Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A $1500 laptop in 2022 with just 8GB of RAM. My old 10-year-old laptop already had 8GB of RAM. No thanks Apple.
And no pre-configured model with 16GB of RAM. This means for another 2 years, there won't be MacBook Air with 16GB RAM available in my country since we don't get BTO options. Yeah, screw you Apple.

My decision to get the HP Pavilion Aero 13 was a good decision then. 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, less than 1kg (lighter than the M2 MacBook Air), and for about half the price (will be less than half when these MacBooks reaches my country). Saved my money. My desire for fanless laptop with better battery life have to wait.
 
Today would have been a logical day to drop it, given that they hiked the price of the M2 model and narrowed the feature gap of the Air relative to the 14” Pro. I’m guessing the 13” Pro doesn’t get upgraded to the M3. But clearly Apple perceives some benefit in keeping it around at least for now. Maybe with the move to 4nm or 3nm with M3 they will solve what few practical issues with thermal throttling that still exist.
I agree it would have been logical to drop it today. That was my expectation until all the rumors insisted it was coming. I guess from Apple's perspective it's worth producing it while people are still buying it. Hopefully the 15" MBA rumor is true, and the 13" MBP is a placeholder until it's ready to be introduced. That could even happen before the M3, much like the 3rd gen iPad was introduced in March 2012 and discontinued by July of the same year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloudane
Makes me wonder what Apple will put in the $1,300 slot that the (updated?!) 13" Macbook Pro now sits in.

There's quite a big jump to the $2,000 14" Macbook Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TakeshimaIslands
Oh wow, wasn’t expecting a price increase. That makes the M2 MacBook Air start at $1499 CAD. Yikes. At least the M1 version is still available.
🧐 I can’t think of a single thing that has come down in price over the last year and a half. How could you not be expecting a price increase?
 
  • Like
Reactions: KPOM and oosamon
Imagine Tim Cook standing on stage in front of a "Single core performance" comparison graphic that shows ZERO percent improvement. Think about that for a while and maybe you'll all begin to understand.
Marketing can call it whatever they want, but in reality it's an M1 chip with more GPUs and memory.
And you have this on what authority? Just keep stretching.
 
A $1500 laptop in 2022 with just 8GB of RAM. My old 10-year-old laptop already had 8GB of RAM. No thanks Apple.
And no pre-configured model with 16GB of RAM. This means for another 2 years, there won't be MacBook Air with 16GB RAM available in my country since we don't get BTO options. Yeah, screw you Apple.

My decision to get the HP Pavilion Aero 13 was a good decision then. 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, less than 1kg (lighter than the M2 MacBook Air), and for about half the price (will be less than half when these MacBooks reaches my country). Saved my money. My desire for fanless laptop with better battery life have to wait.
It seems like the biggest miss here is why won’t Apple include BTO options or at least stock a higher spec pre-configured system in your country.
 
You clearly do NOT comprehend the difference between single core and multi core performance. You mistakenly believe and stated EACH core is 18% faster when Apple made no such claim. Where does Apple list single core performance for this "M2" chip? They don't, anywhere. This is clearly marketing spin.
When has Apple ever listed single core improvements? They always say new CPU/GPU has X cores and is up to Y percent faster than old CPU/GPU.

Even if not all the cores got faster (unlikely), either the high performance or the efficiency cores were improved, otherwise there would be no 18% faster multicore score (and no need for the increased transistor count).
 
Honestly with inflation lately I’m surprised it’s not $500 more! This actually seems reasonable.

One of my new pastimes is walking around stores saying ”OMG DO YOU SEE HOW MUCH THAT COSTS NOW?” and not actually buying anything.

I am official old man status.
 
Apple could have named it the M0 for all I care. Is it fast? Is it efficient? Is it in a lightweight fanless laptop with a nice screen and Magsafe and a decent keyboard? That’s all I care about.
Buy what you want to buy. An "M2" equipped laptop similar to the M1 laptop i bought over a year ago is almost $300 more than what I paid. This "M2" machine is just not worth it.
Also, would you spend your money to buy an "M2" (even an 'Ultra" version if it comes out) Mac Pro? Neither the M2 Ultra nor the Apple Silicon Mac Pro exist yet. That is the real sign this M2 is a failure.
 
When has Apple ever listed single core improvements? They always say new CPU/GPU has X cores and is up to Y percent faster than old CPU/GPU.

Even if not all the cores got faster (unlikely), either the high performance or the efficiency cores were improved, otherwise there would be no 18% faster multicore score (and no need for the increased transistor count).
Apple has listed (desktop/laptop) single core performance exactly once. The ONE TIME they shipped a brand new desktop/laptop processor architecture: the M1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
And you have this on what authority? Just keep stretching.
The "authority" is obvious. If the number was impressive, Apple would have presented it. We have to wait for these M2 machines to appear in the wild. Then we will see near zero single core performance improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane
Apple has listed (desktop/laptop) single core performance exactly once. The ONE TIME they shipped a brand new desktop/laptop processor architecture: the M1.
So it's an exception rather than the rule, and there was no specific numerical single core data in the M1 announcement either.
 
Ok, so 18% would be a weighted average increase across all cores. Technically, the entire multicore performance boost could come from the efficiency cores alone. With the M1, the efficiency cores added 20-33% to the multicore score. Assuming the best case 33% number, the efficiency cores would need to be 54.5% faster to achieve that 18% multi-core increase. If the efficiency cores were 54.5% faster, that would make the M2 a dramatically different chip from the M1...

From your original post, the only thing that Apple "missed" was 4nm and that was from Digitimes, which is no more reliable than any random poster on this forum. A new chip running on the same process node doesn't mean they they are the same chips. There's no epic fail here (except for me wasting my time), plain and simple.
You just keep digging deeper. 54.5% faster "Efficiency" cores would negate the need for performance cores. Do you listen to yourself when you talk?
18% weighted evenly across 8 cores would be 18/8 = 2.25% per core, but this is nonsense. Again, you don't comprehend the difference between single and multi-core performance. This "M2" chip memory controller runs at HALF the bandwidth of the M1 Pro. ALL of the other M1 chips have faster unified memory performance than this M2.

My original post isn't about what Apple "Missed", but what they "hit". Kuo nailed the new MacBook Air, but it was supposed to be called an M1. Apple MISSED everything else about the M2, Mac Pro, etc.. and failed to complete their 2 year Apple Silicon transition as Cook outlined at the 2020 WWDC. Epic Fail.
 
It appears as though, like the 2018 Mac mini remaining as a higher-end Mac mini SKU within the Mac mini line-up while the 2020 M1 version replaced the lower-end Core i3 configuration, the M2 MacBook Air only replaced the higher-end MacBook Air model. The lower-end M1 MacBook Air model always had 7 GPU cores and you always had to go with the higher-end model to get the 8 GPU core version of the M1. So, they've basically only replaced the higher-end model. (Though, what's even sillier is that, as was the case with the M1 versions, the M2 Air has a binned version of the M2 and a non-binned version while the M2 13" Pro just uses the non-binned version.)

Kind of nutty to think that Apple is now replacing some Macs on a per-SKU basis rather than a per-product-line basis. Though, not quite as nutty as the 13" MacBook Pro still existing, let alone with an unmodified chassis and an M2.
 
and failed to complete their 2 year Apple Silicon transition as Cook outlined at the 2020 WWDC. Epic Fail.

I don’t call supply chain issues an “epic fail”. I think they have done a remarkable job considering the massive change they were making during supply chain issues, inflation, and a pandemic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razorpit
I don’t call supply chain issues an “epic fail”. I think they have done a remarkable job considering the massive change they were making during supply chain issues, inflation, and a pandemic.
Apple has been encountering problems in China since well before the pandemic. Every time they just threw more money at these problems. China also implemented a "captive" relationship that made it hard for Apple to diversify manufacturing elsewhere. But it's all crashing down as we speak. I have $6+ grand to spend on a Mac Pro that sits in the bank. Even if I wanted to buy a Mac Studio it won't ship until mid September.
Given Apple's "Experience" in China they should have known better, but they just assumed everything would go back to the way things were before #45. Ignoring obvious change and playing the blame game was easy, but Apple was wrong and are now in big trouble.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: TakeshimaIslands
@developer13245 - I think you make a lot of great valid technical points. I don't agree with the phrase "Epic Fail". Apple's priority it selling stuff. They want to sell laptops and they know that there is a large segment of the community that buys on a cyclical basis. I am assuming that Apple is analyzing our buying profiles based on our Apple IDs. They know they need fresh shiny, and they know that they will sell ********s of them. Maybe you're not jazzed by the new stuff. That's totally cool, you don't have to be. I'm still using a 2015 MacBook Pro. But all the same, even though neither you nor I might be buying the new MacBook Air (although I'm not a definite "no"), the fact is that millions will. That won't make the product an epic fail, it will probably be a smashing success.


Technically - Apple is to some degree bound by what's happening in China, along with the progress of TSMC. That does leave the M2 as being a "step" upgrade, as opposed to the whirlwind that was the Intel -> M1 move. While that's all totally valid from a pure technical standpoint, it doesn't matter to the average MacBook Air user. It's simple not an epic fail from a product perspective (MacBook Air).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razorpit
Oh wow, wasn’t expecting a price increase. That makes the M2 MacBook Air start at $1499 CAD. Yikes. At least the M1 version is still available.
In the US, the price increase should have been expected. This is exactly what Apple has done with every release of a new MBA form factor. Typically, the new models start at $1,199 and slowly drift down to the magical $999 as production and supply chain ramps up. It will take a couple of years to get there, and the life cycle of the new form factor should be about 5 years…..although the 2010 wedge design lasted a bit longer.

This price increase was predictable even without the current inflationary pressures and supply chain issues.
 
Last edited:
@developer13245 - I think you make a lot of great valid technical points. I don't agree with the phrase "Epic Fail". Apple's priority it selling stuff. They want to sell laptops and they know that there is a large segment of the community that buys on a cyclical basis. I am assuming that Apple is analyzing our buying profiles based on our Apple IDs. They know they need fresh shiny, and they know that they will sell ********s of them. Maybe you're not jazzed by the new stuff. That's totally cool, you don't have to be. I'm still using a 2015 MacBook Pro. But all the same, even though neither you nor I might be buying the new MacBook Air (although I'm not a definite "no"), the fact is that millions will. That won't make the product an epic fail, it will probably be a smashing success.


Technically - Apple is to some degree bound by what's happening in China, along with the progress of TSMC. That does leave the M2 as being a "step" upgrade, as opposed to the whirlwind that was the Intel -> M1 move. While that's all totally valid from a pure technical standpoint, it doesn't matter to the average MacBook Air user. It's simple not an epic fail from a product perspective (MacBook Air).
see my post directly above yours.

The 2 year transition is an undeniable miss, that plus this M2 BS equals the Epic Fail. They should have called this "M2" an M1 Plus. It would have made perfect sense to bump the base M1 given all the improvements via the Pro, Max, and Ultra. That would have made Apple look like "good guys". So what if WWDC focused on OS / software only. That IS a needed focus given the software quality issues Apple has experienced in the last few years.

Instead they clearly wanted something more for the M2 and missed, but had to play marketing games by naming this the M2. Again, even if they make an "Ultra" version of this "M2" (which I doubt) I won't buy a Mac Pro equipped M2 Ultra.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.