Apple, though, is getting flack for using old parts to maximize profit in its Mac line. The thinness obsession is also form over function and someone willing to go there is often willing to sacrifice performance (function).sirmo said:
Apple felt it needed first-rate performance in its phones/tablets to combat Android but apparently feels OS X is enough to get people to use Macs even if they're underpowered and overpriced, something that has been the case for a very long time, generally. (I like my Macbook Pro because it's a mostly very well made machine, until you need to do anything that requires the Nvidia GPU or even the Iris. Then the fan noise is horrible — thanks to Apple's thinness gimmickry. With my 2008 model I could at least stop the noise by placing the computer on a large iron skillet. That trick doesn't work with the newer one I've got, sadly.)
The other question is Intel's relationship with Apple. Going to any AMD CPU might be enough to ruin any special deals it's getting, although my understanding is that days of Apple being the one to break out the newest Intel stuff have been in the past for quite a while now.
Even if AMD were to make a better product for Apple's needs I have to wonder what sort of deal it has with Intel to prevent it from using an AMD CPU. However, Apple's desire for using cheaper parts while charging premium prices may work in AMD's favor, since Zen should be priced lower.
As for HBM not being expensive, I thought the micro bumps are a big source of expense because of a lack of economy of scale. I suppose this is changing for HBM2? But, the articles I read a while back said GDDR5X was supposed to be cheaper (GDDR5 < GDDR5X < HBM2), in the context of GPU VRAM. The performance also has the same pattern.