tenthousandthings

Calamander said:

canukstorm said:

How do you know they reached out to Gurman and instead Gurman isn't just guessing?

Gurman is Apple's inofficial - official intentional leaks channel.

These leaks build excitement while not promising anything - since it's not Apple official official - and they could also be "wrong" in case Apple can't deliver on whatever was leaked. 

It's pretty clever. Gurman's track record is near 100%. If Apple wanted to shut down that channel they would have. 

It's all under plausible deniability as all sides work together but no official contract exists. 

Yes, it's pretty clear Gurman does both. He makes educated guesses and can often be wrong about those, like all of us Apple observers, but he also has a good relationship with Apple and sometimes gets inside information that no one else has. For example, the "Jade" code names. The fact Apple still lets him host public forums at WWDC with Apple executives after that leak indicates it was probably the kind of thing you are talking about.

I didn't reply to Canukstorm's comment because, yes, obviously I don't know that, and neither do they. It seemed pointless to debate that. 

Calamander said:

Chris_Pelham said:

I find it hard to believe that Apple might debut the first M3 3nm chip in the 13" MacBook Pro and thereby outclass the 14" and 16" MacBook Pros, which are surely much more popular with professionals, or in a Mac mini rather than the Mac Studio or Mac Pro, because it would make the product line specs look funny. I can believe they might try reinvigorating the iMac line with the new chips, especially if they simultaneously launch a larger iMac or bring back the iMac Pro.  I guess the main reason to believe that Apple might start with more consumer oriented machines would be that Apple would want to wait until it has the M3 Pro, Max, and Ultra chips ready before updating the higher-end machines.  They could wait and update all of them at once, but maybe they need to start pumping out the basic M3s first to get the manufacturing process down. 

They did it with the M2, they'll do the same thing with the M3. 

Reason: The M3 is ready and goes in this machine. 

The M3 Pro / Max are not ready. 

So Apple could either hold up shipping the latest tech just to not outshine its flagships, or ship it when it's ready. Apple is shipping it when it's ready, since, over its own long history, that was always the better course of action. They got decades of experience with this exact "dilemma" and they have their MO down. 

Exactly right. Plus, the M3 won't "outclass" the M2 Pro/Max flagships. Marvin's first post (of two) above explains how this works.

mjtomlin said:

9secondkox2 said:

mjtomlin said:

apple4thewin said:

I think there is a chance that they decide to choose an A17 chip design for M3. Seems like using A16 is too small of a performance jump unless Apple decides to make an A16.5 which would be like A16 but in 3nm who knows besides Apple

The M1 debuted alongside the A14 and they both used the same cores and process node. The M2 used the "older" A15 cores (and same process node) because it was being fab'ed mid cycle.

So if the M3 is being held up by the 3nm node and will debut after the A17, then more than likely they will both use the same generation cores. If that's the case, then that's a generational skip for the M-series and we should see fairly huge gains in Mac performance and efficiency.

The m2 was held back for multiple reasons. It was held back as much as possible to try to fit new GPU features, but in the end, it didn’t work out. So apple made up for lost time with using already fully baked tech and clocking it up. Just another reason why m3 is more likely to be based on the latest design. The holdup this time around has to do with tsmc msnufacturing, not apple design and validation. 

I believe they licensed Imagination's Photon Architecture, but were having trouble integrating it, i.e., getting it to run efficiently. But I thought those GPUs were destined for the A16 generation...

prototypes had much higher power draw than the simulated estimates expected. This meant the GPU would have impacted battery life too much to be usable, and incurred thermal issues. As a result, it couldn’t be used for the iPhone 14 Pro line.

That was a quote from Dec. 2022, 6 months after the M2 debuted. Of course, Apple may have planned to have it done in time to stick in the M2, but gave up after they knew it wouldn't make it in time and just went with A15 gen. blocks to get it out by WWDC.

That report in The Information was interesting, but not quite enough to get me to shell out to learn what else was behind the paywall. Your theory about it involving Imagination designs is the best explanation I’ve heard.

I’ll guess the M2 delay/lag behind the A15 was all about the MacBook Air redesign, arguably the single most important, high-stakes product launch of the post-Intel era. If so, I think we can say with some confidence that the M3 will be ready shortly after, or even alongside, the A17. The only question is whether there are important-enough products to put it into. Apple has said over and over and over again that they are driven by products. The iMac and iPad Air both could qualify, and obviously the iPad Pro. Not to mention a redesign for the M3 MacBook Pro (as opposed to the M3 Pro/Max MacBook Pro), which is a tantalizing prospect. 

This article would benefit from adding a bit more detail with regard to the TSMC process nodes used. One thing the A14/M1 and A15/M2 history does support is the idea that A16/M3 or A17/M3 will have the same process node:

mayfly said:

tenthousandthings said:

Apple Pay and Apple Pay Later are different entities from the Apple Card.

“Apple Pay Later is offered by Apple Financing LLC, a subsidiary of Apple Inc., which is responsible for credit assessment and lending.”

“Goldman Sachs is the issuer of the Mastercard payment credential used to complete Apple Pay Later purchases.”

You are borrowing money from Apple Financing when you get a loan via Apple Pay Later, not Goldman Sachs. It’s the same “Mastercard Installments” bank credential that Apple uses when you buy Apple products and pay over time using the Apple Card. Those loans at 0% also come from Apple Financing, not Goldman Sachs. 

That so? Here's what Apple says about that:

Mastercard and Goldman Sachs

Apple Pay Later is enabled through the Mastercard Installments program, so merchants that accept Apple Pay do not need to do anything to implement Apple Pay Later for their customers. When a merchant accepts Apple Pay, Apple Pay Later will be an option for their customers during checkout online and in apps on iPhone and iPad. Goldman Sachs is the issuer of the Mastercard payment credential used to complete Apple Pay Later purchases.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/03/apple-introduces-apple-pay-later/

I quoted from earlier in that same press release. Maybe you should read it a bit more carefully. The paragraph you quoted from is about Apple Pay merchants, not their customers. It doesn’t mean the loan is coming from Goldman Sachs.

If you have an Apple Card, and if you’ve used it to buy any Apple products from the Apple Store at 0% over 12 months, take a look at that: you’ll notice those loans are handled differently from Apple Card purchases. They are loans from Apple Financing, not Goldman Sachs.