The fix will have to wait for a new chip, says Taiwan’s most celebrated Apple analyst.
The MacBook Pro could get an update next year that would eliminate the 16GB limitation that has upset so many Apple loyalists, according to KGI Securities’ Ming-Chi Kuo.
From Mikey Campbell report in AppleInsider Monday night:
Apple’s 2017 MacBook Pro update, expected in the second half of the year, may gain support for up to 32GB of RAM, making the platform a more compelling option for power users.
As AppleInsider noted earlier today [here], the recently released MacBook Pro series is powered by Intel’s Skylake class of processors with LPDDR3 memory, a specification that supports up to 16GB RAM. Next-generation Cannonlake CPUs that efficiently run LPDDR4 RAM at higher allotments are scheduled for release in time for next year’s MacBook update. If Intel fails to ship Cannonlake on time, however, Apple will likely turn to Coffee Lake, which features the same LPDDR3 specifications as Skylake.
Apple is being blamed both for waiting too long to update the MacBook Pro and for jumping too soon into the wrong Intel ‘lake. Any wonder Cupertino tries so hard to control the whole stack?
See also: How reliable is Ming-Chi Kuo?
By slow-walking its mobile chip development, Intel risks being replaced by Apple’s own silicon. The question for me is will Apple’s own chip play nice with all non-Apple applications or will it require a software solution (like Parallels or Rosetta)?
I’m not so sure it’s underpowered, between the new GPU and the faster SSD it’s probably snappier than the last few models with similar processors, especially at heavy lifting like video and image crunching.
I’m fine with incremental change, I just wish it was across the board.
“Underpowered” was the wrong word. I’ve recast the headline. Sorry for muddying the waters.
No problem. Many of the critics are upset about the CPU being the same as the last few models but as we all know, the CPU is just one of many components that add up to throughput speed.
I’m not sure Apple’s ARM chips are the solution (messy software issues) but I do think Apple is doing what they can to wring every last bit of speed out of this architecture and this update may be a good one for many of us. Too soon to tell. It just struck me that historically, Apple has made a point of talking about how they’ve improved things while keeping the price the same or lowering it. This time they only seemingly modestly improved things and bumped up the price and this, it seems to me, is causing the concern.
At the end of the day, it’s Tim Cook and his mgmt team that are too blame for another fiasco….So far, today the stock has hit 3 of my sell/stop….Not worth holding the shares until next week to get the crummy .57 per dividend…..
Wow, dude. Where’s your proof that the market being it’s normal crazy is somehow the fault ofTim Cook and management. Here on 3.0 we pride ourselves on substantiating our claims….
Duh? I am not saying the stock price is his fault, although the multiple misses on product lines and no clear direction going forward is impacting the stock price. So to a degree they are going hand in hand. It does appear that many long term investors like myself are starting to question whether to cash in or continue to hold. For me I have put in various sell/stops at different levels to protect myself and take profit off the table. Unfortunately, today many are hitting, especially after dropping below the 50 day moving average……
I’d call that a walk-back. You clearly associated the market with the statement.
But let’s pursue this a bit farther: Exactly what do you mean by “multiple misses on product lines and no clear direction going forward”? And how do you equate that with the term “fiasco”, defined by Webster’s as “a complete failure”?
Typical. All this strum und drang about how underpowered the new computers are undercut by ACTUAL TESTS.
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/11/01/early-benchmarks-of-macbook-pro-confirm-apples-claims-of-fastest-ever-ssd
“Underpowered” was the wrong word. I’ve recast the headline. Sorry for muddying the waters. Thanks for the link.
Yes, but the point I’m making is that, as your previous article made clear, people who should have been supporting Apple have been dumping on it, which has now been taken up by the market generally – and FOR NO GOOD REASON!
A glaring example: Why on earth did you title that story “81 reasons (and counting) to hate the new MacBooks”????
Hatred, PED? Maybe disappointment, but hatred? Titles like that feed the anti-Apple fervor, especially when it comes from a site like yours that is seen as a supporter of Apple. “Look! Even ped30 thinks people hate the new Macs!” And before you say that you like to remain objective, that’s my point; there’s nothing objective about the word “hate”.
You may think you’re not important enough to influence things with a little “oops” like that. I think you’re underestimating your impact. IMHO, you remain one of the major bulwarks against the crazy, even in your much more constrained reincarnation.
SSD speed is just one of many measures of the overall power of the new machine. I’m guessing the machine is a definite improvement between the SSD bus and the GPU but it’s too soon for me to tell. I’m waiting for more testing of crunching video and image files which is what I do with my computers.
The concern is that with a seemingly small power increase has come a substantial price increase. Historically, Phil has gotten up and told us where the improvements are compared with last year’s model and competing Windows machines and then topped it off by saying they’ve kept the price the same, or lowered it.
I think that’s the cause of much of the concern about this machine in particular. My concern is less about this machine but more about the entire Macintosh line and how Apple is thinking about a group of users it used to call “Pro” but seems to have lost track of.
You miss the point: Price and power are two different things. They have been concatenated.
And now we come to find out that there’s more power there than expected. That means the price is more in line than it was thought to be.
I”m a power user. I can’t afford a full-blown Mac right now, but boy could I use one! So I sympathize with both the issue of power and the issue of price.
But I don’t put my financial issues on Apple. There’s not the slightest doubt in my mind that these models are worth their price.
Generally speaking, there’s just too much power user belly-aching going on for my taste. If you’re a power user, get used to paying the price, and be grateful for what advances you get.
Sorry Joe, you missed the point. Price and power are related. And, no, as a “power user” I’m not going to bend down and take it up the ### like you seem to want to do, I’m going to make my views known both here and to Apple.
Don’t make me stop the car.
LOL!
It remains unclear that merely allowing 16=>>33 GB RAM addresses the core concerns of the bloggers or critics.
The balance of performance vs footprint (power, weight, size, speed, memory, etc) had shifted towards laptops from desktops, however, INTEL’s struggles with power performance continues (and I suspect is structural to the company culture and processor architecture) this shift is back to desktop. .
Therefore, I suspect the performance difference in desktops to laptops will grow for the foreseeable future, 4-5 years. At some point Apple may bite the bullet and move to iOS chip sets that will turn the mobile vs desktop difference back towards mobile.
Since many products have been migrating to iOS chip sets (Photoshop, Office, etc albeit less functionality), the transition would happen a lot faster and may skip the overlapping interoperability in one machine and rather have legacy intel machines overlap iOS machines with the goal to phase out the intel flavors over a few years.
I do not think this is a specific goal of Apple, who I think were delighted with window interoperability, but driven by Intel’s lack of timely and significant processor advancement thereby jeopardizing user experience.
This degraded user experience would be the force to drive Apple to their internal chip sets.
The biggest obstacle will be getting performance levels up to Intel chip levels without the power heat penalty. This is still a few years away. But Intel dithering and Apple’s annual chip set performance growth is quickly closing the gap.
There is a whole discussion regarding the Enterprise market reaction for such a change, probably very negative, but iOS success suggests this may be turned around. For Apple’s traditional consumers not a problem.
Great comment.
All I would add is that I don’t blame Intel for this. Apple has improved all the various components around the CPU and wrung more speed out of this design and I think the new machine is probably a decent improvement over last year’s model.
However, given this, they should have held the price the same or lowered it slightly. For me, that’s the rub.
Personally, I’m fine with 16BG of RAM and the ports as they are with this machine. I was about to buy one but then balked at the price.
There are pro and con arguments for going up against Intel, but you can’t forget that Apple is in a head-to-head battle with Microsoft for the Enterprise. If Apple abandons Intel, MS will WITHOUT A DOUBT make sure that it’s Intel-based portable and desktop software leaves Apple once more in the dust.
And it’s not necessary. In the article I referenced above it states:
“From a practical standpoint, copying a batch of mixed files has been noted as being significantly faster than its predecessor and versus other laptops in its class, with the 13-inch MacBook Pro with function keys pulling down 508.9 megabytes per second during the transfer, and the October-released Dell XPS 13 managing 339.3 megabytes per second.”
Apple is finding ways to outperform – WITH THE SAME PROCESSORS! THAT’S the way Apple will successfully compete in Enterprise on these form factors, NOT by abandoning the field to MS to yet again differentiate it’s software and computers from Apple’s.
People need to think strategically. Apple is fighting MUCH bigger battles than the wants and needs of a portion of it’s user base, who when it comes down to it just want something for nothing.
I’m in Apple’s corner on this one.