MBP 16 2021 - Size, the Elephant in the Room

[orthorim]

I already bought it, so that's not so much a whining thread, but I am curious - I don't understand how this is so big?!

In theory the M1 Pro / Max SOC with memory should be a smaller motherboard than the Intel ones.

There's some more connectors... same battery... but this is the biggest mac I'v had since the 17" unibody. It's thick. Wide. Tall.

I think I would feel better if I knew why it had to be so enormous. Did Apple suddenly decide that bigger is better? It does feel good on the hands and so on. Does the keyboard have more range?

Everyone who sees it is shocked as to how big it is....

 

[ingambe]

I don't understand why people found this to be big?
It's the same size as the old MacBook pro 15' and it's smaller than a lot of 15' PC

My main complain would be that it is heavy, but at some point if you want battery life and power, you have no choice

 

[Kanos96]

I do not fully understand the question. 2 of the 3 dimensions are basically fully determined by the screen size, which has smaller bezels than before, so the only difference is that its a little bit thicker. I think its main difference in looks is due to the non-tapered chassis and round edges.

 

[orthorim]

Alright I guess a friend of mine explained it best - it's a decision to go for big / heavy tradeoffs due to the fact that pros will want that. Pros don't mind it's bigger if it's more powerful.


Only the 15" Macbook Air is missing in the lineup to fill the gap that I want, a thin / light M1 or M2 laptop.

Thanks for the other posts too, I guess a lot of the size comes down to appearance, where it's not bigger than the 15" but looks bigger.

I've got 10 CPU cores so whatever, I am happy

I am digging the retro style too.

 

[Nismo73]

I was shocked with how enormous it wasn’t with how everyone was saying it was enormous.

 

[McScooby]

Can't be bigger or heavier than the behemoth that was the 17", all is good I suspect.

 

[rawweb]

It's not *that* much thicker than the previous generation 16". The previous generation had the illusion of thin with it's tapered design. The most noticeable difference is the display. They had to put all of them fancy XDR parts somewhere.

 

[playtech1]

I think the reason why the 16 inch is quite a chunky beast is because the 14 inch Max needed to be less svelte to fit enough battery inside it. Then the 16 inch design follows that.

Or maybe Apple just decided thick is the new thin?

 

[Fishrrman]

OP:
"Only the 15" Macbook Air is missing in the lineup to fill the gap that I want, a thin / light M1 or M2 laptop."

Just another dumb ol' Fishrrman question, but...

If you wanted "thin / light", then why did you buy a 16" size laptop?

 

[u_int16]

If you place the machine side by side with a last-gen device you can start splitting up the “dimension gains” and maybe make a guess.

1: the display is way thicker.
2: the body is a tiny bit thicker.
3: the feet are thicker.

1: xdr.
2: ? I have no idea. I think your question is valid ?
3: the old feet wore down/you need the clearance to pick up the less tapered edges from a table.

If I had to guess at 2 from thin air:

It was made more repairable/cheaper to assemble at the cost of thickness. Or maybe because of the larger keyboard travel.

 

[ascender]

I'm guessing part of the size of both the 14" and 16" will be down to thermals and getting enough space to fit an appropriate sized batter etc.

Also, its been a common theme over the last 5 years that the technical community have been asking Apple to stop trying to make things thinner and lighter (laptops and iPhones in particular) - they seem to be listening to us.

 

[rawweb]

If you place the machine side by side with a last-gen device ...

See post #7

 

[metapunk2077fail]

It's more portable than the PowerBook G4s and people used to rave how they made Windows laptops look fat.

 

[McScooby]

Also, its been a common theme over the last 5 years that the technical community have been asking Apple to stop trying to make things thinner and lighter (laptops and iPhones in particular) - they seem to be listening to us.

Whereas a more common theme in the last 10 years has been logic board & gfx card failures, Apple only listen to the bottom line.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

If you place the machine side by side with a last-gen device you can start splitting up the “dimension gains” and maybe make a guess.

1: the display is way thicker.
2: the body is a tiny bit thicker.
3: the feet are thicker.

1: xdr.
2: ? I have no idea. I think your question is valid ?
3: the old feet wore down/you need the clearance to pick up the less tapered edges from a table.

If I had to guess at 2 from thin air:

It was made more repairable/cheaper to assemble at the cost of thickness. Or maybe because of the larger keyboard travel.

The reason the body looks so much thicker is the edge taper from the 2016-2019 models has been eliminated. The display edges taper down and the body tapers up giving the svelte look around the edge of the 2016-2019 MBP.

 

[fa8362]

I already bought it, so that's not so much a whining thread, but I am curious - I don't understand how this is so big?!

In theory the M1 Pro / Max SOC with memory should be a smaller motherboard than the Intel ones.

There's some more connectors... same battery... but this is the biggest mac I'v had since the 17" unibody. It's thick. Wide. Tall.

I think I would feel better if I knew why it had to be so enormous. Did Apple suddenly decide that bigger is better? It does feel good on the hands and so on. Does the keyboard have more range?

Everyone who sees it is shocked as to how big it is....

I disagree. To me, the size is nothing. People who want a 13-14" size should just buy a 13-14" laptop.

 

[u_int16]

See post #7

Ye. Thats where I got my estimates for “way thicker” and stuff from. Handy!

 

[bill-p]

Just another dumb ol' Fishrrman question, but...

If you wanted "thin / light", then why did you buy a 16" size laptop?

So while this is not what I personally want, there is a market for this.

See: the LG Gram 16. It's 16". It's lighter than even the MacBook Air.

So again, there is a market for this.

 

[bill-p]

I already bought it, so that's not so much a whining thread, but I am curious - I don't understand how this is so big?!

I have thought about it, and the answer that I arrived at was that... the new MacBooks are this big because Apple needs this much room for the much improved thermals.

"But ARM should not generate this much heat", you say?

That's true of ARM chips made for phones and tablets, but the ones in these new MacBooks were made to compete against high-performing laptops in the world today, as well as some midrange desktop computers.

In order to cleanly match or beat those laptops, these chips have to run hot. The M1 Pro draws basically almost the same amount of power as the Intel chips it replaced. Granted, it also provides something like 3-5x the graphics performance, but it's still a hot chip nonetheless. The M1 Max also basically matches the Intel chip it replaced (Core i7 or Core i9) from last generation, granted without the overhead of the dedicated GPU taking up an extra 50% power draw under max load.

So from my perspective, the M1 Pro/Max chips at full load are basically a match for the chips they replaced, and yet, under idle and light load, the fans barely have to turn on. That's all thanks to the chassis. If these chips were shoved into the same chassis as the last generation's, I have no doubt the fans will have to turn on more often and be much louder.

And yet despite these thicker bodies, you have no doubt already read about people complaining about "fan noise" in the 14", as well as "heat" from either 14" or 16" with M1 Max. That's the price we have to pay for performance.

P.S.: as an aside, despite me knowing about 16" laptops that actually weigh even less than the MacBook Air, I still choose a 14" M1 Pro as my main personal computer. It's not so much that I wanted a thin/light computer, but that I wanted a MacBook with more performance than whatever M1 and the last generation 16" MacBook could give me. It's icing on the cake that I get that... in the form of the 14" M1 Pro. I have tried 16" M1 Max as well and that is just way too overkill for my workflow. The M1 Pro is just right, and I don't think I'll want/need more for a long while.

 

[polyphenol]

It's not *that* much thicker than the previous generation 16". The previous generation had the illusion of thin with it's tapered design. The most noticeable difference is the display. They had to put all of them fancy XDR parts somewhere.

View attachment 1924420

Not familiar enough with the previous 16", but if you do the same with the older 15", the slope of the lid initially makes the new 16" look thicker. But if you lie a ruler across, it is slightly thinner. And that is despite the rubber feet seeming more prominent.

 

[Sluchbox]

OP:
"Only the 15" Macbook Air is missing in the lineup to fill the gap that I want, a thin / light M1 or M2 laptop."

Just another dumb ol' Fishrrman question, but...

If you wanted "thin / light", then why did you buy a 16" size laptop?

Because he wants a large display.

 

[mouthster]

I've yet to hear the fans, so I'll take the extra weight. My work-issued 2019 15" MBP sounds like a blow dryer on a zoom call and the case creaks and moans like it has arthritis when I pick it up.

 

[Fatus_Asticus]

I looked hard at all the options and ended up going with the 16 inch m1 pro because the size isn't that much different while the screen real estate you gain is well worth the trade off in size.

I had a MBA m1 before and while I love how small and light it feels the screen sucks. The colors are washed out, its small and while I could work like a peasant on that tiny screen it is far from ideal. The 14 inch is hardly any bigger. Don't even get me started on the 13 pro because that thing shouldn't even exist. So that left the 16 inch.

When I put them on top of each other they aren't that much different is thickness. Yes the 16 inch is heavier, is that optimal? No, but its not a significant weight since I use it on a desk or my lap. If I had to hold it in my hand the whole time I'd be on an iPad.

Yes, its a couple of inches deeper, mostly because of that screen and that extra chases space gives awesome cooling and is packed full with battery cells for amazing battery life.

I just couldn't see myself settling for the 14. The differences weren't that massive.

 

[darkus]

I think the reason why the 16 inch is quite a chunky beast is because the 14 inch Max needed to be less svelte to fit enough battery inside it. Then the 16 inch design follows that.

Or maybe Apple just decided thick is the new thin?

Apple TV remote now this. There might be a pattern. I’m down right scared for the next iPad ?

 

[orthorim]

It's not *that* much thicker than the previous generation 16". The previous generation had the illusion of thin with it's tapered design. The most noticeable difference is the display. They had to put all of them fancy XDR parts somewhere.

Yes!! It's _mostly_ the XDR display, actually. So I guess I should have paid more attention to that!

I think this truly answers the question "why".


The body thickness are actually all around improvements: Keeping massive battery for ridiculous battery life under normal loads - I like. Even better keyboard - amazing. Solid feel on the hands. Love it. Bigger feet - foregoing looks for functionality, I really, really like that too. It's a work beast. It should be functional first, beautiful second, and thin last.

So the lower body has a marginal increase in thickness that is 100% warranted and desired as I am concerned. All great trade-offs!

The display - that's what did me in. I did not realize the fanciful nature of the XDR display - but if you look at the Apple pro XDR display, that thing is massive with crazy cooling on it.

So this display must be much thicker, I assume it also uses potentially a lot more power, since it gets warm to the touch.

I never had a laptop where the display on its own gets warm to the touch, while the entire lower body is cool. (fans have never come on so far, nothing even got warm).

So yes, XDR display is thicker, gets warmer, and uses more power than the displays before. It's also drop dead gorgeous.

I was watching a TV series yesterday - the wheel of time - blew my mind how good this show looked.

It's hard to overstate how good this display really is - you can't see it online.