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.
15-Inch MacBook Air Demand Reportedly 'Weaker Than Expected' So Far
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You two are doing different comparisons—but either way the 16" MBP costs a lot more.
Base to base: $1,299 vs. $2,499
Base to base, but comparably equipped (base CPU/GPU to base CPU/GPU, but equal RAM and SSD = 16 GB/512 GB): $1,699 vs. $2,499.
*********
I don't think the 16" MBP is a good comparison. The whole point of the 15" Air is to offer a light portable (3.3 lbs for the Air, vs 4.7 lbs. for the 16" MBP) for those who simply don't need the power of the MBP, i.e., to enable consumers who want a larger laptop screen not to be forced to over-buy on performance and lug around an unnecessarily heavy device.
And if you think the 15" Air is a failure based on value, then you have to say the same thing about the 13" Air, since the 15" is only $100 more when comparably equipped, and $200 more base-to-base.
Last edited:
I’ve been running 8/500 since 2011 and 8/512 (SSD) since 2014 on my Core 2 Duo MBP!
DUDE. THANK YOU!!!! OMG!!!! My 17min 1080 HDR exported in 2min with ProRes422 MOV. Then I used Adobe Media Encoder since I have Adobe for "work stuff" and picked the HEVC Match Source HLG preset. It exported in 2min. Done. That's it. Not an hour. Just. Done. WOW. Thats is a 10x SPEED BOOST. I don't n need a new Mac until this thing finally dies. LOL!!!
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Glad I could help. That's community in action. It doesn't all have to be war around here. Sometimes we can help each other out. Enjoy a much faster process going forward.
I'll probably also ride my M1 Studio Ultra until the wheels fall off. There's great power in that box.
Last edited:
I think the battery life on these is already so extraordinary that Apple will put the M3's process benefit into performance rather than efficiency. Thus the M3 will be faster because of both the improved process and the improved architecture.
As for how much faster, I don't know—maybe the two together will give 20%–30%. I do agree that such a small change isn't noticeable.* Then again, that's not a reason to stop focusing on improvement: After a few generations, you will get a performance improvement of, say, 80%–90%, which would be noticeable. You wouldn't see that if you instead put all your eggs into efficiency.
Indeed, I'm hoping that, specifically with the desktops, Apple goes the other direction with the M3—sacrificing some efficiency to offer higher clock speeds, and thus more performance, than they can with the mobile devices (which are constrained by both battery life and TDP) (yes, desktops are also constrained by TDP but, because of their larger volume, much less so).
*Note, however, that there may be qualitative changes that would be noticeable—e.g., if they implement hardware ray-tracing in the M3.
It wasn’t possible for them to charge that markup in the past because users could upgrade the storage and RAM themselves
Now that it’s soldered in, they have us over a barrel
A really good reason we should reject this non-upgradeable design
Sorry but the 11" is tiny and carrying it around is so convenient you don't give it a 2nd thought if you are carrying any kind of bag or purse. It's like carrying an iPad. Carrying around a 13" is something that you have to make a choice about whether you want to take your computer out of the house. There is no comparison... the 11" was an amazingly portable device that the 13" does not come close to being.
I can't comment on how the markup has changed but, generally speaking, this has been their business model for a while. It allows them to sell the entry-level model for an accesible price to a large customer base—especially students, who are the next generation of consumers and thus essential to Apple's future growth—and yet make a hefty profit from the upgrades. Essentially, the upgraded models subsidize the base models.
Except this is now the case for all their designs, so you'd need to reject the entire Mac line. With Apple Silicon, none of the models have upgradeable RAM or SSD's. [Except for the Mac Pro, where you can internally add storage by installing SSD's onto the PCIe cards.]
[The Studio's SSD is separated into an on-die controller and a storage module, and the storage module is is not soldered in, but it still isn't upgradeable. ]
You may be right that it's become more pronounced with AS because nothing is user-upgradeable, so there's no price competition. But I'd like to see some actual numbers on the ratio of retail price:OEM price for now vs. when RAM and SSDs were user-upgradeable.
Last edited:
Not in the enterprise space. Two external monitors is pretty standard in many offices (especially for workers who do a lot of spreadsheet work). And with WFH, many companies have issued workers thin and light PC laptops, which have plenty of power for their office work, which they can use both at home and when they come into work, and that can drive a standard dual-monitor office desktop config.
Actually no.
MBA 13.8" 2.7 lbs ( 1.24 kg)
MBP 13" 3.0 lbs ( 1.4 kg ) [ + 0.3 lbs ]
MBA 15" 3.3 lbs ( 1.51 kg ) [ + 0.6 lbs ]
MBP 14" 3.5.-3.6 lbs ( 1.60-1.63 kg ) [ + 0.8-0.9 lbs MBA and + 0.2-0.3 lbs over MBA 15" ]
Almost the same but the gap over the MBP 13" and MBA 15" is big and those 'aren't the same'.
A bigger battery likely would have drove the weight to the same level as the MBP 14". That would remove a gap between them. How would it be the lighter alternative if they weight the same?
The battery is bigger because the screen is bigger. Apple added enough to cover that extra drain. The rest of the weight largely just comes from more glass and aluminum to cover the bigger screen. The weight here is quite frugal for what size it is.
The MBP 14" has a bigger battery but also has bigger power consumption. If looking for big bang for the buck on 'bigger battery' the MBP 13" has all of these beat for long time operating solely on battery ( bigger battery than MBA 13" and less power drain than the 15" screen. So they already have a 'better than MBA 13" solution in the line up. )
The bigger battery will likely drag in more aluminum as make the case thicker. So the weight increase won't be as incrementally small. If the MBA 15" and MBP 14" actually were the same weight , they'd end up with something with even higher weight than the MBP 14". So how would that be an 'Air' model ?
It would also cost more. The high volume general market 15" models are all well under the $1,299 starting point for the MBA 15". Driving the cost even higher is only going to detach it from that market segement even more. ( and drive price point even closer to the MBP 14" ) . Apple has already got a 14-15" , higher priced model. Another one isn't doing much. What Apple is 'missing' is something in the $900-1,100 range for this screen size. Not trying to put more stuff into the $2K range with BTO options added.
The M1 MBP is already on the vintage/obsolete countdown clock. If the refurb and M2 15" both cost $1,999 but one gets 6 more years and the other 7 that is $333/yr versus $285/yr. If going to dump either one in 3-4 years they they draw down the same.
Apple's BTO categories skew thing rapidly if for one system you touch 2-3 categories and the other system you limit the touch(es) to just 0-1 category. If touch 3 it is pretty likely that things disappear if mainly just looking at price . ( not tighter weight versus more performance ... or along other dimensions than just price. )
Apple probably doesn't worry to much about that because likely the majority of sales don't touch that many options. Lots of folks are buying what is in the box at the retail store front ( Apple , BestBuy , etc. ) . On the standard configuration (where ignoring this adverse BTO pricing impacts ) there are big , discernible gaps that are relatively dilemma free.
And as the iPad covers more of the functionality of a Mac ... what are more folks going to carry? If Apple didn't have the iPad / iPad Pro products then the MacBook 12" probably would have a better chance of still being around.
There is a segment of folks out there who find the 11-12" useful even with taking a significant hit on battery life and other factors, but Apple isn't making everything for everybody. Apple pealed out the folks primarily looking for lower prices ( sell older MBA at lower prices. ) and covered even lighter weight with an iPad with on screen keyboard. Both made the pool left over even smaller.
Any kind of purse ??? Chuckle, yeah right. It is incrementally lighter and smaller , but it isn't in the thin paperback book category of small and light.
The difference between the 14 MBP and 15 MBA is only 90 grams. They weigh the same.
And I am sure I wasn’t the only person who expected the 15” to have better battery life than the 13”. This has always been the case. The 16” MBP has better battery life than the 14” MBP too.
This argument makes no sense whatsoever, particularly when you consider how Apple frame this product on their own website:
"The new 15‑inch MacBook Air makes room for more of what you love with a spacious Liquid Retina display. And with the 13‑inch model, you have more reasons than ever to choose Air. Supercharged by the M2 chip — and with up to 18 hours of battery life1 — both laptops deliver blazing-fast performance in an ultraportable design"
I am sorry, but this argument is wrong.
Edit: What this argument boils down to is that for Apple to claim the ultraportable space, the price of the current generation MBA would have to increase. That a previous generation model is being sold at a lower cost is neither here nor there.
Attachments
Last edited:
Yes but the difference (if any) is not that huge, mac os uses less ram than windows, but chrome or any other web browser and programs will need RAM and will use about the same ram on whatever OS they are running, 16 GB is 16 GB no matter what OS are you using.
On a mac mini or any other mac desktop is fine to have an external SSD, but on laptops is a no go.
Getting 16/512 should be the real minimum now days.
The base configuration is the main issue of the product, who the heck will buy a Mac with 8 GB RAM and 256 SSD in 2023? The default configuration should have at least 16 gigs of RAM, we're not in 2010, Apple!
I really love Apple's predatory marketing tactics. It was the same with the iPhone, which came with 16 GB storage and no 32 GB option, but a jump straight to 64 GBs. They have been forcing users to buy their more expensive products because the base config sucks.
I really love Apple's predatory marketing tactics. It was the same with the iPhone, which came with 16 GB storage and no 32 GB option, but a jump straight to 64 GBs. They have been forcing users to buy their more expensive products because the base config sucks.
I would absolutely buy this…if it had a 4TB internal storage option. Until it does, I’ll stick with the laptop I’ve got.
I agree with you there, but honestly, some could live with 256GB. ‘Y parents, for example, could absolutely live and even thrive with that kind of storage. 🤷♂️ Just my thinking!
Then those developers will buy an MBP. Who cares?
Apple needs to bump up in the base level specs to 16 and 512, it's just too expensive for what they are giving you at the base level...especially once you add Apple care and taxes it's over 2K!
Last edited:
Not my 80 year old parents who have so many photos and videos optimized in the cloud and still take up 100gb on the computer and growing. That does not leave much room for anything else.
The new 13” air is thinner.
The same width
Just 20mm deeper
And only 150g heavier.
Not sure how 20mm and less than 1/4 of the weight of a Guinea pig isn’t just as portable.
Sounds like rose tinted glasses