[evanjrowley]

Seems like a made-up distinction that shouldn't be necessary since M6 has not even released. I suspect this is a marketing ploy to meant to drive up both interest while also increasing prices for the next generation of Mac hardware.

[mdasen]

What it's saying is that the M6 will be released, but not the M6 Pro or M6 Max. Instead, Apple will wait to release new Max/Pro chips for a future generation.

It's not simply marketing since the Pro/Max chips of a generation use the same cores as the regular version, just more of them or different combinations of performance and efficiency cores.

[Aurornis]

> Seems like a made-up distinction that shouldn't be necessary since M6 has not even released.

The claim is that M6 will be released, but the only variants will be lower end.

When they get to the M7 generation, they will make high end variants.

It's a real distinction because each generation of parts shares an architecture.

The article has an entire section speculating what the M6 parts will be, but says they'll top out around 200GB/s memory bandwidth and 12 graphics cores.

[Kirby64]

> Seems like a made-up distinction that shouldn't be necessary since M6 has not even released.

Why would it? Each generation of the M series has an architectural improvement on their chipsets. The difference between an M1 and an M1 Pro is the allocation and arrangement not the architecture. M6 to M7 presumably will have architectural changes.

[knollimar]

Is the point that M6 doesn't exist? What change are they making that justifies M5 to M7?

Or did this announcement also add an M6 chip, and they're just skipping pro?

[Kirby64]

This is no different than them skipping the “Ultra” chips on some generations. The only real difference is it going all the way down to skipping the “Pro” line. So, only the MacBook Air, low end MBP, and maybe the iPad Pro and Mac Mini get the M6.

[ErneX]

The article says the 2nd.

[coldtea]

Whether it matters for the consumer (who only sees released and announced end results) or not is irrelevant.

It can still be a very real, not made-up distinction, if the actual facts on the ground are that Apple designed an M6 line, but then scrapped that design and asked the team to create a new design with emphasis on AI-focused specs.

It's not the name that's important (the M7 could still come out as M6), is them skipping a design, or cpu "Tick-Tock model" step.

[wlesieutre]

Made up how? They'll do a refresh of lower end devices, but not the high core count versions.

It's the same thing as how the Mac Studio got an M4 Max refresh, but they didn't make an M4 Ultra so if you want the 28+ core CPU or 60+ core GPU, that's still using an M3 Ultra.

This time it'll be across all the Pro, Max, and Ultra versions, if you want those they'll stay at the previous generation for the M6 cycle.

Not that weird - Apple has a huge set of chips and hardware and software products. Putting every single thing on a fixed identical update cycle together won't always make sense.

[ethagknight]

Made up: “this one goes to 11”

[staticshock]

Except that is not what's happening. The article clarifies something that is misleading if you interpret the headline in isolation: "high-end M6" means "the high-end variants of the M6 line", not "the entire M6 line".

[ErneX]

Why? The specs and benchmarks will show the differences, there’s no marketing around that.

[brookst]

It’s an amusing conspiracy theory, but I don’t get it.

Are you thinking Apple is leaking that there will be a long wait for much more expensive chips in order to… what?