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

[EntropyQ3]

Do we really expect an M2 SoC to be released next month, despite all the other rumours suggesting release in 2H '22?

AFAIK, the TSMC 4nm process is not yet ready, and in any case, would be largely dedicated to the iPhone 14 later this year.

TSMC 4nm is in volume production right now! Feel free to guess what is produced on it. It’s a tweak of the 5nm process we already know, and won’t move the needle much in any respect really, so it’s nothing to very excited about, the process used for the A15 was a tweak already of the 5nm one used for A14.
Apple doesn’t need to utilize it for volume production of iPhone SoCs yet, that is likely to kick off in a quarter roughly by historical precedent.

Is there any chance that the M2 would support up to 32GB RAM? Does the use of LPDDR5 support that? Or would Apple deliberately keep it at 16GB to drive adoption of the more expensive Pro and Max SoCs?

Yes, LPDDR5 chip memory capacity supports that. Whether Apple will is an open question. It could be that limiting their lower tier of devices in RAM is part of their up-sell strategy. Which would be unfortunate.

We don’t even know that the M2 will use LPDDR5. It would be odd if it didn’t, but we’ll see when it’s out.

 

[plek]

I think people will be disappointed if they're expecting anything dramatic to be announced next month.
Anticipate an iterative upgrade to the M1 Pro chip (maybe Max as an option?) to distinguish from the current Air models.

 

[fzJNotIBOxgnbqejSeVCvJScL]

What we ALL really want to see in the macbook pro lineup is a 10 Gig Ethernet port!

I know laptops are laptops - but tech's that do field work hate dongles! They break, they dont initialize properly - and 10 Gig is standard going forward.

 

[chiwaw]

What we ALL really want to see in the macbook pro lineup is a 10 Gig Ethernet port!

Well, not quite ALL, as I would much rather get an extra all-purpose USB port than an ethernet one ?

 

[deconstruct60]

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.

The power consumption profile of the MBP 13" two port chassis is overkill. It doesn't have to be the same thermal profile of the M1; it could be higher. Frankly, they could probably squeeze a M1 Pro in there. That is another option if want to keep the "Pro" suffix on the system. However, they could take the suffix off and put an M2. [ there would be a bigger gap with the current MBA price point if added in M1 Pro. ]

It is isn't a good thing to stuff the M2 into the current Mini. Same product and SKU swapping between plain and "Pro/Max" is not a clean way to market the products. I loop back to this below, but there are rumors of Apple working on a "thinned out" mini case. That would be fine for M1/M2/M3 progression. It is probably not so good for dealing with evolution sequence of "Pro/Max" variants.

...
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 ). ...

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.

I was using A-series in a iPad to illustrates how economies of scale don't change just reuse the part in an adjacent product. Whether that is chassis ( classic MBP 13" two port) or. SoC. I wasn't proposing that the M2 be used in the non Pro iPad line up. It likely doesn't fit well in those. The Pro models are generally bigger and are certainly more expensive.

The A-series generally runs around. 80-110 mm^2. and the. M1/M2 are up closer to 120-140mm^2 range. In terms of the A-series unit volumes being an order magnitude higher than M-series there is very little chance going to be them on unit costs. Smaller die and higher volumes then the M1/M2/M3/etc.

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.

If M2? Apple has already said there will be a progression of M-series SoCs. That there is no M2 , M3 , M4 , etc coming ... I'm not sure how that is even creditable at this point.

The M2 is just as likely coupled to the A16 depending upon just how warped the rollout schedule has been by the pandemic. The M1 is a substantively bigger chip than the A14-A15. The A15 bloated to include more stuff. Apple probably doesn't want to bloat the M2 substantively bigger than the M1's size. Going from TSMC N5 to N4 would allow them to add an incremental amount and still keep the same die size.

The A9X ( 16nm). ->. A10X ( 10nm ) ->. A12X/Z ( 7nm ) were larger dies that all made moves when a process shrink became available. There is a presumption that the M-series was suppose to follow a yearly progression like the A-series does. I wouldn't bet the farm on those being kept 100% in lock step every year.

Even if Apple keeps a yearly pace for. M1/M2/M3 then the "Pro/Max" modifiers would probably detach from a yearly cadence. The bigger the die the less likely they are going to be able to absorb the bloat.

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.

Probably will because have spent two iterations on N5. To go 3 would be dropping off the Moorse Law curve. There is an. "half node" N4 shrink. Not a huge shrink but enough to get back into the sub 100mm^2 range of the A-series normal for the last several years.

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?

BEcause it is grossly oversized. Have you seen a M1 Mini teardown. Half the case is empty. If going to shrink the SoC target TDP down to iPad Pro size then the chassis will probably shrink too. Look at the iMac 24". ( shrunk down to iPad like thinness).

The rumors are that they want to thin it substantively and to put a plastic top on it for better RF (WiFi/Bluetooth/etc). Probably going to cut way down on the fan. Like iMac Pro probably push the power supply external into a brick. ( could even shovel the Ethernet jack out to sell more of those iMac power bricks. )

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?

10's of thousands of the classic Mini chassis are deployed in racked data centers where nobody really needs WiFi/Bluetooth/HDMI output. Shift the M1 Pro/Max to that chassis and will need to use . The larger Mini case would be a "Mac Mini Pro" and the thinned out case with the 'plain' M2 ( M3 , M4 , etc) would just be "Mac Mini".

Putting both the "Pro/Max" in the same chassis as a plain M2/3/4 is not really good, coherent branding. They are going to be substantively different thermal ranges and that opens window to different chassis. They are different and diverging use cases. computational/data servers probably do want on Ethernet. Random just want cheapest , headless Mac possible... probably are likely to be tethered via WiFi.

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.

Depends upon where the shortage is. If it is display drivers (TCONs) then a headless. Mini Pro with a Pro/Max could be next up. If they are short on Pro/Max then a new MacBook with a M2 could be next up. ( If they are going to stuff a M2 in it they should drop the "Pro" out of the name. Apple needs a 'Macbook'. A regular person model. ). If want to have a cheaper-than-a-miniLED Pro laptop then put the M1 Pro in it and call it a day ( no "Max" option).

 

[Fomalhaut]

TSMC 4nm is in volume production right now! Feel free to guess what is produced on it. It’s a tweak of the 5nm process we already know, and won’t move the needle much in any respect really, so it’s nothing to very excited about, the process used for the A15 was a tweak already of the 5nm one used for A14.
Apple doesn’t need to utilize it for volume production of iPhone SoCs yet, that is likely to kick off in a quarter roughly by historical precedent.

Yes, LPDDR5 chip memory capacity supports that. Whether Apple will is an open question. It could be that limiting their lower tier of devices in RAM is part of their up-sell strategy. Which would be unfortunate.

We don’t even know that the M2 will use LPDDR5. It would be odd if it didn’t, but we’ll see when it’s out.

I didn't know that, but have just read that they entered "Risk production" for the 4nm process a quarter earlier than expected last year, and so should indeed be ready for high-volume manufacturing now.

This make me thing that a March event would have a focus on the M2, with a few fairly unexciting product upgrades to include the new SoC, but with few other changes. Maybe we'll see an M1 Pro/Max Mini, or it could be just be an M2 upgrade, which would be less exciting.

I suspect that Apple will deliberately restrict the M2 to 16GB to avoid overlap with the M<x> Pro line

 

[EntropyQ3]

I didn't know that, but have just read that they entered "Risk production" for the 4nm process a quarter earlier than expected last year, and so should indeed be ready for high-volume manufacturing now.

This make me thing that a March event would have a focus on the M2, with a few fairly unexciting product upgrades to include the new SoC, but with few other changes. Maybe we'll see an M1 Pro/Max Mini, or it could be just be an M2 upgrade, which would be less exciting.

I suspect that Apple will deliberately restrict the M2 to 16GB to avoid overlap with the M<x> Pro line

I meant it when I said that you could feel free to guess what’s being produced on 4nm. I don’t have that info, I just know that TSMC is using this tweaked "5nm" process to produce wafers. From a process technology perspective it doesn’t by TSMCs own words bring much to the table over the process tweaks they have already brought to bear on the node. It would be a speculation that M2 specifically is being produced.
That said, it’s clearly possible.
If we assume that the 8th of March is the date to look out for, well then it’s less than three weeks away before we know.
Forum activity at this point is either anxiety management, or the reverse, trying to whip up excitement.
It’s an unholy mix. ?

 

[sublunar]

The power consumption profile of the MBP 13" two port chassis is overkill. It doesn't have to be the same thermal profile of the M1; it could be higher. Frankly, they could probably squeeze a M1 Pro in there. That is another option if want to keep the "Pro" suffix on the system. However, they could take the suffix off and put an M2. [ there would be a bigger gap with the current MBA price point if added in M1 Pro. ]

It is isn't a good thing to stuff the M2 into the current Mini. Same product and SKU swapping between plain and "Pro/Max" is not a clean way to market the products. I loop back to this below, but there are rumors of Apple working on a "thinned out" mini case. That would be fine for M1/M2/M3 progression. It is probably not so good for dealing with evolution sequence of "Pro/Max" variants.

I take your point over the possible marketing confusion of the same Mac mini case (even if they brought back the space grey colour to denote M1 Pro/Max) being used to continue the line.

If you assume that the existing case doesn't need a redesign because it could accommodate an M1 Pro/Max and the lower profit margins don't need to be thinned further by developing a newer case, then why couldn't the M series lower CPUs continue in the existing 'overkill' case complete with the silver colour scheme if Apple don't mind about the continuing Bluetooth/Wireless issues - they have certainly not considered it worth addressing for the best part of a decade.

BEcause it is grossly oversized. Have you seen a M1 Mini teardown. Half the case is empty. If going to shrink the SoC target TDP down to iPad Pro size then the chassis will probably shrink too. Look at the iMac 24". ( shrunk down to iPad like thinness).

The rumors are that they want to thin it substantively and to put a plastic top on it for better RF (WiFi/Bluetooth/etc). Probably going to cut way down on the fan. Like iMac Pro probably push the power supply external into a brick. ( could even shovel the Ethernet jack out to sell more of those iMac power bricks. )

I've made a case for putting the M1 Pro/Max CPUs into a future Mac Pro as entry level SKUs instead. You'd imagine they want to make M1 Max a base SKU rather than start with M1 Max Duo and go up to M1 Max Quad for example.

The super-thin configuration would indeed be a continuation of the iMac design theme but the renders we have seen so far don't really convince me for air circulation and port placement.

10's of thousands of the classic Mini chassis are deployed in racked data centers where nobody really needs WiFi/Bluetooth/HDMI output. Shift the M1 Pro/Max to that chassis and will need to use . The larger Mini case would be a "Mac Mini Pro" and the thinned out case with the 'plain' M2 ( M3 , M4 , etc) would just be "Mac Mini".

Putting both the "Pro/Max" in the same chassis as a plain M2/3/4 is not really good, coherent branding. They are going to be substantively different thermal ranges and that opens window to different chassis. They are different and diverging use cases. computational/data servers probably do want on Ethernet. Random just want cheapest , headless Mac possible... probably are likely to be tethered via WiFi.

Interesting idea to re-use the existing chassis for the Pro SKU only - and keeping co-location guys happy, leaving the aforementioned new case for base 'Mac Nano'. But is that really a good use of engineering resources to split a low selling line still further? Removing the ethernet port in favour of the iMac 24 brick might allow low end users the option to continue with ethernet as an option.

I've always thought if Apple really wanted to improve wifi reception for a new mini case design they'd go micro tower for form factor and produce something like looked a bit like the Time Capsule - better for the wifi aerials especially f they go with a cheaper polycarbonate case.

A base M2 unit box with 2 Thunderbolt ports, 2 USB-A, and HDMI but using the iMac 24 (143w) power brick which comes either with or without ethernet? Is that actually going to make it cheaper to buy? It'd be interesting if the base price dropped still further to $599 if they are taking the daring step of losing ethernet going with cheaper materials and I'd suggest with the rumoured more powerful GPU and adequate cooling that there's an opportunity for gaming there which Apple won't take.

Depends upon where the shortage is. If it is display drivers (TCONs) then a headless. Mini Pro with a Pro/Max could be next up. If they are short on Pro/Max then a new MacBook with a M2 could be next up. ( If they are going to stuff a M2 in it they should drop the "Pro" out of the name. Apple needs a 'Macbook'. A regular person model. ). If want to have a cheaper-than-a-miniLED Pro laptop then put the M1 Pro in it and call it a day ( no "Max" option).

I don't think Apple have any issues with using the MacBook Pro name on a 13" device - with or without Touch Bar.

What they do need is to give people a reason to buy that model over saving their money and going for the MacBook Air which has the same CPU which has pretty much been the advice since both models were released. M2 might solve this, especially if they allow a 32Gb RAM option.

Interesting footnote though, if you price up various Mac models with 16Gb RAM and 512Gb SSD:

Mac mini $1099
MacBook Air $1399 (7 GPU cores)
MacBook Pro 13" $1699
MacBook Pro 14" $1999 (8 CPU Cores, 14 GPU Cores)

At the moment, the uplift to the 14" Pro is well worth it if it's affordable, but if the Pro 13 gets the M2 it does make the Pro 13 better value in itself but I think without the option to put in 32Gb there's still a very compelling reason to go Pro 14 for the better screen and more Cores.

 

[deconstruct60]

I take your point over the possible marketing confusion of the same Mac mini case (even if they brought back the space grey colour to denote M1 Pro/Max) being used to continue the line.

If you assume that the existing case doesn't need a redesign because it could accommodate an M1 Pro/Max and the lower profit margins don't need to be thinned further by developing a newer case, then why couldn't the M series lower CPUs continue in the existing 'overkill' case complete with the silver colour scheme if Apple don't mind about the continuing Bluetooth/Wireless issues - they have certainly not considered it worth addressing for the best part of a decade.

With WiFi 7 coming and 6E routers getting cheaper over the next couple of years I'm not sure why Apple would want to continue to kneecap their entry consumer product with bad RF design. Since Apple "hates" wires , you'd think they would want to encourage more Mini users to go wireless.

The classic case Apple could bump up to a minimal 2.5GbE if not the 10GbE standard. Some folks would still use it wireless, but not the major targets. If they are keeping the same classic case and WiFi antenna what resources are they consuming with that? Practically none. Since the plain M1 , Pro , and Max all solder to different pad/footprint sizes they would still need three logic boards anyways. So if one goes into the "new" small chassis and two go into the "too big" chassis there isn't really any more significant "extra" work being done there.

There is a thing as taking being "cheap" to the way ridiculous zone. It isn't some huge , expensive product to split the two cases. Especially when one is simply the same old basic design have already paid for.

I've made a case for putting the M1 Pro/Max CPUs into a future Mac Pro as entry level SKUs instead. You'd imagine they want to make M1 Max a base SKU rather than start with M1 Max Duo and go up to M1 Max Quad for example.

The M1 Pro/Max would be for lousy Mac Pro. They have about x4 PCI-e v4 lanes. How going to provision a PCI-e card slot on that. Or even a M.2 slot? If talking about a slotless , "Pro" machine with soldered down RAM/GPU/CPU ... the "Mini Pro" would be different how. Apple can have that kind of "Pro" machine easily by just putting the Pro/Max in the current Mini case. Done. "Mini Pro". Not trying to be a "Mac Pro" so limits offending the classic Mac Pro user base. Also not being hypocritical by going back to claiming that "Mac Pro" doesn't need any internal expansion at all.

A new Mac Pro should minimally start at "Max multi-die". If want to cover the headless use case with a no-expansion container with a laptop optimized SoC ... Apple has already has one; the Mini. For most of Mini's lifetime it has been the "headless laptop" enclosure.

The super-thin configuration would indeed be a continuation of the iMac design theme but the renders we have seen so far don't really convince me for air circulation and port placement.

The renders so far have no good air flow. That is the huge problem with trying to stuff Max in the ( or even a Pro).
Apple wanting to hide the input vent is part of the reason why the RF is largely buried on the bottom of the device anyway. If Apple is using the M2/M3 to make it appear to be magically cooled even more so then they have probably forked off from the old chassis metrics.

One of the problems the Mini has had in building volume user base is that it makes so many sacrifices to stay Mini. If split the cases then Apple could "grow" the base of Mini users to the extent it could support two cases. The iMac has two (but not the same size). MBP has three ( and not the same size).

Interesting idea to re-use the existing chassis for the Pro SKU only - and keeping co-location guys happy, leaving the aforementioned new case for base 'Mac Nano'. But is that really a good use of engineering resources to split a low selling line still further? Removing the ethernet port in favour of the iMac 24 brick might allow low end users the option to continue with ethernet as an option.

Engineering resources? As I said above all three different SoCs need a different logic board anyway. So splitting over two cases instead of one where is the major cost increase. Where is the cost in using the same case already paid for? The old case doesn't solve the non-optimal WiFi problem. Save money on probably by not solving it. Maybe, but that is zero engineering utilization not a shared allocation.

Part of the reason the line is "low selling" is because of the "too many" compromises Apple shovels into just using just one highly limited case. 2008->2014 had to wait until could shrink enough of other components to get a bigger fan in there to handle a "desktop" class CPU-SoC. And still was stuck with just a Intel iGPU from the 2014 era. Allowing for a bigger case allows to put a bigger GPU in a Mini which is very likely going to grow the user base.

The "ethernet on a power brick" is an unoptimized 10GbE solution. Gets worse as go higher still. It is a goofy solution for any system that has room for a Ethernet jack on the primary device. There is still a Ethernet controller internal on the logic board. All it is doing to running extra wires into the brick so have a extra patch cord built into the power supply wire harness. It is a design that is out for thinness over most anything else.

Apple could make the "new Mini" (Nano) desktop footprint be incrementally smaller (e.g., 6.5" x 6.5" ) by ejecting the power supply. Take away the aluminum top while shrinking the height and it also weights less. Cost less to package and ship for Apple over the long term. Probably also easier to VESA bracket into a modular "All-in-one" also with an appropriate stand. Folks who buy Mini's for digital signage and embedded applications will probably take the smaller footprint also as a savings after adjust for internal attachment.

I've always thought if Apple really wanted to improve wifi reception for a new mini case design they'd go micro tower for form factor and produce something like looked a bit like the Time Capsule - better for the wifi aerials especially f they go with a cheaper polycarbonate case.

Tower for what? There are no slots. Time capsule is dead. Apple is probably never going to ship another system with a HDD. Stacks badly ( several "stack a Mini on this" accessories ). Home Theater PC use cases good fit? Nope.

All of the rack-colocate places mount Mini's vertically in the current case. The new thinner one will probably mount vertically with a custom bracket also. So if hyper sensitive the footprint of the vertical , thinner Mini is even smaller.
( higher up front costs for new brackets and possibly external power supply management (and maybe goofy Ethernet placement. But possibly even higher rack density for co-locs that only need an entry mini like horsepower. )

A base M2 unit box with 2 Thunderbolt ports, 2 USB-A, and HDMI but using the iMac 24 (143w) power brick which comes either with or without ethernet? Is that actually going to make it cheaper to buy?

Who says you are going to get USB-A? The iMac 24" doesn't have them. ( Yeah, mostly due to its thinness , but if "thinned out" Mini is the same design folks with the same mindset. ) If leave the USB A off it is cheaper. Two TB4 ports ... like the entry 24" iMac (cheaper version stripped of the discrete USB controller) . Any "for the future" , new case designs probably won't have any USB-A going forward.

If you replace a sizable chunk of high grade aluminum with plastic ... yes that is cheaper to buy. Probably some "responsibly" recycled plastic so not super cheaper, but probably costs incrementally less. It is also cheaper to ship.

It'd be interesting if the base price dropped still further to $599 if they are taking the daring step of losing ethernet going with cheaper materials and I'd suggest with the rumoured more powerful GPU and adequate cooling that there's an opportunity for gaming there which Apple won't take.

I doubt Apple will cut the price even if they cut the costs. Inflation will probably eat anything saved and would have "new" case to pay for. If they gut down to a two port only, no Ethernet Mini maybe. That only because will likely just push most folks back to the $699 price point where didn't gut the ports. If Apple does a Mini Pro that likely will go up a bit in price ( won't start lower than a 16GB Intel model starts now; $1,299 )

I don't think Apple have any issues with using the MacBook Pro name on a 13" device - with or without Touch Bar.

A device with a M1 Pro in it ? No problem. A device with a plain "M2" in it, just builds on the inconsistency of the what the "Pro" branding is suppose to indicate.

What they do need is to give people a reason to buy that model over saving their money and going for the MacBook Air which has the same CPU which has pretty much been the advice since both models were released. M2 might solve this, especially if they allow a 32Gb RAM option.

People buy systems for more than just the CPU cores. If the Macbook keeps the Retina LED screen and Apple pushes the MBA up in price range with a miniLED screen then the MacBook will be the cheaper option.

In the iPad line up "Air" is a modifier for the middle. In the Mac laptop line up "Air" is a modifier for the bottom. Apple could take the new case design inflection point opportunity to clean that up. [ Originally the "Air" on the Mac side was for the middle also. Apple did some goofy things with the "MacBook" entry model and had to put the "Air" there. It is past time to fix that. ]


If they use a M1 Pro in the MBP 13" two port chassis getting to 32GB options is not a problem at all.

Interesting footnote though, if you price up various Mac models with 16Gb RAM and 512Gb SSD:

Mac mini $1099
MacBook Air $1399 (7 GPU cores)
MacBook Pro 13" $1699
MacBook Pro 14" $1999 (8 CPU Cores, 14 GPU Cores)

At the moment, the uplift to the 14" Pro is well worth it if it's affordable, but if the Pro 13 gets the M2 it does make the Pro 13 better value in itself but I think without the option to put in 32Gb there's still a very compelling reason to go Pro 14 for the better screen and more Cores.

If the MBP 13" had a M1 Pro at $1699 yes it would be. There are folks who like the touch bar. There are also folks who don't like PWM miniLED screens. Even bigger group who rather not spend $1,999.

If the "Macbook" gets an M2 and the MBA is stuck of M1 for another 7-8 months it will sell. Also sell if Apple shaves a $100 off because second iteration on an old placeholder design. If the M2 Air gets a miniLED screen then its price will probably creep up substantively. Around the M3 iteration Apple could strip the "Macbook" of the touch screen and drop the price another $100-200 to complete the $999 - $1,299 price place swap. Eventually it could do with a "remodel" on the chassis; just not in 2022.

 

[sublunar]

With WiFi 7 coming and 6E routers getting cheaper over the next couple of years I'm not sure why Apple would want to continue to kneecap their entry consumer product with bad RF design. Since Apple "hates" wires , you'd think they would want to encourage more Mini users to go wireless.

The classic case Apple could bump up to a minimal 2.5GbE if not the 10GbE standard. Some folks would still use it wireless, but not the major targets. If they are keeping the same classic case and WiFi antenna what resources are they consuming with that? Practically none. Since the plain M1 , Pro , and Max all solder to different pad/footprint sizes they would still need three logic boards anyways. So if one goes into the "new" small chassis and two go into the "too big" chassis there isn't really any more significant "extra" work being done there.

There is a thing as taking being "cheap" to the way ridiculous zone. It isn't some huge , expensive product to split the two cases. Especially when one is simply the same old basic design have already paid for.

You make a strong argument about retail consumers switching increasingly to wifi - the fact that the iMac 24" dispensed with the traditional port proves that Apple have made a decision that way and the 143w brick suggests that the iMac 27" will also dispense with the port too. It would therefore stand to reason that Apple could redesign the Mini case and motherboard to lose the ethernet port too. It would allow for more design flexibility and anyone who really wanted ethernet could choose a relevant adapter with the added benefit of Gigabit, 2.5Gig, and 10Gig.

Tower for what? There are no slots. Time capsule is dead. Apple is probably never going to ship another system with a HDD. Stacks badly ( several "stack a Mini on this" accessories ). Home Theater PC use cases good fit? Nope.

All of the rack-colocate places mount Mini's vertically in the current case. The new thinner one will probably mount vertically with a custom bracket also. So if hyper sensitive the footprint of the vertical , thinner Mini is even smaller.
( higher up front costs for new brackets and possibly external power supply management (and maybe goofy Ethernet placement. But possibly even higher rack density for co-locs that only need an entry mini like horsepower. )

The renders so far have no good air flow. That is the huge problem with trying to stuff Max in the ( or even a Pro).
Apple wanting to hide the input vent is part of the reason why the RF is largely buried on the bottom of the device anyway. If Apple is using the M2/M3 to make it appear to be magically cooled even more so then they have probably forked off from the old chassis metrics.

One of the problems the Mini has had in building volume user base is that it makes so many sacrifices to stay Mini. If split the cases then Apple could "grow" the base of Mini users to the extent it could support two cases. The iMac has two (but not the same size). MBP has three ( and not the same size).

Apple could make the "new Mini" (Nano) desktop footprint be incrementally smaller (e.g., 6.5" x 6.5" ) by ejecting the power supply. Take away the aluminum top while shrinking the height and it also weights less. Cost less to package and ship for Apple over the long term. Probably also easier to VESA bracket into a modular "All-in-one" also with an appropriate stand. Folks who buy Mini's for digital signage and embedded applications will probably take the smaller footprint also as a savings after adjust for internal attachment.

My point about going with a taller Tower configuration like the Time Capsule was to get the best configuration of wifi aerials internally - it has nothing to do with stuffing hard drives - even SATA SSDs - inside.

I was imagining a vertical cooling situation like the old trashcan where heat exhaust out the top is convenient rather than potentially low air flow out the bottom.

If anything, Apple only need to go with rubberised feet to stop a small unit from sliding around. I'm sure something as small as a current AppleTV might even suffice if they weren't particularly bothered about best in class wifi performance - just something better than the flawed current model.

Your point about making something that could be deliberately VESA mounted onto the back of a monitor is also interesting - how many people will do that though?

That whole thing is a discussion for the huge Mac mini thread in the other forum though.

The M1 Pro/Max would be for lousy Mac Pro. They have about x4 PCI-e v4 lanes. How going to provision a PCI-e card slot on that. Or even a M.2 slot? If talking about a slotless , "Pro" machine with soldered down RAM/GPU/CPU ... the "Mini Pro" would be different how. Apple can have that kind of "Pro" machine easily by just putting the Pro/Max in the current Mini case. Done. "Mini Pro". Not trying to be a "Mac Pro" so limits offending the classic Mac Pro user base. Also not being hypocritical by going back to claiming that "Mac Pro" doesn't need any internal expansion at all.

A new Mac Pro should minimally start at "Max multi-die". If want to cover the headless use case with a no-expansion container with a laptop optimized SoC ... Apple has already has one; the Mini. For most of Mini's lifetime it has been the "headless laptop" enclosure.

I've not bothered to check how many lanes they have this time (not expecting to see any block diagrams either) but my assumption was that they had (in effect) north of 12 PCIe 4.0 x4 lanes since they specifically mention Thunderbolt 4 ports. Each of the three ports must surely have a controller to itself each capable of accepting full 4 lane bandwidth otherwise we'd have seen various videos showing how we're being ripped off compared to the Intel versions. The SDXC and HDMI 2.0 (and camera) must also take up some of the remaining bandwidth.

Similarly with the M1, the reason for the 2 USB4 ports (which are effectively Thunderbolt 3) I have assumed that those machines must have PCIe 3.0 4x lanes available because the press at the time suggested that each port had its own controller.

Unlike the intel machines there's been no suggestion of partial use of lanes or use of 1 controller per 2 ports.

My assumption is that an M1 Max Duo arrangement would have 6 Thunderbolt 4 ports, and the Quad would have 12 Thunderbolt 4 Ports if they go with all external storage. Obviously internal slots may change this.

Who says you are going to get USB-A? The iMac 24" doesn't have them. ( Yeah, mostly due to its thinness , but if "thinned out" Mini is the same design folks with the same mindset. ) If leave the USB A off it is cheaper. Two TB4 ports ... like the entry 24" iMac (cheaper version stripped of the discrete USB controller) . Any "for the future" , new case designs probably won't have any USB-A going forward.

If you replace a sizable chunk of high grade aluminum with plastic ... yes that is cheaper to buy. Probably some "responsibly" recycled plastic so not super cheaper, but probably costs incrementally less. It is also cheaper to ship.

The whole point of the Mac mini was surely to bring your own keyboard, display and mouse as a switcher. Not everyone is going to go with wireless keyboard and mouse. I'd argue that a couple of USB-A will still be needed for that sort of thing going into the future otherwise it doesn't make it a value option really. Losing ethernet I can understand as most people will be ok with wifi and depending on how Apple implement it, an iMac 24" power brick (with or without ethernet) isn't a hardship if folks can see that a price cut takes it into account if you can live without it.

So a smaller Mac Nano - lighter, smaller packaging, cheaper case material, re-use iMac brick. It's not a Mini so Apple can set a new price accordingly.

Would Apple then introduce M1 Pro/Max in a Mac mini replacing the upper SKU Intel Mini in space grey? If Apple were going to go on a full port diet with the Nano (give it just 2 Thunderbolt 4 because anything you need can be had with an adapter or dock - very Jony Ive) they could keep the M1 mini around for a few months and see what the sales figures are like.

I doubt Apple will cut the price even if they cut the costs. Inflation will probably eat anything saved and would have "new" case to pay for. If they gut down to a two port only, no Ethernet Mini maybe. That only because will likely just push most folks back to the $699 price point where didn't gut the ports. If Apple does a Mini Pro that likely will go up a bit in price ( won't start lower than a 16GB Intel model starts now; $1,299 )

If you're losing Ethernet I think people will want to see price cuts. If Apple are naming this new device a Mac Nano they don't have to slavishly follow the Mac mini pricing policy. A $599 start price but you have to pay an extra $30 BTO to get the PSU with the ethernet adapter would be exceptional value. People who complain about lack of Ethernet after buying the base model could then buy a USB-C to Ethernet adapter of their choice.

A Nano would have to come with 2 USB-A ports for keyboard and mouse plus a HDMI for a monitor in my opinion.

A device with a M1 Pro in it ? No problem. A device with a plain "M2" in it, just builds on the inconsistency of the what the "Pro" branding is suppose to indicate.

People buy systems for more than just the CPU cores. If the Macbook keeps the Retina LED screen and Apple pushes the MBA up in price range with a miniLED screen then the MacBook will be the cheaper option.

In the iPad line up "Air" is a modifier for the middle. In the Mac laptop line up "Air" is a modifier for the bottom. Apple could take the new case design inflection point opportunity to clean that up. [ Originally the "Air" on the Mac side was for the middle also. Apple did some goofy things with the "MacBook" entry model and had to put the "Air" there. It is past time to fix that. ]


If they use a M1 Pro in the MBP 13" two port chassis getting to 32GB options is not a problem at all.

If the MBP 13" had a M1 Pro at $1699 yes it would be. There are folks who like the touch bar. There are also folks who don't like PWM miniLED screens. Even bigger group who rather not spend $1,999.

If the "Macbook" gets an M2 and the MBA is stuck of M1 for another 7-8 months it will sell. Also sell if Apple shaves a $100 off because second iteration on an old placeholder design. If the M2 Air gets a miniLED screen then its price will probably creep up substantively. Around the M3 iteration Apple could strip the "Macbook" of the touch screen and drop the price another $100-200 to complete the $999 - $1,299 price place swap. Eventually it could do with a "remodel" on the chassis; just not in 2022.

I don't see Apple putting M1 Pro in the current 13" Pro - it would steal sales from the 14". The iPad Air is the correct analogue for the model currently identified as the 13" MacBook Pro. It's not got the best screen, it doesn't use the M1 CPU, it doesn't have the same RAM.

You might not like the name of it but for marketing reasons Apple can't now change it mid stream while leaving every major feature - including Touch Bar - unchanged.

To change it they'd have to make a material change to the device - like losing the Touch Bar, changing case colours, going with white keyboard (as rumoured) or something like that. Perhaps Apple have that device coming right up in the future and it'll be launched next year with the M3?

The MBA with M1 will still sell for months to come as it's the cheapest Mac and remains excellent value. I really don't see how a future MBA gets away with a mini LED screen for power consumption reasons as well as cost as it would seriously undermine the 13" Macook Pro.

Similarly, why would a future iPad Air get OLED if the 11" Pro doesn't go mini LED? It kind of ruins the obvious upsell and Apple are reluctant to change prices of a line - it's against their general policy during the lifetime of that product. If they want to change prices they would bring out a relevant new model - for example if they brought back a 12" MacBook to be the new budget laptop.

As it is, perhaps adding the M2 would boost sales of the MBP 13" - I'd be more interested to see the M2 in refreshes of the iMac and Mac mini.

If they did a redesign in my opinion moving the 2 Thunderbolt ports to either side of the unit (for convenience), and possibly ditching the Touch Bar might not move too compelling for many people.

Adding a 32Gb option would but I can't see why Apple would again draw people, especially professionals, away from the 14".

 

[Grampa Peryogi]

No notch! How can an artist's 'canvas' have a dumb cutout at the top? Popup/slideup/behind the screen camera would be less distracting. Steve would have never approved nacho screens. Also, the built-in alternate input device (tab bar) has amazing potential for art and musical processes.

 

[Tagbert]

No notch! How can an artist's 'canvas' have a dumb cutout at the top? Popup/slideup/behind the screen camera would be less distracting. Steve would have never approved nacho screens. Also, the built-in alternate input device (tab bar) has amazing potential for art and musical processes.

The notch does not stick into the ’canvas’. The part of the screen that was extended into the bezel around the notch is only used to display the menu. The app content does not display in that area. If you show an image “full screen” that area is kept black.

What the notch does is move the menu out of the way to give more screen space for the artist to work on their art.

If you can, go to an Apple store and play around with a MBP, you will find that Apple has thought through how the notch, menu and apps interact and it works pretty well. After a short time, you will stop seeing the notch, particularly if you use one of the utilities to darken the menubar area.

 

[Bkallen]

This prediction didn't age well

 

[Neil Harrison]

The notch does not stick into the ’canvas’. The part of the screen that was extended into the bezel around the notch is only used to display the menu. The app content does not display in that area. If you show an image “full screen” that area is kept black.

What the notch does is move the menu out of the way to give more screen space for the artist to work on their art.

If you can, go to an Apple store and play around with a MBP, you will find that Apple has thought through how the notch, menu and apps interact and it works pretty well. After a short time, you will stop seeing the notch, particularly if you use one of the utilities to darken the menubar area.

I have a black menu bar so don’t notice notch staff all

 

[Jony Ive and Co.]

So this leaker was wrong. Such a bastard to pin our hopes high. I was waiting so badly to get the M2 MBP

 

[Jony Ive and Co.]

It's quite obvious that the entry-level M2 MacBook Pro will soon be on the way out. I'm pretty sure that this would be its last update.

Tim Apple here is just milking the last cent out of every product (just like the iPod touch and Apple Watch Series 3 which are outrageously outdated and yet Apple still refuses to kill them (until a few weeks ago for iPod)). Timmy sees that he can still get a few more cents out the entry-level M2 MacBook Pro, so he just slapped a new chip into it. Just look at how little time they spent talking about the MBP and how they simply glossed over it, and you'll know that it's being more and more of the odd one out by the day

 

[MajorFubar]

It's quite obvious that the entry-level M2 MacBook Pro will soon be on the way out. I'm pretty sure that this would be its last update.

I was pretty astonished it's still 'a thing', yet according to that keynote it is the second-best selling Macbook. Gotta be honest since the launch of the 14" and 16" Pro and Max models I've been trying to figure out who's buying it. MBA seems to have your needs covered if you don't need the bigger screens of the Pro and Max. Are there really -that- many people who specifically want it for the (imo) pointless touchbar with no function keys...

 

[EugW]

I was pretty astonished it's still 'a thing', yet according to that keynote it is the second-best selling Macbook. Gotta be honest since the launch of the 14" and 16" Pro and Max models I've been trying to figure out who's buying it. MBA seems to have your needs covered if you don't need the bigger screens of the Pro and Max. Are there really -that- many people who specifically want it for the (imo) pointless touchbar with no function keys...

I've wondered if this 13" Pro is popular with some post-secondary educational institutions, and for stuff like film shoots and creative departments at some companies.

A friend of mine was telling me that at his workplace, all the developers/coders get MacBook Airs and all the designers/creatives get MacBook Pros.

 

[anshuvorty]

It's quite obvious that the entry-level M2 MacBook Pro will soon be on the way out. I'm pretty sure that this would be its last update.

Tim Apple here is just milking the last cent out of every product (just like the iPod touch and Apple Watch Series 3 which are outrageously outdated and yet Apple still refuses to kill them (until a few weeks ago for iPod)). Timmy sees that he can still get a few more cents out the entry-level M2 MacBook Pro, so he just slapped a new chip into it. Just look at how little time they spent talking about the MBP and how they simply glossed over it, and you'll know that it's being more and more of the odd one out by the day

It's not just "milking the last cent out of every product."

I strongly believe it is because this outdated chassis still exists in significant volume in their inventory, so much so, that Apple needs to sell them or else they will stand to lose money.

I also don't think it has anything to do with the popularity of the Touchbar and folks wanting a Mac with the Touchbar.

 

[Cartossin]

It's quite obvious that the entry-level M2 MacBook Pro will soon be on the way out. I'm pretty sure that this would be its last update.

Tim Apple here is just milking the last cent out of every product (just like the iPod touch and Apple Watch Series 3 which are outrageously outdated and yet Apple still refuses to kill them (until a few weeks ago for iPod)). Timmy sees that he can still get a few more cents out the entry-level M2 MacBook Pro, so he just slapped a new chip into it. Just look at how little time they spent talking about the MBP and how they simply glossed over it, and you'll know that it's being more and more of the odd one out by the day

I find this kind of negativity to be blind to Apple's manufacturing schedule. In your mind, should apple just scrap the chassis and have a new chassis? How about every single year? When you've got thousands of CNC machines making custom aluminum chassis', your costs go down as you work with the same parts. If Apple changed them more often, they'd cost a lot more. Would you say apple should just start operating their laptop business on razor thing margins like HP and Dell?

I don't think Apple is using this chassis simply because they've got a warehouse of the unibodies they have to unload. It'd say the timeline for each chassis was planned years in advance. There are tradeoffs to making brand new custom parts. I think Apple is doing a great job. That said, I love the M2 air and do not like the touchbar/13" pro particularly. I had a touchbar laptop, and still believe apple will kill it once this chassis is gone.

 

[smulji]

I find this kind of negativity to be blind to Apple's manufacturing schedule. In your mind, should apple just scrap the chassis and have a new chassis? How about every single year? When you've got thousands of CNC machines making custom aluminum chassis', your costs go down as you work with the same parts. If Apple changed them more often, they'd cost a lot more. Would you say apple should just start operating their laptop business on razor thing margins like HP and Dell?

I don't think Apple is using this chassis simply because they've got a warehouse of the unibodies they have to unload. It'd say the timeline for each chassis was planned years in advance. There are tradeoffs to making brand new custom parts. I think Apple is doing a great job. That said, I love the M2 air and do not like the touchbar/13" pro particularly. I had a touchbar laptop, and still believe apple will kill it once this chassis is gone.

Instead of the 13" MBP at $1,299, I'd rather offer a larger size 15" M2 MBA for $1,299 / $1,399.

 

[satchmo]

It's not just "milking the last cent out of every product."

I strongly believe it is because this outdated chassis still exists in significant volume in their inventory, so much so, that Apple needs to sell them or else they will stand to lose money.

I also don't think it has anything to do with the popularity of the Touchbar and folks wanting a Mac with the Touchbar.

I wonder if it’s a combination of inventory and politics. It’s not uncommon for various teams and executives to dig their heels on projects they’ve green lit. Perhaps someone who championed the Touchbar and still has the ear of Tim?

 

[Jony Ive and Co.]

It'd say the timeline for each chassis was planned years in advance.

If they're so good at planning things years in advance, then why can't they properly plan the right quantity of chassis years in advance? i.e. they wouldn't make the extra spare chassis in the first place. They would be able to plan just the right amount to produce, and if there's more demand then supply, then they can increase production during the year (which is what they're doing now)

 

[Fomalhaut]

It's not just "milking the last cent out of every product."

I strongly believe it is because this outdated chassis still exists in significant volume in their inventory, so much so, that Apple needs to sell them or else they will stand to lose money.

I also don't think it has anything to do with the popularity of the Touchbar and folks wanting a Mac with the Touchbar.

I thought Apple used "just in time" manufacturing principles and doesn't have any significant inventory of anything, which is why we see such long lead times for orders, especially BTO configuration.

No doubt they quite a lot of tooling and production-line capacity to make the the 13" M1 MBP which they may want to amortise for another year.

 

[CWallace]

I wonder if it’s a combination of inventory and politics. It’s not uncommon for various teams and executives to dig their heels on projects they’ve green lit. Perhaps someone who championed the Touchbar and still has the ear of Tim?

It could be that Apple has a supplier contract still in force with the TouchBar manufacturer so they're obligated to take them (as in cancelling it unilaterally either isn't worth the cost or if they supply other parts to Apple, Apple does not want to ruffle their feathers by cancelling).