For how long? There are a lot of superlatives ("simply incredible" etc) - when some new AMD or Intel CPU beats this score, will that be "simply incredible" too?
New chips are slightly faster than previous ones. I am not incredulous about this. Were it a 2x or 3x or 4x improvement or something, sure. But it ain't - it's incremental. I note how even in the Apple marketing they compare it to generations 3 or 4 chips ago (e.g. comparing increases against i7 performance from years ago etc, not against the M3 from a year or so ago because then it is "only" 12% - still good, but not "simply incredible" in my eyes).
Why is so hard for people to understand why apple did that?
They want the people who are still clinging to intel mac to convert finally. And as for m1 comparisons, people are not changing laptops every year and that is the cohort of m users that is the most likely to upgrade. It's smart to do what apple did.
I get that argument, but it comes across as hugely disingenuous to me especially when couched with so much glitz and glamour and showmanship. They're aim is to present these things as huge quantum leaps in performance and it's only if you look into the details that it's clear that they're not and they're fudging the figures to make them look better than they are.
"New Car 2025 has a simply incredible top speed 30x greater than previous forms of transport!* (* - previous form of transport slow walk at 4mph)"
It's marketing bullshit really let's be honest. I don't accept that their highly-polished entire marketing spiel and song and dance is aimed 100% only at people who have 3 or 4 generation old Mac already. They're not spending all this time and money and effort just to try and get people to upgrade. If you believe that, then you are in the distortion field.
No one in the industry uses Apple's marketing in any real sense. The marketing is not for you - its sole purpose is to sell more Macs to their target market.
That you are distracted by it is not Apple's problem - and most other industry players don't GAF about Apple's self-comparisons either.
shrug I just upgraded an M1-ultra studio to an M4-Max MBP. I'm not going to splash that much cash every year on an upgrade, and I don't think that's uncommon.
Just like the phone comparisons are from more than one year ago, the computer comparisons (which are even more expensive) make more sense to be from more than one year ago. I don't see why you wouldn't target the exact people you're trying to get to upgrade...
Yet you do not propose an alternative theory that makes sense.
Our point: Apple is laser-focused on comparing with laptops that are 4-5 year old. That's usually when Mac users start thinking about upgrading. They're building their marketing for them. It causes issues when directly trying to compare with the last generation.
Your point: Apple shouldn't be glamorous and a good showman when marketing their products because they know the only true marketing is comparing directly with your very last chip. Any other type of marketing is bullshit.
> I note how even in the Apple marketing they compare it to generations 3 or 4 chips ago
Apple is just marketing to the biggest buyer group (2 generation upgrades) in their marketing material?
This isn’t like iPhones where people buy them every 1-2 years (because they break or you lose it etc), laptops have a longer shelf life, you usually run to the ground over 2+ yrs and then begrudgingly upgrade.
And my 2019 Intel MBP is still working too. Use it every day.
The idea of a 6x (or whatever) performance jump is certainly tempting. Exactly as they intend it to be. If I was in charge of replacing it I would be far more likely to buy than if I had an M3.
We're on a perpetual upgrade treadmill. Even if the latest increment means an uncharacteristically good performance or longevity improvements... I can't bring myself to care.
There are a LOT of corporate Macs out there that are still on Intel.
The replacement cycle may just be that long. Or maybe they chose to stick with Intel. Maybe because that’s what they were used to or maybe because had specific software needs. So they were still buying them after Apple Silicon machines had been released.
Yeah it’s not a big deal for the enthusiast crowd. But for some of their customers it’s absolutely a consideration.
New chips are slightly faster than previous ones. I am not incredulous about this. Were it a 2x or 3x or 4x improvement or something, sure. But it ain't - it's incremental. I note how even in the Apple marketing they compare it to generations 3 or 4 chips ago (e.g. comparing increases against i7 performance from years ago etc, not against the M3 from a year or so ago because then it is "only" 12% - still good, but not "simply incredible" in my eyes).