Gurman: Redesigned MacBook Air Delayed to Second Half of 2022, No New High-End MacBook Pro Likely Until Next Year

[Christopher Kim]

Base MBA = $1,299.00 CAD
Base MBP 16" = $3,149.00 CAD
Difference = $1,850.00 CAD <- How many people, outside of the tech world (by that I mean people like us who visit tech forums regularly) would be happy with that price difference for the sake of a bigger screen?

I agree there's a big price difference, but my rebuttal would be that for the target group we're talking about: I think a decent number of ppl currently get "upsold" to buy the 16" MBP because they need/want the bigger screen. They're not happy about it, but they find a way to buy it.

M = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, can afford, and want, a 16" MBP.
S = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, can afford a 16" MBP, and are willing to compromise on price and weight.
E = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, and can afford a 16" MBP but want thin and light.
P = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, can't afford a 16" MBP, but could afford around $500 more.
R = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, but are unwilling to pay over $1k more for a few inches.

If the below is true, then they would not be cannibalizing their 16" MBPs.
M + S < E + P + R

I like the mathematical way you're thinking about it. We could nitpick the details, but I'll give you that monetarily, it's possible that Apple could be indifferent between the 2 options. It's even possible they could make more overall revenue (and let's even for sake of argument say more profits as well) with a 16" MBA with the additional volume they'll make (counter-acting loss in 16" MBP sales).

The other non-monetary argument is that they lose the "bigger is more premium" correlation which so far exists with their other product lines. Eg. iPhone Pro Max vs iPhone / iPhone Pro; 12.9" iPad Pro vs iPad Air / 11" iPP, and has up until now existed with the 16" MBP.

I'm just not sure Apple wants to give that up, even if in the near-term, it's possible it could be net-positive financially. In the long-term, it may end up hurting them as it sets a new precedent and changes the nuanced brand / marketing of product lines.

 

[ric22]

The wedge shape is the less ergonomic shape for a keyboard. A keyboard that tilts up will cause your wrists to bend and that can lead to RSI problems. A flat keyboard is the better choice for ergonomics. If you like the wedge shape that is fine, but don’t use ergonomics as the excuse.

The edges on the Pro are raised and therefore more likely to dig into your wrists. Ergo, ergonomics.

 

[James Godfrey]

I have this feeling that the M2 SoC will be based on the A16 SoC for the iPhone 14 Pro models. Taht's why we won't see the MacBook Air replacement until October 2022.

That’s if the MBA replacement has M2, Kuo has said that it will again get M1, which could quite easily be a possibility especially if Apple are planning to refresh the entry level MBP again…

It would at least give the entry MBP some edge over the Air, unlike currently where the majority agree the entry MBP doesn’t even need to exist in the line up as it’s performance is pretty much identical to the air

 

[caribbeanblue]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

 

[darngooddesign]

Switching to a different material is not the same as resetting the industrial design.

I think it is since Apple has never changed material without changing the industrial design.

Face ID will come sooner or later, and it being harder to pull off in such a thin screen enclosure doesn't mean the possibility of it is not on the table.

Face ID exists and the possibility of using it exists of Apple wants to double the thickness of the display assembly.

 

[ric22]

Face ID exists and the possibility of using it exists of Apple wants to double the thickness of the display assembly.

Hopefully not double. The camera module has been made intentionally deep rather than flat because of the different space constraints in an iPhone, so hopefully a wider and slightly flatter version can be produced. The other option (without resorting to a bump!) is slightly tapering the display, so it's a mm or so wider at the top than the bottom. You could taper the main section of the body the other way to compensate, so it doesn't look weird when closed.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I always thought it was odd that the MacBook Air got the same SoC as the MacBook Pro 13" at the same time.

Basically, that was the MacBook Air getting elevated in importance and value after the absolutely sh***y CPUs that Apple used in the MBA rebirth in 2018-2020. This was a clear sign from Apple that the MBA was back at flagship status for those who held on to their 2012-2015 models after the lackluster 2018 introduction. IMHO.

 

[darngooddesign]

Not dumb at all. See iPad Pro vs iPad Air chips lol

Yeah and the general opinion was that the Air was faster, Apple doesn't want the consensus to be that the M2 Mini is faster except for heavy workloads, doesn't matter if MP owners don't care about single core speeds when they can just release the M2-Ultra*2 instead of the M1-Ultra*2. The vast majority of iPad owners don't care about or notice the slight speed difference; however, the Mac world is full of benchmark comparisons.

Mac Pro users' workloads typically are highly parallelizable, multi-core performance trumps single-core in most cases.

Sure, but if Apple can get superior Single and Multi-core in their halo computer, instead of just multi, why wouldn't they.

Apple is going to want to knock it out for the park with their MacPro and an M1-Ultra*2 is still inside the park.

 

[EugW]

Basically, that was the MacBook Air getting elevated in importance and value after the absolutely sh***y CPUs that Apple used in the MBA rebirth in 2018-2020. This was a clear sign from Apple that the MBA was back at flagship status for those who held on to their 2012-2015 models after the lackluster 2018 introduction. IMHO.

I don't buy into that argument. It could just be that they had no other chip to put into the new MBA in 2020, since M1 was the lowest end chip they had.

IOW, I don't think MBA is flagship going forward. It will be an excellent entry-level machine, but definitely not flagship. In fact, there is a decent chance it would lag behind for chip used.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I don't buy into that argument. It could just be that they had no other chip to put into the new MBA in 2020, since M1 was the lowest end chip they had.

IOW, I don't think MBA is flagship going forward. It will be an excellent entry-level machine, but definitely not flagship. In fact, there is a decent chance it would lag behind for chip used.

Flagship is probably the wrong word, but it is the highest unit seller in Apple’s lineup, so I suspect Apple wants to keep that value proposition going by being the first SKU to move to M2. I don’t think Apple is going to introduce a new chassis MBA with the M1, IMHO. We can agree to disagree.??

 

[James Godfrey]

Flagship is probably the wrong word, but it is the highest unit seller in Apple’s lineup, so I suspect Apple wants to keep that value proposition going by being the first SKU to move to M2. I don’t think Apple is going to introduce a new chassis MBA with the M1, IMHO. We can agree to disagree.??

Looking at apples lines and what they are currently doing…

iPad Air is lagging behind the iPad Pro in terms of chip by 12 months… Pros got M1 in Spring 2021, the Air now has it in 2022.

The current rumour in regards to the iPhone (standard) getting A15 again this year, while the Pros are going to get A16, I presume the pros will always be one chip ahead year on year from this point.

Now we come to the MacBook line up and if the iPad and iPhone lines are anything to go by, it’s definitely plausible the MacBook Air will get M1 when it’s redesigned, with the entry level MacBook Pro (which I think will also get a similar design to the new Air, just in silver/space grey with black keyboard and black bezels and fans) will probably get M2… that will give the entry level pro an actual improvement over the Air.

 

[boak]

Yeah and the general opinion was that the Air was faster,

Highly doubt so

Sure, but if Apple can get superior Single and Multi-core in their halo computer, instead of just multi, why wouldn't they.

Because time is required to scale up the number of cores. Just like the A.X/Z cheaps always came after the A. chips

 

[darngooddesign]

Highly doubt so

You obviously didn't spend time in the iPad forum when the Air 4 was released. You can doubt it all you want but since the vast majority of iPad users feel single core performance the Air was acknowledged as the faster device; however, the Pro had other features which compensated for it being a little slower.

Because time is required to scale up the number of cores. Just like the A.X/Z cheaps always came after the A. chips

And you're assuming that the notoriously secrative Apple hasn't spent that time already. This is their halo computer, which will prove how superior their chip designs are, what happened previously with A chips instead of M chips is irrelevant.

 

[boak]

You obviously didn't spend time in the iPad forum when the Air 4 was released. You can doubt it all you want but since the vast majority of iPad users feel single core performance the Air was acknowledged as the faster device; however, the Pro had other features which compensated for it being a little slower.

Extrapolating forum users to the general public ? Oh dear

 

[boak]

And you're assuming that the notoriously secrative Apple hasn't spent that time already. This is their halo computer, which will prove how superior their chip designs are, what happened previously with A chips instead of M chips is irrelevant.

And did the M1 Ultra come before the M1? ?

 

[darngooddesign]

And did the M1 Ultra come before the M1? ?

Well there was no M0-Ultra so Apple's desktop chip pattern has not been established.

 

[darngooddesign]

Extrapolating forum users to the general public ? Oh dear

Making concrete statements about a chip upgrade pattern with no M# historical data points. ? Oh dear

 

[boak]

Making concrete statements about a chip upgrade pattern with no M# historical data points. ? Oh dear

We literally have A# chip patterns ?

By your reasoning, Apple would have launched the M1 Extreme Ultra Max on their "halo computer" first before the entire slate of M1 Macs and iPads ? Oh dear

 

[darngooddesign]

We literally have A# chip patterns ?

By your reasoning, Apple would have launched the M1 Extreme Ultra Max on their "halo computer" first before the entire slate of M1 Macs and iPads ? Oh dear

Still doing it I see… oh dear.

And no that isn’t my reasoning. I’m saying that Apple will likely release the M2 on the Mac Pro before they will release the M2 Mini. There was no M0 Ultra to double or quad and Apple wasn’t going to get many early adopters with a $6000 ARM computer.

All depends on whether Apple anticipates a significant Osborne Effect from releasing the M2 in a Mac Pro.

 

[EugW]

Yeah, a new Mac Pro this year, perhaps at WWDC, and it won’t be M1 based.

 

[PrimeAesthetic]

I respectfully disagree. Not trying rot be argumentative here, I would just like to lay out my thinking more clearly than my earlier post. I also just enjoy respectful debate

There are, no doubt, those who can afford to pick up a base 16" MBP over a MBA for the screen alone, but I would think those people are in the minority.

Base MBA = $1,299.00 CAD
Base MBP 16" = $3,149.00 CAD
Difference = $1,850.00 CAD <- How many people, outside of the tech world (by that I mean people like us who visit tech forums regularly) would be happy with that price difference for the sake of a bigger screen?

Even assuming Apple would increase the price of any new MBA (or whatever they call it), the jump in price would be about double. The average consumer who wants to use spreadsheets, documents, web browsing, and emails would be hard pressed to swallow that pill.

That said, ask those same people if they would be interested in an Apple laptop that's around as light in weight, but has a larger screen. I'm betting many would show interest - but their interest would only go so far, when considering price.

Again, I am sure there are many who can afford that jump; there are even more people who can't really afford it, but would get it on credit 'cause they love tech so much.

Let's say the new MBA 13" is $1,500.00 CAD, and a 15/16" model is $2,000.00 CAD, then it's still over $1,000.000 CAD cheaper than getting a heavier MBP 16".

For Apple, the calculation might look something like:

M = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, can afford, and want, a 16" MBP.
S = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, can afford a 16" MBP, and are willing to compromise on price and weight.
E = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, and can afford a 16" MBP but want thin and light.
P = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, can't afford a 16" MBP, but could afford around $500 more.
R = People who want an Apple laptop with a bigger screen, but are unwilling to pay over $1k more for a few inches.

If the below is true, then they would not be cannibalizing their 16" MBPs.
M + S < E + P + R

Now, I completely understand that it's far more complicated than this - and that I'm no math wizard - but I still think the number of people who want a larger laptop for carrying around the house, on campus, or to and from work, is significant. And of those people, I think the number who are willing/able/interested in a MBP 16" is far less than half.

P.S. Please remember this is all pure speculation and fun debate... and more than a little of me justifying my hope for a 16" MBA this year...

Edit: clarity

This is exactly how I feel and completely agree. (I'm also the Letter P in your equation )

 

[Tagbert]

Yeah, a new Mac Pro this year, perhaps at WWDC, and it won’t be M1 based.

At least, it won’t use a new M1-series chip. Scott Forstall was clear about that but left open what the alternative was.

 

[EugW]

At least, it won’t use a new M1-series chip. Scott Forstall was clear about that but left open what the alternative was.

It wouldn’t be using multiple M1 Ultras if the tech geeks are correct, due to limitations inherent to the design.

So, it won’t use a new M1 series chip, but it won’t use an existing M1 series chip either. That means it will likely be M2 core based, but I suppose it’s possible it uses something entirely different.

 

[Tagbert]

It wouldn’t be using multiple M1 Ultras if the tech geeks are correct, due to limitations inherent to the design.

So, it won’t use a new M1 series chip, but it won’t use an existing M1 series chip either. That means it will likely be M2 core based, but I suppose it’s possible it uses something entirely different.

Yes, reading these tea leaves does not give us definitive answers

 

[johnnyjibbs]

It never made any marketing sense to release a low end M2 machine shortly after very expensive pro M1s.

Doing so would have made the new MacBook Pro’s (and now also the Studio) look like yesterday’s tech as, in the eyes of most people, “2”sounds better than “1”.

This timeframe seems much more realistic.