MacBook Air and the Osborne effect

[kiranmk2]

The current situation with the MacBook Air has me wondering whether Apple has messed up the messeging around it's best selling laptop. For the first two generations of Apple Silicon, the MBA was among the first Macs to receive the new, base chips. People who wanted the MacBook Pros would tend to wait, knowing that even though the latest MBA would have higher single core performance than the current MBP models, when the MBPs with Pro and Max chips dropped they would sweep away the multicore and GPU performance of the MBAs.

With M3 that changed. For some reason the MBPs came first and at this point I wondered what happened to MBA sales. People who followed Apple news would surely see that the M3 for MBPs was here and assume an M3 MBA was just around the corner. Even people who didn't follow Apple news may well ask a friend who does and get the advice to wait for the M3 MBA to drop., leading to M2 MBA sales to drop as people waited for the M3 model (the fabled Osborne effect).

After the M3 MBAs launched, I believe the iPad Pro was supposed to launch a few weeks later. In the end this got delayed by 6-8 weeks until May, but if it hadn't and was released as expected in April, then the M3 MBA would have had less that a month on the shelves before the first M4 device came out, rendering the MBA out of date (although obviously still a good Mac). Once again, we are now in the position where the replacement M4 chip is out in a shipping device and demonstrating a decent performance improvement over M3 (25%).

Has Apple just Osborne'd itself again? With the M3 it was just a 4-5 month wait from the M3 chip launching to the M3 MBA, but this time it sounds like it will be almost 12 months from the M4 launch until the launch of the M4 MBA...

Why has Apple done this? If the M4 was ready for an iPad Pro launch in April, why not launch the MBA with M4 at the same time (skipping the M3) and follow up with M4 Pro/Max MBPs in the Autumn when MacOS Sequoia launches?

 

[ignatius345]

I honestly wonder if that many people out in the real world notice or care whether it's "M3" or "M4".

 

[DonkeyWonkey]

I honestly wonder if that many people out in the real world notice or care whether it's "M3" or "M4".

Normal people who actually have lives couldn't care less about which M their laptop is. They either go for the latest or the cheapest.

 

[bill-p]

Why has Apple done this? If the M4 was ready for an iPad Pro launch in April, why not launch the MBA with M4 at the same time (skipping the M3) and follow up with M4 Pro/Max MBPs in the Autumn when MacOS Sequoia launches?

Because ultimately... as alluded to earlier: whatever chip goes into a Macbook Air actually doesn't really matter after M1.

I had a M1 Pro 14". Now I have a M2 Air 15".

It would take maybe... maybe... at least a 30% battery life improvement, plus maybe the ability to connect more than 2 external displays, for me to even consider an upgrade to the next 15" Air. Whether it is M4, M5 or M6 again doesn't matter.

People don't seem to stop to think but... even the M2 Air, being fanless, actually can drive a 4K 120Hz display without missing a single beat even in Blender or Fusion 360.

Why do we need more performance? Are you trying to run video games? Some much more complex model in Blender or Fusion 360? Do you care that a task takes 30 seconds or 1-2 minutes?

Those are critical questions that ultimately make me just not want to upgrade for marginal 30% performance improvement with... absolutely ZERO battery life improvements, ZERO display quality improvements, ZERO audio quality improvements, ZERO extra ports and ZERO extra display support.

You know... things that actually would improve the workflow other than just making my task finish in 30 seconds instead of 45 seconds or 1 minute.

Bottom line is: I think M1/M2 are already massively overpowered for most people. Most folks don't stop to think that the 16" Intel MacBook Pro from 2019... even on its best day plugged into the wall, could just barely match M1 running fanless. And that was a "Pro" machine in 2019. Are people now somehow trying to do so much with their computer that a "Pro" machine from 2019 somehow cannot keep up?

P.S.: sorry for the long message but the TL;DR is: Apple does in fact know that people who got M1 Air are not upgrading and now people with M2 Air are not upgrading. The market for Macbook Air will stay stagnant until they throw meaningful features or improvements into the mix. And honestly, I don't think "just performance improvements" really count as "meaningful".

 

[StoneJack]

believe me, for office work, even Photoshop and video,
all M chips are fine
I am saying this as a M1 (Air), M2 (Air) and M3 (Macbook Pro) user.
And to be honest, 8GB and 16GB will also feel same.
Also to be honest, speed of the disk will also feel same *contrary to what Youtubers will say.
It is similarly fast across.
If you open Word file by 0.3 seconds faster, you will not notice any difference.

 

[joeblow7777]

I honestly wonder if that many people out in the real world notice or care whether it's "M3" or "M4".

There's no need to wonder. I guarantee you that most people do not. They have no idea what the latest chip is. When they're ready to buy a new computer they just buy what's available at the time in their price range.
I've seen polls that show that most people don't even know how much RAM their current computer has.

Believe me, most people don't know or care about specs. It's just a matter of, can it do what I need it to do? Is it fast? Can I afford it? For most people an M1 Macbook still meets those criteria, but if they can afford it, they'll probably buy whatever the latest model is.

 

[kiranmk2]

I honestly wonder if that many people out in the real world notice or care whether it's "M3" or "M4".

I suspect more of them will notice than you imagine. They might not understand the differences in performance and that they don't need the latest chip, but they will see that they are about to pay top dollar (>$1000) for a laptop that doesn't have the "latest" chip. As some above have pointed out, people either want the latest thing or the cheapest thing and now the M3 MBA is neither - the base model is over $1k but doesn't have the latest chip.

 

[ignatius345]

I suspect more of them will notice than you imagine. They might not understand the differences in performance and that they don't need the latest chip, but they will see that they are about to pay top dollar (>$1000) for a laptop that doesn't have the "latest" chip. As some above have pointed out, people either want the latest thing or the cheapest thing and now the M3 MBA is neither - the base model is over $1k but doesn't have the latest chip.

$1000 is not that much money to pay for a laptop and it's not even remotely "top dollar". The price of a base model MacBook, has been around $1K for like 15+ years now, even in the face of inflation. The real-world prices of Macs and computers in general has dropped precipitously.

You're making the mistake of assuming that what concerns tech hobbyists like you'll find on forums like this is the same as what concerns a regular user. Even an M1 MacBook at this point is plenty fast enough for a vast majority of what normal people do with their computers.

Classic example: I have a friend who uses a base model M1 Air to run her business. Zoom meetings, productivity software (most of it web-based) and email. The machine happily and smoothly tears through that stuff all day long, no slowdowns, no waiting -- and it does it with very generous battery life. She could upgrade to an M3 Air, but for what? So Zoom could open 1 or 2 seconds quicker? So her email attachments could load in slightly faster? An upgrade has to bring more to the table than "it's a little faster" to justify itself.

The last jump big enough to notice was from the Intel Airs to the M1s. And yes, there it was a very perceptible upgrade. That 2020 i5 Air (I had one) would choke and wheeze through a day's work, fans blazing, and you'd be lucky to get 5 hours out of the battery. The M1 Air made it look like a steaming pile of ****, immediately.

 

[DaveCummings]

I suspect more of them will notice than you imagine. They might not understand the differences in performance and that they don't need the latest chip, but they will see that they are about to pay top dollar (>$1000) for a laptop that doesn't have the "latest" chip. As some above have pointed out, people either want the latest thing or the cheapest thing and now the M3 MBA is neither - the base model is over $1k but doesn't have the latest chip.

Its not the latest chip, but IT IS the latest chip for their Macbooks.

 

[brilliantthings]

I suspect more of them will notice than you imagine. They might not understand the differences in performance and that they don't need the latest chip, but they will see that they are about to pay top dollar (>$1000) for a laptop that doesn't have the "latest" chip. As some above have pointed out, people either want the latest thing or the cheapest thing and now the M3 MBA is neither - the base model is over $1k but doesn't have the latest chip.

I don't think the chip even features in most people's decision making.

It's Apple, it's beautiful, it's new. It'll do the job well.

 

[BanjoDudeAhoy]

The last jump big enough to notice was from the Intel Airs to the M1s. And yes, there it was a very perceptible upgrade. That 2020 i5 Air (I had one) would choke and wheeze through a day's work, fans blazing, and you'd be lucky to get 5 hours out of the battery. The M1 Air made it look like a steaming pile of ****, immediately.

I had a 2020 i5 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
The M1 MBA base model easily outperformed the MBP in anything I could throw at it. I had not expected that at all. And while the MBP was loud and hot, the MBA stayed cool and (thanks to the lack of fans) silent.
The only “advantage” the i5 had was that I could use BootCamp on it.

I sold the MBP eventually because it was just sitting there, collecting dust while I’m using the MBA daily.

 

[ignatius345]

I had a 2020 i5 MBP with 16 GB of RAM.
The M1 MBA base model easily outperformed the MBP in anything I could throw at it. I had not expected that at all. And while the MBP was loud and hot, the MBA stayed cool and (thanks to the lack of fans) silent.
The only “advantage” the i5 had was that I could use BootCamp on it.

I sold the MBP eventually because it was just sitting there, collecting dust while I’m using the MBA daily.

Yeah, my 2020 i5 Air was much the same. I think at the time I thought it was good -- especially since I'd waited like 5 years between upgrades waiting for them to get rid of the butterfly keyboard.

But then I got hold my friend's M1 Air and used them side by side. I cued up one of those Apple Maps fly-through 3D animation things on each machine. They're kind of taxing because they render a 3D satellite view of the city and then pan and swoop through it. Anyway, my i5 Air struggled to get through it, dropping frames left and right, fans blasting. The M1 Air was dead silent and buttery smooth. I traded in the i5 soon after for an M1 and I'm still using it. I keep eyeing the M3 Airs because they look nice -- but honestly I just can't justify the upgrade unless my usage gets a lot more taxing somehow.

 

[Phonzoxd]

Im actually waiting on the M4 Air. Since m3 air came out in 2024, im afraid i need to wait until 2025 now, which is dumb like the OP is saying.

 

[bousozoku]

Given that most people don't care which processor is in there, as long as they can afford it, you have to wonder about the people who care.

Since so many complained that the M2 and M3 weren't the huge step-ups that they saw from Intel to M1, fewer people are interested in buying another computer. Plus, it's easy to see that none of them are truly slow.

My M1 MacBook Air is much faster than my quad-core i7 MacBook Pro and can't be used as a heater, which is good in the summer, bad in the winter.

Apple hasn't mentioned anything other than the iPad lines lately. It makes me wonder if they aren't ready to do anything else. Maybe, they're adding a Copilot-like key of their own.

 

[Howard2k]

I think it makes sense. The people who care the most about M3/M4/M5 are more likely to go to the Pro. I expect margins in the Pro are higher and there is possibly therefore some risk of cannibalization if they release the new chip in the Air first.

This also aligns with the iPad Air vs Pro approach.

 

[steve123]

Why has Apple done this? If the M4 was ready for an iPad Pro launch in April, why not launch the MBA with M4 at the same time (skipping the M3) and follow up with M4 Pro/Max MBPs in the Autumn when MacOS Sequoia launches?

Since the release of the M1 Apple has run into the consequences of adopting the bleeding edge of chip manufacturing process technology. TSMC's manufacturing capacity of a new process limits the number of chips that can be delivered to Apple during the initial production ramp. This manufacturing period is often referred to as the "yield ramp" and has a duration of several months until a steady state production rate is reached. The yield ramp is why we are seeing the lower volume products get the most recent chip sooner. Apple simply cannot get enough chips to meet demand for some products early in the yield ramp. For example, regarding M4, the iPP production volumes are much less than MBA. Apple could have skipped the M3 MBA and gone directly to M4 but there is not enough production volume available to support sales of the M4 MBA yet. We have seen this emerge with iPhone as well. The base model has a "mature" processor and the Pro models get the "emerging" (ie: ramping) processor.

 

[kiranmk2]

But it has been written about many times that the process that M3 is made on (N3B) is not sustainable for cost reasons and both Apple and TSMC want to get off it and move to the newer N3E process that the M4 chip is made on. If anything, it would be the M3 chip that is constrained in supply rather than the M4.

 

[steve123]

But it has been written about many times that the process that M3 is made on (N3B) is not sustainable for cost reasons and both Apple and TSMC want to get off it and move to the newer N3E process that the M4 chip is made on. If anything, it would be the M3 chip that is constrained in supply rather than the M4.

The M3 has gone through the yield ramp and is in full production so Apple can manufacture their dependent products. M4 production is just starting out and it will take a few months for it to reach full production. If Apple has no plans for new M4 based products then we might see an M4 MBA this fall. If ATV is going to get M4, which I think is a good bet, then the M4 MBA might be 2025.

 

[Mainsail]

I honestly wonder if that many people out in the real world notice or care whether it's "M3" or "M4".

That is exactly what I was going to say. I would venture to guess most of the MBA consumers have no idea what generation M series chip is in their computer. I doubt most iMac M3 owners are concerned about this either.

 

[ignatius345]

That is exactly what I was going to say. I would venture to guess most of the MBA consumers have no idea what generation M series chip is in their computer. I doubt most iMac M3 owners are concerned about this either.

Yeah, I'm using an M1 iMac here. Unlike my M1 MacBook Air, there's no visual "tell" that it's not the very newest machine because the exterior has not been redesigned.

In fact, MacBook Airs don't even have "MacBook Air" printed at the bottom of the screen like they used to. And
given that the design of MacBook Airs M2 and M3 are outwardly identical (as probably will be the M4), pretty safe bet that normal people will not give a crap about this.

 

[arcite]

Laptop sales in the industry are way down, so that’s probably why Apple is in no rush to push out new updates.

 

[Jonnod III]

Normal people who actually have lives couldn't care less about which M their laptop is. They either go for the latest or the cheapest.

Indeed, or one in-between.

 

[theluggage]

Has Apple just Osborne'd itself again?

Osborne actually announced a forthcoming model that you couldn't buy or order while people were still waiting to get their hands on the first model. Plus, that was in the 80s where an 18 month old computer was a doorstop and applications were always pushing the envelope of CPU and RAM capacity.

One critical difference is that Apple doesn't usually announce vapourware - when they announce a product it's usually available for order withing days and shipping within a few weeks (there are exceptions where they've pre-announced things, but usually with good reason - like getting developers on board). So while some potential MBA buyers may have figured "Aha - there must be a M3 Air coming soon" they did have the option of buying a shiny new M3 Pro MBP there and then. Likewise, the M4 iPad looks like it may be Osborning the M3 Macs... but it gives the iPad Pro a few months in the sun.

It cuts the other way, of course - when they launched the M2 MBA it sent the "M2 Pro, Max and Ultra coming soon" message to anybody thinking of buying a MBP or Studio.

Also, looking in a bit more detail, the advantages of a M3 Air were modest, the biggest relative step forward in performance from M2 to M3 was the M3 Max in the highest-end MacBook Pro (a whole new high-end chip with more performance cores c.f. the M2 Max which was just a M2 Pro with more GPU cores).

That said, it is frustrating that = although Apple are the #4 largest personal computer manufacturer - they always seem to have a couple of Mac products that are lagging a couple of generations behind (at the moment, the Mini and Studio). I think the problem may be that although Mac is a huge business by itself, the iPhone business still dwarfs it and gets priority (with a new flagship iPhone every September on the dot). A M3 Max Studio would have been an obvious system to make.

I suspect more of them will notice than you imagine.

Absolutely - they may not be obsessively scrutinising what analysts have to say about the launch date of the M5 Ludicrous, but "M2", "M3" and "M4" is right there in large friendly letters at the top of the web page, and everybody knows that M11 is one better than M10!

I wonder if Apple could have done better in naming the M-series processors. Currently, you get situations like the "M1 Max" being more powerful than the regular M2 - plus, you have to explicitly say "regular M2" or "M2 series" to make it clear what you are talking about. C.f. Intel which consistently leads with i3/i5/i7/i9 to refer to target market regardless of the chip generation and then appends a name/number with more information. That would work even better for Apple Silicon which doesn't have two dozen wildly different variations of mobile/desktop/GPU hiding under each i-number. Heck, they could have literally gone with "i4 = regular, i6 = Pro , i8 = Max, i10 = Ultra" if only for the pass-the-popcorn moment of Intel sung Apple for using "i" as a prefix...

$1000 is not that much money to pay for a laptop and it's not even remotely "top dollar". The price of a base model MacBook, has been around $1K for like 15+ years now, even in the face of inflation. The real-world prices of Macs and computers in general has dropped precipitously.

So? An Apple II in 1979 cost about the same number of dollarpounds as a Mac Mini in 2024 (although it did come with a keyboard...) ...which is completely irrelevant if you're shopping for a new computer in 2024 because every other computer system - in fact, pretty much all electronics and even "white goods" - have seen a similar phenomena. The expectation is that you'll get higher specs for the same price figure as 10 years ago. Food and property, conversely, have shot up. If you want to compare affordability you'll have to dig in to disposable income vs. inflation in the socio-economic groups that are buying computers. In practice, if you're shopping for property you're going to comparison-shop property, if you're shopping for a computer you'll comparison-shop computers.

A perfectly good PC laptop or Chromebook will set you back $300-$500, just as it did 10 years ago, and happily cope with your browsing, social media, email, word-processing and casual gaming. The MBA - at $1000-$1200 - is getting into "premium laptop"/"ultrabook" territory alongside Dell XPS, Lenovo ThinkPads and whatever HP are calling their ultrabook range at the moment. All of those companies also have a range of more affordable << $1000 laptops. Apple chooses not to have a dog in that race, but that doesn't stop the MBA being a premium-priced laptop.

Of course, diehard Apple super-fans will declare that anything that doesn't run MacOS is useless and irrelevant - but the reality is that 80% of the computing world happily uses PCs and they're mostly doing exactly the same sorts of thing that people do on their Macs. Personally, I prefer MacOS over Windows or Linux and am willing to pay some premium for that - but that isn't a bottomless pot of money.

 

[ignatius345]

That said, it is frustrating that = although Apple are the #4 largest personal computer manufacturer - they always seem to have a couple of Mac products that are lagging a couple of generations behind (at the moment, the Mini and Studio). I think the problem may be that although Mac is a huge business by itself, the iPhone business still dwarfs it and gets priority (with a new flagship iPhone every September on the dot).

Yep. I think this is exactly it. When you look at their quarterly results the Mac is a small portion (though still large in real world numbers). They don't break it down by product, but you have to assume the vast majority of those sales are MacBooks -- which of course are the most frequently updated Macs.

 

[steve123]

That said, it is frustrating that = although Apple are the #4 largest personal computer manufacturer - they always seem to have a couple of Mac products that are lagging a couple of generations behind (at the moment, the Mini and Studio). I think the problem may be that although Mac is a huge business by itself, the iPhone business still dwarfs it and gets priority (with a new flagship iPhone every September on the dot). A M3 Max Studio would have been an obvious system to make.

The other issue that affects Apple is supply. When Apple was working with Intel, their product announcements were dependent on when Intel could supply chips the way Apple specified them (power related packaging). Intel chose in later years to treat the relationship with Apple poorly and often delayed their supply of new chips to Apple. Apple's product roll outs are changing with the introduction of Apple Silicon and it appears they are trying to change the cadence to be more in sync with their chip supply similar to the iPhone. They are still affected by TSMC's ability to bring up a new process though but this affects iPhone as well as Mac. So, I think going forward Apple will address this issue but there is so much inertia behind the old way of doing things it is like turning the Titanic.