One way to differentiate the entry level MBP from the MBA would be to give it 4 thunderbolt ports, but I am not sure the M2 chip can support that. Or maybe we may see the sd card return?
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.
It’s also odd if the touchbar sticks around. Costs extra money to implement, and you don’t benefit from economies of scale by limiting it to just one model (which is likely less popular than the MBA).
You are trying to treat this as though the number of produced units is resetting to zero. If they are using old parts then those parts have already gone down the economies of scale curve. 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.
Just doesn’t make sense to retain the MBP. I expect a refresh of the MBA, Mac Mini, imac? Maybe iPad Pro?
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.
