Why Isn't There a 16-Inch MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon?

[sethmacbookuser]

I'm sure there's a good reason for Apple's releasing only a 13-inch MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon today. But could someone provide more insight into the explanation? It seems that, in general, the premium version of the technology gets updated first (Lexus gets the new tech before Toyota; the larger screen televisions are the first ones to get the higher resolution). So, I would have assumed that Apple either would have updated both MacBook Pro (MacBooks Pro?) at the same time or would have updated the 16-inch MacBook Pro before the 13-inch. But, obviously, they only updated the 13-inch MacBook Pro. I suppose this leaves customers wanting or needing the 16-inch MacBook Pro scratching their heads. But, like I said, I'm sure there's a good reason. Could it be something as simple as product volume, with there not being enough of a market for the 16-inch MacBook Pro to justify the upgrade? Is Apple Silicon for the expected specs of the 16-inch MacBook Pro just a harder nut to crack?

I'm just curious.

 

[leman]

Because they started rolling out Apple Silicon with lower-end chips first. Makes sense to start with simpler designs.

 

[kucharsk]

Plus 16" MBP customers usually want a dGPU, which isn't currently possible with the M1's unified RAM design, and the M1 maxes out at 16 GB support and many MBP 16 customers want 32 GB of RAM.

 

[ght56]

My top guess would be that this is done strategically for the point of maximizing sales and getting the highest volume products out to maximize using that initial media buzz, all right in time for the Christmas holiday. Apple is brilliant with these kinds of things so the timing and products being launched have probably been meticulously chosen.

Apple Silicon is new, fresh, and something completely different. When this sort of thing happens, you get a lot of initial media buzz, which after a shorter period dies down. The Air and base 13-inch Pro are the models within reach of more buyers and these probably comprise a major bulk of Apple portable sales with them being much higher volume units. (I'd also wager the bet that these are much more commonly gifted, making them even more optimal for a November launch.) During this initial period of media buzz, turning all of the focus on these models probably makes the most sense. If you start with the most expensive products that many cannot afford, that period of media buzz might come and go before your high volume units come into play, missing a critical window as it is no longer fresh and freshly on the minds of many.

As for how the Mini factors in, my guess is a major reason behind its early release is to target a specific niche, such as developers.

I am sure technical aspects could have played into it as well, but from a sales perspective the way they are launching these makes a lot of sense and I imagine Apple would have done a lot of research to determine the most optimal way to roll these out provided R&D/manufacturing of the devices didn't dictate a certain course.

 

[1221320]

Plus 16" MBP customers usually want a dGPU, which isn't currently possible with the M1's unified RAM design, and the M1 maxes out at 16 GB support and many MBP 16 customers want 32 GB of RAM.

Yep. Also, as I understand it, Apple are basically going to have to develop their own dedicated GPUs, as there's nothing from AMD or Nvidia that works with ARM. So it's no coincidence that the three Macs announced - MBA, MBP13, and Mac Mini - are all ones that don't have dGPUs.

 

[Hexley]

I'm sure there's a good reason for Apple's releasing only a 13-inch MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon today. But could someone provide more insight into the explanation? It seems that, in general, the premium version of the technology gets updated first (Lexus gets the new tech before Toyota; the larger screen televisions are the first ones to get the higher resolution). So, I would have assumed that Apple either would have updated both MacBook Pro (MacBooks Pro?) at the same time or would have updated the 16-inch MacBook Pro before the 13-inch. But, obviously, they only updated the 13-inch MacBook Pro. I suppose this leaves customers wanting or needing the 16-inch MacBook Pro scratching their heads. But, like I said, I'm sure there's a good reason. Could it be something as simple as product volume, with there not being enough of a market for the 16-inch MacBook Pro to justify the upgrade? Is Apple Silicon for the expected specs of the 16-inch MacBook Pro just a harder nut to crack?

I'm just curious.

The decision was made for supply chain, purchasing, manufacturing and business reasons.

In business or organization you tend to look at what is biggest use of your resources. Any activity to optimize or make more efficient its operations will have the greatest impact within the business or product line.

All the Macs that were refreshed used the M1 chip.

Why prioritize the M1 Macs? They represent ~80% of all Macs shipped.

So updating the M1 Macs will have the greatest impact on Apple's Mac business coupled with a PR coup where in reviewers say that the "weakest" and "puniest" Mac chip can equal a Core i9 desktop and GeForce 1050 Ti.

That would put the industry on notice, Mac users with Macs from 2015 or earlier have more reasons to upgrade and PC users that can afford >$1000 laptops and >$700 desktops to consider the Mac.

All other Intel Macs excluding those using desktop Core i9 and Xeon represent ~19% of all Macs shipped. I expect an early 2021 Mac event by March.

Desktop Core i9 and Xeon Macs represent ~1% of all Macs shipped. I expect a mid 2021 Mac event by WWDC 2021 in June.