Why is the 16 inch almost double the price of a 13 inch?

[gpat]

Its not double the price from high end 13 to low end 16.

AU3600 I7 13” AU $3800 I7 16”. WTF is this thread about exactly?

And the 16” makes a lot of sense still to me. A 13” is unusable on a desk for my use.

Why are you even taking the Intel 13" in the equation?
This is an Intel to ARM comparison.
In my specific usecase, I went from 16" i7 Pro to 13" M1 Air. That would be $2399 vs. $1449 for the same SSD/RAM configuration. Not double the price but still $950 less.
Power is about on the same level, also far more battery runtime and better thermals and portability.
Long-term support, we all know how it's gonna be.
Sure, the screen is smaller, and that's actually bothersome for me.
But if you're running a desktop setup, you have plenty of cash left for an external monitor.

 

[richinaus]

Why are you even taking the Intel 13" in the equation?
This is an Intel to ARM comparison.
In my specific usecase, I went from 16" i7 Pro to 13" M1 Air. That would be $2399 vs. $1449 for the same SSD/RAM configuration. Not double the price but still $950 less.
Power is about on the same level, also far more battery runtime and better thermals and portability.
Long-term support, we all know how it's gonna be.
Sure, the screen is smaller, and that's actually bothersome for me.
But if you're running a desktop setup, you have plenty of cash left for an external monitor.

the reasons I have kept the 16” are as follows [but yes it cost a lot] :

Dgpu [5600m] for apps that use it [apps that dont even work on the M1]
32gb ram - always using around 26gb
16” screen so I dont have to use a monitor [I have a desktop for that]
Bootcamp
Egpu
apps all supported.

If anyone is using just Apple apps or now native M1 apps, I 100% support buying an M1 Macbook, it is a no brainer.
But if you need anything I list above, the 16“ 5600m is the best option still.

Price is irrelevant if you need what I list.

 

[hallux]

Why are you even taking the Intel 13" in the equation?

I did that in post 12, and if you read my post you'll see why.

Until the M1 was released Apple had 2 Intel 13" MBP's - one with two TB3 ports and one with four (among other differences), a low end and a high end. The M1 appears, to start, to be positioned to replace the one with two TB3 ports.

Sure - if you want to compare low-end to low-end comparing the base 16" to the M1 might be appropriate but I don't think many people shopped the base 16" against the 13" with two TB3 ports. That's why I compared the price of the remaining Intel 13" against the 16".

For my wants the 16" Intel was the choice, as it turns out. There is still. a market for them, but everyone needs to make their own decision rather than someone else making a blanket statement to not consider them at all.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

The only thing the 16'' has going for it is screen real estate and speaker sound quality.

And display quality, more memory, better GPU performance, eGPU support and better software support.

 

[richinaus]

And display quality, more memory, better GPU performance, eGPU support and better software support.

some people simply don't seem to get this, as they are obviously just using an M1 with mac apps and are in a happy place.
I am jealous to be honest !

 

[russell_314]

Bad analogy IMO. The 3090 is way more of a niche product than a 16" MBP. It's more like the Mac Pro desktop or XDR 32" display of the nVidia lineup.
The thread asks why is the 16" sold as double price compared to the 13", and the answer is simple.
It has to be that price in order to guard that spot in the lineup, even if it's based on outdated technology.
And also because it's still more expensive to make, since Apple has to get the CPU from Intel and the GPU from AMD.
And yes, it still makes little sense to get a 16" today from an end-user standpoint.
I'm suffering from the reduced screen space but still this transition made all the sense in the world.

The 3090 is no niche product. It's Nvidia's top end graphics card for gamers. Yes I know it has other uses but that's not what the vast majority of the cards are being used for.

Apple keeping the price isn't about guarding a spot. Just because there is new technology coming out doesn't mean the price is going to go way down. Unless the new tech drives the price of the current tech down it's not going to change and I'm sure nothing in that computer has become cheaper for them. If that was the case the price of all Windows laptops would have tanked.

As to people transitioning to a 13" MacBook from the 16" it only makes sense if you can't wait the year for the new 16". People keep forgetting the current 13" M1 MacBook Pro is the replacement for the two port Intel MacBook Pro. That was lowest tier of the smallest MacBook Pro that didn't even deserve the Pro name. I think so many people will be upset and complaining in these forums about how they're stuck with a low end weak MacBook once the new higher end models are released.

 

[russell_314]

After watching this extremely helpful video, I will definitely take your advice.

The 13'' M1 totally blew the 16'' Intel out of the water. The only thing the 16'' has going for it is screen real estate and speaker sound quality.

As I said in the post above don't think of this M1 MacBook Pro as a replacement for anything other than the bottom end MacBook Pro. If you need to buy a MacBook Pro now then buy it but when the higher end models are released it won't look as good. If you're workload currently is using a higher end MacBook wait for the higher end M1 models to be released if possible. Of course expect them to have the price tag associated with the higher end models as well.

 

[richinaus]

The 3090 is no niche product. It's Nvidia's top end graphics card for gamers. Yes I know it has other uses but that's not what the vast majority of the cards are being used for.

Apple keeping the price isn't about guarding a spot. Just because there is new technology coming out doesn't mean the price is going to go way down. Unless the new tech drives the price of the current tech down it's not going to change and I'm sure nothing in that computer has become cheaper for them. If that was the case the price of all Windows laptops would have tanked.

As to people transitioning to a 13" MacBook from the 16" it only makes sense if you can't wait the year for the new 16". People keep forgetting the current 13" M1 MacBook Pro is the replacement for the two port Intel MacBook Pro. That was lowest tier of the smallest MacBook Pro that didn't even deserve the Pro name. I think so many people will be upset and complaining in these forums about how they're stuck with a low end weak MacBook once the new higher end models are released.

The 3090 is more for content creators, and very very rich gamers. You would be mental (or loaded) to buy it for gaming when the 3080 performance is great.

I am getting a 3090 for content creation as am over the 8gb ram on my card (visualisation and 4K materials).

I agree with what you say on the M1 current macs. They are the entry level macs. I have no idea why people are thinking they replace a 16” unless they didn’t need a 16” in the first place (except for a larger screen).

 

[russell_314]

The 3090 is more for content creators, and very very rich gamers. You would be mental (or loaded) to buy it for gaming when the 3080 performance is great.

I am getting a 3090 for content creation as am over the 8gb ram on my card (visualisation and 4K materials).

I agree with what you say on the M1 current macs. They are the entry level macs. I have no idea why people are thinking they replace a 16” unless they didn’t need a 16” in the first place (except for a larger screen).

I know Nvidia might say it's for content creators but gamers are all over it. Of course 3080 performance is great but so is running 8GB of RAM on an M1 Mac for most users but you will have people saying 16 GB all day. People are mental and want more even if it's not needed. Only 100 FPS at 4K?... No I want 200 FPS. Only 16 GB of RAM on a gaming PC? No way you need at least 32 GB and maybe 64 GB. I've seen it online and in person LOL

The 16" comparison is silly and it wouldn't even be happening except for the M1 is so powerful. I have a feeling the market will be flooded with under priced M1 Macs once the other models are released.

 

[gpat]

The 16" comparison is silly and it wouldn't even be happening except for the M1 is so powerful. I have a feeling the market will be flooded with under priced M1 Macs once the other models are released.

An used 16" Intel MBP is going to cost $900 by then 😂
I think that only highly specced M1s are going to depreciate in a bad way.
Like the users ordering 13" M1 MBPs with 1/2 TB SSDs and 16GB RAM, they're going to take a big hit while reselling, because you'll be able to get a 16" M1x MBP for roughly the same price.
But that's been always the case with BTO options. Base spec M1 Macs are incredibly capable and will depreciate slowly, much like the 13" Plastic Macbooks back in 2006.

 

[darngooddesign]

Outlandish question, I know. It's almost as if Apple is trying to coerce people into buying a 13 inch. I would have priced the 16 inch maybe $300 more than a 13 inch; not double.

Double the ports, double the price.

I'm kidding but my point is that the 16" isn't just a large version of the 13"; it comes with more expensive hardware. In the US the Intel 13" starts at 1700 and the Intel 16" starts at $2200, not even close to double the price.