Quick Teardowns Offer First Look Inside 14 and 16-Inch MacBook Pro Models

[PBG4 Dude]

nvm

 

[maxsquared]

2 x WiFi + 1 x Bluetooth?

The MBA M1 only has 2 antenna connections though

 

[matrix07]

I can anecdotally attest to this, for those that are around me upgrading and tossing PCs, after a few years:

• Upgrades RAM, but the old ones are getting in the way either occupying precious slots, or isn’t the best clock speed or channels combination, or just doesn’t play well with the new ones incoming… conclusion, original ones go out, inert, potential waste. Nobody around wants to buy them either… they are buying the new ones too.
• Upgrades CPU to get the latest shiniest, old one goes through the same consequences.
• Upgrades CPU round 2: but this time it needs a new CPU slot, luckily the RAM and everything else is still compatible with the new motherboard.
• New GPU, but it uses double the wattage at 400 Watts… needs new PSU.
• So on and so forth.

Do this round a couple of times and the best that can happen is that the person ends up having at some point enough pieces to have a backup computer almost ready by adding a new case and dropping in some of the older components. I.e another computer and a few lonely pieces.

Upgrading doesn’t equal free of waste, especially when it is in the hand of the user (reselling a piece) and not a bigger entity with the capability take them back even if broken for disassembly and recycling.

Not to mention by the time we (I) want to upgrade there will be a new mainboard with new CPU with new RAM spec etc so.. you end up building the new one anyway.
And then with Windows the new one will started slowing down as time went on until you re-formatted HDD and re-installed fresh Windows and then it was back to be fast as new. The cycle repeated. I did a re-formatting/re-installing every 18 months until I realized it took too much time of my life so I bought a Mac and I ended up having plenty of time to.. do my works.

 

[Shirasaki]

Intel can't do this because they are still stuck in the past. They could have done more with Itanium, or some of the other innovative ships they came out with. They could have been a contender.

You know what's happening when Intel tried to push Itanium? No software support. Microsoft even developed the Itanium version of Windows Server 2003, Windows XP and maybe Windows Server 2008. Then, Intel are forced to go the x86-64 route. Apple can "leave stuff in the past" because Apple cares no backwards compatibility at all, and don't bother supporting "legacy" software within their macOS, including games. Btw, offering long term software updates is not the same of maintaining macOS compatibility with older software.

I scoffed at the idea, but Apple is almost to the point where you could have to pay a 'subscription' for their hardware. You 'rent' essentially, what you want. You want more memory? It'll be $x.xx more. You want more storage? It'll be $x.xx more.

Apple could've pulled the trigger years ago. Heck, they could've forced everyone buying iPhone 1 to subscribe to their devices from day 1. Apparently, Steve Jobs and other executives didn't think about that idea yet. But either way, Apple nowadays can definitely do it. This could lead to these benefits:
1. Apple gets to fully recycle one-year-old device with high-quality materials for next round of manufacture, "we are more greeeeeeeeeeen".
2. Developers would not need to bother about supporting old devices with limited power at all, simplifying design and development. And users will always get a very consistent experience.
3. Apple knows how many devices they want to manufacture, and can offer some interesting perks (AppleCare included with subscription. AppleOne at a reduced cost etc) to customers.
4. Repairing devices become practically pointless, and Apple won't need to "fight for anti-right-to-repair". They can also save operational costs as well.
What's lost? Customer at the end of the day owns no physical device, no personal data, and need to pay "rent" for life. Pretty much like current software subscription model, but more brutal.

 

[hans1972]

MS doesn't punch itself in the chest making so much noise for SOOOOO greenish aspirations. Nothing to say, it's just copied apple's approach, offering, say, a very niche product in terms of market share.

They certainly do, but it happens more toward company customers:

Microsoft Sustainability - Products for a Sustainable Future

Accelerate your sustainability progress with powerful data and AI capabilities, technology solutions, and resources from Microsoft.

www.microsoft.com

Empowering Customer Sustainability | Microsoft CSR

Discover how digital technology empowers Microsoft customers and partners to manage their environmental footprint and meet sustainability commitments.

www.microsoft.com

They are doing exactly the same thing as Apple.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

They certainly do, but it happens more toward company customers:

Microsoft Sustainability - Products for a Sustainable Future

Accelerate your sustainability progress with powerful data and AI capabilities, technology solutions, and resources from Microsoft.

www.microsoft.com

Empowering Customer Sustainability | Microsoft CSR

Discover how digital technology empowers Microsoft customers and partners to manage their environmental footprint and meet sustainability commitments.

www.microsoft.com

They are doing exactly the same thing as Apple.

But 'sustainability' isn't profitable. Washington Post ran an article about the 'dirty dozen' that are cheering on climate change. They are all profiting off of the contributing industries, and yet publicly cheering their efforts to save the environment. It's tragic, but money will be the downfall of humanity. Worthless pieces of paper...

 

[yitwail]

Apple could've pulled the trigger years ago. Heck, they could've forced everyone buying iPhone 1 to subscribe to their devices from day 1. Apparently, Steve Jobs and other executives didn't think about that idea yet. But either way, Apple nowadays can definitely do it.

AT&T maybe beat them to it with Next Up?

 

[Shirasaki]

AT&T maybe beat them to it with Next Up?

Idk. Don’t have any experience back in 2007.

 

[svish]

Interesting to see the inside of the new Pro Macbook. Looking forward to the full teardown from iFixit

 

[Mr. Incandenza]

VRM is much more compact despite being able to use 140 watts, I wonder if we’ll run into VRM overheating like the 16” MacBook or if they have that under control. It was so bad on my Intel 16”, it’d downclock so drastically.

 

[vysyus]

VRM is much more compact despite being able to use 140 watts, I wonder if we’ll run into VRM overheating like the 16” MacBook or if they have that under control. It was so bad on my Intel 16”, it’d downclock so drastically.

I sure hope not. Anything that taxed CPU and GPU at the same time on my Intel 16" was a guaranteed throttle due to VRM overheating even though I have the basic i7/5300M model.

 

[harshw]

VRM is much more compact despite being able to use 140 watts, I wonder if we’ll run into VRM overheating like the 16” MacBook or if they have that under control. It was so bad on my Intel 16”, it’d downclock so drastically.

Ryan Smith of Anandtech replied to my comment on throttling by stating that they have not seen throttling even on typical 'heavy' workloads.

 

[name99]

"really large" compared to what? An A15 maybe.
But look at the alternative: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+16-Inch+2019+Teardown/128106

Maybe I'm being fooled by scaling, but to me it looks like the Max is about the same size as the Intel chip (red), without also having to include the dGPU (yellow) (~same size) and the DRAM (orange) (rather larger than the M1 Max).