Intel just announced support for WiFi 7, Apple is even late with WiFi 6E. I would really like Apple to deliver superior chips, but once Intel has access to advanced chip manufacturing (from TSMC or their own) I fear that Apple (with all the staff fluctuations) will be not able to compete in the long term.
If Apple concedes the Mac Pro business to others, then where is the need for perhaps the Mac Studio?
The current M1 Studio version totally lacks the ability to swap components. As initially configured it will always be.
Not quite true. While the Mac Studio's processor and RAM are soldered, it has slotted storage, just like the iMac Pro and 2019 Mac Pro. The slots aren't officially user-accessible, but neither were the slots on the iMac Pro.
This also tells us something interesting about the upcoming ARM Mac Pro: it will have slotted storage. The flash carts for the iMac Pro and 2019 Mac Pro are physically identical, but the Mac Studio has a different cart design. They wouldn't go to that trouble for one model.
Since the Mac Studio's slots aren't meant to be user-accessible, we don't yet have official word on the process for replacing them. On the iMac Pro and 2019 Mac Pro, it just takes copying data off the SSD, swapping the carts, running Apple Configurator 2 from another Mac to reset the SSD controller, then reinstalling the OS and copying data back. Once we have an ARM Mac with user-accessible storage slots, the process for it will work for the Mac Studio as well.
I ordered 8TB of storage in my Studio Ultra. I doubt Apple will be installing more than that into a future Studio. But I was also able to put in 8TB on my 2019 Intel 16" MBPro laptop and a 8TB SSD configuration was an option on on both the 14" & 16" M1 MBPro laptops.
I would expect a new Mac Pro would offer much higher total SSD storage but the price would be astounding.
The M2 allows for 24GB of ram vs 16MB on the M1. Thus the thoughts would be instead of 16, 32, 64 and 128 GB of memory as the M1 chips got bigger and doubled, one could reasonably forsee 24, 48, 96, and 192 GB of of ram stepping up the processor sizes and doubling the chip count.. More will be revealed before year end.
Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]
A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."
Charges of 'monopoly' have been leveled against the iPhone not Macs. At 10% market share, Macs are in no danger of being accused of monopolizing the personal computing market.
New EU term “Gatekeeper”, you are your own grandpa.
Intel just announced support for WiFi 7, Apple is even late with WiFi 6E. I would really like Apple to deliver superior chips, but once Intel has access to advanced chip manufacturing (from TSMC or their own) I fear that Apple (with all the staff fluctuations) will be not able to compete in the long term.
Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.
WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]
A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."
Incorrect. The anti-trust chargers are in markets has more dominance in, but even there are suspect due to minority market share. PC market is even less of a concern because you’re can’t be a monopoly with a very small minority of market share.
However the real reason they would never, ever resort to clones - 1) They are concerned with best possible user experience, followed by profit, not market share. 2) They won’t give up control of their core technology, which they’ve said time & again they feel is important to own.
Intel just announced support for WiFi 7, Apple is even late with WiFi 6E. I would really like Apple to deliver superior chips, but once Intel has access to advanced chip manufacturing (from TSMC or their own) I fear that Apple (with all the staff fluctuations) will be not able to compete in the long term.
Intel isn't the only one to make chipset... Qualcomm and Broadcom are also providing chipsets for WiFi 7 so Apple can choose one of the few manufacturers.
1. Cellular modem hardware should be built into all A-series and M-series SoCs. All Macs should offer cellular service, including the desktops. All Watches should come with cellular. All iPads should come with cellular. All Homepods should come with cellular. I think the AirPods Max should come with cellular modem even. Just add the logic bits for cellular modems in the SoC. Cell service should have a la carte, day-to-day, or subscription services. 3 nm and 2 nm nodes will have a lot of transistors to use, use them. It's ok if they are not as performant as QCOM's modems. Once you get above 1 gbits/s, no one really cares about it.
2. They are behind in software imo. I think they should head down the path of the mutable iCloud, network client computing, but amp it up even more. If I have 2 Mac minis that are networked together, macOS should be able to automatically distribute processing across both computers depending on compute load. If I have an MBA and an iMac networked together, macOS should be able to distribute processes to minimize energy use. The MBA should be able to display an app on the iMac and vice versa. Make Ethernet-over-Thunderbolt normal. Make sure a TB4 router is available.
3. Apple devices should be able to create their on local WiFi network and any device should be able to serve as the hot-spot if not all devices with cellular modems being able to act as hot spots. Like one device is on Verizon, another device is on T-Mobile, and a third on a ATT, choose the one with the best connection.
4. Watches and AirPods Max (at least) should become independent devices. They should be able to independently access iCloud, Apple Music, essentially be an iCloud client. Eg, AirPods Max should be able to access Apple Music without a computer or smartphone, and have Siri voice interface. Make their SoCs more performant.
5. Fix Metal to scale more linearly with GPU core counts. I don't know what the issue is, whether it is software not properly optimized for TBDR GPU architectures, Apple's GPU microarchitecture, probably both, but they need to do a better job with this. A 32c M1 Max should be hitting 80k in GB5 Metal and an 64c M1 Ultra should be hitting 180k. Convert as much code to GPU compute as possible. Making GPU cores a little more generalized to make it easier.
6. More hardware variety. They really should keep an iPhone mini in the lineup. It doesn't have to have the leading edge SoC. Use a prior year's SoC and keep it in the lineup. Make it thicker so it's battery life is the same as the larger models. A MBA13 with A15/A16 8 GB for $800. A MBA15 with M2 for $1600. A 35" ultrawide display at 220 PPI of better. A 30" iMac. A 14.5" iPad. Still a mystery why the M1 Pro isn't an option for the Mac mini and iMac 24. A 20" clamshell foldable running iPadOS. A Thunderbolt mechanical keyboard and dock. A laptop with a mechanical keyboard. A laptop with an Ultra SoC.
7. Stackable RAM? 4 packages of LPDDR5/6 stacked on top of each other to achieve 512 GB to 1 TB RAM capacities.
8. The Mac Pro needs to be 1.5 kW and be able to run 4 to 5 "Extreme" SoCs.
9. AR glasses as an external display. So connect the glasses to your iPhone or Mac, the glasses present additional display space.
10. Don't skimp on the CPU cores. The M1 Max is basically a GPU with some CPU cores attached.
Intel just announced support for WiFi 7, Apple is even late with WiFi 6E. I would really like Apple to deliver superior chips, but once Intel has access to advanced chip manufacturing (from TSMC or their own) I fear that Apple (with all the staff fluctuations) will be not able to compete in the long term.
Apple is doomed.
DOOMED, I say!
Announced is one thing. How many devices out there support WiFi 7? You know... routers, hubs, and the like? Is that sagebrush I see blowing in the wind? They will come but not for a while and it will only be the techno nerds who upgrade for a while. Money is tight. I'm willing to bet $1 (that is my limit) that most people won't be upgrading their networks for a few years. Will Apple be shipping WiFi 7 by then? Probably but at the moment it does not matter for most users. Personally, it is not worth spending any money on my home network until FTTH arrives in 2024 at the earliest. Naturally YMMV
The law in the US states that parts and service must be provided for seven years after a device is discontinued.
Which law is this? Apple's USA support for devices is corporate policy, not law based. Apple uses the word 'may' which does not guarantee anything, and says service and parts may be obtained for longer, as required by law or 7 years BUT in the USA I don't believe there are any laws about how long a device must be supported from a repair or spare parts capacity. Essentially the TOS on the warranty is legally what you are guaranteed.
Apple needs a serial version of UltraFusion bus to connect to external RAM and GPU’s. They could have used IBM’s turned opensource OMI - OpenCAPI serial interconnect. That would be ultra fast local RAM and integrated GPUs (Ultrafusion) and slower OMI connected near RAM and GPUs.
[I]t hasn't been tick-tock for about a decade where's there's innovation,
then refinement, then back to innovation. It's been tick-tock-tock-tock
more often.
The law in the US states that parts and service must be provided for seven years after a device is discontinued.
Which law is this? Apple's USA support for devices is corporate policy, not law based. Apple uses the word 'may' which does not guarantee anything, and says service and parts may be obtained for longer, as required by law or 7 years BUT in the USA I don't believe there are any laws about how long a device must be supported from a repair or spare parts capacity. Essentially the TOS on the warranty is legally what you are guaranteed.
A couple of folks have made a few good points about hardware and software support for this model, but I think a few things were left out.
Aftermarket support for older hardware is typically robust, both for upgrades and repair parts. (Yes, despite the small-shop and right-to-repair fiascos we’re all familiar with — please don’t regurgitate all that here, unless someone pointedly asks for more info.)
OS Support past 2023: (Caveat - this is opinion) while the post is technicallycorrect, we’re all seen how Apple supports hardware with updates waaaaaay past the point that most electronics vendors normally would.
Case in point: up until recently the iPhone 6 was still getting updates. I still have 6s models in my testing mix. And I was honestly surprised that iOS 16 dropped support for anything below an iPhone 8. Even still, that’s a heck of a long time for support.
We also had testing and development hardware going back to 2010/2011 until recently (not that I would suggest it, but it was definitely manageable). Now our oldest models are circa 2015, and they all run Monterey very well.
Think about that — most Macs get about ten years of updates before they become genuinely unusable for even small tasks. (And there’s other ways around that, too.) Again, I was surprised that Ventura dropped support for anything below a 2017 iMac/MacBook. I suspect that’s more of a market nudge than a hardware limitation, but for I also think it’s the right kind of nudge given all the considerations.
Your biggest problem will be the temptation to retire your Intel model early as the M-series features start to pile up. I was the early adopter at my company—justifiable as I’m QA—while everyone else was doing their “oh my gerd. Apple changed a thing!” dance. Now, I would never go back to x64 by choice. There’s devs that will need to be dragged into the light, kicking and screaming, but they’ll get there. Even in the server space, x64 is becoming the “big iron” of yore.
Anyway, sorry for the seeming digression there, but it highlights the fact that you have lots and lots of options going forward.
PS - I g*dd*mn love my MBP 2021 16” M1 Max. It’s a powerhouse. The only downside will be convincing my bosses that I must have the M2 Max MBP when that drops.
I’m in no hurry to upgrade from my 2017 15” MBP with 7th Gen quad core Core i7. Partly because it supports Boot Camp and Windows 10, but mainly because it runs GREAT for what I’m doing with it. I’m going to hold out as long as I can with it (of course, I did just drop $200 at the Apple Store for a new battery because apparently the battery is attached to the keyboard, and the whole thing has to get replaced as one unit.). But one thing i REALLY want to see on the Apple SoC is some sort of other OS support. MS has ARM versions of Windows. There’s also VM solutions that can run Windows as an “App” on the Mac. So until I can run a few older Windows apps, I’m keeping the Intel MBP until it dies.
A couple of folks have made a few good points about hardware and software support for this model, but I think a few things were left out.
Aftermarket support for older hardware is typically robust, both for upgrades and repair parts. (Yes, despite the small-shop and right-to-repair fiascos we’re all familiar with — please don’t regurgitate all that here, unless someone pointedly asks for more info.)
OS Support past 2023: (Caveat - this is opinion) while the post is technicallycorrect, we’re all seen how Apple supports hardware with updates waaaaaay past the point that most electronics vendors normally would.
Case in point: up until recently the iPhone 6 was still getting updates. I still have 6s models in my testing mix. And I was honestly surprised that iOS 16 dropped support for anything below an iPhone 8. Even still, that’s a heck of a long time for support.
We also had testing and development hardware going back to 2010/2011 until recently (not that I would suggest it, but it was definitely manageable). Now our oldest models are circa 2015, and they all run Monterey very well.
Think about that — most Macs get about ten years of updates before they become genuinely unusable for even small tasks. (And there’s other ways around that, too.) Again, I was surprised that Ventura dropped support for anything below a 2017 iMac/MacBook. I suspect that’s more of a market nudge than a hardware limitation, but for I also think it’s the right kind of nudge given all the considerations.
Your biggest problem will be the temptation to retire your Intel model early as the M-series features start to pile up. I was the early adopter at my company—justifiable as I’m QA—while everyone else was doing their “oh my gerd. Apple changed a thing!” dance. Now, I would never go back to x64 by choice. There’s devs that will need to be dragged into the light, kicking and screaming, but they’ll get there. Even in the server space, x64 is becoming the “big iron” of yore.
Anyway, sorry for the seeming digression there, but it highlights the fact that you have lots and lots of options going forward.
PS - I g*dd*mn love my MBP 2021 16” M1 Max. It’s a powerhouse. The only downside will be convincing my bosses that I must have the M2 Max MBP when that drops.
A 2015 running Monterey means you get Universal Control between the older Mac and a new one or an iPad. Allows it to be used as a second screen but also a bit of the back up computer to keep on top of email or management task if your workhorse computer goes down.
Park one if a conference room use it a video link. Set one up in a booth with a sit-down desk for a quiet work space.
Seems odd to me iCloud for Business hasn't become a thing they could be getting subscription revenue from making it easy for businesses including making old iMacs to work effectively as "Pseudio Displays". Given they can't keep up with demand with them anyway.
Solution to last problem might be to keep it in the company. Find a hand me down chain of people under you who'd benefit from having a better machine like a laptop but on paper wouldn't justify the jump from a desktop. You only need to find 2 to change your update cycle from 3 years to 1.
The law in the US states that parts and service must be provided for seven years after a device is discontinued.
Which law is this? Apple's USA support for devices is corporate policy, not law based. Apple uses the word 'may' which does not guarantee anything, and says service and parts may be obtained for longer, as required by law or 7 years BUT in the USA I don't believe there are any laws about how long a device must be supported from a repair or spare parts capacity. Essentially the TOS on the warranty is legally what you are guaranteed.
Comments
This also tells us something interesting about the upcoming ARM Mac Pro: it will have slotted storage. The flash carts for the iMac Pro and 2019 Mac Pro are physically identical, but the Mac Studio has a different cart design. They wouldn't go to that trouble for one model.
Since the Mac Studio's slots aren't meant to be user-accessible, we don't yet have official word on the process for replacing them. On the iMac Pro and 2019 Mac Pro, it just takes copying data off the SSD, swapping the carts, running Apple Configurator 2 from another Mac to reset the SSD controller, then reinstalling the OS and copying data back. Once we have an ARM Mac with user-accessible storage slots, the process for it will work for the Mac Studio as well.
I would expect a new Mac Pro would offer much higher total SSD storage but the price would be astounding.
The M2 allows for 24GB of ram vs 16MB on the M1. Thus the thoughts would be instead of 16, 32, 64 and 128 GB of memory as the M1 chips got bigger and doubled, one could reasonably forsee 24, 48, 96, and 192 GB of of ram stepping up the processor sizes and doubling the chip count.. More will be revealed before year end.
DOOMED, I say!
However the real reason they would never, ever resort to clones - 1) They are concerned with best possible user experience, followed by profit, not market share. 2) They won’t give up control of their core technology, which they’ve said time & again they feel is important to own.
1. Cellular modem hardware should be built into all A-series and M-series SoCs. All Macs should offer cellular service, including the desktops. All Watches should come with cellular. All iPads should come with cellular. All Homepods should come with cellular. I think the AirPods Max should come with cellular modem even. Just add the logic bits for cellular modems in the SoC. Cell service should have a la carte, day-to-day, or subscription services. 3 nm and 2 nm nodes will have a lot of transistors to use, use them. It's ok if they are not as performant as QCOM's modems. Once you get above 1 gbits/s, no one really cares about it.
2. They are behind in software imo. I think they should head down the path of the mutable iCloud, network client computing, but amp it up even more. If I have 2 Mac minis that are networked together, macOS should be able to automatically distribute processing across both computers depending on compute load. If I have an MBA and an iMac networked together, macOS should be able to distribute processes to minimize energy use. The MBA should be able to display an app on the iMac and vice versa. Make Ethernet-over-Thunderbolt normal. Make sure a TB4 router is available.
3. Apple devices should be able to create their on local WiFi network and any device should be able to serve as the hot-spot if not all devices with cellular modems being able to act as hot spots. Like one device is on Verizon, another device is on T-Mobile, and a third on a ATT, choose the one with the best connection.
4. Watches and AirPods Max (at least) should become independent devices. They should be able to independently access iCloud, Apple Music, essentially be an iCloud client. Eg, AirPods Max should be able to access Apple Music without a computer or smartphone, and have Siri voice interface. Make their SoCs more performant.
5. Fix Metal to scale more linearly with GPU core counts. I don't know what the issue is, whether it is software not properly optimized for TBDR GPU architectures, Apple's GPU microarchitecture, probably both, but they need to do a better job with this. A 32c M1 Max should be hitting 80k in GB5 Metal and an 64c M1 Ultra should be hitting 180k. Convert as much code to GPU compute as possible. Making GPU cores a little more generalized to make it easier.
6. More hardware variety. They really should keep an iPhone mini in the lineup. It doesn't have to have the leading edge SoC. Use a prior year's SoC and keep it in the lineup. Make it thicker so it's battery life is the same as the larger models. A MBA13 with A15/A16 8 GB for $800. A MBA15 with M2 for $1600. A 35" ultrawide display at 220 PPI of better. A 30" iMac. A 14.5" iPad. Still a mystery why the M1 Pro isn't an option for the Mac mini and iMac 24. A 20" clamshell foldable running iPadOS. A Thunderbolt mechanical keyboard and dock. A laptop with a mechanical keyboard. A laptop with an Ultra SoC.
7. Stackable RAM? 4 packages of LPDDR5/6 stacked on top of each other to achieve 512 GB to 1 TB RAM capacities.
8. The Mac Pro needs to be 1.5 kW and be able to run 4 to 5 "Extreme" SoCs.
9. AR glasses as an external display. So connect the glasses to your iPhone or Mac, the glasses present additional display space.
10. Don't skimp on the CPU cores. The M1 Max is basically a GPU with some CPU cores attached.
Is that sagebrush I see blowing in the wind?
They will come but not for a while and it will only be the techno nerds who upgrade for a while. Money is tight. I'm willing to bet $1 (that is my limit) that most people won't be upgrading their networks for a few years. Will Apple be shipping WiFi 7 by then? Probably but at the moment it does not matter for most users.
Personally, it is not worth spending any money on my home network until FTTH arrives in 2024 at the earliest. Naturally YMMV
Apple's support doc is here: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
If they support the 2019 Mac Pros, witch they still sell, I would say yes.
A couple of folks have made a few good points about hardware and software support for this model, but I think a few things were left out.
Aftermarket support for older hardware is typically robust, both for upgrades and repair parts. (Yes, despite the small-shop and right-to-repair fiascos we’re all familiar with — please don’t regurgitate all that here, unless someone pointedly asks for more info.)
OS Support past 2023: (Caveat - this is opinion) while the post is technically correct, we’re all seen how Apple supports hardware with updates waaaaaay past the point that most electronics vendors normally would.
Case in point: up until recently the iPhone 6 was still getting updates. I still have 6s models in my testing mix. And I was honestly surprised that iOS 16 dropped support for anything below an iPhone 8. Even still, that’s a heck of a long time for support.
We also had testing and development hardware going back to 2010/2011 until recently (not that I would suggest it, but it was definitely manageable). Now our oldest models are circa 2015, and they all run Monterey very well.
Think about that — most Macs get about ten years of updates before they become genuinely unusable for even small tasks. (And there’s other ways around that, too.) Again, I was surprised that Ventura dropped support for anything below a 2017 iMac/MacBook. I suspect that’s more of a market nudge than a hardware limitation, but for I also think it’s the right kind of nudge given all the considerations.
Your biggest problem will be the temptation to retire your Intel model early as the M-series features start to pile up. I was the early adopter at my company—justifiable as I’m QA—while everyone else was doing their “oh my gerd. Apple changed a thing!” dance. Now, I would never go back to x64 by choice. There’s devs that will need to be dragged into the light, kicking and screaming, but they’ll get there. Even in the server space, x64 is becoming the “big iron” of yore.
Anyway, sorry for the seeming digression there, but it highlights the fact that you have lots and lots of options going forward.
PS - I g*dd*mn love my MBP 2021 16” M1 Max. It’s a powerhouse. The only downside will be convincing my bosses that I must have the M2 Max MBP when that drops.
Park one if a conference room use it a video link. Set one up in a booth with a sit-down desk for a quiet work space.
Seems odd to me iCloud for Business hasn't become a thing they could be getting subscription revenue from making it easy for businesses including making old iMacs to work effectively as "Pseudio Displays". Given they can't keep up with demand with them anyway.
Solution to last problem might be to keep it in the company. Find a hand me down chain of people under you who'd benefit from having a better machine like a laptop but on paper wouldn't justify the jump from a desktop. You only need to find 2 to change your update cycle from 3 years to 1.
And I believe that was a "proposed" law from 2015, and may not apply at all today, even in California.