MacBook Pro Models Said to Start at 16GB RAM and 512GB Storage, Feature Upgraded 1080p Webcams and New Charging Brick

[unoporfavor]

With all of the component shortages, might be December 2022 (or 2023 if XBox and PS5 are any indicator). Although scalpers will probably have them available for $10K.

noooooooooooo please no

 

[Falhófnir]

Your argument presupposes that Apple actually views things the way you do and you know they do not.

The lowest price the new 14” MacBook Pro could possibly start at is $1799, 8c/4c M1X, 16 GPU cores, 16GB DRAM, 512GB SSD. The increase for the mini-LED will either be $100 or $200, meaning the low end 14” could start at $1999. It is well within reason Apple to charge an additional $200 for the larger screen size and $200 for the mini-LED with the same 8c/4c M1X, 16 GPU cores, 16GB DRAM, 512GB SSD Starting at $2399 minimum. The 32 GPU cores may come standard on the $2799 model as well as a 1TB SSD, just as Apple does now. At a minimum, Apple is going to charge an additional $400 for anyone to get the 16” and it won’t cost less than $2199, which even at that price I have to laugh, because Apple has held the line at $2399 since 2016.

The upside will be that both the 14” and the 16” will have a GPU equivalent to the current 5600M and an upgrade to something roughly twice as powerful in the 32-core GPU model. People here need to prepare themselves for a slight sticker shock, at lease with the 14” model.

So I’ll move the base 14” up to $1999 start and the base 16” back down to $2399 starting prices.

It has less to do with 'how I view things' and more to do with Apple's pattern of behaviour on pricing their products. What I am saying breaks down into two simple parts:

1. IF the two machines begin with identical specs, they are very likely to start with a $200 price difference.
2. I don't believe Apple will want to go north of $1,999 starting for the 14" as it leaves too much of a gap in the lineup.

I have already recognised the possibility that the base spec is not identical* between the two machines, and therefore the price could be more than $200, but that is irrelevant to the particular point I was making which, again, is that IF the two machines begin with identical specs, based on what Apple has done previously with MacBook Airs (+$100 in that case), and the current iPad Pros (+$200), they are very likely to start with no more than a $200 price difference.

*Most likely based on chip binning or GPU differences.

 

[Malus120]

People need to prepare themeselves for the 14in to be well over $2000. Apple knows well they can sell tons of those at $2300-2400 with M1X, mini-led, 120hz, 14.9 display, more ports etc. They won't leave that money on the table and the 16in (with the same internal specs) will be $2500 or probably more...

Indeed. While I'm excited about greater parity between the 13"(14") and 16" MBP's the bit about "Pricing will be similar between 14 and 16 inch," caught my attention. Just thinking about how well a 10 core CPU / 16-32 Core GPU M1X/M2 will likely perform, I'm definitely concerned we might have a "$599" sticker shock moment (Infamous PS3 price reveal E3 2006), where Apple feels it's justified in significantly increasing the price, particularly on the new 14" ("the best performance, the best screen, the lightest desktop replacement ever all for only.... $2499!")
In fact, looking again at the prices/configurations again, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple leaves the base M1 models as they are, and just introduces the 14" as a replacement for remaining Intel models with the price starting at... at least $1999+ (😞 🤮). I would really like to be pleasantly surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[WinterEmerald]

The M1 Mac doesn't use "magic" to use RAM more efficiently.

That's my point, people arguing that users with 64GB needs can get by on the 32GB because the M1/M1X will be THAT efficient are essentially expecting it to be magic, when it's just not going to be the case.

I largely agree that there is a difference between pro-sumers an actual professional editors. They are pretty niche use-cases though. What Mac rigs have you seen with these requirements that have been mobile?
Once upon a time we used to run servers doing pattern-matching and analytics with 100's of GB of memory. We actually had to pay extra licencing for it. Then the world of cloud came along and it's much cheaper to do it that way than forking out huge capital sums.

My point about the 200GB+ wasn't so much me expecting a MBP to have that, but it was more an argument to people in this thread who couldn't really believe someone needed more RAM than 32GB, though my point is also there are lots of professions, mine included, that need a lot more than 32GB. What I'm asking for is 64GB and considering the Intel MBPs had that, it's very fair to ask that their ARM M1X ones do as well. 64GB is not so niche, considering the amount of music producers who use Macs.

 

[ingambe]

People need to prepare themeselves for the 14in to be well over $2000. Apple knows well they can sell tons of those at $2300-2400 with M1X, mini-led, 120hz, 14.9 display, more ports etc. They won't leave that money on the table and the 16in (with the same internal specs) will be $2500 or probably more...

Not sure
At 1800$ I'm buying it, at 2000$ I will pass and wait until some sales discount

 

[lefkonj]

MagSafe has saved my laptops from falls countless times. I run an usb-c mbpro right now and I bought a magnetic charging cable after it pulled it off the desk the first time.

I suppose that if you use the laptop as immobile desktop replacement it doesn't matter, but I tend to move mine around. It's a portable device after all.

So if apple did a MagSafe USB-C charger you would be happy with that? Why go back to a unique cable and charger? It has zero benefit other than the magnetic part, which you fixed on your own. You know like the rest of Apple zombies who have lightning to USB-C and USB-C to HDMI and on and on

 

[garylapointe]

Why are people so sure the M1X is going to be so much more expensive than the current 16" Intel models?

The 512GB 13" MacBook Pro M1 came in at $200 less than the 512GB Intel model (same price if you compare 16GB to 16GB).

The 16" MBP Intel is more expensive than the 13" MBP Intel, but the processor starts a lot higher up (2.6GHz 6-core i7 versus 2.0Ghz quad-core i5) and has more RAM by default. A more powerful M1X is that speed bump, and they're not giving Intel a cut to do it.

Don't they want to be cheaper and better than Intel? Or at least the same price and better?

You can go more expensive, but you better be completely leaving it in the dust. Which might actually be the case with the hyperdrive screen effects for this event.

 

[ShowsOn]

That's my point, people arguing that users with 64GB needs can get by on the 32GB because the M1/M1X will be THAT efficient are essentially expecting it to be magic, when it's just not going to be the case.

You've never used an Apple silicon computer with 32 GB of RAM, so you don't know what it can and can't do.

 

[javisan]

Sounds amazing if true, but get ready to pay a significant premium for this 😆. It would be extremely un-Apple like to release what on paper is the perfect MacBook Pro at the same price point as the current generation.

And... I was right. Apple is so predictable. 😁

 

[unoporfavor]

That's my point, people arguing that users with 64GB needs can get by on the 32GB because the M1/M1X will be THAT efficient are essentially expecting it to be magic, when it's just not going to be the case.


My point about the 200GB+ wasn't so much me expecting a MBP to have that, but it was more an argument to people in this thread who couldn't really believe someone needed more RAM than 32GB, though my point is also there are lots of professions, mine included, that need a lot more than 32GB. What I'm asking for is 64GB and considering the Intel MBPs had that, it's very fair to ask that their ARM M1X ones do as well. 64GB is not so niche, considering the amount of music producers who use Macs.

Fair comment and I agree. I think expecting mobile computing to be on-par with enterprise-level niche use cases is probably not a common requirement BUT 32GB in this day and age is too small for a professional. Our biggest struggle is after generating huge files of TB's - how do you transfer and store them on some of these devices! Cheers ✌️

 

[Admiral]

Fair comment and I agree. I think expecting mobile computing to be on-par with enterprise-level niche use cases is probably not a common requirement BUT 32GB in this day and age is too small for a professional. Our biggest struggle is after generating huge files of TB's - how do you transfer and store them on some of these devices! Cheers ✌️

10GB Ethernet.

 

[unoporfavor]

10GB Ethernet.

Using the thunderbolt to ethernet 1Gb adapter yeh?
Even if that is updated perhaps you missed the part where the files are a TB+ and up to recently, you the MacBook's only supported 2TB.

 

[RobArtLyn]

Using the thunderbolt to ethernet 1Gb adapter yeh?
Even if that is updated perhaps you missed the part where the files are a TB+ and up to recently, you the MacBook's only supported 2TB.

There are third party TB 3 to 10GB Ethernet adapters.

 

[unoporfavor]

There are third party TB 3 to 10GB Ethernet adapters.

Yes I frequently use 10Gb but it relies on all components supporting 10Gb. Still a long transfer time (20 minutes+). Up until now it didn't 't help with the local storage restrictions either!