I've said this before, but I'm pretty convinced that at some point during the M2 Air and 13" Pro development, someone realised that the base versions of both M1 variants, but especially the Air, had been just too good.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
the air gates are here.
- Thread starter fisherking
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea actually just noticing how light and thin the M1 was, gonna be a keeper!!
On that note I am usually using over 9gb ram already just with office work, so seems 16gb indeed the way to go for leaving a bit of headroom!!
Not sure it works like that; I don't think there's ever headroom unless you have >128GB. MacOS just finds a way to fill the available space. My Studio has 32GB, and apparently most of it is still used up while I'm doing barely anything, according to the graphs. Yet in the real world, the actual performance I experience when doing said barely anything is no different than my 8GB M1 Air. Sure there are times I notice it engage warp drive and show me where my three grand went, but most the time the experience of using both the 8/8/512GB MBA and 32/32/2TB Studio Max is similar.
can you post your sources for this? because just saying something does not make it true..
I saw the Midnight M2 Air at the Apple Store last night, and even though it was covered with an insane amount of manhandled fingerprints, it's still a gorgeous color if you're a fan of dark blue. They wipe off very easily.
As for the SSD, perhaps it was more of a supply thing than a deliberate cost-cutting measure. While I wish Apple would have left the price at $999, or equiped the $1199 base model with 512GB SSD as a workaround, I think this is being blown out of proportion and most people will never feel a hit in performance.
Also, I cannot imagine having a MacBook with only 256GB of storage. Real world capacity after formatting, macOS's footprint, updates, and the growing size of apps, photos and videos (even if most are in the cloud), not to mention the need for available space for OS upgrades, 256GB is just not enough in my view. But, to each their own.
As for the SSD, perhaps it was more of a supply thing than a deliberate cost-cutting measure. While I wish Apple would have left the price at $999, or equiped the $1199 base model with 512GB SSD as a workaround, I think this is being blown out of proportion and most people will never feel a hit in performance.
Also, I cannot imagine having a MacBook with only 256GB of storage. Real world capacity after formatting, macOS's footprint, updates, and the growing size of apps, photos and videos (even if most are in the cloud), not to mention the need for available space for OS upgrades, 256GB is just not enough in my view. But, to each their own.
i lived 6 years on a 256g macbook (it's being replaced next week by an M2 air). to be fair, i archive a lot of old files to an external drive. and i don't keep movies on it (streaming!) or much music (spotify!). had 150gb available when it died last week 👍
so, easy enough to store non-essential or archived files elsewhere, but definitely... drive size depends on one's usage.
Yes, that's exactly it, one's personal usage. For me, my 16" MacBook Pro is my work Mac, and my M2 Air will be my thin and light 'everything else' Mac, which will include all my music, photos, videos, and so on. I like my iCloud docs and messages to be synced and 'on my Mac' at all times as well, so I opted for the 2TB option.
i do my 'heavy lifting' (logic pro, final cut) on an imac, so yeah... email, notes, writing, some webwork, etc on the air. it will be great...
So you are telling me, that the speed drop from moving to one NAND chip came from Apple’s goodness?
how about supply chain? It's easy to say 'well they still make the M1 with two 128's' but we don't know how many of those they already had in inventory ready to ship... or chips for that and rather then be inconsistent just reserved what they did have for the M1 and went a different way for the M2. can you imagine the result otherwise?
but sure keep on beating the greed drum. shrugs. Doesn't really matter what we think, all that matters is what we can buy (or decide not to).
Or, and I hate to add to conspiracy theories, the M1 was the gateway drug. It HAD to be great right out of the gate to convince people the switch to AS was the right move. Now, 2 years later, they can go back to their standard 'good enough' ways. Apple has always been about the user experience, not specifications, and balancing off the trade offs to have an overall good experience. I respect that.
i didn't say anything at all like that. i asked you to explain where you got your info. can you give us the source for your comment? or is it just your opinion...
'someone realised'... 'too good'. am sure that's exactly how conversation at apple go... 🙄
so you made your statement based on supposition and guessing. it's ok to say that...
It's an opinion and founded on the fact that there is no shortage of 128GB NAND chips. Hence, no real reason for Apple to deliberately gimped the speeds of both the MBA and MBP. Apple knew people would benchmark their machines and knew that once those numbers were out, people would be more so inclined to buy an upgrade for a higher spec machine they likely wouldn't need.
Are you really going to fall for that? There are no reports of NAND chips shortages. There is no reason within the supply chain that will explain such drop.
Are you serious? its actually been well documented about a huge shortage after major contamination in two plants in Japan. About 7 Billion gigabytes lost, plus the regular supply constraints of the pandemic.
Do you just randomly blurt things out with zero research or anything?
You mean the exabytes? yeah that was ages ago in tech terms and did not affect Apple as this was WD's factories.
It's someone's imagination, I reckon: https://www.archynewsy.com/ssd-chip...-of-kioxia-factory-engadget-japanese-version/
ok. just as all of that is your opinion, since there is nothing in your post that comes from legitimate sources. it sounds more conspiracy theory than realistic theory. of course, you can believe what you want...
i never said that. you keep asking me to confirm things i did not say. perhaps a better idea would be to validate the very things you're saying...
The other posted stated as much. Therefore, it stands to assume that they think that the 7 exabytes lost lead to this. Therefore, if you argue with them, you have to provide evidence or it's just your opinion as well.