Revolutionary Chip. Great products for average users BUT a massive disappoint for any power user who multitasks. A max limit of 16GB shared memory between system and Graphics on any of these systems including a “pro” laptop is embarrassing. I use up my 32GB and need to upgrade to accommodate my workflow and can imagine others with more complex workflows who have similar needs. THE 16” MACBOOK PRO IS PAST DUE FOR AN UPGRADE, is behind its peers with 9th gen processor instead of intel 10th gen, has a 720p camera for video conferencing and is already missing some of the new Apple technologies. How can a pro user feel comfortable spending over $6000 on 16” MacBook Pro today?
As a "power user" myself, I'm not in the slightest bit disappointed about the first wave of M1 Macs because quite simply, they aren't machines intended for us at all. Contrary to what people are inferring, the first M1 Macs have the same spec options (max RAM, max storage, number of ports) as the specific model they replaced. It's not a case of Apple reducing or removing anything, at least not so far. When the next machines a little higher up the range are launched, there's no reason to suspect they won't also offer (at least) the same number of ports and RAM/storage options as the machines they replace too.
The only machine that seems different at first glance in this regard is the Mac Mini, AFAIK its immediate predecessors did allow for bigger RAM and storage upgrades. But this doesn't mean there won't be more Mac Mini variants to come. It looks more like they defined a certain set of spec parameters for the M1 (with only enough I/O bandwidth for two ports and so on), and they've iterated all the models that they saw as appropriate for that spec level. So they've decided to launch machines according to the version of the M-series chip they are announcing, not in the more familiar way of announcing say, a new Mac Mini and showing all the models it comes in at once. Maybe they'll return to that style of releases once the transition is done, but for now it looks like they're going this way. So there's no reason to think another Mac Mini won't be one of the models announced when the next higher spec M-series chip is launched, alongside the upper range MacBook Pros and perhaps the smaller iMac. That M-series variant will support more ports, RAM and storage as would be expected for the range of machines it goes into, and that's when things will start looking more relevant for power users.
As for the 720p camera, people tend to forget the physical dimensions of the lid of a MacBook compared to an iPhone. From what I've read, there just isn't a 1080p cam design in existence yet (I mean the actual component comprising the lens glass and the sensor) that's thin enough to fit into the tiny space in a MacBook display lid. I can already hear the uproar if Apple had added a huge ugly fat bump in the top of the lid of a MacBook Pro, just to accommodate an oversized camera lens/sensor system. It wouldn't even be as subtle as the camera bump on an iPhone, it would be hilariously huge and disproportionate because the MacBook lid is so much thinner than even the thinnest phone model.
So it's quite obvious why they've been able to go to 1080p cameras on the recent iMacs - there is no such dimensional constraint making it unfeasible. I'd wager they even held off on going to 1080p on the iMacs for a reason too. If the iMacs had gotten 1080p years ago, just imagine the pearl-clutching outrage of MacBook Pro owners over being "forgotten" for even longer. Obviously given what we know about iPhones, Apple have great camera systems to offer. But it's also obvious that they're stuck in a difficult place for now with the MacBook chassis design. Either a new 1080p lens/sensor assembly has to come along with an extremely thin profile while not compromising on quality, not being ultra fragile and also not being impossibly expensive. Or, they need a new chassis design with a lid thick enough to still be appealing as a MacBook Pro while also allowing a camera assembly - which by its very nature is larger - to fit.
Speaking of people being outraged by things: I think the main reason why Apple have started the Apple Silicon Mac launches at the very bottom of the range couldn't be more clear. Imagine if they had come out swinging with full fledged high-end MacBook Pros, like a 16" model with not only the same expansion options but also with on-paper specs that decimate the currently available model. Power users like us would be super excited of course. At first. But then the complaining would start - "but my apps aren't native yet!", "what's the point of this machine when none of my native drivers or plug ins are even announced let alone available??"... and so on.
Sure, back in the PPC to Intel transition they went out first with MacBook Pros, but the picture was _very_ different back then. Apple laptops were hurting badly at the time, stuck with G4s and literally years behind the competition in performance. So they had no choice but to hope people would trust in the original Rosetta, and push as much as possible to get Universal Binaries launched as quickly as possible from major 3rd party outfits.
This is not at all the picture today. The 16" MacBook Pro is more than OK as a competitive choice for pro users who want to use Mac OS. So in every measurable way, it's a far smarter move for Apple to get the ball rolling at the low end. After all, many people who buy the cheapest Mac laptops barely use any apps that don't come pre-installed with the machine, let alone any esoteric 3rd party apps that won't be AS-native for a while. That buys Apple (and its customer base of pro users) plenty of time for the updated apps, plug ins and drivers to start coming out. So by the time the higher-end pro machines are launched, there will be far less waiting (or none at all) for the native apps we need. I think it's a very wise choice in terms of timing, and all we pro users have to do is wait.
