You could make a similar argument for the iMac Pro as it sold until 2021. But Apple usually does 5-7 years after the launch, not the end of shipping.
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.
macOS Tahoe Might Support One Fewer Mac Than Previously Rumored
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You could make a similar argument for the iMac Pro as it sold until 2021. But Apple usually does 5-7 years after the launch, not the end of shipping.
Typically the latest OS release is 7 years, you start experiencing issues with incompatible apps around 8 years, and security updates stop at 9. It should be 10 before the incompatible app issues start, but Apple’s track record has shown that to be rare.
There is no official published Apple policy though. That employee was likely making it up to get the sale. Reminds me of the emachines “never obsolete” marketing campaign.
Not even close, any given hyperscaler alone buys far more Intel CPUs every year than Apple did, and Intel’s meat and potatoes is businesses in general.
Apple was a highly *visible* partner, but nowhere near Intel’s biggest
Sounds weird. What about the MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2019, Two Thunderbolt 3 ports)
I would imagine the 2019 Mac Pro would have 2-3 years left of full support (including this year).
I said high-end. Look, say, at 2014. Apple was buying 4770HQs while the businesses would have been using i5-4300Us. The only Windows machines with 4xxxHQs would have been very high-end mobile workstations or gaming laptops, neither one of which are huge volume sellers.
Also, Apple used almost no i3s, while HP/Dell/Lenovo have sold plenty of i3s over the years.
I don't know about the server chips, the Xeon Platinums and the like and what volume those sell in, but there are a lot of high-end laptop chips that Apple used, especially in the 15" models.
I guess maybe another way of putting it is - I'm sure Intel's margin on the chips it sold to Apple was much higher than on what they sold to Dell/HP/Lenovo for non-server products. That 4770HQ doesn't cost a ton more to manufacture than an i3-4010U, but even at whatever discounts Apple probably got, I'm sure it sells for a huge amount more than the i3.
Nah. M1 will lose its support in due course. By that point imma finally upgrade to an 8TB model. Hopefully my M1 MacBook Pro can survive till then.
Hopefully it doesn't end up like the early Intel machines, which were also dropped fairly quickly, although back then OS upgrades weren't an annual deal...
Intel dump off support fairly quickly. You'd be surprised. It's usually 7 years. Check the i5 8500 link below - end of servicing date.
Intel® Core™ i5-8500 Processor (9M Cache, up to 4.10 GHz) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i5-8500 Processor (9M Cache, up to 4.10 GHz) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
www.intel.com
I’m waiting for them to drop support for all Intel-based models and remove all the related code and focus on optimising for M-chips.
When an OEM no longer produces and supports a widget that your supply chain is dependent on then you immediately EOL your FRUs dependent on that OEM part. It's industry practice. Apple is also not a volume purchaser of high end Intel chips. They never were but the marketing utility from such an iconic brand is the real trophy.
Apple typically supports major macOS updates for 6-7 years. It's always based on launch date, not last dates.
It's no surprise Intel models are still supported this year. They're still within the 6 year window. M1 isn't going fair any better.
Apple controls the entire stack for iPad Pro and they dropped A10X for iPadOS 18 while still supporting A10. Again, this is because iPad Pro 10.5 was past the 6 year window.
It's no surprise Intel models are still supported this year. They're still within the 6 year window. M1 isn't going fair any better.
Apple controls the entire stack for iPad Pro and they dropped A10X for iPadOS 18 while still supporting A10. Again, this is because iPad Pro 10.5 was past the 6 year window.
Has nothing to do with microcode updates. Intel will provide it as long as the customer pays, similar to how Apple gets special bin SKUs. You can buy embedded chip support for 15 years.
Apple controls the entire stack for iPad Pro but drops models after 6 years. Apple simply doesn't support major software updates after 6-7 years.
Not sure why some people think M1 will be any different.
That's not going to happen until they remove Rosetta 2...
Honestly, I would like them to throw an embarrassing warning on Intel apps now. The people who haven't recompiled their electron apps for ARM in 2025 will not do it until they absolutely have to.
Which I think is wrong. Apple either need to stop selling old hardware or they need to be much better at supporting said older hardware (ie 7 years after the end of shipping).
OpenCore has had problems the past couple of years as the hardware feature sets gets wider and wider. I expect that they will get it to work but it may take some time. My plan is just to use my iMac Pro until security updates expire and then decide what to do with it.
Okay - by high-end chips, I'm thinking of things like the i7-4xxxHQ chips. Standard on all 15" retina MacBook Pros for over two years.
This was the time mainstream PC land had shifted to the U-series chips which were only available in dual-core. The only PC uses of those chips were some high-end gaming laptops and some mobile workstations.
So... what share of i7-4xxxHQ chip production did Apple make up?
There were so many arguments for dropping Intel along the "longer support, more frequent updates" line - both of which aren't really true for the most part.
It's very clear that technical capability has nothing to do with Apple's software support, it's "how many people can we push to upgrade" and seemingly decided by the bean counters.
No they don't. They tell Amazon to go away regularly and they are just as big. Had some issues there.
After reviewing Wikipedia's charts of OS support, I've come to the same conclusion. There seems to be a pattern of supporting 7 OS versions (the one it originally came up plus 6 upgrades) on most machines, MacBook Airs went down to 6, some were up to 8 in the quiet period of the later 2010s before the spectre of ARM came along.
That's a sobering thought for people who buy Mac Pros late in the product cycle...
Yup, and Microsoft has gotten the same way with the crazy Windows 11 hardware requirements.
This is the problem with making OS upgrades free. These companies don't want machines in the field for 10+ years without being paid again.
Apple didnt buy Intel’s high end chips at all, their largest margin high end chips are server and workstation chips, the Mac Pro used some (but not that many, especially after 2013), and Apple discontinued the xserve a long time ago (and even then Dell’s r series probably outsold Apple’s yearly xserve sales every day)
On the laptop side, Apple sold plenty of highish end intel machines sure but workstation PC laptops and gaming pc laptops by far outsold apple
Also for what it’s worth Apple did use i3 chips, for example most recently in the lower end 2018 Mac mini, 2020 air, and the 2019 iMac
Last edited: