Laptops don't either, it's highly probable the specs were locked down completely for more than 2 months, chances are the components were already purchased and shipped an in-house before Kaby Lake was available, chances are the components were already purchsed and shipped an in-house before Pascal was available. This makes the release date completely relevant, because there simply wasn't enough time to purchase, stock & manufacture using the new CPUs.
I don't know specifics about either Microsoft's or Apple's manufacturing & shipping processes, but I have worked on a product that shipped from Asia, and everything was done, completely done, two months before the product could hit the shelves. Moreover, that two months was the software deadline, the easiest thing to change. The hardware, materials, components, design, that was all done and locked a year before the product shipped.
Intel does not start manufacturing the CPU on release day either. Partners can have access to the 'final' product well before the official release day.
The vast majority of companies don't qualify for this, but MS and Apple are not most companies.
Yes, you're right, Intel has a lead time too. Which means the difference in shelf date between Intel's chips and Apple's laptops is probably roughly representative of the difference in lead time starts too.
No idea, but I would speculate wildly the MacBook has a longer lead time than Intel CPUs do, the laptops being a more consumer product and for various other reasons.
Either way, access != volume, Apple can't ship Intel CPUs until it has them. But, it's clear you understand the issues. And so I assume it is obvious that having a laptop on the shelves with a chip that is less than 2 months old is not even realistic, right? You're not arguing that either company actually could have used Kaby Lake, right?
Comments
Laptops don't either, it's highly probable the specs were locked down completely for more than 2 months, chances are the components were already purchased and shipped an in-house before Kaby Lake was available, chances are the components were already purchsed and shipped an in-house before Pascal was available. This makes the release date completely relevant, because there simply wasn't enough time to purchase, stock & manufacture using the new CPUs.
I don't know specifics about either Microsoft's or Apple's manufacturing & shipping processes, but I have worked on a product that shipped from Asia, and everything was done, completely done, two months before the product could hit the shelves. Moreover, that two months was the software deadline, the easiest thing to change. The hardware, materials, components, design, that was all done and locked a year before the product shipped.
Intel does not start manufacturing the CPU on release day either. Partners can have access to the 'final' product well before the official release day.
The vast majority of companies don't qualify for this, but MS and Apple are not most companies.
Yes, you're right, Intel has a lead time too. Which means the difference in shelf date between Intel's chips and Apple's laptops is probably roughly representative of the difference in lead time starts too.
No idea, but I would speculate wildly the MacBook has a longer lead time than Intel CPUs do, the laptops being a more consumer product and for various other reasons.
Either way, access != volume, Apple can't ship Intel CPUs until it has them. But, it's clear you understand the issues. And so I assume it is obvious that having a laptop on the shelves with a chip that is less than 2 months old is not even realistic, right? You're not arguing that either company actually could have used Kaby Lake, right?