thadec

Why Focus on the MacBook Pro?
The first M1 MacBook Pro was announced in November 2020.
The 14" and 16" M1 Pro and Max MacBook Pros came out in 2021.
Then the M2 MacBook Pros came out in 2022.
The headline should be finally updating the Mac Mini. 
Reason 1: the Mac Mini has the same 8 core (only 4 performance) CPU and 8 core GPU from 2020
Reason 2: the only other option is the 8th gen Core i5 one from 2018 (the chip was issued in 2017) that somehow costs $1100! I bought an HP with a 10th gen Core i5 for $450 maybe 3 years ago. 
Reason 3: there is no Core i7 option at all. Yes, the M1 outperforms the 8th gen Core i7. But 11th gen? Depends. (Quad core laptop? Yes. Hexacore desktop? No.) 12th gen? Generally no. 13th gen? Of course not, whether laptop or desktop. 

And no, I am not just saying this because I want to get an M1 Mac Mini for the benefit of folks in my household who do video editing and 2D animation for cheap at a fire sale so I won't have to buy this guy instead and put Ubuntu Studio or ChromeOS Flex on it: https://www.bee-link.com/computer-73493777
It actually is so that the Mac Mini can again become the most compelling desktop in the industry as it has been several times in the past, but hasn't since AMD Zen 3 (or Zen 2+ like the Steam Deck) and Intel Alder Lake mini-pcs became available.  

JP234 said:

Apple opening another facility in Texas. Is this another step in moving company HQ to Texas to avoid California taxes? It's smart business, even though Texas culture is the exact opposite of Apple culture.

Like any large company, Apple has regional headquarters all over the country (and globe). In the southeast, your regional headquarters is either going to be Atlanta or Charlotte (because Miami is too remote). The midwest? Chicago if you are a big company, someplace in Ohio if you are a smaller one. The southwest? It is Texas or nothing. Most of the progressive companies choose Austin, with the talent produced by the University of Texas as an excuse. I say "excuse" because Texas A&M University actually has the better engineering and computer science programs ... but A&M is the most conservative large public university in the country by a mile. But regardless Austin is where Elon Musk decamped to largely because he knew that it was going to have to be a place where many of the people that he wants to work for Tesla would accept living in, and this is likely where he is ultimately going to relocate Twitter also for the same reason. (Pretty much everyone in Austin these days are either Texas graduates or California transplants, if for no reason than they are now the only ones who can afford to live there because it is basically San Francisco - Texas branch.) 

But the more traditional companies - meaning not tech companies or those for whom progressivism is part of their brand - put their branch campuses in Dallas-Fort Worth. Unless you are an energy or transportation company, which means you go to Houston. Again, no other place nearby (New Mexico is too close to California to be a southwest branch, there are no good options in Arkansas, Oklahoma or Louisiana etc.) makes sense.

coolfactor said:

Broadcom is an industry leader. If Apple can replace them, that would be huge.

I am more concerned with how it is possible to replace Broadcom's tech without using Broadcom's patents. It isn't as bad as the situation with Qualcomm and mobile tech, but still. 

Madbum said:

Please keep in mind the top 4 on that list sells some PCs and laptops for under $300

Apple lowest is $1k

To put it in context 

Get real. The only "under $300" PCs run ChromeOS.
1. IDC doesn't count Chromebooks as PCs so they aren't listed in the above figures. 
2. Even if they did, ChromeOS sales are generally a little more/a little less than macOS sales. 

Unlike ChromeOS, which can run on 4 GB RAM, 32 GB of flash storage and an Intel Celeron, AMD Athlon or low end ARM CPU, Windows 11 needs 8 GB RAM, and Intel Core i3 or AMD Ryzen 3 and a 128 GB SSD to do anything at all. That runs about $450. While Windows devices cheaper than that do exists they don't sell that well. 
Finally the Mac Mini starts at $700. Not $450 like a Ryzen 3 desktop but not "lowest $1K" either. 

So end the nonsense narratives fueled by false information. The truth: Apple Silicon didn't change squat and Mac remains the minor player in the "PC" space that it was before. Apple is:
1. iPhone 
2. services
3. iPad
4. wearables (Apple Watch and Airpods)  
5. Mac 
6. smart devices (Apple TV and HomePod)

Yes, the Mac generates more revenue than the wearables division. But the wearables division is more influential: far more people buy the Apple Watch and especially AirPods than Macs.

FileMakerFeller said:

So where's all the hand-wringing about HP?

Why hand-wring when HP sold over 13 million to Apple's less than 5 million? Also, everyone spent 2 years claiming that the switch to Apple Silicon was going to turbocharge sales. Now it is finally obvious that - despite specious claims to the contrary - pretty much the only people buying Apple Silicon Macs are the same ones that bought Intel ones. So there is no "bigger storyline" to HP going back and forth with Dell to be the #2 PC maker to Lenovo as usual. But with Apple, the whole "ARM is the future and x86 - especially Intel - is doomed!" storyline of the past 1-2 years is going to now quietly recede. By next year, when both Intel Raptor Lake and AMD Zen 5 products will be on the shelves, those folks are going to start denying that they ever predicted the x86 collapse and Intel bankruptcy fantasies in the first place.