3 ms·

The whole premise is flawed. Intel and AMD can release a CPU whenever they want. Even if the M2 (or whatever) is ready now, in what machine does Apple put it? A

The whole premise is flawed. Intel and AMD can release a CPU whenever they want. Even if the M2 (or whatever) is ready now, in what machine does Apple put it? And more importantly, when does that machine get released to consumers? Apple has never have had a consistent release cycle with their machines, with redesigns clearly slowing down the release cycle. They told us they were on a two-year transition, and we have until WWDC next year at the earliest to finish that transition. And looking at what happened during the first year, it's pretty clear they meant that each machine would be updated once during the transition. The Macbook Air, Mac Mini and 13-inch Macbook Pro were obviously the machines deemed to skip a redesign, and were released first. The 24-inch iMac was redesigned, and I suspect every other computer will get a redesign to go with their new chip. I suspect this Fall, after the new iPhones unveil a new set of cores, we will see those cores used to build a new chip that goes in the machines still due for an update: the big iMac and the big Macbook Pro. The M1 machines will not be updated, and we will only see a Mac Pro at WWDC 2022. Then who knows?

sneak 5y ago
I think a big part in the order of refresh is also minimizing the time spent in transition. It's in Apple's best interest to stop selling x64 arch computers as fast as possible. The logical order would be to do a blazing fast low end chip first in the Air/Mini (tbh I'm surprised they diluted the mbp brand with an iPad chip), with a higher end MBP/iMac chip less than a year later. The iMac Pro was already discontinued and the Mac Pro is vastly less important wrt the architecture transition and can easily be done last. I expect M>1 iMac and/or MBP in September.
m0dest 5y ago
And with the long development cycles required for silicon, any conceivable "M1X delay" wouldn't be related to disappointing performance surprises. The M1X would have already been "mostly done" at the moment when the M1 launched. If Apple is dealing with any surprises relating to the silicon, those would most likely be security issues discovered/reported in the M1 platform after launch. Only Apple knows what's on that list – it's definitely not empty – and whether any of them must be fixed before M1X devices ship.
acdha 5y ago
> Apple has never have had a consistent release cycle with their machines, with redesigns clearly slowing down the release cycle. The history here might not be representative because many of those delays were caused by Motorola/IBM and Intel struggling to deliver chips in the expected volume or thermal budget. Since that was one of the motivations for Apple to make their own designs it should be less pronounced going forward, especially without Johnny Ives pushing the limits so hard.

sneak 5y ago

I think a big part in the order of refresh is also minimizing the time spent in transition. It's in Apple's best interest to stop selling x64 arch computers as fast as possible. The logical order would be to do a blazing fast low end chip first in the Air/Mini (tbh I'm surprised they diluted the mbp brand with an iPad chip), with a higher end MBP/iMac chip less than a year later. The iMac Pro was already discontinued and the Mac Pro is vastly less important wrt the architecture transition and can easily be done last. I expect M>1 iMac and/or MBP in September.

m0dest 5y ago

And with the long development cycles required for silicon, any conceivable "M1X delay" wouldn't be related to disappointing performance surprises. The M1X would have already been "mostly done" at the moment when the M1 launched. If Apple is dealing with any surprises relating to the silicon, those would most likely be security issues discovered/reported in the M1 platform after launch. Only Apple knows what's on that list – it's definitely not empty – and whether any of them must be fixed before M1X devices ship.

acdha 5y ago

> Apple has never have had a consistent release cycle with their machines, with redesigns clearly slowing down the release cycle. The history here might not be representative because many of those delays were caused by Motorola/IBM and Intel struggling to deliver chips in the expected volume or thermal budget. Since that was one of the motivations for Apple to make their own designs it should be less pronounced going forward, especially without Johnny Ives pushing the limits so hard.