New 14”/16” MacBook Pros to cost approx. $100 more?

[satchmo]

The new iPad Pro 12.9” with new mini-LED display, received a price increase of about $100 usd.

Now the MBP’s would also have new mini-LEDs but with the addition of new M1X chips. Do we think it will jump approx. the same or more?

 

[skaertus]

The new iPad Pro 12.9” with new mini-LED display, received a price increase of about $100 usd.

Now the MBP’s would also have new mini-LEDs but with the addition of new M1X chips. Do we think it will jump approx. the same or more?

If Apple is removing the TouchBar, it could well cost $100 less, as it was reportedly one of the causes of a price hike when it was introduced back in 2016.

 

[VaruLV]

If Apple is removing the TouchBar, it could well cost $100 less, as it was reportedly one of the causes of a price hike when it was introduced back in 2016.

Knowing Apple they will find a way to keep the price the same, at least for their "pro" range devices.
After all, iPP 12.9 got 100$ price hike due to mini LED's, at best, starting prices for Macbooks with miniLED will stay the same as before even if touch bar is being dropped.

 

[skaertus]

Knowing Apple they will find a way to keep the price the same, at least for their "pro" range devices.
After all, iPP 12.9 got 100$ price hike due to mini LED's, at best, starting prices for Macbooks with miniLED will stay the same as before even if touch bar is being dropped.

I am pretty sure that Apple, being Apple, will find a way to raise the prices.

 

[thekev]

Knowing Apple they will find a way to keep the price the same, at least for their "pro" range devices.
After all, iPP 12.9 got 100$ price hike due to mini LED's, at best, starting prices for Macbooks with miniLED will stay the same as before even if touch bar is being dropped.

That may or may not be the reason for the price increase. Apple may have planned on raising prices anyway and just aligned that with a change in hardware. They don't actually tell you these things.

 

[arche3]

I am pretty sure that Apple, being Apple, will find a way to raise the prices.

Lol. Agree. They are not dropping prices. Silly rabbits.

 

[UBS28]

It is not even certain if they get mini-LED. Rumours are that it will come for next years model due to supply shortages.

 

[MacBird]

The in-house M processors should be cheaper than Intel versions, too, but I don't think Apple is going to lower prices, regardless of mini-LED and/or removal of Touch Bar.

 

[skaertus]

The in-house M processors should be cheaper than Intel versions, too, but I don't think Apple is going to lower prices, regardless of mini-LED and/or removal of Touch Bar.

Yes, this is it. Apple is probably losing a huge opportunity to take over the PC market, but it probably does not care as it will keep higher margins.

 

[nylon]

The in-house M processors should be cheaper than Intel versions, too, but I don't think Apple is going to lower prices, regardless of mini-LED and/or removal of Touch Bar.

Significantly cheaper CPU's vs Intel and Touch Bar removal is also a significant savings. Question is whether they will pass any savings onto the customer or just use it to increase their profitability. If they price it right, they can lower prices for the consumer and increase profitability at the same time.

 

[LogicalApex]

Significantly cheaper CPU's vs Intel and Touch Bar removal is also a significant savings. Question is whether they will pass any savings onto the customer or just use it to increase their profitability. If they price it right, they can lower prices for the consumer and increase profitability at the same time.

They are still having supply shortages showing that they are still not at peak demand for their products (yes there is some impact also from the industry wide component shortages). as a result, I doubt we'll see Apple lowering any prices. They will likely push them up and cite the chip shortage as the need.

 

[Falhófnir]

Well currently there's a gap of $600 between the 13" 4 port model, and the 16", that's a lot if they're going to become much closer in internal design and performance. But who knows whether that gap is closed by the 14" getting more expensive, the 16" getting cheaper (sounds crazy, but then if Apple can just delete the dGPU because of the SoC approach that's quite a big saving?) or a combination of both (or Apple just deciding it's worked up til now and they aren't changing the prices). As a median scenario how about this:

14" starting $1,999 - same specs as now, 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM. 16 core GPU
16" starting $2,299 - Same specs again, 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM. 32 core GPU

In the above scenario the bigger screen represents a $100 increase as was the case with the identical MacBook Air 11" and 13", while the GPU makes up the remaining $200. Apple saves on the 16" by removing the Touch Bar, and dropping the dGPU for their simpler SoC design.

Then again Apple don't sell themselves short, and these machines could well be more or less peerless on the market so they might think they can charge just about whatever they want for them, in which case $2,899 and $2,999 isn't unthinkable (adjusting for inflation, that's still no more than the 17" MacBook Pro in 2011).

 

[portland-dude]

Significantly cheaper CPU's vs Intel and Touch Bar removal is also a significant savings. Question is whether they will pass any savings onto the customer or just use it to increase their profitability. If they price it right, they can lower prices for the consumer and increase profitability at the same time.

Why is it even a question. Of course they won't.

 

[scoobysnax]

My pricing thoughts (which are absolutely worthless):

14” - $1799 for base model (512gb); $1999 for high end (1TB) - same pricing as current 13” four port model
16” - $2299 for base model (512gb); $2599 for high end(1TB)

 

[skaertus]

Well currently there's a gap of $600 between the 13" 4 port model, and the 16", that's a lot if they're going to become much closer in internal design and performance. But who knows whether that gap is closed by the 14" getting more expensive, the 16" getting cheaper (sounds crazy, but then if Apple can just delete the dGPU because of the SoC approach that's quite a big saving?) or a combination of both (or Apple just deciding it's worked up til now and they aren't changing the prices). As a median scenario how about this:

14" starting $1,999 - same specs as now, 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM. 16 core GPU
16" starting $2,299 - Same specs again, 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM. 32 core GPU

In the above scenario the bigger screen represents a $100 increase as was the case with the identical MacBook Air 11" and 13", while the GPU makes up the remaining $200. Apple saves on the 16" by removing the Touch Bar, and dropping the dGPU for their simpler SoC design.

Then again Apple don't sell themselves short, and these machines could well be more or less peerless on the market so they might think they can charge just about whatever they want for them, in which case $2,899 and $2,999 isn't unthinkable (adjusting for inflation, that's still no more than the 17" MacBook Pro in 2011).

Not going to happen. The price difference would be too small for a larger screen and double core GPU count. Also too expensive given that the 13-inch M1 MacBook Pro costs $1499.

 

[skaertus]

My pricing thoughts (which are absolutely worthless):

14” - $1799 for base model (512gb); $1999 for high end (1TB) - same pricing as current 13” four port model
16” - $2299 for base model (512gb); $2599 for high end(1TB)

I think Apple will merge the MacBook Air and the lower-end 13-inch MacBook Pro in a single product with a base model costing around $999 to $1199. The higher-end 14-inch laptop could cost $1499 to $1799 (the base model) and the 16-inch model could cost somewhere from $2299 to $2499 (also base model). I think it would be more realistic and consistent with Apple's current pricing.

 

[Falhófnir]

Not going to happen. The price difference would be too small for a larger screen and double core GPU count. Also too expensive given that the 13-inch M1 MacBook Pro costs $1499.

Larger screen alone is usually a +$100 modifier all else being equal. The only direct parallel would be the old 11/13" MacBook Airs, as the 13/15" MacBook Pros have never been equivalent despite being under the same brand.

GPU is difficult to say, $200 is the blanket cost for double RAM, double SSD or i5 to i7 (at least when looking at base model to next step up, it does go up for the really high BTO options). Another uncertainty is whether the 16" Actually will start with the 32 core GPU, or if there will be a 16 core option below it. In the latter case I could perhaps see $1,899 for the 14" and $1,999 for the 16". The last 15" MacBook Pro without a dedicated GPU came in at that price, and if the base 16" is just a 14" but stretched, there's no reason it shouldn't come in at a similar price.

 

[skaertus]

Larger screen alone is usually a +$100 modifier all else being equal. The only direct parallel would be the old 11/13" MacBook Airs, as the 13/15" MacBook Pros have never been equivalent despite being under the same brand.

GPU is difficult to say, $200 is the blanket cost for double RAM, double SSD or i5 to i7 (at least when looking at base model to next step up, it does go up for the really high BTO options). Another uncertainty is whether the 16" Actually will start with the 32 core GPU, or if there will be a 16 core option below it. In the latter case I could perhaps see $1,899 for the 14" and $1,999 for the 16". The last 15" MacBook Pro without a dedicated GPU came in at that price, and if the base 16" is just a 14" but stretched, there's no reason it shouldn't come in at a similar price.

I would say that screen size would account for some $200 difference, given that this is the gap between the 11-inch and the 12.9-inch iPad Pro (prior to the latter adopting mini LED displays).

 

[richinaus]

My personal feel on all this is keep pricing competitive against the pro machines that are coming out from HP / Lenovo / Dell and make them as good as possible.

Hopefully they nail the GPU performance on both 14 and 16 as this is where the M1 is currently lacking the most.

 

[arche3]

They can't come out with an apple silicon gpu that is the same or inferior to the current 5600m. That would be lame. They need to double the power. Otherwise what's the point. A new pro machine that is same spec as a 2 year old machine. Lame.

 

[richinaus]

They can't come out with an apple silicon gpu that is the same or inferior to the current 5600m. That would be lame. They need to double the power. Otherwise what's the point. A new pro machine that is same spec as a 2 year old machine. Lame.

Yep. If they do it’s the end of me and pro macs.
They need to be hitting 3060 levels in the 16” as an absolute minimum.

 

[Falhófnir]

Yep. If they do it’s the end of me and pro macs.
They need to be hitting 3060 levels in the 16” as an absolute minimum.

It seems the 3060 is right around the 3x more powerful mark vs the 1050 Ti (which is the card I see the M1's performance compared to). With quadrupling the core count to 32, though it's bound not to be as simple as 4x the cores 4x the performance, I guess you'd hope you could hit at least 3x.