Apple to Unveil 13-inch M2 MacBook Pro With Unchanged Design Next Month, Claims Original MacBook Pro 'Notch' Leaker

[CWallace]

I, personally, don't think a 13.3" MacBook Pro with an M2 while the 14" and 16" MacBook Pros have M1 Pro/Max is going to cause mass-confusion in the customer base.

Technical customers will know all the technical details (core counts, memory bandwidth, etc.) and will have studied how each SoC handles their planned workloads so they will know what they need when it is time to buy.

Non-technical customers will ask the Apple Retail employee which one they should get and that employee will ask them questions to get an accurate feel for what the customer plans to use their new Mac and will then explain which one is better and why.

I mean we all survived the Intel years with i5 / i7 / i9 across generations so we should all be able to navigate M / M Pro / M Max across generations, as well.

And heck, Apple can just got back to the "Good (M) / Better (M Pro) / Best (M Max)" to differentiate the SoCs.

 

[Kinotto]

weird if true…I guess stock clearance and R&D savings would be the only reason for this, those laptops are selling like hot cakes anyway.

 

[InlawBiker]

I think these are for the corporate purchasers. I'm using a 13" M1 MBP now, my company buys them by the truckload. It's perfect for office and development work. Creatives get the bigger MBP's and typical home buyers are probably better off with the Air.

 

[Gymnasiapd]

For me the Touchbar is a very nice thing. But a newer version of it would be good, because the technology of it keeps the same for years. Me personally would buy the MacBook Pro 16, if there was a Touch Bar

Has anyone of those who like the TouchBar had the TouchBar loop error before?
It seems that a lot of those who have the touchbar including myself have had the Touchbar loop error and it sucks.
Apple tells you, you need a new mother board and the error comes back with a New Update.

 

[CWallace]

I think these are for the corporate purchasers. I'm using a 13" M1 MBP now, my company buys them by the truckload. It's perfect for office and development work. Creatives get the bigger MBP's and typical home buyers are probably better off with the Air.

Enterprise customers could help explain why they would keep the same chassis, just updating the SoC, as that could make inventory management easier.

I used to run IT for a software development company and we standardized on the 13.3" MBP and 15.4" MBP (both Intel) and as Apple / Intel released updates each year (2016 / 2017 / 2018) we were able to give the more powerful models to existing users and then roll down the older models to folks who did not need the latest and greatest.

 

[iOS!]

I know I'm in minority, but I think the Touch Bar is great. Maybe they are continuing to develop and improve.
I have never liked function keys.

I like it, but I don't know if I would miss it.

 

[Tagbert]

Why no fan? You do realise that you can't hear the fan on any of the M1 Macs (even the maxed out M1 Max) 99% of the time, don't you? These are totally different beasts to any previous Intel Macs you may have used.

But the fan(s) are there when actually required if you "step on the gas".

One of the most appealing features of the Air is that there is never any fan noise nor power wasted on a fan. If that puts a limit on power delivery for long duration processing tasks, I'm fine with that tradeoff. the impact is small and those kinds of tasks are rare for me. I don't need it to "burn rubber" when I step on the gas.

 

[InlawBiker]

I like it, but I don't know if I would miss it.

I have the touchbar on my work issued MBP. I kinda like it but I wouldn't miss it if it went away. I don't find myself using it to be honest except for volume control. It reminds me of the iphone 3d touch feature, neat idea but not something I really needed.

 

[Tagbert]

they don't really! but to be in the cool club on macrumors you have to pretend to despise it! I see a bunch of buyers remorse in here!

I think a lot of us don't hate the Touch Bar but we don't have a lot of love either.

I use the Fn-key media and audio keys. it is nice to know that they are always there. If I am adjusting volume, it is usually just one or two taps up or down. I don't need to adjust over a large range requiring a scrub bar. I never had trouble over accidental triggering due to accidental touch bar taps but other things prevented it from being beneficial.

The Touch Bar included those functions but they were not always directly available usually needing an additional tap to activate & access. It never felt like I could depend on them being there. The dynamic nature of the touch bar is a net negative in terms of predicability.

The Touch Bar was dark most of the time. if you are not doing active input it just goes dark. Since it also sits below the screen, it becomes easy to learn to just ignore it. I would often trigger a function on screen and right after notice the Touch Bar wake up and see the same function there, but too late.

Ultimately the benefits did not outweigh the downsides for me and my feeling about the Touch Bar was just "meh". Sorry for those of you who really like it.

 

[Tagbert]

The mental gymnastics required to understand this is still unnecessary. 2 > 1. Apple messed this up. They tried to make it simple and it resulted in the concept being completely unintuitive. Intel had it right with i3, i5, i7, i9.

But those Intel models are not as simple as it looks. Each year or so another version of the i3, i5, etc are released. sometimes a newer i5 is faster than an older i7. it is the same with Apple.

A lot of the confusion around Apples chips is due to the timeline being in transition and impacted by Covid disruptions. once they get everything transitioned and start into a regular update cycle it will be much easier to understand.

M1 : 4-cylinder engine
M1 Pro - 6-cylinder engine
M1 Max - 8-cylinder engine
M1 2x/4x 12-cylinder engine

The M2 is just a better tuning for the engines. An M2 4-cylinder is still not as fast as an M1 6-cylinder.

 

[Tagbert]

I hear you. The feature I generally care about the most is display quality and ProMotion/refresh rates are def something I notice. If the Air has ProMo, I’m def moving on it - I just can’t see the MBA getting it.

I doubt that this version of the Air gets pro-motion but it's possible that eventually pro-motion will come to the Air. Those pro features tend to migrate down in the models after they mature and are cheaper to produce.

I have an Air and an iPad Pro with keyboard and mouse. I originally hoped to do a lot of my work on the iPad but found that iPad OS still puts up a lot of roadblocks to productivity. If you are just doing the most common and simple task, it works well but if you veer off that main path, you hit bumpy roads and things end up taking longer.

I do still use the iPad a lot but more for video, web browsing, communications and don't use it much for producing content, writing, etc. Once a task gets a little complex, I move to the Air. The fast refresh on the iPad Pro is nice but I would barely notice it if I didn't have it. the input limitations, multitasking limitations, and file management limitations are much more impactful for me.

 

[Tagbert]

I admit I haven't tried that - I've kinda stuck on Mojave (on the "ain't broke, don't fix" principle) thanks to a couple of bits of abandonware which are getting a stay of execution until I switch to Apple Silicon. However, Logic Remote works (only with logic, of course) and is a good proof-of-concept for having an iDevice providing touch controls.

I wonder if you could setup a Mojave VM and run those apps there?

KB Parallels: Install macOS Mojave virtual machine with Parallels Desktop

kb.parallels.com

 

[reallynotnick]

That’s what I mean though. Apple tried to get cute and make it simple, when in reality it just comes off as wrong to the most people buying these things. You’re likely to have the same issue where the M3 is even less powerful than the M1 Max.

Get cute? It's a generation and power tier. Do people get confused by cars having model years? What about GPUs that all start with a generation and a power tier? This isn't a new invention, and if people can't figure it out they either don't need the power or the sale person/google will quickly tell them. People manage to buy Windows laptops just fine and there are about 100x more options than MacBooks there. It will be fine.

 

[deconstruct60]

The mental gymnastics required to understand this is still unnecessary. 2 > 1. Apple messed this up. They tried to make it simple and it resulted in the concept being completely unintuitive. Intel had it right with i3, i5, i7, i9.

This only looks "simpler" on Intel side because leaving out the rest of the product name.

i7-gxxx
i5-gxxx
i3-gxxx

The Intel and AMD CPU package products have a generation number in their name also ( intel . There is a four-five digit numeric code that follows the "general class" , prefix specification.

and i7-8123 is newer than a i7-6123 but older than a i7-12123

So the Intel product naming has the SAME generation indicator that you proclaim is "way too confusing" for the M-series. Same thing basically used the same way to indicate a "generational progression".

And i7-8120 if faster than a i3-8450 even thought 12 is less than 45 . Likewise i7-8120 may or may not be faster than a i7-7890 .

Apple is not following the numerical prefix to indicate "a performance" class within a generation. Instead of a prefix they are using a using a suffix. They are also using "words" instead of numeric codes. In part, because Apple has about an order of magnitude less processor SKUs per generation than Intel and AMD do.


This really isn't like i3 / i5 / i7 and more like Core / Xeon W / Xeon SP once factor in the iGPU and memory bandwidth changes into the indication. The upscaling of the GPU is no where near small incremental linear jumps.

It somewhat makes sense for AMD to have a "monkey see, monkey do" copy of Intel's scheme since since they are more direct competitors for the same thing ( socket/BGA in a Windows/x86_64 box) and the product SKUs are approximately the same size.

Apple isn't. There is no direct supported path to booting Windows ( you can perhaps hack it but Apple isn't formally support it. ). There isn't even any way to replace the CPU package in the Apple ecosystem. (so no retail market that needs a family of product names). There is no good rational for them to copy Intel's practices. Apple isn't chasing the tech spec porn crowd from windows. They are not looking for a magic decoder ring product naming scheme.

M-series. No suffix "normal , very good performance". Pro - " pro like performance... more money and a big step up". Max -- " even more money.. and about as fast as we (Apple) go". This is really not that hard to figure out.

 

[Zdigital2015]

What if... <gasp>

The M2 info is off. It's actually the M1 Pro. They're upgrading the MacBook Pro 13 with the M1 Pro binned 8-core.

So in summary...

• An upgraded 13" MacBook Pro with 8-core M1 Pro, 1080p webcam.
• A Mac mini M1 Pro/Max
• An M1 iMac 27" (Pro to come in the spring with Mini LED)

This would make more sense with the cadence of all products with M1 announced & shipping; M2 later in the year.

Thoughts?

M1 Pro on the low end 13” would be an instant buy for me, especially with a Touch Bar.

 

[AMP12345]

they don't really! but to be in the cool club on macrumors you have to pretend to despise it! I see a bunch of buyers remorse in here!

I'm pretty sure at this point I'm actively trying to not be in the MacRumors "Cool Club" anymore.

 

[sublunar]

If the M2 is the approximately the same size die as the M1 then doubtful they can add to more TB controllers while at the same time making the GPU bigger and adding the ProRes en/decode. ( A14 -> A15 got bigger. )

A return of the SD Card would mean changing the case/chassis. There is a decent chance the main reason they are sticking to the same case , screen , etc is so that they can control costs and resource spend. If the industrial design team is off doing "small" Mini , larger screen iMac, and "half sizesd " Mac Pro ( and possibly thinning out the MBA even more ), then Apple could have just run out of design bandwidth. Likewise of the MBP 13" contractors all have production jigs to build the same exterior and non main logic board components then there is a no new spend there either. All they would need an incrementally updated M1 logical board to take the new package with the faster RAM. That would be "cheap" to do.

the MBP 13 two port has a fan. So if the M2 is slightly more of a thermal load for the chassis the fan makes it a non-issue. If Apple is off trying to design a new MBA chassis that has a razor thin buffer for thermal overrun than that would be the more risky product placement for early runs of M2 dies.

Semi Analysis has a nice breakdown of the difference between A15 and A14. Slightly larger die size, more GPU performance. The arguments in keeping the MacBook Pro 13" the same - even retaining the Touchbar and 2 Thunderbolt ports on the same left size. I'd have been more interested in a refresh that got rid of the Touch Bar and at least put one Thunderbolt port on either side of the case for convenience but realise that means engineering changes at a time when Apple are (probably) redesigning iMac 27 and Mac mini.

The MBP fan, as you say, removes the need to worry about heat. A 'safe' update as long as they can still promise at least the same power consumption profile - the same or better battery life would be a must.

Interestingly, Apple could then use the M2 in a base model Mac mini and offer M1 Pro/Max as upper SKUs as part of a full model refresh.

They/constructors would be reusing the same production jigs already have for 'old' chassis and other reused parts. That fixed cost R&D is already paid for. The touch bar screens haven't changed in a long time. Making more of those is just an incremental cost of what they have already made. Already have made 10's of millions of these. Yes there is incremental costs for making a million more but the "overhead" is already paid for.

When the A-series SoC migrates down to an entry level iPad it doesn't need for the iPad to pay for the R&D and production ramp for that A-series. It is an 'old' SoC and the economies of scale have largely already have kicked in to drop the unit price low enough to go into the lower priced (than an leading edge iPhone ).

If Apple is using the MBP 13" classic as a pipeline cleaner for the M2 then having lower volume than a MBA isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the M2 and A16 both share the same wafer production line even more so (e.g., on TSMC N4 . Not radically new but incrementally new. ). Volume is coming with other products. Apple doesn't need the MBP 13" to solely pay for the M2. Apple may not be about to ramp to very high volume both the M2 and A16 at the same time.

M1 MBP 13" of the M1 line probably could help also free up wafer starts for the M1 Pro/Max if need lots more of those for iMac or Mini Pro.

I wouldn't have thought an M2 would be the ideal chip for lower end iPads - the M1 would suffice very well, and a process shrink M3 based on potentially smaller die A16 would surely be a better bet.

What interests me is if Apple are going to put this CPU into the (fanless) MBA and iPad Pro. In theory an M3 CPU based on A16 process shrink could form part of an October refresh rather than risk anything with a potentially hotter running M2.

This is, of course, assuming the A16 gets that process shrink - if Apple know it's not getting shrunk they may well look to see what they can make of the M2 if the M3 isn't getting shrunk.

And if GPU improvements are the order of the day, then the iPads would make use of that - but would a MacBook Air? They probably sell well regardless of CPU within reason.

It makes some sense.... saving money wise it is far more cost effective. Mostly using parts already well down the economies of scale curve saves money and is less disruptive in the current hiccupped supply chain. ( most of the contractors don't need new equipment. Just keep running same stuff they have been running. )

Same thing for a Mac Mini "Pro". If going to stuff a M1 Pro/Max into a Mini ... just use the current chassis. Apple could build a smaller chassis for the M2 ( M3, M4 , etc.), but the current one could be used for M1 Max with some internal adjustments.

A M2 Mini that had a more affordable price point than a MBA would be yet another high volume M2 consumer that probably would be best moved to after the A16 demand bubble; not before. The companies revenues are iPhone skewed so it is going to production priority if there is resource contention.

Similarly the iPad Pro has tighter thermal constraints for later (i.e. Fall) release for it would allow Apple more time to bin out thermally optimal dies for that product. If iPad Pro gets updated in September to M2 and then MBA and Mini in late October-early November that also spreads out the demand bubbles for the M2 over a broader range of 2022. If Apple doesn't want heavy shortages on die supply they'd would spend more months ( not weeks) of effort building stockpiles.

If Apple were doing a case refresh for the upper SKU Mac mini why wouldn't they just re-use that same case for an M2 SKU? As you say Apple could re-use the existing classic mini case to put an M1 Pro/Max SKU in it - so why not keep that classic case going and not spread engineering resources out unless they have finally decided to address the reports of Bluetooth/wifi/hdmi issues with that case form factor? Any delay is potentially down to preserving M1 Pro/Max CPUs for the more profitable 14" and 16" MacBook Pros.

It's also entirely feasible that Apple could be planning to ration M2 CPUs into the profitable MacBook Pro 13 refresh for a few months before refreshing the mini - they have until October to fully transition the upper SKU mini and don't even need to consider the M1 mini until they are ready. They could just drop an M1 Pro/Mac SKU into the Mini any time before October.

 

[theluggage]

I wonder if you could setup a Mojave VM and run those apps there?

Good suggestion - but won't work if I switch to Apple Silicon, of course, and plan A is simply to not need those apps any more by the time the new Mini or 27" iMac comes out. It's more a question of getting around to it than some end-of-argument barrier! Plus, Sidecar is about the only thing that really interests me in the newer OSs.

 

[theluggage]

So the Intel product naming has the SAME generation indicator that you proclaim is "way too confusing" for the M-series.

The big difference is that Apple have centred their whole naming scheme around the generation indicator, whereas Intel have centred it on the "i-number" which indicates the target applications/price point.

"M1 Pro" reads as fundamentally an M1 processor with "pro" as a qualifier - and one which Apple have made virtually meaningless.

Whereas "11th Gen Intel Core i5 processor" - even stated that way - is quite clearly an i5 which is well established as meaning "mid-range/general purpose". "11th Gen" is just a qualifier, but it is self-explanatory what it means (newer version than 9th gen).

...now, that's about where the Intel scheme stops being brilliant and turns into a confusing can of worms because you have a bunch of model numbers and suffixes denoting clock speed, TDP and GPU types (with meaningless names like "Iris pro" or "Iris plus") and, yeah, a i7 U-series may be slower than an i5 H-series - and some system makers deal with that by simply not advertising, or burying, the model number (*cough* Apple, Microsoft, *cough") - but (a) the proposal is not "Apple should slavishly copy the Intel system" and (b) a lot of those issues don't come up with Apple Silicon, because the range is a lot simpler, TDP seems to be mainly a function of the number of cores, as does GPU performance, while clock speeds don't seem to be a big deal.

Apple just need 5 number-free names for the standard, pro, max, duo and quad versions that they can keep between generations, and then call them the "AS Pro 2nd Gen" or whatever. Er, OK, add a better name for "Apple Silicon" with nicer abbreviations too. What are they paying their marketing consultants for?

 

[CWallace]

Speaking only for myself, when I look at the Apple Silicon naming schema for the Mac, it makes sense to me based on what is offered with what machines.

To me:

1. "M" is a consumer-level SoC and it is used in consumer-level products like the Macbook Air, 13.3" MacBook Pro, iMac and Mac mini.
2. "M Pro" and "M Max" are prosumer/professional-level SoCs and are used in prosumer/professional level products like the 14" and 16" MacBook Pro, the iMac Pro and the Mac mini Pro (or whatever they end up calling it).
3. "M Max Duo" and "M Max Quadro" (or whatever they end up calling Jade2C-Die and Jade4C-Die) are high-end professional-level SoCs and are used in high-end professional level products like the Mac Pro.

So when I see an M2 in an iMac and an M1 Max in an iMac Pro, I know the iMac Pro is...well...more "pro" then the iMac even if the iMac has a 2nd generation Apple Silicon SoC and the iMac Pro has a 1st generation Apple Silicon SoC.

 

[Neil22]

I don't see the point of this product. The entry-level Mac is the MacBook Air and a lower-end Pro device is just confusing people.

I’d rather have more ports, the new M2 processor and I don’t mind paying a bit more for it. I’m sure I’m not the only one

 

[DeepIn2U]

The M1 MacBook Pro still has a better display, longer battery life, a fan, better speakers, bigger trackpad and, for those who really care, a touchbar.

The M1 MBP does not have longer battery life than the MBA M1. Everything else agreed, along with the fan(s) means longer sustained maximum processing power.

 

[DHagan4755]

After studying a database of model number identifiers & recalling the various changes/tweaks Apple's made to their products over the years, here's what my conclusion is...

Over the years some MacBooks updated with newer processors, but their model number never changed. That's because nothing about the hardware significantly changed; just the main logic board and processor. So the model number doesn't represent the year or the chipset used. It likely represents the kit of parts used in the product: the # of screws, battery, power supply, enclosure, etc. needed for that particular model. The model number increments with a major revision in the kit.

We can use the low-end 13" MacBook Pro (a.k.a. "MacBook Escape") specifically to showcase this. When this particular computer went from 6th to 7th generation Intel processors, nothing else about it changed. Both were known as model number A1708. However in 2019 when it was next updated with 8th generation Intel processors, its model number was A2159. Why? Well, the Touch Bar was added to this 2-port MacBook Pro model. In 2020 when it was updated, the chipset remained on 8th generation Intel, but the keyboard was upgraded from the butterfly to scissor switch, and its model number was incremented to A2289. See how this is working?

If you're a serious student of all the intricacies of Apple hardware, you will recollect the nuanced changes like this.

Thus, to bring this post back to full circle about this rumored 13" MacBook Pro with M2, there is probably something different about the hardware kit from the M1 that it's replacing. Perhaps Mark Gurman was right: It's basically the same 13" MacBook Pro we've known all along but omits the Touch Bar in favor of regular function keys à la the MacBook Air's keyboard. Perhaps it's identical from external appearance, but uses a different internal layout with a different battery. Perhaps it's the same 13" MacBook Pro as before but has a slightly larger screen with thinner bezels and a 1080p webcam? I've guess either of the first two options but who knows?

All I can deduce from its model number is that something else is going to be different about this 13" MacBook Pro other than it having an M2 SoC. If it were the same 13" MacBook Pro with just a M2 instead, it'd have the same model number as the M1 model.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I have the touchbar on my work issued MBP. I kinda like it but I wouldn't miss it if it went away. I don't find myself using it to be honest except for volume control. It reminds me of the iphone 3d touch feature, neat idea but not something I really needed.

An interesting thought, but the idea remained in force touch (or whatever it's replacement was called).

Since Apple did not advertise much of its benefit, and saw 'thickness' of the screen implementing 3D Touch, which I sincerely call BS on, was axed. Honestly I feel it was just cost cutting (or possible patent infringement) when a software solution was made ... but we lost something with it. I was a diehard of 3D touch an it took me 3mths after downgrading from iPhone 8 to iPhone SE OG to get use to it being gone. When I got the 12 mini my mind thought 'awesome new iPhone let's 3D Touch pimp this out' then nope.

Do I miss 3D Touch, not as much as I had 11 months ago.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Speaking only for myself, when I look at the Apple Silicon naming schema for the Mac, it makes sense to me based on what is offered with what machines.

To me:

1. "M" is a consumer-level SoC and it is used in consumer-level products like the Macbook Air, 13.3" MacBook Pro, iMac and Mac mini.
2. "M Pro" and "M Max" are prosumer/professional-level SoCs and are used in prosumer/professional level products like the 14" and 16" MacBook Pro, the iMac Pro and the Mac mini Pro (or whatever they end up calling it).
3. "M Max Duo" and "M Max Quadro" (or whatever they end up calling Jade2C-Die and Jade4C-Die) are high-end professional-level SoCs and are used in high-end professional level products like the Mac Pro.

So when I see an M2 in an iMac and an M1 Max in an iMac Pro, I know the iMac Pro is...well...more "pro" then the iMac even if the iMac has a 2nd generation Apple Silicon SoC and the iMac Pro has a 1st generation Apple Silicon SoC.

you forgot about M1 iPad Pro. Consumer device but aimed at the pro market so that throws a wrench in #1 above Just saying but I get what you meant and I agree.