With rumors swirling about the return of a 12” MacBook (likely with the M3 generation), I thought I’d take a crack at working out what that could look like in greater detail. All the following assumptions are based on design similarity to the just launched 13.6” MacBook Air, as I think this is the most likely scenario.
Screen Size & Resolution
We already know the minimum width for a 12” MacBook, as the previous design was already as compact as possible while still accomodating a full-size keyboard. If we assume the same bezel width as the new Air to find the physical width of the display, then make a 16:10 aspect ratio, assume 224ppi (like the Air) and add 64px for the notch, the result is a 12.5” display with a resolution of 2352x1534. Any bigger seems unlikely as the gap to the Air is already just 1.1”.
Weight
The last 12” MacBook weighed 2.0 pounds. Assuming identical thickness and density to the new Air results in a weight of 2.3 pounds. This methodology isn’t completely accurate though, as the internal component that shrinks the most is the densest component: the battery. Therefore, I would guess 2.2 pounds. This is a little heavier than the old 12”, but to lose more weight is to lose more battery. Having said that, a more power efficient 3nm M3 might make downsizing to 2.0 pounds more palatable.
Performance
Seeing as we have 11” iPads that run the M1 well enough, I can’t see a 3nm M3 having meaningful thermal constraints in this form factor. I would expect all the same configuration options as the 13.6” Air and largely identical real-world performance, maybe slightly quicker to throttle on sustained workloads.
Price and Positioning
The above specs would make it in essence just a smaller Air, therefore it would make sense to price it slightly below. As the screen size difference is only an inch, I would guess it is only $100 cheaper for the same specs, rather than the $200 difference between the 14” and 16” Pros. The old 12” MacBook never dropped below $1,299 because Intel charged an arm and a leg for the Y-Series chips, and the terraced battery to fit the tapered design was also very costly. Many of the components here would be shared with the Air, with the major differences being display and battery (in both cases, smaller is usually cheaper).
Naming
“MacBook” could make sense if it becomes the new entry point of the lineup, but creates a weird situation (again) where its larger, heavier sibling is called “Air”. “MacBook mini” would mirror the relationship between the iPad mini and the iPad Air, but it could imply that it is weaker or less capable. Currently I am leaning towards it being lumped into the MacBook Air family. This is because I suspect the also rumoured 15” model will have some key differences that make it more deserving of its own moniker, either just “MacBook” or something new (eg. Studio?), as I believe it will effectively replace the 13” Pro as the “semi-pro” option, maintaining differentiators like an unbinned GPU as standard, active cooling, upward-firing speakers, etc.
Screen Size & Resolution
We already know the minimum width for a 12” MacBook, as the previous design was already as compact as possible while still accomodating a full-size keyboard. If we assume the same bezel width as the new Air to find the physical width of the display, then make a 16:10 aspect ratio, assume 224ppi (like the Air) and add 64px for the notch, the result is a 12.5” display with a resolution of 2352x1534. Any bigger seems unlikely as the gap to the Air is already just 1.1”.
Weight
The last 12” MacBook weighed 2.0 pounds. Assuming identical thickness and density to the new Air results in a weight of 2.3 pounds. This methodology isn’t completely accurate though, as the internal component that shrinks the most is the densest component: the battery. Therefore, I would guess 2.2 pounds. This is a little heavier than the old 12”, but to lose more weight is to lose more battery. Having said that, a more power efficient 3nm M3 might make downsizing to 2.0 pounds more palatable.
Performance
Seeing as we have 11” iPads that run the M1 well enough, I can’t see a 3nm M3 having meaningful thermal constraints in this form factor. I would expect all the same configuration options as the 13.6” Air and largely identical real-world performance, maybe slightly quicker to throttle on sustained workloads.
Price and Positioning
The above specs would make it in essence just a smaller Air, therefore it would make sense to price it slightly below. As the screen size difference is only an inch, I would guess it is only $100 cheaper for the same specs, rather than the $200 difference between the 14” and 16” Pros. The old 12” MacBook never dropped below $1,299 because Intel charged an arm and a leg for the Y-Series chips, and the terraced battery to fit the tapered design was also very costly. Many of the components here would be shared with the Air, with the major differences being display and battery (in both cases, smaller is usually cheaper).
Naming
“MacBook” could make sense if it becomes the new entry point of the lineup, but creates a weird situation (again) where its larger, heavier sibling is called “Air”. “MacBook mini” would mirror the relationship between the iPad mini and the iPad Air, but it could imply that it is weaker or less capable. Currently I am leaning towards it being lumped into the MacBook Air family. This is because I suspect the also rumoured 15” model will have some key differences that make it more deserving of its own moniker, either just “MacBook” or something new (eg. Studio?), as I believe it will effectively replace the 13” Pro as the “semi-pro” option, maintaining differentiators like an unbinned GPU as standard, active cooling, upward-firing speakers, etc.
Last edited:
