Timeline
- Mar 2020: was COVID lock down
- Nov 2020: 1st Mac with Apple Silicon
- Jun 2023: Last Intel Mac
Update cycle is likely impacted by supply chain bottlenecks from residual COVID & units sold.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Here Are All the M3 Macs Still Expected This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Mar 2020: was COVID lock down
- Nov 2020: 1st Mac with Apple Silicon
- Jun 2023: Last Intel Mac
Update cycle is likely impacted by supply chain bottlenecks from residual COVID & units sold.
Why? I imagine its a wonderful machine, and when you've finished paying for it there will be an M4 model or even an M5 model.
The switch from Intel to Apple Silicon is more about about Apple having control of the design, and cost. I'm not convinced it's about more frequent product updates, since there were lots of Intel chips that Apple chose not to use, despite the fact that they were drop-in replacements for other Intel chips already in existing Mac products.
I also don't expect Macs to be updated yearly on average. More like 15-18 months. The volumes are way, way smaller than the iPhones.
Haven't we reached a ideas plateau where iPhone updated hardware design is becoming less important then the OS such as AI enhanced apps and some interface improvements?
That being the case it makes a lot of sense to update other hardware such Macs/iPads more often especially given the M3 SoC family along with AI enhancements.
In its current configuration, me either. They are squandering its potential.
It could be substantially better than the Studio but right now it’s a product for a very narrow audience.
The CIRP pie data claims it is for “Mac computer shares (twelve months ending December 2023)”. So it’s significantly after Mac Studio introduction, but is a month after M3 MacBook Pro and M3 iMac release. Hence this updated 2023 CIRP data is even more suspect and unbelievable.This picture clearly points to a marketing deficiency that Apple currently has. Look at the following pie chart.
![most-popular-mac-in-us.png]()
source
This clearly points out that Apple made a big mistake, consumers and businesses actually prefer the iMac compared to the Mac mini and Mac Studio believe it or not. All Apple needs to do is to come out with a larger iMac using a better M3 processor and it would really jack up Mac sales a lot.
Also to be fair updated Mac mini and Studio Mac with M3 updates would sell more also.
Nah, that would be utterly stupid, even if those numbers aren't completely made up.
Doesn't matter. What matters is sales volumes and customer expectations, as well as the update schedule. Phones are replaced more regularly, and often follow mobile service contracts which follow a 2-3 year contract schedule. This is much less common for computers. Consumers often "rent" their iPhones, but generally they don't "rent" their computers. Plus, as already mentioned, the sales volume of iPhones is way, way higher.
Apple would be leaving a ton of money on the table if they didn't update the iPhones yearly, but not doing this for Macs is much less of an issue.
I have a relative with a bunch of debt…and they always have the latest iPhone Pro Max
I‘m just like..
This is especially true for Mac desktop models. I would suspect the turnover rate for desktop units to be less than MacBook units.
I really want to replace my 27" 5k iMac. Can't go back to an iMac though because their displays don't support external connections. The fact that I have to stop using my current display because target display mode isn't a thing on it anymore is unfortunate and extremely environmentally wasteful.
Thought it would be great to hop on a 16/512 Mini and a Studio Display. But now the Studio Display, which is the same thing in my old iMac, is the same price as the iMac is AND it doesn't have a computer attached to it. The price of a 16/512 Mini and a Studio Display is absurd.
If you want to use another display manufacturer, good luck. There's basically nobody that sells 5K, so you have to go with 4K which looks weird, or switch the scaling to a non-native "looks like 5K" resolution which degrades image quality and clarity.
There's basically no reasonable entry point to the Mac ecosystem that doesn't involve paying crazy high prices compared to other manufacturers that can provide better performance for the same price.
Thought it would be great to hop on a 16/512 Mini and a Studio Display. But now the Studio Display, which is the same thing in my old iMac, is the same price as the iMac is AND it doesn't have a computer attached to it. The price of a 16/512 Mini and a Studio Display is absurd.
If you want to use another display manufacturer, good luck. There's basically nobody that sells 5K, so you have to go with 4K which looks weird, or switch the scaling to a non-native "looks like 5K" resolution which degrades image quality and clarity.
There's basically no reasonable entry point to the Mac ecosystem that doesn't involve paying crazy high prices compared to other manufacturers that can provide better performance for the same price.
Samsung's ViewFinity S9 5K Smart Monitor Hits All-Time Low $999 Price ($600 Off)
Samsung has a new sale on computer monitors this week, including a match of the all-time low price on the 27-inch ViewFinity S9 5K Smart Monitor. You...
www.macrumors.com
I think TDM is a secret feature that will be disclosed nearing 2030s.
USB4/TB4 allows for the 5K or higher resolution.
Here are some links to examine against CIRP
You searched for cirp - 9to5Mac
9to5mac.com
Search
www.macworld.com
note on Macworld there is a article showing using that source back in 2017.
No worse then some of the reports from some press.
The question I keep asking myself:
Why did Apple skip M2 iMac, going directly from M1 hardware to M3 hardware?
And how is that different from Apple skipping M3 Mac mini, going directly from M2 hardware to M4 hardware?
I don’t know, that is why I’m asking.
Why did Apple skip M2 iMac, going directly from M1 hardware to M3 hardware?
And how is that different from Apple skipping M3 Mac mini, going directly from M2 hardware to M4 hardware?
I don’t know, that is why I’m asking.
Is there any reason why the mini can't get the Max chip? Other than Apple wanting people to pay more for the Studio and MBP of course...
I think you hit on the obvious, for it not to be a cheaper alternative to the Mac Studio. This is the same reason Apple removed the large iMac with a Pro or Max SoC. Prop up that market position by removing competition.
The existing mini box is not large enough for the heat sink and dual fans required for a max Chip.
I think it had to do with thermals and the GPU feature set. The M3 GPU supports ray tracing , mesh shading. The Max memory is the same (24 GB RAM). Also the hardware support for ProRes encode and decode engine and AV1 decode. M2 doesn't offer most of that.
M2 vs. M3 MacBook Air Buyer's Guide: All Differences Compared
Apple today brought the MacBook Air up to date with its latest-generation Apple silicon. The company has reworked the lineup and its pricing, phasing...
www.macrumors.com
The Mini and the Studio are my two favorite products because they are the most similar to both the current PC market and they way it has been for 30 years and the old school Apple II products.This picture clearly points to a marketing deficiency that Apple currently has. Look at the following pie chart.
![most-popular-mac-in-us.png]()
source
This clearly points out that Apple made a big mistake, consumers and businesses actually prefer the iMac compared to the Mac mini and Mac Studio believe it or not. All Apple needs to do is to come out with a larger iMac using a better M3 processor and it would really jack up Mac sales a lot.
Also to be fair updated Mac mini and Studio Mac with M3 updates would sell more also.
All-in-one products, which is what the laptops and iMacs are, remove flexibility. But they are easy for people, you buy the thing, turn it on, and use it. This, unfortunately, has become Apple's biggest selling point.
Last edited:
Mini had better come with 16Gb RAM standard
Do it and I will replace my 2018 Mini
Do it and I will replace my 2018 Mini
How would you feel if it base was 16GB but it also cost $200 more? With no cheaper option?
I mean I agree completely that 16GB should be the lowest build in 2024. But it will cost more. But the HD space is far more egregious, $200 for 265GB is insane for 2 reasons. 1. The cost to Apple is so low, and 2, there is no advantage to it being onboard.
Unified onboard memory does add a lot of value, it's far faster than socketed RAM. But NVMe?? It could be in the next room and it would still be the same speed. So putting it onboard with not upgrade options adds nothing.
