Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
„Wow, Face unlock…(worked)…I‘ve never seen this computer before“

Best line from Justin in the intel ads.
 
They should all be worried about Apple. Hopefully the MacBook Air with M2 chip will not have same SSD reduced speed "feature" which Max Tech discovered the base model MacBook M2 has. Apple needs good press for all M2 Mac models, and Apple should not provide a reason for the tech press to bad mouth them, by using a downgraded, slower SSD chip design in their base M2 models.
They are not using a downgraded and/or slower SSD chip. The M1 256GB model used 2 128GB chips vs the M2 using a single 256GB chip. The single chip can't take advantage of parallelism so it will have less bandwidth.

I guess in the end the reason doesn't make a difference though. It will be slower at preforming certain tasks at certain times. You wont find this problem if you upgrade to more storage or more ram. I'd be suspect of anyone buying the base model and claiming to be a pro or power user.
 
I don't know too many people shopping for Windows notebooks at the $1000-1500 pricepoint who are not also gamers, these days. That Windows market has been largely ceded more toward the business world, where corporations have made their platform decisions and are buying Dell Latitudes by the pallet.

Now yes, there's a tiny amount of people who buy non-gaming, expensive Windows laptops -- but visit a typical Starbucks and you won't see these. Whenever I see a PC laptop in a coffee shop around here, it's either a $2400 gaming laptop, $499 BestBuy piece of trash, or clearly a corporate endpoint with asset tags.
 
maybe, but the fact that it can't do dual displays with apple silicon is a bit ridiculous and a reason an org I consult with will not use the Air, despite the demand and price point. there are hacky workarounds, sure
 
It's just fine to worry. Right after some silly commercials about PCs, right?
 
It's amazing that M2 beats the latest Intel chip. And if you do the tests unplugged for the laptops then the M2 leave them in the dust. Amazing how stagnated Intel got.
M2 is slower than an i7. What are you talking about?

 
They are not using a downgraded and/or slower SSD chip. The M1 256GB model used 2 128GB chips vs the M2 using a single 256GB chip. The single chip can't take advantage of parallelism so it will have less bandwidth.
Indeed. It is almost 100% guaranteed that the Air will have the exact same arrangement. As will all the other M2 machines (whatever and whenever they may be) that start at 256 GB. It's a bummer, but even at 1/2 speed the SSDs are still very fast.

Frankly I'm not too enthusiastic about a 256 GB machine anyway; 512 GB seems like a much "safer" starting point for a machine with some future-proofing (especially on a laptop where adding external storage is much less convenient).
 
99% of people buying the air arn't going to care or notice.
Yep. I’m tech savvy and love the latest and greatest but I just have very little need for a powerhouse computer. Essentially none. Web browsing and streaming constitute 95% of my personal computer use. And 70% of my web browsing is done on my phone. 10 years ago I would have never thought I wouldn’t need a desktop or laptop and I have almost reached that point. However, it is nice to sit down at a bigger screen and look up from time to time. The only thing that might change what I need is if I really start diving into music production. And even then my 2017 MBP will still probably hold out for a bit.
 
They should all be worried about Apple. Hopefully the MacBook Air with M2 chip will not have same SSD reduced speed "feature" which Max Tech discovered the base model 13" MacBook Pro M2 has. Apple needs good press for all M2 Mac models, and Apple should not provide a reason for the tech press to bad mouth them, by using a downgraded, slower SSD chip design in their base M2 models.
The tech press will always bad mouth Apple, it gets clicks, eyes on ads, revenue. :) The only folks Apple has to be concerned with are those that are actually in the market for a computer.
 
They are not using a downgraded and/or slower SSD chip. The M1 256GB model used 2 128GB chips vs the M2 using a single 256GB chip. The single chip can't take advantage of parallelism so it will have less bandwidth.

I guess in the end the reason doesn't make a difference though. It will be slower at preforming certain tasks at certain times. You wont find this problem if you upgrade to more storage or more ram. I'd be suspect of anyone buying the base model and claiming to be a pro or power user.
I never said said the SSD chips themselves were slower or downgraded, just the SSD chip design that Apple chose in the base model M2 MacBook Pro. When a M1 13" MacBookPro runs about 200% faster at SSD read and write speeds in the base model, and then Apple's upgraded and better M2 13" MacBook Pro machine runs at half the SSD speed on the base model, that affects the swap speed from memory to SSD speed, and causes reduced app performance for anything needing larger than 8GB RAM on the base model. I first saw Max Tech point this out, then influencers like Marques Brownlee, Linus Tech Tips, and others focused on that slower speed SSD in their reviews. A computer company should never go backward in their SSD speeds, even if adding larger SSD size removes the problem. The majority of people just buy the base model that they can find in stores and do not upgrade the SSD size. I just hate to see Apple get creamed by reviewers and influencers over this issue.
 
I don't get it. Apple's had laptops at this price point for more than a decade. This is nothing new. Where Apple could (but won't) make a dent in Wintel laptops is at the $500-$800 price point. I am guessing 80% of Windows laptops sell in this price range (at least at the consumer level). Also, I have to wonder how many tech industry laptop users are going to switching from Apple back to Wintel when they upgrade their current Apple/Intel laptops because they need the Intel processors to do some of their work.
The dent is caused by Apple's silicon which runs fast AND cool, unlike Windows competitors. I might be unusual here in actually liking and using Windows 11 on a homebuilt PC but I can't find a single Intel/AMD laptop that comes anywhere close to even a base model M1/M2 Mac. With Windows PCs you can't have fast AND quiet - those fans are going to run and run noisily.
 
Huge swathes of high end laptops (>=£1500) are bought by gamers.
Yes, but how many high end laptops are purchased, period? If there’s, say 500,000 sold in a year, then huge swaths of 500,000 is still less than 500,000. And 500,000 is not a significant part of the pc buying market.
 
Personal pet peeve: “In 2020, benchmarks revealed that the $999 MacBook Air with an M1 chip outperformed a $2,999 maxed-out Intel-based 16-inch MacBook Pro.”

I don’t care that much about how much better one Apple product is to another, I want to know if there is a competing non Apple computer that equals or betters the performance and what are it’s costs and drawbacks. I’ve already invested in my particular favorite computer/technology brand. What should I know about competitors that may make me switch (or not) based upon comparing that brands most similar products?
 
intel dropped and continues to drop the ball. even their GPU is turning out to be a complete failure.

if apple wasn't so terrible at gaming/GPU's, they would probably dominate the market.
 
Anyone spending over a thousand on a windows machine for household use is not the kind of customer who is going to be loyal to windows anyway. Anyone who buys a mac around that price without adding an extra $500 to upgrade it isn't going to get a great work computer either since the extra ram and space is almost required for a workhorse computer. They would get more for the money from a PC.
I think the problem these manufacturers are having is that they don't really offer much in terms of speed at that price point. If they could build in a video card that would allow you to play games you can't on the mac, that may be good, but then they charge much more for those. They should back down from that price point altogether and make people justify paying $300 or more for a Mac vs their offerings. They can't really go head to head to justify that price if the overall experience is inferior to begin with. They can still compete on price.
MacBook Air even being considered as a “workhorse” machine should raise eyebrows everywhere.
 
I think PC sales starting to decline should scare them a little more. Apple is in this boat, but them and Dell are (currently) the only two who have grown despite HP and Acer getting their backends hit with the door of a 5-6% decline. The reason for the surge was the remote work for COVID, now many companies have cooled their spending since the infrastructure is in place or their employees returned to the office with the new PCs.

Before the pandemic, how many people actually bought a PC? Many consumers just see their phones and tablets as PC replacements and have no need for one. Also, Intel has many years of bad press and products to thank for their slow march backwards. While I’m happy with my Ryzen 5 3600 build, Microsoft screwed over many of us with Windows 11.

Until Qualcomm gets their chipset out to these manufacturers, this will be one worry they’re stuck with until then. I hope AMD and Samsung will switch to Arm and let Intel stew in this pile on their own… with it’s own transformer in the power box.
 
I don't see people who were not interested in a Mac before, suddenly being interested now. Sure, some will be but a significant shift? Doubt it, especially when budgets are tight for the majority of consumers and that is only getting worse, people are not suddenly prioritising expensive Apple products.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.