silicon is faster than the Afterburner card so no need for this any more. No external GPUs so that takes out the AMD cards. Unified memory so I don't see them offering memory slots.
That won't fit into a Mac mini as it needs a much bigger power supply. It would fit into an enclosure around the size of the 2013 Mac Pro but it can use the 2019 design or the iMac Pro or a new mini tower design.
Apple knows from the 2019 model what spec people have been buying, they only need to match this.
One route they could go is to top out Apple Silicon at the M1 Max Duo. This would be equivalent to the current 28-core Mac Pro with a W6900X, which with the Afterburner card costs $20,599.
In an iMac Pro, I'd estimate this model to be priced at $4999. By the time it gets to 2nm in 2025, the Max Duo chips would be around 3x faster again.
Apple can easily keep selling the current Intel Mac Pro for a couple of years, EOL it in 2023 and offer maintenance and support for 7 years after that.
If Apple offered an M1 Max Quad, I'd expect it to be priced around $7,999 and it could either be in an iMac Pro or mini tower. I'm not sure that the unit volume will justify making these at all. It's tens of thousands of units vs millions for every other model and it's not 100x the profit. I would like to see either the Cylinder form factor again paired with 32" XDR or 32" iMac Pro.
I'm going to really labor the following points because they're so fundamental...
As others have said, I'm pretty sure Apple is very unlikely to do this. It goes against many of their philosophies. Apple is heading towards everything being proprietary. You can upgrade the storage in the current Mac Pro, but only with Apple proprietary storage modules. The only "advantage" anyone has with being able to stick any old M.2 drive in a Mac is that you can stick any old M.2 drive in it and not have to buy Apple's option. They have no financial or technical interest in accommodating that, and the advantages that come with virtually all their proprietary solutions to everything are of genuine benefit to everyone in Apple's target market.
A couple of key points there...
The first point is: the benefits of proprietary stuff: Apple doesn't just use their own proprietary stuff just to give the finger to people like you who want more flexibility. Just like with Apple Silicon, there are genuine benefits to most of Apple's proprietary solutions -- it's (a) the very limited choices (fewer choices means less bloat and more performance -- Apple stuff is leaner and faster because it doesn't have to cater to every possible hardware configuration in the world like Windows does), and (b) the tight integration of everything that gives them much more control over making it all work well together. All that is a large part of what makes Apple stuff so much better than PCs, at least for the people that appreciate those particular benefits. (eg. In the case of soldered RAM -- now the RAM is practically soldered to the CPU not just the board, and we've all seen how that improves performance. In the case of soldered drives -- or in the Mac Pro's case, proprietary slotted drives -- it's a lot about security without losing performance, among other things).
Sure some of Apple's customers don't appreciate those benefits as much as they would appreciate losing those benefits for more flexibility, but that brings me to the second key point I'm making. Those particular customers are the vast minority of Apple's customers, and they are not at all Apple's TARGET market. Apple is willing, maybe happy, to have customers that only begrudgingly buy their stuff because even with all the "compromises" it's still "better". But Apple has no interest to catering to those customers, when the vast majority of Apple's customers are the people Apple has always prioritized (since the very beginning in the 70's). It's their "computer for the rest of us" mentality. The vast majority of Apple's customers -- and the people Apple targets most -- are those who buy what they want, turn it on and use it, and NEVER open it up, or fiddle with the Terminal, or change much more than a few of the default settings etc. That's Apple's TARGET market, and Apple will never compromise what they can deliver to those people, and what those people appreciate, for those of us who do want to tinker.
You can't have both. It's not technically possible. No one can deliver the better security, reliability, etc. that Apple delivers, using just standard M.2 drives instead of their proprietary ones, just like no one will ever be able to deliver the same level of performance Apple can deliver without all the tight integration (and lack of upgradeability) that comes with Apple Silicon. So either we prefer Apple's "better" proprietary solutions (without the "flexibility") or we prefer the flexibility at the cost of the tight integration and resulting security and performance. If you're in the latter category, then the Mac isn't for you. Instead, as StrangeDays mentioned, you're better off with a Dell.
Sadly, when this response has been handed out in the past, the people who still want the flexibility say "But I don't want a PC or Windows, I like macOS" or whatever else. That's when you have to realize that the REASON you like macOS is because of the things that are better about macOS, and at least some of those things exist only because of the tight integration with the hardware. Sure, macOS "works" on PC's but there are all kinds of issues. Just ask any Hackintosh builder. Most people who build Hackintoshes, don't mind those issues, but Apple's not going to support them because those issues hurt their brand. So again, it's one or the other. Everything that comes with tight integration, and everything that comes with flexibility, by definition, are technically impossible together.
So no, I really can't see Apple putting M.2 slots in their Macs any more than they're going to put Intel chips in any new ones.
These are some valid points, but I really doubt Apple are going to do this. The trash can Mac Pro was an awesome idea, in theory, and a terrible one in practice. Two issues:
1. they thought external expandability (via Thunderbolt) could be better than internal expandability (and there's some room for that idea, though it's not one of their best ideas), but more significantly,
2. they didn't anticipate how much hotter newer chips would get. The thermals were revolutionary, but not good enough.
The new Mac Pro reversed both of those, but don't underestimate how much of all that extra space is thermals. Intel's Xeon's are astoundingly inefficient. They suck enormous amounts of energy, and use so little of it for actual processing, which is why the rest of it is emitted as heat. Just ask any 16" Intel MacBook Pro user who difficult it is to use that machine on your lap, as well as how slow things get when it has to start throttling everything.
As evidenced by the new ASi MBPs, if you build a decently efficient chip, you can have extreme performance AND efficiency (and therefore less heat and less throttling) and so the ASi Mac Pro is going to take advantage of that. And again this is all part of how Apple tightly integrates and builds everything specifically to work together. In Apple's engineers' minds, an ASi logic board in the Intel Mac Pro's enclosure is just a hack and they don't do hacks like that.
So they'll either keep it a similar size, strip out all those intense thermals, and use the extra space for more expandability... but let's face it the current Mac Pro's expandability is insane already (and contributes a large part to the cost), that they're much more likely (and this seems to be supported by the rumors), to put all the power of the current Mac Pro (and then some) and similar expandability as the current one, in a smaller enclosure. A lot of cost benefits come with that including even down to things like shipping costs.
Meanwhile releasing a new machine doesn't mean they're abandoning their current Mac Pro users. They'll support the existing Intel Mac Pro users just as long as they've supported any other older Mac Pro users (macOS Monterey still runs in the 2013 Mac Pros, from 8 years ago). But Apple's support of older machines has almost never been about Apple bringing new hardware functionality to them.
Now, there are some interesting ideas there about having both Intel and ASi in one machine. I suspect Apple won't do it because they want to move everyone forward. If you want Intel in your Mac Pro, Intel Mac Pros will be around (used market, refurbished store, maybe even still sold new for a year or two, like they did with things like the non-retina MacBook Pro after releasing the retina ones in 2012), but they won't be improved Intel Mac Pros, they'll just be the 2019 ones not going away.
And existing Mac Pro users shouldn't have anything to complain about. The 2019 Intel Mac Pro will still do everything it could do (and still be upgradeable to everything it could ever have been) for years to come. Sure, there are likely to be continued introduction of NEW features in macOS and new ASi hardware in the Mac Pros that the Intel Mac Pros can't do, but that's always been the case, chip architecture change or not. Apple won't take anything away from Intel Mac Pro users that they already have, and so no one's getting ripped off.
I love the idea of a single Mac able to include both ASi and Intel hardware. Or... if the worst case scenario was someone making decent Intel emulation (software emulation of complete Intel hardware, to run Intel OS's and apps, like Virtual PC and others like it in the PowerPC days, not just translating the API calls like Rosetta does so that Intel Mac apps remain compatible for a while), then that would still be pretty good. There's plenty of Windows stuff that some of us power and/or professional users still need to run that an ASi Mac won't be able to (where an Intel Mac can). And not just Windows apps. Some developers need to run Windows (OS) for the apps we build for our Windows based customers. It sucks that I'm losing the ability to do that in one machine (in my maxed out 16" Intel MBP I can run multiple virtual machines -- no longer possible on ASi MBP). Sadly my solution has to be two machines -- new ASi MBP for all the benefits that brings, and keep the Intel MBP for the Intel required stuff. That part sucks, but I recognize I'm in a tiny minority of Apple's target customer base, and while a lot of us here are also in that category, there's just not enough of us in Apple's target market for it to be worth Apple's while catering to us.
Needless to say, I'd only benefit from that in a Mac laptop anyway. I'm not sure I can see what benefit (to anyone, not just me) there is for ASi and Intel in a single Mac Pro, compared with someone's existing Intel Mac Pro and their new ASi one, sitting on the floor next to each other...?
Cost? Any cost savings it might introduce will be more than offset by the extra engineering required to pull it off (not that it's particularly extreme or anything but it's still extra).
Space saving? How different is that really to two new ASi Mac Pros sitting beside or on top of each other? (Especially the rack mount version).
Needless to say, I don't think it's in line with Apple's philosophies. They want to sell new machines, not retrofit old ones. Has Apple in anything in say the last 20 years built anything that fits the word "retrofit"?
Again, interesting idea -- not trying to shoot it, or you, down -- but what's the practical benefit to anyone?
Agreed. Similar to the Mac G4 Cube -- one of which I owned in the early 2000's and absolutely loved. I needed the power without the expandability of the full sized G4 tower. It fit the bill perfectly. Though I understand entirely why it didn't last, and wasn't for everyone -- cost for value more than anything I think.
The trash can Mac Pro is a nice revival of the idea, and were it not that I need portability as well now (so I'm all in on MacBook Pros), I'd have bought one of those trash cans in a heartbeat. At the time. It just sadly fell far too short of the growing thermal needs of Intel's chips.
As you say, a similar design, with Apple's CPU, RAM and GPU combination, would be a great fit I think. Though with the incredible power in the laptops now, I suspect the market for something like that (all the power without the extra space for those who don't need the expandability) is even smaller than it ever was. So I suspect they're not going that way. People who need a Mac Pro, need room for the expansion.
That said, with ASi's efficiency, etc. and therefore without all the thermals the 2019 Mac Pro needs, a significantly smaller, but still expandable, ASi Mac Pro makes a lot of sense. If they want to do some elaborate new design, perhaps something like the trash can, but a bit larger in all dimensions, could fit a PCIe card/slot or two vertically...?
Interesting response to Outdoor's comment.
I'm pretty sure that things like even PCIe3 based 3500 MB/s NVMe drives (let alone the 5000+MB/s PCIe4 drives, which is presumably what OutdoorAppDev must be referring to) can't operate at full bandwidth through TB4. TB3 has a 2800 MB/s maximum throughput for data (and that takes second place to any video that has to go through the 40Gb/s cable), and to my knowledge TB4 hasn't improved on that (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
But then again this is not exactly comparing like to like anyway, right? Both (M.2 and TB) are basically PCIe3 (except for newer PCIe4 NVMe drives which of course require a PCIe4 M.2 slot). M.2 is of course an internal, drive specific, connection (internal to a computer or a drive enclosure), while TB is an external interface/protocol.
Presumably OutdoorAppDev is seeking one or two internal M.2 slots, internal in future Macs, as a supplement to (or instead of) their internal soldered drives. See previous arguments about why Apple isn't going to do that. I suppose you're proposing that anyone can add M.2 to any Mac via thunderbolt using an external TB M.2 enclosure. Not great for laptops of course. And still not as fast as any internal option can be. OutdoorAppDev's problem is Apple just isn't going to do it because Apple builds proprietary solutions (soldered in the case of laptops etc. and still proprietary even in the Mac Pro drive "modules").
On the other hand, for any Mac Pro user (ie. with access to PCIe3's full 16 lanes) who wants M.2, and incredible performance, there's pretty amazing things available like this: https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ssd/owc-accelsior-8m2. I want one.
I kinda like bobolicious's point about the trash can design (I mentioned that above of course), but I doubt they'll throw out Mac Pro internal expansion again like they did with the 2013 trash can.
I also doubt Apple's going to ship eGPUs of any kind. Other than "I want to add more later" (which Apple isn't particularly interested in supporting) is there any need to? Pretty much any GPU faster than those now internally in a maxed out MBP is not that great in an eGPU case, because it's throttled by limited thunderbolt bandwidth anyway, for the most part. And of course a Mac Pro can accommodate anything you'd put it in an eGPU box.
Of course if you're mentioning eGPU because you fear a new, smaller, ASi Mac Pro won't be as expandable, I'll suggest otherwise. Two reasons:
1. Less expandability required:
Today's most powerful Mac Pro graphics cards take up half or more of the 2019 Mac Pro's expansion capabilities.
I know people have doubts -- but I don't, after what they were able to squeeze into the new MBP's -- that even the Mac Pro version of ASi is going to be integrated (SoC) graphics with enormous amounts of unified memory, and insanely powerful (and efficient) CPU and GPU. They'll keep up with, if not run rings around, the fastest PCIe GPUs. In fact I suspect Apple won't even support third party GPUs in an ASi Mac Pro. (Apple doesn't care about specs, CUDA, or whatever else GPU purists seem to think matters. Apple cares about the practical end result for the user. So if a Mac Pro level ASi GPU delivers, then a Mac Pro doesn't need anyone else's GPU -- card or otherwise).
That means we don't need as many PCIe slots in an ASi Mac Pro to still be as expandable as the 2019 Mac Pro.
The only thing we potentially lose with the GPU on a card that the 2019 Mac Pro offers is the ability to upgrade the GPU later, but we're going to lose that, and RAM expandability anyway, because of the SoC design. That said, Apple really surprised us with how insanely expandable the 2019 Mac Pro was, and restored our faith in the idea that they're not exclusively all about being so tightly integrated that you can't upgrade anything. So with any luck they'll maintain that, and if so -- if there's enough demand for RAM and GPU upgrades in an ASi Mac Pro, and if Apple can acknowledge that -- then I'll wager we'll be able to swap out the entire SoC, meaning we'll be able to upgrade RAM, GPU and now even CPU, albeit all at once, not one piece at a time. I seriously doubt they're going to compromise a future Mac Pro with anything less than their SoC/unified design now.
So yeah... less PCIe slots needed for similar expandability. But also...
2. Less space required
Let's not underestimate what they can likely do with a half-size Mac Pro. A lot of the space in the 2019 Mac Pro is thermals, most of which isn't necessary with ASi. Less thermals required, less space required.
The differences in both performance and thermal issues between the last generation Intel MBPs and these new ASi ones speaks loudly to that -- especially how the 14 can be specced to the same level as the 16, unlike was ever possible with the 13" Intel MBPs.**
So...
I suspect they're going to deliver a box that's significantly smaller than the 2019 Mac Pro box, but still has as much expandability, simply because there's just so much more efficiency, etc. in ASi.
----
**I'll admit, ASi MBP's have lost one feature that Intel MBPs have: The ASi ones can't fry an egg.
Indeed. Agreed entirely.
I read this after my last post. I guess you've said here in much less words what I said in many above. 😉
I particularly agree with your "specs looks good on paper but..." comment.
All well said.
Some nice ideas but my guess is pretty much none of that is going to happen, lol.
I doubt they'll do a Mac mini that's beefed up so much it needs to be bigger. If anything I think the rumors are pointing to a smaller Mac mini, still with more performance. And we've seen what they can squeeze into even a 14" MBP. Even a maxed out 14" MBP's guts, (including ports, and remembering that about half of a MBP is battery) all in a Mac mini, half the height of the current one, seems very feasible.
I'll be VERY surprised if they give us any more upgradeability in a Mac mini. I'll bet it's going all out soldered and SoC everything, like the MBP's. Again, I'll bet the best we'll get in a Mac mini will be a 14" MBP sans battery & display, and the only non-AIO desktop Mac up from that will be a smaller (and with any luck a little cheaper at least, but probably not much) Mac Pro (see some of my other thoughts on that above).
Nah... We've seen the rumors for new colorful MBAs, with no taper. My guess: still 13" not 14". If they reduce the bezels, it'll be to make the whole thing smaller than the current one, not increase the screen size. And the whole point of the MBA originally was it was supposed to be the smallest, lightest it could be.
They kinda went a bit south trying to apply the MBA philosophies to everything (hence the ill fated 2016-2020 MBPs), and it's good that they've started reversing that. But the MBA's original purpose was supposed to prioritize form over function, though not unnecessarily compromising function, only what's required to make it as small and light as reasonable. The original MBAs did that spectacularly and did it even better as they went on, to a point. The 2018 MBA was a disappointment in my mind, because the differences between the MBA and the lowest end MBP were so minimal I felt it was pointless. Even the differences between the 2020 M1 MBP and MBA came down almost entirely to the fan. That was kinda pointless to me.
Frankly I wish, for the MBA, they'd go back to (something like) the 2015 MacBook. That's what an Air was supposed to be, IMO. They took it a little too far, especially with the keyboard, but I think that was the most Air machine they've ever made, and the modern machine most like Steve's intention for the original MBA.
I think the ideal MBA would be something as close to the 12" MB size and form as possible. It needs a little more space for (a) decent keyboard, and (b) two ports instead of one: MagSafe 3 + 1x thunderbolt. It would work well I think if the extra space required could be added by making it no (or barely) thicker than that 12" MB was, at its thickest, but removing the taper so its that same thickness throughout (and therefore that much thicker than the 12" MB was at its thinnest).
With whatever they'd done to shrink the bezels on the new 14 and 16 MBPs, they could do the same to make the display a little bigger than that 12" MB was, without needing to increase the enclosure much, if at all.
Who knows, maybe these new rumored colorful MBA's are almost exactly what I'm describing here anyway (I know it's 13" but don't know if these rumors are speaking to its physical size beyond screen size comments). This is exactly the sort of machine perfect for someone like my wife, or many students, or my 60yo neighbors, etc. So with any luck that's where they're taking it...?
A bigger version as well, that is everything the above is but with a 14" or 15" display would be a great addition as well (kinda like when they made the 11" and 13" MBAs alongside each other, and alongside 13" and 15" MBPs). Sadly, there's been talk of that for years, with no sign of it, so I won't hold my breath. But who knows.
At least that's my take on an awesome MBA lineup.
I don't know if "Everyone" is accurate there. Yes, Sometimes lkrupp is overly negative. But IMO sometimes he's spot on, even if a little ... assertive ... perhaps even obnoxious ... sometimes in his delivery. In this case, I kinda think he actually nailed it.