Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I am a little worried about the NAND chips on the M2 Pro/Max being gimped as well. The 512GB base model used to have 4 chips on the M1 Pro/Max right? Surely that is going to be two chips now, unless Apple bumps up the base model storage levels.

if the M2 basically has the same SSD controller as the M1 then one path is to just not use those denser NAND chips at all . Keeping the same old components would help offset increases in the other components. The 14"/16" has board space to do 8TB.

I have a feeling Apple wanted to raise the base level SSD capacity in the M2 Air/MBP 13" (and Mini) , but NAND pricing shifts and availability blew that up. The 14"/16" base levels were higher. There is probably not pressure to move those higher now as they had higher Max capacity options. ( apple squeeze better margins out of the 4 and 8TB options with newer NAND with little drop off in bandwidth. ).
 
I am a little worried about the NAND chips on the M2 Pro/Max being gimped as well. The 512GB base model used to have 4 chips on the M1 Pro/Max right? Surely that is going to be two chips now, unless Apple bumps up the base model storage levels.

The 14" and 16" MacBook Pro use two SSD modules (2x256GB for the base model).

If Adobe , Microsoft , Google , Blackmagic , and Avid woke up tomorrow and decided that macOS was a waste of time and left, then macOS would be in trouble.

Major software OEMs abandoning macOS is extremely unlikely, especially now that so much of their income is now tied to ongoing subscriptions and not one-time purchase. They need to maintain their code to ensure customers keep paying them those monthly subscription fees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpotOnT
Dunno why this is always so hard for some people on here to accept. There’s always this line of “It’s still an upgrade from what you have now”– entirely true, however the implication is that we should buy something that we will need to upgrade a year earlier, while paying full price.

I say this as someone who might bite the bullet on an M1 16” anyway because I really need to get rid of this butterfly monster.
Pretty much. Besides I don't upgrade my computers the way I do my phones. I'm using an Air that I bought spring of '15. I also have a 16" pro for work, which I could use if my Air dies, but I prefer to use my own machine for personal use. I think I have pretty good odds that it will last until the next MBP update)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScholarsInk
M2 isn’t a very good chip… a stopgap at best, and runs too hot at 5nm. I’d say the first Apple silicon disappointment. I have a 2016 MBP but can wait for a properly done next gen M3 Air or MBP.
 
My 2018 11” iPad Pro still handles all my creative needs just fine. But I may consider upgrading this year if the updates are compelling enough.
 
M2 isn’t a very good chip… a stopgap at best, and runs too hot at 5nm. I’d say the first Apple silicon disappointment.

Yes, 20% better multi-core and 11% better single-core improvements and over 50% better GPU performance is certainly embarrassing... :rolleyes:

We didn't see even half that with each generation upgrade on the Intel+AMD Macs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpotOnT
Yes, 20% better multi-core and 11% better single-core improvements and over 50% better GPU performance is certainly embarrassing... :rolleyes:

We didn't see even half that with each generation upgrade on the Intel+AMD Macs.
Sure, for all of 5 minutes before it throttles down due to heat issues. And adding GPU cores does absolutely nothing to improve performance because it gets too hot.

I said it was “disappointing”, but if you say it’s an embarrassment, well…. after spending over $45B in R&D over 2 years for hardly any real world perceivable difference, I can see why you’d say that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ralph_sws
That doesn't make much sense in the context of Apple taking more market share. If the laptops are not taking it from Windows systems where are they taking the share from.... mac Desktops , iPads ?

The probably with this position is that even Apple doesn't believe it. For many years Apple ran a "mac vs PC" commercial. Now they don't directly talk about it but it often implied. When Apple says they have better Privacy it is not Mac more private than the iPhone or iPad. They are talking about those other folks with broadly substitutable goods. No, Apple doesn't have completely transparently swappable substitutes, but they do complete.

Second, at least once a year Apple will mention in their quarterly call about how the iPhone/Mac are doing that they are getting XX% of switchers. If these goods being switched from are not competitors why call it a 'switch'. Those folks are switching substitutable goods. And Apple basically relies on that for growth. There have been years where the overall PC market units number are down and Apple is slightly up or flat. Most of that comes from rearranging the deck chairs on the same boat. Apple peeled out more folks from Windows than Windows peeled out from Apple. Even more apparent when look at USA vs Worldwide market share. Once loop in numbers where Macs are relatively less affordable their market share drops.

Appel could grow share if they were bring loads of "new" folks to the worldwide PC market. They wouldn't have to lean so heavily on getting "swapper" if they could get folks who were new. That is another stat where Apple does some tap dancing. They have "bought my first computer" stats. but likely if you cut out "bought my new computer with student loan, got it as a gift for school , etc. " that not really seeing substantial system unit growth in areas where Windows doesn't also have units. Parts , repairability , etc all matter more where there is no local certified repair shop primarily because the regional median income is relatively low.

As Jobs said decades ago the PC wars are over. Apple's main objective is to prune off profitable customers and dump the ones that are not (for Apple). That is a move where they build fewer , more focused products. The net impact of that is that their market share growth potential is relatively limited. Steady independent single digit growth (i.e. gap from overall PC market ) pulling off relatively small number of switches at higher than industry profits. Minus Windows and the top 4 PC system vendors shooting themselves in the foot multiple years in a row, there is probably not a huge share win for Apple. With all the more antitrust scrutiny going around ; nor do they really want that.



It is higher than that. If folks can get the apps they are comfortable with then Mac/Windows are more substitutable goods. The actual operating system (not the Finder / Window / GUI manager ) that is not a rigid barrier for most.

The other fallacy is that Windows is 'suck' solely with x86_64 and it isn't. What matters to folks is can they run their apps. That's why Apple has Rosetta. Also why Microsoft has a basic equivalent on Windows on Arm. If Adobe , Microsoft , Google , Blackmagic , and Avid woke up tomorrow and decided that macOS was a waste of time and left, then macOS would be in trouble. Not having the major league apps is part of what keeps Linux in the minor leagues in desktop OS percentage.
If Microsoft was ever concerned that the Mac was growing too large all they would have to do is stop developing official Office for it. They don’t offer it for Linux because that would make it a real threat to Windows on the desktop. They don’t have to worry about the Mac.
 
If you're working a MacBook Air so hard it constantly throttles, you should have bought a MacBook Pro (13-16").
I didn't realize playing a game is considered working a computer "so hard". And it's not the Air that throttles, it's the M2 Air. Besides, what's the point of a faster, more expensive computer if you can't take advantage of it? You're proving my point. M2 is not a very good CPU.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: richinaus
Let's put some M computers in the order of throttling, and try and have a guess why.......

1. MBA
2. 13" MBP
3. 14" MBP
4. 16" MBP
5. Mac Studio
 
Hopefully the NEW 14" Macbook Pro comes with an OLED 120 or higher hertz screen. When comparing it to the Dell XPS 15 OLED. It is night and day difference with Dell OLED screen looking 100x's better quality. The Blacks and Colours are alot more crisp than the Macbook Pro Mini LED screen line ups.
 
Well tbh if they were aiming for a yearly update schedule on the M-series chips, they couldn’t stick with the one-year delay between M1 and M1 Pro/Max that was there in the first generation, and keeping all of M2 on the same process would make a lot of sense from the pov of streamlining work. So my guess would be M2 Pro/Max on TSMCs 5nm process possibly as early as October.

Then we could expect the M3 on 3nm by WWDC 2023.
 
I didn't realize playing a game is considered working a computer "so hard".

Not to be flippant, but games really stress CPUs and GPUs. It's why "gaming PCs" have more fans than a skyscraper's HVAC system (and are about as loud).

And it's not the Air that throttles, it's the M2 Air. Besides, what's the point of a faster, more expensive computer if you can't take advantage of it?

I expect most of the extra cost of the M2 Air is everything but the M2 SoC.


You're proving my point. M2 is not a very good CPU.

It's a "not very good CPU" for use cases that continuously stress it because it only has passive cooling. But that was not a secret before it was launched and certainly wasn't after it was launched considering every YouTube channel looking to boost their viewer numbers and ad revenue posted shedloads of videos focusing on just that. :rolleyes:

But for use cases that do continually stress an M2, "there's a Mac for that" - the 13" MacBook Pro. And soon enough it will be joined by the Mac mini and 24" iMac that will have even better cooling systems to keep it...cool.
 
I hope M2 Pro/Max would be based on the newest ARMv9A architecture. But it is unlikely.
 
Apple has been constantly advancing the ARMv8 architecture on their own so while I am sure there will be benefits moving to ARMv9, they might not be as compelling as if Apple had been using "off-the-shelf" ARMv8 solutions like the other OEMs.
 
M2 isn’t a very good chip… a stopgap at best, and runs too hot at 5nm. I’d say the first Apple silicon disappointment. I have a 2016 MBP but can wait for a properly done next gen M3 Air or MBP.
Hmmm, I don't think many are saying this.... obviously M2 is amazing!
 
Not to be flippant, but games really stress CPUs and GPUs. It's why "gaming PCs" have more fans than a skyscraper's HVAC system (and are about as loud).



I expect most of the extra cost of the M2 Air is everything but the M2 SoC.




It's a "not very good CPU" for use cases that continuously stress it because it only has passive cooling. But that was not a secret before it was launched and certainly wasn't after it was launched considering every YouTube channel looking to boost their viewer numbers and ad revenue posted shedloads of videos focusing on just that. :rolleyes:

But for use cases that do continually stress an M2, "there's a Mac for that" - the 13" MacBook Pro. And soon enough it will be joined by the Mac mini and 24" iMac that will have even better cooling systems to keep it...cool.
M1 Air is also passive cooling but it performs great and doesn’t throttle down to the performance of the last gen Air. Why do you feel the need to make excuses for the M2? What advancements do you see in the M2 that justifies a massive 20% increase other than the SoC? A 1080 webcam? Adding a notch to the display? LEDs that light up 100 nits more? How about the slower and single NAND chip? You’re seriously reaching. The M2 is not a very good chip. M1 Air is clearly the much better laptop for the money.
 
Yes, I do believe the new case, the 1080p webcam and the larger and brighter display did contribute to the price increase.

The 13.3" MacBook Pro did not see a 20% price increase and the only thing that changed on it was the M1 and was swapped out for an M2. The M2 of course costs more than the M1 and Apple went from 2x128GB SSDs to 1x256GB SSD no doubt for cost-cutting to keep the price the same. If the 24" iMac and Mac mini are also (effectively) unchanged when they go to M2, I expect them to see little to no price increases, as well (especially if Apple moves to single NAND base storage).

I agree the M1 Air is the better laptop because it's still really good for the workloads it is designed for and it's significantly cheaper because all of it's components have been fully amortized.

As an 14" MacBook Pro owner with an M1 Pro, in the end I don't care about the M2 family because I have plenty of performance as-is and have no reason to upgrade to M2 (or M3, for that matter).
 
Hmmm, I don't think many are saying this.... obviously M2 is amazing!
Actually, outside of the shills, many are saying it. Plenty of informed Mac buyers are talking about this online, and there are great videos by Max Tech about the M2 issues… there’s a reason why they don’t get invited to Apple’s events.

M2 Air by itself isn’t a bad machine per se, but it’s the ridiculous 20% price bump that makes it an awful value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kp98077
Actually, outside of the shills, many are saying it. Plenty of informed Mac buyers are talking about this online, and there are great videos by Max Tech about the M2 issues… there’s a reason why they don’t get invited to Apple’s events.

M2 Air by itself isn’t a bad machine per se, but it’s the ridiculous 20% price bump that makes it an awful value.
Price bump sucks yeah, but to be honest everything is more expensive.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.