I don’t disagree. I don’t own a MacBook at all. I’d still far rather have functional design than a touch bar equipped, two port computer though.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro With M2 Chip Has Significantly Slower SSD Speeds
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t disagree. I don’t own a MacBook at all. I’d still far rather have functional design than a touch bar equipped, two port computer though.
Apple is about to get sued as usually for trying to get rid of old hardware. 
The Osborne Executive was actually a new product as well that was to sell for a $700 - $1,200 premium over the original Osborne 1 which was to remain in the product line. Given that it may be 3 months or more from introduction before the more profitable BTO options of the M2 Air ship, I don’t see how it’s much different than the Osborne Effect other than it won’t lead to Apple’s bankruptcy. Purchases are being delayed that would have otherwise gone towards M1 MacBook Airs by those that can afford to wait.
Last edited:
This phenomenon is true of every device with solid state storage. iPhones, other laptops, even different ram configurations can effect performance. This isn't the first time there is a discrepancy between performance of different storage levels in Apple devices and it won't be the last.
See this thread from 2016 discussing the same phenomenon:
See this thread from 2016 discussing the same phenomenon:
Last edited:
The only saving grace for Apples low capacities has been the speed they provide. I'm not sure why Apple would do this knowing every single competitor will [rightfully] highlight the deficiency.
If they purposefully do it again on more computers that's just embarrassing. It will be an easy target for marketing people on the other side.
If they purposefully do it again on more computers that's just embarrassing. It will be an easy target for marketing people on the other side.
Yea, you'd think they were complaining that it had been replaced with a spinning hard disk. After reading some of the complaints, it felt to me like some of them were simply trolling.
The other thing nobody is talking about is the effect this might have on price, or power consumption. Performance is not the only variable.
It's nothing new that the lowest size SSD is slower than larger size SSDs for Macs.
Why should we assume there is good faith intent or rationale here from Apple...
..other than just squeezing out more juice from the profit lemon?
I just get so frustrated by how many people haven't adjusted how they think about Apple now.
This isn't even remotely the consumer focused entity of yesteryear anymore.
It's a really nicely dressed profit optimization machine that struggles in software quality at this point.
I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of MacBook users had 256Gb or less storage.
I only need 128 Gb but I would then need to be a bit careful about how I use storage, so I go for 256 Gb so I don't have to think about it.
Using cloud storage like iCloud Drive, iCloud Photo Library, Apple Music and streaming video services reduces my need for local storage a lot.
One example: My iCloud Photo Library is 130Gb in the cloud, but only 12Gb locally.
I don’t see an issue, the speed is literally zero relevance to 99.99999% of consumers.
Correct I believe most people buy 256gb machines anyway, I personally have always owned the lowest amount offered gb because I don’t need barely any.
I went all out on my iMac m1, 2tb ssd, 16gb ram, 8 core, touchpad etc.
And I havnt even used any of it. But whatever itl have resale value
Correct I believe most people buy 256gb machines anyway, I personally have always owned the lowest amount offered gb because I don’t need barely any.
I went all out on my iMac m1, 2tb ssd, 16gb ram, 8 core, touchpad etc.
And I havnt even used any of it. But whatever itl have resale value
I'd argue that if you are primarily relying on cloud storage that local disk speeds are not really a noticeable bottleneck in your workflow.
Because so many people on this forum seems to think that they are buying parts and thus are looking at the performance characteristic for each part.
As Steve Jobs said, you buy a package, a complete system, not parts. Therefore you should test the system for the workflow you intend to use. If you do so, you don't need to be to concerned with all the technical aspects of the CPU, GPU, neural engine, media engine, SSD performance, RAM speed, RAM bandwidth, CPU caches etc.
Also, for most workflows where you don't need more than 256Gb of storage, the most important performance characteristic would be random reads followed probably by random writes.
So what is the difference in random reads and writes between the new and the old model?
And that's probably true for most people buying from the bottom half of the MacBooks.
These MacBook Pros will probably be used mostly by enterprise users with light to medium needs or consumers who like the Touch Bar or just like that the name includes "Pro".
This modell is probably going to be the second most sold MacBook in the year to come.
That is a reasoning behind this change. Not many will notice, if they ever do.
Power consumption is negligible. SSDs (multi chip ones) consume less than 4W. So on a chip by chip basis, probably 0.5W drop.
Gimp the SSD to stick you with the dumb touch bar.
Not surprised.
Not surprised.
Osborne was the first commercially sold portable computer and had huge flaws. The Osborne II had twice the memory and the display was more than twice as large. That isn't the case with MBA. Consumers no longer expect technological leaps like in 1985. Expectations have changed entirely and people look forward to better performance and features at the same price.
Today, the Osborne effect happens if the newer product is substantially better at the same or lower price. That isn't the case with M2 MBA since it starts at $1,199. Those are two different markets, like iPhone 14 and iPhone 14 Pro.
Lenovo, Dell, HP, and the entire PC industry sells 8th Gen Intel Core products along 12th Gen systems. Nobody calls that Osborne because prices differ and expectations have changed.
I have argued before there are Government (not just the US gov) and institutional buyers that rely on this particular machine to physically not to change much year over year. I did a little investigating last week and there is a sizable market for aftermarket contractors customizing these machines for security purposes (Webcam & mic removal, privacy screens, RF shielding, hardware inventory tracking features, etc. ) If you look at history of this particular model going back to when it was the MacBook "Aluminum", Apple has gone out of their way to make sure it was always in the product lineup and it got frequently updated to current, but minimal, specs even when the MacBook Air was neglected for years. Even when they finally offered a high-end 13" Intel on par with the 15/16" they still made a new basic 2 core low-end, but current model, for this particular market.
One thing is certain, future Apple reviews on YouTube will highlight SSD perf of all macs....
Last edited:
Agreed. People seem to assume that just because a new chip is out, the previous one is no longer good. Not many will benefit from paying high prices for tech they have no current need for.
The point is unless a customer is price sensitive or absolutely needs a MacBook Air now they are waiting for the M2 and those sales will not be recognized until next quarter. If Apple (or Tim Cook as the OP stated) were focused on posting record profits they would not have announced new computers with no expectation of fulfilling orders for months.
I'm sorry you can't call it the "Osborne Effect" and then change the meaning of it to something that does not reflect the event for which it was named. If you want to split hairs over the consumer reaction to new tech or the negligible financial impact to Apple's bottom line, that's fair, but I hardly believe that it's business as usual for M1 MacBook Air sales since the announcement of the M2. Especially anything more than the base model since even M1 BTOs aren't even shipping until July / August and stores like BustBuy and Costco that sell a fair amount in the US are out of stock. Apple even quit stocking 16/512 and 16/1TB models in their stores which were readily available prior to June.
A newly announced, but yet unavailable, model cannibalizing sales of exiting model by those that choose to wait for its availability has traditionally been the meaning of the "Osborne Effect." PC companies selling competing products alongside each other isn't the same as both products are simultaneously available for purchase and a sale is not delayed.
Last edited:
Nobody said anything about it not being good. But as of right now they only MacBook Air you can buy is the entry-level one. That leaves anybody wanting more storage or more ram out for luck until late July / early August. Doesn't matter if they want an M1 or M2 (which may be even longer). Or you can step up to the M2 MBP which has multiple configurations available for pickup or is deliverable in a few days.
For a Pro user, the 13"MBP is not an answer. I'd recommend it for someone in the Prosumer market. However, at that point usually people get advanced options in BTO. So yeah, the argument stands.