Nothing has changed internally! Definitely Apple will not allow the chip swap. Good video.
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.
iFixit Tears Down 13-Inch M2 MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Frameworks ever sells a version that is more like a mobile workstation that is well suited for engineering purposes I would definitely buy one.
You don’t have to assemble it. You can buy a version fully assembled for you but can still be fully reconfigured afterwards.
"You" in my comment refers to Framework, as a manufacturer. As opposed to Apple. Framework still has to contend with dozens of potential driver/BIOS incompatibilities due to 3rd party hardware/components.
Just watch the teardown video. They use the same chasis/logic boards to name a few. But keep shilling for apple...
Maybe not so much, however, considering how hot the M2 is allowed to get in the 13" MacBook Pro before the fans kick in.
There’s no reason they couldn’t keep the base price the same. Their margins are *extremely* high and they would still make a ton of profit
This is an example of Apple putting profit over customer experience
Seconding "education, governments, or some other red-tape large organizations"
I would say “expected,” not “interesting.” Virtually all computer operations end up as 99%+ heat, depending on the chips' efficiency. So more work => more heat. Try to do more work than ambient cooling will take care of and the speed will have to be reduced to cut the heat.
This is exactly the choice that users SHOULD have: a speedy, state-of-the-art processor, with an option for the extra weight, battery draw and potential noise of fans to allow sustained pro work
That's standard Apple M.O. so...
In the end, I am guessing that of the millions of these machines they sell each year, the significant majority are configured with 512GB so Apple felt they could skimp since relatively so few buy 256GB and those that do likely do so because they are not focused on disk throughput (and especially synthetic disk throughput scores).
I'd have thought for any particular model the cheapest stock configuration would always be the highest seller?
"Previous arguments for the lack of upgradeability between generations have centered around size considerations within the chassis or cost considerations or manufacturing limitations. So how do we explain this?"
Well that's on theory... Here's another:
The trackpad/keyboard/fingerprint assembly used to be controlled by an ST microcontroller. That's one of the chips that's been in short supply since the pandemic. So Apple moved that functionality onto the M2. Just one more step in the on-going reduction of extra chips required to create a system.
(The details remain somewhat unclear. Did Apple include a dedicated microcontroller on the M2? Did they just add some small extra firmware to the AOP, which seems feasible and a nice engineering solution to the problem?
But that seems to be the big picture.)
Well that's on theory... Here's another:
The trackpad/keyboard/fingerprint assembly used to be controlled by an ST microcontroller. That's one of the chips that's been in short supply since the pandemic. So Apple moved that functionality onto the M2. Just one more step in the on-going reduction of extra chips required to create a system.
(The details remain somewhat unclear. Did Apple include a dedicated microcontroller on the M2? Did they just add some small extra firmware to the AOP, which seems feasible and a nice engineering solution to the problem?
But that seems to be the big picture.)
This reasoning certainly makes sense for the MacBook Air, but I concur with Jason Snell that the main buyers of the 13" MacBook Pro are corporate / enterprise and I could easily see them going 512GB based on my own experience working in IT at very large companies with very large MacBook Pro installations. That being said, they might be able to get away with 256GB if they predominately have all their data and workloads in the cloud (and at that point, "slow" SSD speeds would not as nearly impact their daily workflow since network and cloud computing performance would be the gates so Apple would feel comfortable with their storage decision on the base model).
I'm not shilling for Apple, and you didn't answer my question. The main thing that changed was the M2 over the M1, which was as Apple cited during the WWDC Keynote. It has also been debated that some influencers are not being objective; choosing to not state the specific scenarios that made the chip appear inferior.
I did answer your question. They walk through all the similarities of the M1 vs M2. Clearly the M2 is different, the rest.... Not so much. Also, not sure how a tear down (where they literally show you what is inside the machines) can be objective but alright...
re-read (or don't) my reply. I stated some influencers were not being objective, and that Apple was not guilty of stating that there were major changes outside of the M2.
It really doesn't matter to me what you think, but it does matter to me when I'm misquoted.
Peace
Everyone's mileage may vary, but I can't imagine anyone investing their hard-earned money in a gimped 8GB RAM/256 SSD that is going to be outdated sooner. At least get the 16GB/512 to future proof the machine. That's part of why my 2012 Mini has lasted 10 years. I Maxed out the RAM and put an SSD in it. Still going.
Now?
Report: Defective iPhone parts worth $43 million stolen, used to make new iPhones
Hon Hai Technology Group (Foxconn) workers in Zhengzhou, China reportedly stole iPhone parts worth $43mn to make new iPhones. The con has reportedly cost Apple billions.
www.androidauthority.com
It physically can be swapped. That’s what they confirmed. Apple would just have to do the work of writing drivers for the new chip to use to old laptop. It would require some work but not infinite work.
I think it’s an interesting conceptual question to ask if Apple should be compelled to make drivers like this when we know that producing and shipping these laptops harms the environment more than just producing the SOC would and we know we already use the planets resources at a rate faster than they are regenerated. It’s a question of the rights of companies to make non upgradeable products vs the right of the individual to enjoy a non dilapidated planet over the coming decades.
Hard to know which way the government should actually act with the law on this, but even non action is an action when we know where we are with the health of the ecosystem.
Sorry to anyone that's read this anecdote before..
In 2017, I wanted a small, light laptop that was 'future proof' so I bought a 2017 12" Retina MacBook with 16GB. Less than a year later, I got mildly frustrated with its single port, so I bought a 2018 13" MacBook Pro w/four TB3 ports and 16GB of RAM.
All in the name of 'future proofing'. And now 4 years later, guess what? Both of these 16GB RAM MacBooks are dreadfully slow compared to my 8GB M1 MacBook Air, that you can often get for $800. That extra $200 got me no longer life, no better resell. Just $400 in Apple's pocket.
Moral of the story - buy for today. By the time "the future" happens, something else will be holding you back from amazing performance, and it's probably not the RAM.
I also have a 8GB 2017 12” retina MacBook. It’s no better than the 16GB version, especially compared to my M1 Air.