Apple Silicon MacBook Air predictions

[Yebubbleman]

This is exactly what I'm basing my hopes off. I just feel like it'd be good if they gave us a fanless model immediately. Do they need to redesign the whole computer to remove the fan?

They don't NEED to. But they will want to. That all being said, I don't know what harm it does to have the fan there. Worst case scenario, it rarely kicks in. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and wish Apple had included it.

Given the heat issues that were had on early Intel Macs, I'd rather Apple play it safe on the first rounds of Apple Silicon Mac portables when it comes to cooling.

 

[leman]

Interesting! I didn't see any SPEC figures for the A13 in the Anandtech link, just a mention that Tiger Lake (15W or 28W?) was "close" the A13 but used more power.

It’s the third graph from the top.

 

[leman]

That statement is not correct. Maybe it's true of LPDDR5 or LPDDR5X currently, but that's not to say that it's true of DDR4 (it's not) nor that we won't have removable LPDDR5 RAM down the road, but high performance RAM absolutely exists in upgradable fashion. There are Workstation laptops (HP ZBook and Dell Precision) that use way faster and way more advanced RAM than you can stuff in a 16" MacBook Pro and it's definitely still removable.

The chance that there will be a modular LPDDR5 standard is basically zero. This is high-end RAM optimized for performance and power efficiency, it relies on complex topology and tight integration to achieve this. DDR4 is modular - but also slower. Apple won’t be using DDR4 in their Apple Silicon laptops, that would cripple them in unnecessary ways. Owning the hardware design allows Apple to do multiple RAM optimizations anyway - modular RAM is a roadblock to this.

And no, workstation laptops don’t use “faster and more advanced” RAM. At most they have an option to use ECC corrected RAM.

 

[Yebubbleman]

The chance that there will be a modular LPDDR5 standard is basically zero. This is high-end RAM optimized for performance and power efficiency, it relies on complex topology and tight integration to achieve this. DDR4 is modular - but also slower. Apple won’t be using DDR4 in their Apple Silicon laptops, that would cripple them in unnecessary ways. Owning the hardware design allows Apple to do multiple RAM optimizations anyway - modular RAM is a roadblock to this.

And no, workstation laptops don’t use “faster and more advanced” RAM. At most they have an option to use ECC corrected RAM.

I don't believe that the rest of the industry will have shifted to embedded/soldered only RAM in notebooks by LPDDR5's introduction into the PC laptop market. Dell has it on some of their machines, but, so far only on the higher end business ultrabooks. It'll take a while for them to spread that to the rest of their line and for other manufacturers to follow suit.

Workstation laptops support the higher frequencies of DDR4 RAM. Unless you're telling me that there's higher performance DDR4 RAM available currently in non-removable form (show me examples of it, if so), the only reason to suspect higher performance non-removable RAM are for reasons you stated in another thread; that Apple will add LPDDR5 into Apple Silicon Macs long before the PC industry shifts to any kind of DDR5 in Intel and AMD boxes.

 

[leman]

I don't believe that the rest of the industry will have shifted to embedded/soldered only RAM in notebooks by LPDDR5's introduction into the PC laptop market. Dell has it on some of their machines, but, so far only on the higher end business ultrabooks. It'll take a while for them to spread that to the rest of their line and for other manufacturers to follow suit.

No, the rest of the industry won't. LPDDR is simply too expensive and there is not too much of it. But we are not talking about the rest of the industry, we are talking about Apple. Given their unified memory architecture, Apple needs bandwidth, memory parallelism, and low latency. Modern mobile RAM is the best way to get these things on a lower-end. For the high-end, there is HBM. DDR4 doesn't even enter the equation.

Workstation laptops support the higher frequencies of DDR4 RAM. Unless you're telling me that there's higher performance DDR4 RAM available currently in non-removable form (show me examples of it, if so), the only reason to suspect higher performance non-removable RAM are for reasons you stated in another thread; that Apple will add LPDDR5 into Apple Silicon Macs long before the PC industry shifts to any kind of DDR5 in Intel and AMD boxes.

Yes, some laptops ship with slightly faster DDR4 modules. I just wouldn't call a difference of 10% in RAM clocks "faster and more advanced". As I wrote above, I doubt that Apple will use DDR4 in any of their machines (except maybe desktops) — it's just not what they need. For lower end, LPDDR standards make more sense to them, while on the high-end, they will need more bandwidth.

 

[Yebubbleman]

No, the rest of the industry won't. LPDDR is simply too expensive and there is not too much of it. But we are not talking about the rest of the industry, we are talking about Apple. Given their unified memory architecture, Apple needs bandwidth, memory parallelism, and low latency. Modern mobile RAM is the best way to get these things on a lower-end. For the high-end, there is HBM. DDR4 doesn't even enter the equation.



Yes, some laptops ship with slightly faster DDR4 modules. I just wouldn't call a difference of 10% in RAM clocks "faster and more advanced". As I wrote above, I doubt that Apple will use DDR4 in any of their machines (except maybe desktops) — it's just not what they need. For lower end, LPDDR standards make more sense to them, while on the high-end, they will need more bandwidth.

If we're only talking about Apple, then I'm not sure what we're even debating. It's not like Apple is going to re-introduce removable RAM on any of their notebooks. We won't see it in the (Intel 21.5" iMac replacement) Apple Silicon 24" iMac either. So, it's merely a matter of them doing away with it in the Mac mini, higher-sized non-Pro iMac, and Mac Pro. Something tells me they'll figure out a way to keep it in the Mac Pro, but do away with it everywhere else.

 

[johngwheeler]

It’s the third graph from the top.

Thanks. I see it now. Looks like the A13 is somewhat better than the 15W i7-1165G7 (which will go in the new Dell XPS 13) and about the same as the 15W i7-1185G7 - pretty good!

 

[Falhófnir]

The only reason the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro exists in the first place is that Apple wanted to kill the "MacBook Air" product line. The 2-port 13" MacBook Pro is the continuation of the 2010-2017 MacBook Air. It uses the same class of Intel CPUs. Apple eventually reversed course and rebranded the 12" MacBook into a more familiar 13.3" size and that's how we have the 2018-2020 MacBook Air that we have today. They'll easily be able to make a MacBook Air that uses the 2020 (or even 2018/19) MacBook Air chassis and still easily outperforms both the 2020 Air and the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro, which would effectively reconsolidate the MacBook Air. Plus, the only reason for there to be three different 13" Mac notebooks is that each chassis has its thermal limits as does each Intel CPU going into it. Apple could produce a CPU to go into the MacBook Air's current chassis that outperforms the Intel CPU in the current 4-port 13" MacBook Pro and still has room and thermals to spare.

All very good points, but this scenario doesn't gel well with Ming Chi Kuo's prediction for the first Apple Silicon Macs that I'm using as the base for my expectations. He's specified the first models coming this year will be a 24" iMac and 13" MacBook Pro. Why I think that MacBook Pro will be the 2 port version not the 4 port version is that he then says in the first half of next year we will get a 14" mini LED MacBook Pro, which is what I expect them to turn the 4 port Pro into. The current 21.5" iMac and 2 port Pro are also in the same price range - not the cheapest mac desktop and laptop, but not the top tier ones, either. They seem the perfect models to start with. Finally, neither of them got a chip update alongside the other machines this year so I think there's a solid body of evidence that these machines are going first (soon).

Again I do think eventually this model might go away - but not until the MacBook Air gets its first Apple Silicon based redesign and they incorporate a P3 panel, which they probably won't do until after the 14" Pro debuts with mini LED as a distinguishing feature.

 

[leman]

If we're only talking about Apple, then I'm not sure what we're even debating. It's not like Apple is going to re-introduce removable RAM on any of their notebooks.

I completely agree I was originally replying to a poster who wanted replaceable RAM in the new Macs.

 

[leman]

Thanks. I see it now. Looks like the A13 is somewhat better than the 15W i7-1165G7 (which will go in the new Dell XPS 13) and about the same as the 15W i7-1185G7 - pretty good!

I think the more interesting part is looking at the relative efficiency of these architectures. It's not something explicitly written in the article, but it's author offer more details here

The A13 is 5% slower than the fastest Tiger Lake in SPEC, but it also consumes 4 times less power (5 watt vs 20 watt) The Tiger Lake at 4.8ghz is about 5% slower than the desktop Comet Lake at 5.1ghz, but also consumes 2 times less power (20 vs. 40 watts). Tiger Lake needs extra 5 watts, or 33% more power, to get 5% better performance (between the 15W and the 28W mode).

When you look at it like that, you can really see how hopelessly Intel — and AMD — are lagging behind Apple in CPU technology.

 

[Yebubbleman]

All very good points, but this scenario doesn't gel well with Ming Chi Kuo's prediction for the first Apple Silicon Macs that I'm using as the base for my expectations. He's specified the first models coming this year will be a 24" iMac and 13" MacBook Pro. Why I think that MacBook Pro will be the 2 port version not the 4 port version is that he then says in the first half of next year we will get a 14" mini LED MacBook Pro, which is what I expect them to turn the 4 port Pro into. The current 21.5" iMac and 2 port Pro are also in the same price range - not the cheapest mac desktop and laptop, but not the top tier ones, either. They seem the perfect models to start with. Finally, neither of them got a chip update alongside the other machines this year so I think there's a solid body of evidence that these machines are going first (soon).

Again I do think eventually this model might go away - but not until the MacBook Air gets its first Apple Silicon based redesign and they incorporate a P3 panel, which they probably won't do until after the 14" Pro debuts with mini LED as a distinguishing feature.

There's no reason to have a 13" Air, a two-port 13" Pro, and a four-port 14" Pro (on top of the 16" Pro). The ONLY way I could see it being justified is if the two-port 13" "Pro" was rebranded as just being the every man MacBook, while the Air was designed for ultramobility first and foremost. But even then, it doesn't make much sense when Apple will be able to make the Apple Silicon Air outclass and outperform the two-port 13" Pro.

I'm not doubting Kuo's predictions, but if Apple is taking components that are found currently in either model of 13" MacBook Pro and putting them into the Apple Silicon Air (such as the TouchBar or other internal chip components), it could lead to him thinking that the 13" MacBook Pro is going first when it's actually the Air going first. He did say that they'd be launching pretty close to each other.

I do agree that Apple will be launching two Macs simultaneously and first and I do agree that the 24" iMac designed to replace the Intel 21.5" iMac will be among them. But given that we've actually seen part leaks for the Air and not the Pro, and given that the 4-port Pro had a recent update with current Intel chips (and the 2-port did not), I'm thinking that it's entirely possible that the Air is going first and not the 13" Pro. It's also possible that the 13" Pro is going first as was explicitly predicted; certainly Apple can handily best every 8th Gen Intel based Mac they're currently shipping with a 2018 iPad Pro SoC, so their architecture is ready to start doing that now. The A12Z gets Rosetta 2 performance marks similar to the 2020 MacBook Air's native performance, which means that whatever they put out will only be faster than the current model whether emulated via Rosetta 2 or (much more powerfully) native.

Also, again, the Air having performance that would blow the current Intel 2-port 13" Pro out of the water almost renders the need for a separate machine moot. Why buy a thicker machine with no extra value for more money when the thinner machine does it all?

I completely agree I was originally replying to a poster who wanted replaceable RAM in the new Macs.

Oh totally. I think the only reason we've had removable RAM for so long in the 27" iMac is that the body style hasn't changed. I could see them going either way on it though. The Mac Pro will always have removable RAM in some form. Pros would absolutely revolt if that was taken away. I'm unsure about the Mac mini. I'd say that it might stick around since they made a big deal about it coming back to the 2018 mini (as a hotly requested feature), but they could just as easily completely redesign the Mac mini to not have it. They will absolutely NOT be adding removable RAM to Macs the current Intel equivalent of which doesn't currently have it. That's just not gonna happen.

 

[OldCorpse]

I personally think coming out with any laptop that has a 12” screen is a huge mistake. I know the 12” rumor is hot and heavy, and I also know Apple may in fact do it, but all that means to me is that they too are capable of making mistakes.

A 12” screen is just too cramped to get any real work done. Anyone remember the 11” screens and what a usability nightmare that was for any productive work getting done? Contrast that with an iPad. An iPad leans more toward being primarily a consumpion device, whereas a laptop is more a productivity device. I know if I want to watch a YouTube video or read a book or surf the net, I reach for my iPad. But if I want to get some real writing done, a laptop is where it’s at. And how are you writing if all you can fit on a screen is a half page or a couple of paragraphs? At least with an iPad you can flip it to a portrait orientation! You can’t do that with a laptop, you’re stuck with that screen, so it better fit at least enough so you can get some work done.

I guess we’ll see. I’m hoping for a 14” ultralight lappy, but that’s probably hoping for too much.

 

[johngwheeler]

I personally think coming out with any laptop that has a 12” screen is a huge mistake. I know the 12” rumor is hot and heavy, and I also know Apple may in fact do it, but all that means to me is that they too are capable of making mistakes.

A 12” screen is just too cramped to get any real work done. Anyone remember the 11” screens and what a usability nightmare that was for any productive work getting done? Contrast that with an iPad. An iPad leans more toward being primarily a consumpion device, whereas a laptop is more a productivity device. I know if I want to watch a YouTube video or read a book or surf the net, I reach for my iPad. But if I want to get some real writing done, a laptop is where it’s at. And how are you writing if all you can fit on a screen is a half page or a couple of paragraphs? At least with an iPad you can flip it to a portrait orientation! You can’t do that with a laptop, you’re stuck with that screen, so it better fit at least enough so you can get some work done.

I guess we’ll see. I’m hoping for a 14” ultralight lappy, but that’s probably hoping for too much.

My guess is 12.9" for a new "MacBook", and 14" for a redesigned MacBook Pro. I agree that 12" is too small these days, and the reduction in bezel size should allow a larger screen in a body the size of the 2015 MacBook.

 

[Yebubbleman]

My guess is 12.9" for a new "MacBook", and 14" for a redesigned MacBook Pro. I agree that 12" is too small these days, and the reduction in bezel size should allow a larger screen in a body the size of the 2015 MacBook.

I think you're missing his point; the BODY of the 12" was too small. Not just the screen. I have a 12" Retina MacBook and, while better in this regard, not unlike the 11" Airs of old, it's not comfortable for long term use. I'm literally using that Mac for summer macOS betas, one-off Mac specific uses, and as a hot-spare Windows 10 machine when it's not being used for those other purposes. I would never use it as my daily driver or for serious purposes. The single port and un-ergonomic form factor are enough to make me naysay it. And that's assuming that they'd try to fix the keyboard and performance issues with an Apple Silicon version.

 

[OldCorpse]

Yebubbleman has it. I want to buy the next AS ultralight laptop, but I want to use it to get actual work done. I hope it will actually be possible. Now, you may say it's absurd to worry about that, and that Apple knows what they're doing, but I'll prove to you otherwise, i.e. "not always"... sometimes Apple makes design take such precedence over function that it becomes severely counterproductive - there has been a range of products like that, and that goes all the way back to the beginning and is in their DNA - if you want, you can reach back all the way to the one button mouse and the hockey puck mouse which was unusable.

So, I'm just hoping that Apple doesn't again come up with something that's all eye-candy and forgets about it being a productivity tool that has a specific function. I want an ultralight work computer that I can take anywhere and is fully usable without compromise; in turn, I understand that I can't ask for the moon, so I'm not asking that I be able to edit 4K video at high level or whatnot, that's not what the tool is meant for. But I do want something (1) ultraportable (2) with a full MacOS experience and power on which I can get some real work done.

Because all the specs in the world, and all the eye candy in the world won't mean a thing if we forget that at the end of the day, it must work for the user!

 

[Falhófnir]

There's no reason to have a 13" Air, a two-port 13" Pro, and a four-port 14" Pro (on top of the 16" Pro). The ONLY way I could see it being justified is if the two-port 13" "Pro" was rebranded as just being the every man MacBook, while the Air was designed for ultramobility first and foremost. But even then, it doesn't make much sense when Apple will be able to make the Apple Silicon Air outclass and outperform the two-port 13" Pro.

I'm not doubting Kuo's predictions, but if Apple is taking components that are found currently in either model of 13" MacBook Pro and putting them into the Apple Silicon Air (such as the TouchBar or other internal chip components), it could lead to him thinking that the 13" MacBook Pro is going first when it's actually the Air going first. He did say that they'd be launching pretty close to each other.

I do agree that Apple will be launching two Macs simultaneously and first and I do agree that the 24" iMac designed to replace the Intel 21.5" iMac will be among them. But given that we've actually seen part leaks for the Air and not the Pro, and given that the 4-port Pro had a recent update with current Intel chips (and the 2-port did not), I'm thinking that it's entirely possible that the Air is going first and not the 13" Pro. It's also possible that the 13" Pro is going first as was explicitly predicted; certainly Apple can handily best every 8th Gen Intel based Mac they're currently shipping with a 2018 iPad Pro SoC, so their architecture is ready to start doing that now. The A12Z gets Rosetta 2 performance marks similar to the 2020 MacBook Air's native performance, which means that whatever they put out will only be faster than the current model whether emulated via Rosetta 2 or (much more powerfully) native.

Also, again, the Air having performance that would blow the current Intel 2-port 13" Pro out of the water almost renders the need for a separate machine moot. Why buy a thicker machine with no extra value for more money when the thinner machine does it all?

The same reason as now: price points. Apple loves this game. Why have a customer spend $999 on an Air when you could convince them to get a Pro for $1,299 at minimal extra expense to yourself? If they roll the Air over at $999, and assuming they throw the P3 panel of the Pro in there to unify the two, who's going to buy the $1,799 model? At least until the 14" mini LED makes it to market next year.

If Apple wanted to, they could put the P3 panel and a heat pipe on the Air right now, and it'd be GG for the Pro. You're right to say Apple Silicon will change the game on performance per watt, but it's not going to make Apple a charitable, altruistic institution all of a sudden!

 

[thenewperson]

I understand that I can't ask for the moon, so I'm not asking that I be able to edit 4K video at high level or whatnot, that's not what the tool is meant for

In terms of performance I assume they'll deliver even here, but in terms of design? 😬

Apple seemed to really like the MacBook, and now that they can do it justice in terms of performance I wouldn't be surprised to see it return in its 1-port glory.

If they roll the Air over at $999, and assuming they throw the P3 panel of the Pro in there to unify the two

The expectation is that the unification will solely be in terms of performance. Right now we have a ~7W Air, 15W 2-port Pro, and 28W Pro. A MacBook with the expected baseline of an A14X likely will beat all those and coupled with the rumour of the 14" Pro they still have something to upsell to somewhat.

 

[Falhófnir]

In terms of performance I assume they'll deliver even here, but in terms of design? 😬

Apple seemed to really like the MacBook, and now that they can do it justice in terms of performance I wouldn't be surprised to see it return in its 1-port glory.



The expectation is that the unification will solely be in terms of performance. Right now we have a ~7W Air, 15W 2-port Pro, and 28W Pro. A MacBook with the expected baseline of an A14X likely will beat all those and coupled with the rumour of the 14" Pro they still have something to upsell to somewhat.

Exactly, so there is still room for a $1,299 Pro based on feature differentiation then.

 

[thenewperson]

Exactly, so there is still room for a $1,299 Pro based on feature differentiation then.

On the 14" Pro? I'd be surprised if it is that price.

 

[Falhófnir]

On the 14" Pro? I'd be surprised if it is that price.

No, 13" per Ming Chi Kuo's prediction. Yebubbleman suggested in the original post it will disappear (well, be merged into the Air) immediately while I think it's going to be the first Apple Silicon MacBook and hang around at least a while longer. The $1,799 Pro is what I expect to become the 14" next year.

 

[thenewperson]

No, 13" per Ming Chi Kuo's prediction. Yebubbleman suggested in the original post it will disappear (well, be merged into the Air) immediately while I think it's going to be the first Apple Silicon MacBook and hang around at least a while longer. The $1,799 Pro is what I expect to become the 14" next year.

I assumed they'd do the with the Air anyway.

Edit: Having something at 1299/1499 to upsell to that is.

 

[Yebubbleman]

The same reason as now: price points. Apple loves this game. Why have a customer spend $999 on an Air when you could convince them to get a Pro for $1,299 at minimal extra expense to yourself? If they roll the Air over at $999, and assuming they throw the P3 panel of the Pro in there to unify the two, who's going to buy the $1,799 model? At least until the 14" mini LED makes it to market next year.

If Apple wanted to, they could put the P3 panel and a heat pipe on the Air right now, and it'd be GG for the Pro. You're right to say Apple Silicon will change the game on performance per watt, but it's not going to make Apple a charitable, altruistic institution all of a sudden!

You act like you have to have different machines at those pricepoints. I'm not sure where your logic on that one is. Apple could easily have Apple Silicon Airs at pricepoints ranging from the lowest 2020 Air's current price point to the highest 2020 2-port MacBook Pro's price point. Incidentally, the price on the 13" MacBook Pro will likely come down upon Apple Silicon launch (the cost of the Ice Lake CPU in it currently isn't cheap). You don't need to have so many redundant 13" notebooks just for the sake of it. That's got nothing to do with Apple being charitable. It's got everything to do with them simplifying a lineup that is already needlessly confusing for the average user (case in point: how many people who come to me wanting one of the 13" notebooks and asking me which one I would recommend to them). The Air can fill the gaps. Again, remember that the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro is effectively the continuation of the 2010-2017 MacBook Air. If they merged that with the current Air with this jump, the lineup would finally make some sense again. Right now, on the 13" side of things, it's goofy, to say the least!

No, 13" per Ming Chi Kuo's prediction. Yebubbleman suggested in the original post it will disappear (well, be merged into the Air) immediately while I think it's going to be the first Apple Silicon MacBook and hang around at least a while longer. The $1,799 Pro is what I expect to become the 14" next year.

I assumed they'd do the with the Air anyway.

Edit: Having something at 1299/1499 to upsell to that is.

If the exact same pricepoints are to be maintained (and I suspect they won't be and will be shifted), the price point of the lower-end 2-port 13" Pro can be met by the Air and the price point of the higher-end 2-port 13" Pro can be either met by the Air or the Apple Silicon MacBook Pro that replaces the current 2020 Intel 4-port models.

 

[Falhófnir]

You act like you have to have different machines at those pricepoints. I'm not sure where your logic on that one is. Apple could easily have Apple Silicon Airs at pricepoints ranging from the lowest 2020 Air's current price point to the highest 2020 2-port MacBook Pro's price point. Incidentally, the price on the 13" MacBook Pro will likely come down upon Apple Silicon launch (the cost of the Ice Lake CPU in it currently isn't cheap). You don't need to have so many redundant 13" notebooks just for the sake of it. That's got nothing to do with Apple being charitable. It's got everything to do with them simplifying a lineup that is already needlessly confusing for the average user (case in point: how many people who come to me wanting one of the 13" notebooks and asking me which one I would recommend to them). The Air can fill the gaps. Again, remember that the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro is effectively the continuation of the 2010-2017 MacBook Air. If they merged that with the current Air with this jump, the lineup would finally make some sense again. Right now, on the 13" side of things, it's goofy, to say the least!




If the exact same pricepoints are to be maintained (and I suspect they won't be and will be shifted), the price point of the lower-end 2-port 13" Pro can be met by the Air and the price point of the higher-end 2-port 13" Pro can be either met by the Air or the Apple Silicon MacBook Pro that replaces the current 2020 Intel 4-port models.

Again, I already know the rationale for doing it, I agree it would make for a neater lineup, but I don’t see any evidence that this is what Apple is going to do. Quite the opposite we have a supply chain analyst with a good, if not infallible, track record suggesting we will see a 13 and 14 inch MacBook Pro. Unless you can find a supporting source from a reliable leaker/ analyst what you are saying is just supposition.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Again, I already know the rationale for doing it, I agree it would make for a neater lineup, but I don’t see any evidence that this is what Apple is going to do. Quite the opposite we have a supply chain analyst with a good, if not infallible, track record suggesting we will see a 13 and 14 inch MacBook Pro. Unless you can find a supporting source from a reliable leaker/ analyst what you are saying is just supposition.

Kuo has gotten some predictions wrong based on the fact that he only tracks the supply chain and not any materials from inside Apple. My supposing that he is wrong about the 13" MacBook Pro going first is no less supposition than you supposing that he won't. We don't know what components he's seeing coming through the pipelines. We haven't seen parts leaks for the 13" Pro whereas we have for the Air.

I'm not saying that the 13" Pro won't be first in some way. But for all anyone knows (Kuo included), Apple may change the product names (they did so with iBook G4 and PowerBook G4 when they transitioned to MacBook and MacBook Pro during the last transition). All Kuo sees are the parts. There are not many other parts that need to be different between the Air and the 13" Pro, especially since the Apple Silicon Air will be faster than any 13" Pro that has ever existed with Intel. If enough parts that have been in 13" MacBook Pros are in this next MacBook Air, that would explain Kuo's predictions AND prove my "suppositions" correct.

Again, not saying that the 13" Pro isn't going first. But the notion that it is isn't at all set in stone.

 

[Glmnet1]

They don't NEED to. But they will want to. That all being said, I don't know what harm it does to have the fan there. Worst case scenario, it rarely kicks in. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and wish Apple had included it.

Having a fan means you need vents and the device will trap dust. I regularly clean my old MBP and my desktop. Current Macs are very difficult to clean, I like the idea of having a Mac that doesn't require airflow and cleaning. Just like tablets and phones. It also might make it possible to have a waterproof Mac at some point. Still hard to repair but at least made to last a long time.