How many people really need M1 Pro or M1 Max

[Digitalguy]

I don't think the first decade of the millennium is a good indication of the future. A lot of factors changed between the 2 decades, which is why virtually any pc of the first decade are barely usable today but some pc of the 2011-12 (including laptops) are not only usable but quite responsive and will be for the next few years.
Among the big changes:
- move to 64 bits support for much more RAM than 3-4GB, especially since DDR3 and its 8GB modules
- general move from HDDs to SSDs
- big jump in performance, especially since Sandy Brydge (2nd gen), with only incremental upgrades at least until 8th gen
Software-wise, on the Windows side minimum requirements almost stopped increasing since Vista. Macs updates have instead made older Macs slower, especially since Catalina.

On Windows a 2nd gen laptops with either a quad core CPU or even a compact one with a good CPU like my 35w compact "ultrabook" from almost 10 years ago, a decent 16GB RAM and an SSD is still pretty responsive and what will make it obsolete is more software support after 2025 than lack of power. So a completely different situation from 20 years.
On Macs again not exactly the same thing, but still... My mid 2013 Macbook air, which is slower than my 2012 Windows ultrabook to begin with, is usable until Mojave, but unbearably slow with Bigsur (I went back to High Sierra), but a M1 will probably feel responsive till the very last year of support, which might get longer now that Apple uses their own silicon (I expect 2030 at least).
I expect that contrary to the past, OS support will be the main obstacle to running any high end device (including the M1) with enough RAM (16GB or more) and storage past 10 years as well as finding parts for repairs (which is more an issue for laptops than for desktops), not lack of power.

 

[m1maverick]

I don't think the first decade of the millennium is a good indication of the future. A lot of factors changed between the 2 decades, which is why virtually any pc of the first decade are barely usable today but some pc of the 2011-12 (including laptops) are not only usable but quite responsive and will be for the next few years.
Among the big changes:
- move to 64 bits support for much more RAM than 3-4GB, especially since DDR3 and its 8GB modules
- general move from HDDs to SSDs
- big jump in performance, especially since Sandy Brydge (2nd gen), with only incremental upgrades at least until 8th gen
Software-wise, on the Windows side minimum requirements almost stopped increasing since Vista. Macs updates have instead made older Macs slower, especially since Catalina.

One needs to separate changes that have occurred from changes that were "forced" upon users. Do users currently need more than 4GB? Most do but not because they demanded it but because it was "forced" upon them through larger and larger application requirements.

A 32 bit system running Windows XP can easily perform word processing, spreadsheet work, and the creation and display of presentations. It could easily browse the Internet. So why don't most people still use such a system? Because technology has pushed them away from it. In order to be interoperable these people have no choice but to move to newer software which typically requires newer hardware.

The Internet is my favorite whipping boy when it comes to examples. There is no reason that a dual 2.0GHz G5 system should struggle to browse the Internet. The reason it does is because the Internet has become bloated with "features" I think many people could do without. But they have no choice but to accept it.

4K video is another example. Do people really need to watch 4K video? I would argue they do not. I have compared 4K with HD and I cannot tell the difference. Perhaps if I had a 115" TV I would but on my 55" TV.

This is not to say I am against improvement in technology or that there aren't people who need or even want something. However I firmly believe that many people's lives wouldn't be adversely affected if they were to go back to 2001 technology.

 

[Digitalguy]

One needs to separate changes that have occurred from changes that were "forced" upon users. Do users currently need more than 4GB? Most do but not because they demanded it but because it was "forced" upon them through larger and larger application requirements.

A 32 bit system running Windows XP can easily perform word processing, spreadsheet work, andcreation and display of presentations. It could easily browse the Internet. So why don't most people still use such a system? Because technology has pushed them away from it. In order to be interoperable these people have no choice but to move to newer software which typically requires newer hardware.

The Internet is my favorite whipping boy when it comes to examples. There is no reason that a dual 2.0GHz G5 system should struggle to browse the Internet. The reason it does is because the Internet has become bloated with "features" I think many people could do without. But they have no choice but to accept it.

4K video is another example. Do people really need to watch 4K video? I would argue they do not. I have compared 4K with HD and I cannot tell the difference. Perhaps if I had a 115" TV I would but on my 55" TV.

This is not to say I am against improvement in technology or that there aren't people who need or even want something. However I firmly believe that many people's lives wouldn't be adversely affected if they were to go back to 2001 technology.

I wouldn't want to go back 20 years ago from a technology point of view....
A 32 bit Windows XP system has probably a processor which is too slow and not enough RAM for modern internet.
A 10 year old device with a decent 2nd gen intel core i7 instead can not only browse very well now (regadless of whether it has Windows 7, 8, 10 or even 11) but will be able to do it in 5 years too (when it will be 15 years old...)
Technology advancements are always forced on users, but my point is that there was a paradigm shift, which started around 10 years ago, which means that a 10 years device is no longer necessarily slow and in the future this will be true for 15 years devices too... This means however that other elements will hinder the usability of the devices (OS support and repair support/parts) for those that want to use them for that long.
And before some people come and say it's stupid to use a device for 15 years, that arguments comes mainly from people that only have one device. A 15 old device does not need to be the only/main device, but it can be used regularly for some specific use cases.... including work related.

As for 4k, I am the first to say it's just marketing hype and generally a waste of battery except for some niche cases. And I couldn't care less about TVs. My iPad pro 12.9 and Galaxy Tab S7+ are my TVs and if Apple ever makes a bigger tablet that will be my new TV ? (which does not mean that the other devices will stop being used...)

 

[m1maverick]

I wouldn't want to go back 20 years ago from a technology point of view....
A 32 bit Windows XP system has probably a processor which is too slow and not enough RAM for modern internet.

I agree. The question is: Why? What does the modern Internet offer than the one of 20 years ago? Yes, today's Internet is more polished than that of 20 years. But the information conveyed? It's my opinion it hasn't changed much and, in some instances, have taken a step back.

If you head over to the PPC forum you'll find a lot of advice on how to make these old systems somewhat useable on the modern Internet. When you look at what they've done they've essentially made changes which eliminate the "improvements" of the modern Internet.

Macrumors is, IMO, a prime example. I've attempted to use an old G5 on this site and found it challenging. Why is that? What on this site cannot be done with what was available 20 years ago?

 

[Digitalguy]

I agree. The question is: Why? What does the modern Internet offer than the one of 20 years ago? Yes, today's Internet is more polished than that of 20 years. But the information conveyed? It's my opinion it hasn't changed much and, in some instances, have taken a step back.

If you head over to the PPC forum you'll find a lot of advice on how to make these old systems somewhat useable on the modern Internet. When you look at what they've done they've essentially made changes which eliminate the "improvements" of the modern Internet.

Macrumors is, IMO, a prime example. I've attempted to use an old G5 on this site and found it challenging. Why is that? What on this site cannot be done with what was available 20 years ago?

there are several reasons... I used to make websites in 2005-07 in HTML 4, those sites could still run easily with a pentium 4, now the web is much more complex, nobody uses pure code any more (I used pure code back then), people use software like wordpress or other prebuilt stuff like wix, squarespace etc. There are tons of javascript etc, sites are responsive because of mobile phones.... (adapt to the screen). So it's not the same internet at all. Even youtube is much heaveir than it was. And RAM is through the roof because of multiple tabs and extentions. None of this was a thing 20 years ago...
But again today any device with a Speedometer score above 45 is perfectly fine
Go below 40 and it will start to feel sluggish in some demanding site such as gmail or youtube (not the apps, the websites)
Below 20 it's too slow for anything.... To give some context an iPad 2 has 8, just like an atom clover trail or a pentium 4, atom bay train is around 12, cherry trail around 15, core duo laptop around 20, ipad air 2 around 28, ipad pro first gen around 45, just like a good 2nd gen i7, a 4th gen desktop i7 is around 100, a 2018 iPad pro is 150 and an M1 is over 200. We have a ton of room with current high end devices for the next 20 years of internet unless something totally unexpected happens...

 

[deadspider187]

First let me say I’ve been in IT/Telcom over 35 years. The processors Apple announced today are truly amazing. BUT… BUT… lets face it. How many people really need that much power in a laptop? Im an IT Pro and my Itel 2020 MacBook Pro and M1 Macbook air are sufficient. Really, think about it, what, aside from creative pros who needs that much power. Im disappointed a 14” MacBook Pro (M1) for the masses was not introduced today. Awesome technology for a very small percentage of users.

Even if Apple offered the 14" with the m1 (with all other features), how much money would it save? $100-300? Would you be willing to pay $1600-1900 for the 14" with the m1? I think the 14" is a good value proposition, but ONLY because the 13" m1 exists. If you take the m1, add Thunderbolt 4, new miniLED 120Hz display, better audio, faster storage, new camera, etc. I think you'd easily end up seeing that the price of the base 14" isn't too bad.

I forgot about the better mic setup and MagSafe port return, too.

 

[telo123]

I really want that 120 Hz screen. So, I ordered one.

 

[Digitalguy]

Even if Apple offered the 14" with the m1 (with all other features), how much money would it save? $100-300? Would you be willing to pay $1600-1900 for the 14" with the m1? I think the 14" is a good value proposition, but ONLY because the 13" m1 exists. If you take the m1, add Thunderbolt 4, new miniLED 120Hz display, better audio, faster storage, new camera, etc. I think you'd easily end up seeing that the price of the base 14" isn't too bad.

I forgot about the better mic setup and MagSafe port return, too.

True, the 14in is priced right, but the M1 pro is overpriced, it should not have been more than $100 over the M1 air, but Apple reused the old prices, where the difference was larger between the 2 models.

 

[matram]

True, the 14in is priced right, but the M1 pro is overpriced, it should not have been more than $100 over the M1 air, but Apple reused the old prices, where the difference was larger between the 2 models.

I don think Apple set prices based on BOM cost but mostly aim to keep prices same for the base models and then offer more content.

In Sweden both the 14 and 16” are actually slightly cheaper than the Intel models they replace, and I would argue that they offer much more for that money.

 

[Digitalguy]

I don think Apple set prices based on BOM cost but mostly aim to keep prices same for the base models and then offer more content.

In Sweden both the 14 and 16” are actually slightly cheaper than the Intel models they replace, and I would argue that they offer much more for that money.

Yes, no doubt they have different margins on different products. The margin on the pro is definitely higher, despite the cost of the now discontinued touchbar... Which again means less value for the customer on that model

 

[dumastudetto]

Everyone needs more computing power.

There are million little ways you benefit every time, even without realising it.

Buy the most MacBook Pro you can afford and you'll be happy.

 

[m1maverick]

there are several reasons... I used to make websites in 2005-07 in HTML 4, those sites could still run easily with a pentium 4, now the web is much more complex, nobody uses pure code any more (I used pure code back then), people use software like wordpress or other prebuilt stuff like wix, squarespace etc. There are tons of javascript etc, sites are responsive because of mobile phones.... (adapt to the screen). So it's not the same internet at all. Even youtube is much heaveir than it was. And RAM is through the roof because of multiple tabs and extentions. None of this was a thing 20 years ago...
But again today any device with a Speedometer score above 45 is perfectly fine
Go below 40 and it will start to feel sluggish in some demanding site such as gmail or youtube (not the apps, the websites)
Below 20 it's too slow for anything.... To give some context an iPad 2 has 8, just like an atom clover trail or a pentium 4, atom bay train is around 12, cherry trail around 15, core duo laptop around 20, ipad air 2 around 28, ipad pro first gen around 45, just like a good 2nd gen i7, a 4th gen desktop i7 is around 100, a 2018 iPad pro is 150 and an M1 is over 200. We have a ton of room with current high end devices for the next 20 years of internet unless something totally unexpected happens...

I understand the technical reasons why websites have become more demanding. What I'm question is the value being brought by that technology.

My discussion isn't as much about the technology but the why. Maybe an example will help. Using video as an example. We started with black and white, standard definition (SD). We then improved on that by adding color. Next we the move to high definition (HD), and now we're moving to 4K.

With each improvement the down side is larger computing requirements. Processing, transmission, and storage requirements have increased as well.

IMO there was a clear benefit from moving from black and white to color. The video improvement from SD to HD was quite noticeable and I can understand why people wanted to move to it. The transition to 4K makes me wonder. Personally I am unable to tell the difference.

The question becomes: Does the increase in quality offset the increase in computing requirements. If you're someone who regularly upgrades their computers you likely don't even notice. If not then you have to decide if upgrading for that reason is worthwhile. It's my opinion the content of what is being displayed is more important than how it is being displayed. After all no amount of video quality will make Jar Jar Binx or the Phantom Menace likeable nor does watching A New Hope less enjoyable if viewed on SD.

 

[Digitalguy]

I understand the technical reasons why websites have become more demanding. What I'm question is the value being brought by that technology.

My discussion isn't as much about the technology but the why. Maybe an example will help. Using video as an example. We started with black and white, standard definition (SD). We then improved on that by adding color. Next we the move to high definition (HD), and now we're moving to 4K.

With each improvement the down side is larger computing requirements. Processing, transmission, and storage requirements have increased as well.

IMO there was a clear benefit from moving from black and white to color. The video improvement from SD to HD was quite noticeable and I can understand why people wanted to move to it. The transition to 4K makes me wonder. Personally I am unable to tell the difference.

The question becomes: Does the increase in quality offset the increase in computing requirements. If you're someone who regularly upgrades their computers you likely don't even notice. If not then you have to decide if upgrading for that reason is worthwhile. It's my opinion the content of what is being displayed is more important than how it is being displayed. After all no amount of video quality will make Jar Jar Binx or the Phantom Menace likeable nor does watching A New Hope less enjoyable if viewed on SD.

The reason is marketing hype to get people to upgrade / buy new devices. And for the most part it works. Often it leverages people's ignorance. There are obvious diminishing returns when you increase resolutions, but the hype is such that people believe that 4k is so much better, when they can barely tell the difference from 1440p in a laptop. Same with OLED and MiniLED, in most situation you won't see much difference, but hey black are so black when you use it in a dark room! I have a Tab S7+ and I bought it for the size and aspect ratio, could not care less about OLED, if they made the same in LCD for $50 less I would pick that without hesitation.
I care about the content, much less about very high resolution, saturation, black levels etc. I'll take 50 gr less in the iPad pro 12.9 over mini led anytime.... (that's why I bought a older generation after the M1 was out...)
But the truth is that I am in the minority. Most people want those features, whether they can actually benefit from them, or simple just believe they can, or more likely, a mix of both....

 

[Marty80]

I find the build quality and display on the MacBook Pro of better quality. Much like do people really need a iPhone pro max it’s down to choice.

 

[Digitalguy]

Everyone needs more computing power.

There are million little ways you benefit every time, even without realising it.

Buy the most MacBook Pro you can afford and you'll be happy.

I think the main source of confusion is that fact that many attach too much important to CPU power. The new MacBook pros offer much more than a new SOC. Probably many people would be fin with M1 instead of M1 pro/max, but not with only 13.3in, with only 16GB RAM, with only 1 display support, with only 2 USB 4 ports etc.

 

[Abazigal]

Given the power of the M1 Max, imagine what Apple could (will) do with a desktop chip which has no battery power or small form factor cooling considerations.

The Apple Silicon Mac Pro could potentially be an insane machine.

Maybe we will see a return of the trash can form factor?

 

[zarathu]

People who want or need a 16 inch screen have no choice. I would have happily purchased the M1 if it has a 15.4 inch screen. My wife has a 13 inch 2019 MBP which is great but the screen is too small for my photo work.

 

[MrGunny94]

I find the build quality and display on the MacBook Pro of better quality. Much like do people really need a iPhone pro max it’s down to choice.

Yeah I do 90% of my computing on my laptop, I only use my phone when I'm outside the house.

I'd rather have an expensive MacBook Pro with good performance than a big phone which hurts my hand lol

 

[Sodner]

Zero need here. Absolutely WANT!

 

[Poppleropples]

This is a really interesting thread, thanks OP.

I won’t be buying one, I don’t need one, I would like one but have no need. I run a couple of small businesses and in my hobby time use lightroom and iMovie to edit GoPro footage and RAW images, I find my 2012 Mac Mini and base level iPad and A13 to be more than powerful for these needs. In a past life I worked with software engineers and can see why they would benefit from the extra horsepower in these machines with all the compiling etc they do, so definite use cases but a lot of the consumerism is just that, buying for wants not needs. A long time ago I worked in an Apple Store and found that for a lot people, if they had the money, they would stump for top end maxed out machines to browse the internet on, open emails and use office apps, just because they wanted the best, and that’s their choice which is cool.

As an aside though and don’t want to sound soap boxy, we’re all in this, I do have an uneasy feeling seeing this level of consumerism where a large part of it is for wants not needs. Quite clearly our planet really isn’t in great shape, and the cycle of yearly upgrades and all that waste that entails makes me uncomfortable (everywhere in the chain, from packaging, shipping to the components within, nothing is zero impact).

We have incredibly vulnerable nations in the world that will and already do really feel the effects of climate change, but it’s still considered ok in rich countries to upgrade to the newest X every year (car, phone, computer, TV etc). Don’t get me wrong, I have a new iPhone this year and I picked up a new iPad (to replace a 2nd gen mini), and I know this is a complex issue not for a message board! But I’m expecting my first child and there is a part of me that can’t help but wonder what their adult years will look like, I hope there is advancements in science to help because I really don’t hold much faith in the collective conscience of us all to change enough (myself included)…. Total buzzkill, sorry guys.

 

[m1maverick]

The reason is marketing hype to get people to upgrade / buy new devices. And for the most part it works. Often it leverages people's ignorance. There are obvious diminishing returns when you increase resolutions, but the hype is such that people believe that 4k is so much better, when they can barely tell the difference from 1440p in a laptop. Same with OLED and MiniLED, in most situation you won't see much difference, but hey black are so black when you use it in a dark room! I have a Tab S7+ and I bought it for the size and aspect ratio, could not care less about OLED, if they made the same in LCD for $50 less I would pick that without hesitation.
I care about the content, much less about very high resolution, saturation, black levels etc. I'll take 50 gr less in the iPad pro 12.9 over mini led anytime.... (that's why I bought a older generation after the M1 was out...)
But the truth is that I am in the minority. Most people want those features, whether they can actually benefit from them, or simple just believe they can, or more likely, a mix of both....

I definitely agree with the first highlighted sentence. As for the second my discussion has been need versus want. I currently have a plain old HDTV. When I bought it 10 years ago 4K was and additional expense. If I were to replace my TV today it would be with a 4K model. Not because I need 4K but rather because there's no longer a premium and, I am not even sure I could buy a non 4K TV any longer unless it were a bottom of the line model or small screen. This is how these increases sneak in to buyers who don't want the higher resolution.

 

[m1maverick]

Maybe we will see a return of the trash can form factor?

An M1 based cube would be nice.

 

[Queen6]

First let me say I’ve been in IT/Telcom over 35 years. The processors Apple announced today are truly amazing. BUT… BUT… lets face it. How many people really need that much power in a laptop? Im an IT Pro and my Itel 2020 MacBook Pro and M1 Macbook air are sufficient. Really, think about it, what, aside from creative pros who needs that much power. Im disappointed a 14” MacBook Pro (M1) for the masses was not introduced today. Awesome technology for a very small percentage of users.

Anybody that needs or simply just wants...

Q-6

 

[UBS28]

edit.

 

[cknlol]

I'd need proper Windows support to get rid of my dual machine setup