Jony Ive was right

[rgwebb]

I have noticed the following:
- 13” M2 MBP, will be delivered next day
- 13” M2 MBA will be delivered in 2 weeks.

And both devices cost the same when configured with the same specs.

So the Apple customer prefers a thermal throttling, slightly thinner machine with worse battery life over a machine that weighs only 160 grams more while having none of those issues and superior battery life.

That is exactly what the MBP has been with Jony his obession with thinnes rather than designing a proper chassis that could handle the Intel chips.

Bring back Jony!!!

The thing you're breezing right by:

The "thermal throttling machine with less battery life" performs MUCH better than Intel era machines and outperforms pretty much any current Intel thin-n-light in the 1500 or less price range.

 

[hirshnoc]

And both devices cost the same when configured with the same specs.

There is no way you can configure them with the same specs.

 

[Shh]

Play WoW and you will see it thermal throttle. It is pretty easy to thermal throttle these machines.

Yeah, it's very bad in WoW. When it's cool I can play at 7 or higher on the graphics slider. When throttling kicks in I can barely play at 1.

 

[Wokis]

The only reason why I got the Pro instead of Air back in 2020 was that the first has a fan. Not only it won't throttle at all, but chances for the SoC to fry are lower.

Not knocking your choice really. But the last claim I find interesting. Going by chip size and power envelope we can deduct that with the old naming conventions, Apple would have called the M1 the "A14X", and the M2 "A15X". (For reference, A12X is a 122mm² die while the M1 is 119mm².)

How many ipads have you heard over the years that have fried? Heck, it's been 2 years now.. how many M1 ipads and Airs have fried?

Yeah, it's very bad in WoW. When it's cool I can play at 7 or higher on the graphics slider. When throttling kicks in I can barely play at 1.

That is complete opposite my findings. Do you have an M1? Not that I think it should be that bad, even there.

On M2 I've outlined my settings in this post. Never becomes unplayable and things look quite nice.

 

[Shh]

That is complete opposite my findings. Do you have an M1? Not that I think it should be that bad, even there.

On M2 I've outlined my settings in this post. Never becomes unplayable and things look quite nice.

Yes, it's an M1 Air. Probably going to upgrade to the 14". It's the only game I play on the Mac. Everything else is on the PS5.

 

[darngooddesign]

Now that I think about it, classifying it as a 15” MBA would be better indeed.

Would be a great business laptop as it offers more screen real estate to work on (13” is really too small) and probably also better battery life.

Just don’t use it for gaming and stuff like that.

I know you guys disgree on it, but it could have been a great laptop by Jony Ive.

We don't need him for that. A 15" version of the current M2 Air would be great.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I have noticed the following:
- 13” M2 MBP, will be delivered next day
- 13” M2 MBA will be delivered in 2 weeks.

And both devices cost the same when configured with the same specs.

So the Apple customer prefers a thermal throttling, slightly thinner machine with worse battery life over a machine that weighs only 160 grams more while having none of those issues and superior battery life.

That is exactly what the MBP has been with Jony his obession with thinnes rather than designing a proper chassis that could handle the Intel chips.

Bring back Jony!!!

I'm honestly unsure if your post is sarcasm or if it's serious.

Frankly, I think Jony Ive went a little too far when it came to MacBooks towards the end of his run. But, I can't fault all of that on him. All of Apple planned their 2016-2020 designs, at least from the standpoint of thermal headroom, around Intel's previously proposed roadmap. Intel failed miserably to meet that roadmap, and so, from a thermal standpoint, the 2016-2019 13" and 15" MacBook Pros performed miserably. The 2019 16" MacBook Pro was thicker for this very reason and it was touted as a "feature". Hell, if you look back at 2019 from the standpoint of Apple's Macintosh product line, the 16" MacBook Pro and the Mac Pro were two halves of a massive apology tour to the Pros. It was far from a perfect apology tour, but it at least was enough to telegraph to higher-end customers that their key complaints were heard and being addressed immediately ahead of the greater switch from Intel to Apple Silicon.

The butterfly keyboard was nonsense, but I can't 100% fault that on him either. He was head of design, not engineering. Engineering should've balked and said "hey, this design has issues; we need to reverse course before this becomes a PR nightmare" and they didn't. Tim Cook, himself, should've stepped in and reversed course BEFORE it became a joke by long-standing Apple fan late night talkshow hosts. I don't blame that on Ive. I blame that on literally everyone else.

As for the delivery and shipping delays; Apple has had the current 2-port 13" chassis since May of 2020; it's not new and they haven't needed to do any design change to it. The manufacturing processes for it are two whole years older in some cases (and probably closer to six more years for the others that don't factor in or otherwise relate to the slight thickness increase and keyboard change from 2020). It's honestly probably why Apple didn't replace the model with the supposed 15" MacBook Air and instead put the M2 in that same chassis; they're in the worst supply chain crunch in recent history and they are more concerned with making sure there's something there in that price point than they are with what that something is. I'm pretty sure that once they get a greater handle on things, the 13" MacBook Pro will disappear entirely and be replaced by the 15" MacBook Air and then the MacBook line as a whole will start to actually make sense again.

since when does the M1 or M2 MBA Thermal Throttle?

You throw enough work at either one, and the SoC will absolutely throttle to prevent over-heating. This is not a new thing. And without a fan, it happens much sooner. Though, you're still able to get WAY more performance out of either Air before that point than you would've with pretty much any Intel MacBook Air that ever existed (especially the 2018-2020 Intel models; those were utter garbage).

Most of people prefer Air because they never reach a throttling. So Ive was right but for most of people. Profit for average user who bought a Pro, but not for "Pro" user. And Pro user never buy a fanless Air.

Pro users want a machine for sustainable workload. This range of macbooks are much more balanced than for e.g. thinner power hungry intel i9 macbook pro 16 with eGPU !

I corrected your first sentence with the word in bold. The whole "Pro users never buy a fanless MacBook Air" argument is trash in the Apple Silicon Mac era.

You have the base model M1 Air able to do things that previously only an Intel 16" MacBook Pro, 27" iMac, iMac Pro, or Mac Pro could do.

The argument that Pro users don't buy a MacBook Air ought to instead read "Pro users didn't buy an Intel MacBook Air" because there are now many tasks and workloads that you wouldn't be able to do on an Intel MacBook Air that you can now totally do on an Apple Silicon MacBook Air.

So, the notion that this isn't the target demographic of the machine is challenged by (a) the fact that people can now do these things on a MacBook Air where they couldn't previously and (b) Apple marketing both models/generations of Apple Silicon MacBook Air as being capable of doing those things.

Not true. Tests have shown that the M2 13" MBP can run the M2 chip without thermal throttling. The 16" can run the M1 Max chip also without thermal throttling to the max.

The M2 13" MBP still thermal throttles and Apple does seem to kick in the fan at a much higher temperature on the M2 13" MBP than it did on the M1 13" MBP. Frankly, I don't know why that is and that seems dumb and to the machine's detriment. It could be that the M2 was first and foremost designed and engineered for the M2 Air and that the M2 13" MacBook Pro was somewhat of an afterthought in this regard much in the same way that the M1 Pro and M1 Max were clearly first and foremost designed and engineered for the 2021 16" MacBook Pro with the 2021 14" MacBook Pro being the afterthought. Though (and even moreso than with the M1), I'd still rather a fan be in play than not. MagSafe 3 and a 1080p camera are both rad and all that, but I kind of want thermal coverage for my SoC.

Pro users use whateveer suits their needs. the MBA is actually quite high on the list of machines regarding available power.
some professionals are working on old netbooks or old tablets as those are fulfilling their needs flawlessly, some use current standard notebooks, some high end notebooks, and for some, even the most high end notebooks won't fulfill their professional needs to the fullest, so they are working on some stuffed to the gills 64 core workstation or so.
In some scenarios, even that is way too slow, so they are relying on clusters of the latter, and for some specific professional tasks, even the power of all supercomputers on earth combined could feel extremely sluggish.

so it all depends on everyone's use case, what could be considered good, adequate, or even great for professional use

I both completely agree with your post and absolutely love your signature.

It does seem plausible people prefer the new MBA. But that doesn't mean they're embracing Ive's design ethos. The 13" MBP, with its Touchbar, lack of Magsafe, and tapered case edges, was designed under Ive, while the new MBA rejects all of those design elements. So the only thing you're left with is people preferring a newer design with a smaller form factor, at the expense of some throttling under sustained all-core load. Since most MBA purchasers don't put their computers through the latter, that makes sense.

Again, I think that the message sent with the M1 MacBook Air is that you now CAN put your computer through its paces and do things we'd never dream of being able to do on Intel MacBook Airs, like editing 4K footage with no issue or ANY kind of gaming that isn't merely 20 year old games. Saying that the M2 MacBook Air throttles under high load may not be a bit of a stretch directly coming from an Intel MacBook Air, but coming from the M1 MacBook Air, it's a different (and much higher) bar.

But that doesn't mean that Mac purchasers generally are willing to give up performance for form factor. Most buyers of the prosumer AS machines (the 14" and 16" MBP's, and the Mac Studio), are happy with their anti-Ive emphasis on function over form.

I can't tell you how many people I've worked and dealt with don't care about any of the features of these new machines and only care that it's a newer design. I'm not saying that's all people, but Apple fans are much more blinder, on average, than you'd think.

In summary, I'd say Ive, even with his missteps (like the overy-thin Butterfly Keyboard, with its minimal key travel) was brilliant at designing the entry-level consumer machines, but his form-over-function emphasis worked poorly when applied to Apple's prosumer devices—and that most buyers of that level of machine are breathing a sigh of relief at his departure.

Again, I don't blame Ive, exclusively for that. If anything, I blame Cook for not as good of a checks and balances measure for all of the teams as Jobs was. Ive is a designer. He only runs one team. Engineering is another team. It's on engineering to push back on design and for someone higher-up to act as the final arbiter. Jobs would've never let the butterfly keyboard mess last anywhere near as long as it did. Antennae-Gate was put to bed by the time the Verizon model of iPhone 4 shipped and for sure addressed by the time the iPhone 4s came out. There's no way he'd have allowed four generations of butterfly keyboard to last before reverting to a scissor-switch mechanism.

You're mistaken.

First, pro users have moved on to the 14" MBP or the 16" MBP.

Second, the Macbook Air has always outsold the MBP. This is because it's an entry level design for the mass market. And for the M2 Air, for the first time, it has way more power than the average person needs. Thus, someone who would have needed to buy the 13" MBP can now comfortably fit their workload on an M2 MBA.

I largely agree. Though, this wasn't something that started with the M2. The M2 picks this up from where the M1 left off. The only problem is that, unlike how it was in the Intel era where each Mac used a different class of Intel CPUs, Apple is using only one M-series configuration for all of the products that use that SoC.

For an example, it's the exact same M1 Pro and M1 Max between the 14" and 16" MacBook Pros; but the cooling and battery life of the 16" is clearly superior given the added room for it. Apple could've designed the M1 Pro and M1 Max with the 14" MacBook Pro in mind such that the 16" would merely be the exact same experience, but with more battery life. But instead, they had the 16" MacBook Pro in mind such that the 14" MacBook Pro has a markedly worse battery life than either generation of Apple Silicon 13" MacBook Pro or the 16" MacBook Pro.

I'd say that the "you could just go with a MacBook Air and not really sacrifice anything substantial" argument was more applicable to the M1 versions of the MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro than the M2 versions. Though, both M2 versions get hotter before cooling/throttling and the chassis of the 13" MacBook Pro seems better suited to the M1 than it does the M2. But it's also the case that the MacBook Air got a redesign in between them. Also that the M2 is a hotter running chip than the M1 overall (more power, same manufacturing process).

What an amazing leap you’re making from next to no evidence just to try to prove some kind of point that is frankly non existent.

Wouldn’t it be much more reasonable to assume people bought the Air over another machine due to how small and light it is? I would, and as a Professional photographer power is very important. But I have my desktop, so the air would be a fine compliment over the bulkier, heavier with only minor performance improved mbp.

The 13" MBP is .3 pounds heavier than the M2 Air. Also with a smaller footprint. Calling it heavier or bulkier is a bit of a stretch. Also the performance between the M2 Air and the M2 Pro is pretty much similar save for areas where the fan helps stave off throttling. So, not sure where you get all that in your argument.

The m2 mbp is an oddity in the mb line up. The airs are close to as performant, whilst being considerably lighter and more portable. People who want power in a laptop wouldn’t find enough power in the machine. It seems quite redundant.

That much, I'll completely agree with you on. Apple doesn't usually add to a design that has, largely, been replaced elsewhere in the product line. They haven't done this since the Early 2009 polycarbonate MacBook that released following the 2008 Aluminum MacBook (that eventually became the 13" MacBook Pro). That being said, this sounds much more like they wanted to release a 15" MacBook Air, but couldn't due to supply chain issues. So, they just kept the older 13" MacBook Pro in the lineup and bumped it to bide their time. At least, that's my theory. But, to your point, it was redundant when the M1 first appeared in November 2020 and the only performance difference between
the two was a fan. Nothing changed when both products moved to M2.

You'd need to pay me in order for me to choose the M2 13" Pro over the M2 Air, with its smaller screen, worse speakers, obsolete design, no MagSafe and the horrible touchbar. So yeah feel free to add me to the list of people who would happily choose to wait two weeks.

Frankly, if I'm spending that much money on a computer, I'm going to prefer stability and longer-term reliability over updated bells and whistles. But that's just the IT person in me. I think the design of this Air will be great over time, but I do not need to be a Rev A customer for it. Hell, the only Rev A design that is starting to give me any kind of confidence is that of the 2021 16" MacBook Pro. I'm otherwise wary and unimpressed by the M2 Air and 14" MacBook Pros in their first release. But, again, longer term relability over bells and whistles for me.

I think that's the main sect of people for whom the M2 13" MacBook Pro is catered to, at this point.

The 13” MBP sports a 6 year old design with the dreadful Touch Bar. The 13” MBA is cheaper, looks newer, has a better microphone, and better webcam. Why would you get the 13” MBP for a 5% performance increase under synthetic loads?

Stability with a design that has had a chance to mature. Also, not everyone hates the Touch Bar.

Plus bigger screen and better speakers. Total conjecture on my part but I'm pretty sure the 13" MBP mostly just sells to enterprise these days whose IT departments procure the cheapest macbooks with Pro in the name, no matter what they are.

Exactly!

Again, I'm pretty sure that, if supply chain issues weren't what they are today, the 13" MacBook Pro would've been replaced by the 15" MacBook Air rather than updated to have an M2 as that would've made WAY more marketing sense.

You were suggesting the 16” might throttle and there is simply no evidence for it.

It literally runs WoW at max settings at max resolution without the fps dropping.

This is also backed up by synthetic benchmarks (such as done by Max Tech), where it is the 14” (32-core GPU) M1 Max that thermal throttles, but not the 16” MBP.

Okay, a few things here:

1. The M1 Max on a 14" is terrible from a thermals/battery-life standpoint. Almost Intel Mac levels of bad. The M1 Max was clearly intended for the 16" MacBook Pro and the Mac Studio and was, like many other things with the 2021 MacBook Pro crop, an afterthought as it pertained to the 14". But, if you considered the target market audience (as well as the "MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2020, Four Thunderbolt 3 Ports)" that it replaces), the 14" MacBook Pro isn't catered to those that would otherwise need M1 Max levels of performance. Most of the things one would do on those are better suited to a larger screen anyway.

2. The 16" MacBook Pro will absolutely thermally throttle. The only difference is that it does so at a much greater load than the 14" does and odds are decent that you're probably not going to get it to that point unless you attempts workloads that would've been better suited to the M1 Ultra these days (although, last I checked, very few workloads were even optimized for the M1 Ultra). But there's evidence for it. Even Max Tech got it to happen; but they got it to happen at loads that are pretty high for most mere mortals.

3. I completely believe that an M1 Max 16" MacBook Pro will handle WoW, an Apple Silicon native title, at max resolution without frames dropping. I'm sure that most macOS Catalina compatible titles would run WAY better on all Apple SoCs if they were native. Nothing new there.

Jony Ive's designs were one of the biggest problems with MacBooks for YEARS. They bred the butterfly keyboards and chassis that turn into hot plates. The other half of the problem was Intel. Ive leaving is the best thing that could have possibly happened to the Mac.

Steve Jobs once said that death is "life's great change agent". There was not a death here, but there was an end of an era at Apple and it was SORELY needed in the Mac department.

Again, under Jobs, there was checks and balances. Under Cook, there hasn't been. Engineering caved to design which ran amok. Engineering (not design) should've been able to push back and say "these keyboards are crap and we can't make them not crap" and it should've been Cook that dictated that edict once it became obvious that was a problem. Incidentally, it's not Ive's job to listen to how consumers feel about not having any form of MagSafe, only having Thunderbolt 3 ports, or how people feel about the Touch Bar. It's Cook's.

Like you said, the other half of that problem was Intel. Apple creates these designs in advance and in such a way so that they last for 3-5 years with minimal change. Apple even modifying the 2016 design to accomodate a physical escape key and mechanical switches (as well as a thicker overall design for better cooling on the 2019 16" MacBook Pro) is highly unusual and clearly was done out of Cook finally realizing that Pro customer distaste with Apple was losing many higher-end customers to Windows and the greater Windows PC market. But Apple planned for more (or, I guess, technically less, if we're talking thermal headroom) than what Intel provided.

Ive departing merely means that the designs will start to look dated. That's pretty much it. Ive designed several iconic Macs that didn't have horrible cooling issues. Like, you said, half of that was Intel. The other have was Cook, not Ive.

And the ones that DO care about games would not buy an Air.

I have an M1 Air that runs pretty much every 64-bit macOS Game I own and as well as you'd need for a 13" screen. The only one that it doesn't do the best job with is Alien: Isolation. But, I'd imagine it'd do an okay job if that title was ported to be an Apple Silicon native binary.

Again, the "if you are a power user, you wouldn't buy an Air" sentiment applied to Intel MacBook Airs. The M1 MacBook Air threw all of that out the window. The bar you ought to compare an M2 Air to is that of the M1 Air, not the Intel Airs.

Also, if you look at Apple's own marketing materials for both the M1 Air and the M2 Air, they are positioning these machines to be way more capable than even the best of their Intel Airs ever were.

Gaming on a Mac is not considered... Gaming on Intel macs, is underperforming due thermal differences in laptops. You can get a close to responsible Gaming experience with a high end graphic iMac, the Pro or the last 27 models, or a MacPro. and that is precisely why is not considered.

I'd lump in Intel 16" MacBook Pros into this mix. Certainly the touch-bar 15" ones were way too thin to be good for heavy gaming. Then again, most gaming prefers NVIDIA over AMD for graphics.

You guys can laugh all you want.

I was recently comparing my 15” “Jony Ive” Intel MBP against the 16” M1 Max MBP, and the 15” is a good looking thin machine.

Good looking? Sure. Great as a 15" MacBook Air (at least for the retina 15 models that only had Intel integrates graphics)? Sure. Good as a computer that can do higher-end workloads? Not at all. But, again, I'm not fully sure if you're being sarcastic with your main thesis here.

Sure, the fans turn on the moment you do something, but I think a 15” MBP redesigned by Jony Ive in 2022 to make it even more thinner (and also thinner bezels with a notch and updated keyboard) with a M2 chip in it would sell like hotcakes probably.

Yes, an M2 15" MacBook Air WOULD sell like hotcakes. The million dollar question around the campfire seems to be why they gave us another 13" MacBook Pro with the 2020 2-port design instead. But, my guess is supply chain issues.

Jony Ive could have made a great thin 15” MBP in 2022 with the M2 chip. It is allowed to thermal throttle as the MBA has proven, so that should not be a show-stopper.

Again, this notion of "people buying an Air are not buying it for performance" goes out the window on the Apple Silicon end of this transition away from Intel.

You raise a good point about the Butterfly Keyboard, and I should have been more specific. There were two issues with the Butterfly Keyboard: (1) Its lack of key travel, which made it uncomfortable to type on. This was a design requirement, which came from Ive, and is thus his responsibility.

(2) Its poor execution, which left it vulnerable to being jammed by small particles. This was an engineering failure, and is thus the responsibility of the engineers. I'll edit my post to make it clearer I'm talking about #1.

Ive reported to Cook. Cook could've vetoed anything Ive came up with. Jobs DID veto things that Ive and other people came up with. Engineering could've pushed back on Ive as they didn't report to Ive. Again, they all reported to Cook. Cook is the final executor. It was Cook's responsibility, not Ive's. That's how corporate America works. The CEO has the final say.

But I stand by what I said about Ive's obsession with thiness, and form-over-function, hurting the prosumer devices. There's a general consensus that the 2014-2015 MBP was a much better design than the super-thin generation that came after it.

Yes, and the 2012-15 design ALSO hurt the prosumer ability to expand storage and RAM with industry-standard parts at will. It also dropped ports that weren't hurting anyone to have other than preventing a thinner design. But that's been Apple's M.O. for many years and, even if Ive was behind it, that stuff always had to go through Jobs and then Cook. Cook gets to veto Ive.

Further, his attempt at clean, elegant design sometimes led to exactly the opposite because of his lack of understanding of how professional devices are actually used. For instance, the 2013 MacPro is beautifully small and elegant, but only when it's not actually being used! In actual use, professionals need all sorts of cards and drives. With a larger box, all those stay neatly inside. But since the 2013 Mac Pro was too small to contain them, they ended up as external attachments, creating an ugly rat's nest of boxes on one's desk:

With Ive design philosophy:

I wouldn't squarely blame the 2013 Mac Pro on Ive either. On paper, the idea made sense. In practice, it faltered miserably. Thunderbolt was too expensive and they didn't factor upgrades. You could argue that wasn't Ive's fault, but rather Dan Riccio not thinking it through and Cook/Jobs (as I'm sure Jobs was involved in the early phases of its design) not pumping the brakes on it long term. I'm not apologizing for Ive here. More saying that Ive didn't have unrestricted power. It was on Cook, as CEO, to have a better dialogue with his teams there.

After rejection of Ive design philosophy:

Source:

The 2019 Mac Pro was ALSO designed by Ive. You can argue that the Rack version wasn't; though parts of it still definitely were.

The thing you're breezing right by:

The "thermal throttling machine with less battery life" performs MUCH better than Intel era machines and outperforms pretty much any current Intel thin-n-light in the 1500 or less price range.

I don't think anyone is breezing by this. I think the opposite is happening. Everyone is leaning into it as though the M2 Macs exist in a vacuum and that they're not supposed to be compared to their immediate M1-based predecessors which are faster in some cases.

Not knocking your choice really. But the last claim I find interesting. Going by chip size and power envelope we can deduct that with the old naming conventions, Apple would have called the M1 the "A14X", and the M2 "A15X". (For reference, A12X is a 122mm² die while the M1 is 119mm².)

How many ipads have you heard over the years that have fried? Heck, it's been 2 years now.. how many M1 ipads and Airs have fried?

You're also comparing the use of an M1 in an iPad to the use of it in a Mac. iPadOS doesn't even come close to pushing that SoC to its limits. macOS is a different story entirely. People do things on macOS that will push any processor to its knees eventually. iPadOS is intentionally inhibited from that sort of riff raff.

 

[kevcube]

OP's not wrong, the Air does thermal throttle. It's just that it doesn't matter that much unless you're doing very heavy sustained workflows that would be more suited to a fanned system.

Wait til he finds out that those will thermal throttle too.

Play WoW on the beach and you’ll see what I mean.

 

[Abazigal]

I think the point isn't that people don't want thin and light laptops, but there comes a point when you start running into diminishing returns with them. And I guess that's what a lot of the blowback has been about. The benefits of said laptop being a millimetre thinner simply wasn't worth all the issues that came with it, from shorter battery life to worse thermal dissipation to crappy keyboards and fragile display cables.

The 13" MBP is in a weird place. It likely has no shipping delay because there is less demand for it, and Apple already has the parts ready for it (since it's using an existing form factor).

 

[Citizen45]

This is a terrible take.

The average consumer prefers the M2 Air because of the redesign.

The bezels on the M2 Pro are very ugly.

The M2 Air is much more modern looking, plus it gives you an extra port because you can charge with MagSafe.

If they also redesigned the M2 Pro, people would love it. Because the M2 chip clearly would benefit from a heat sink and some fans.

But the bezels are a dealbreaker for many.

 

[throAU]

I have noticed the following:
- 13” M2 MBP, will be delivered next day
- 13” M2 MBA will be delivered in 2 weeks.

And both devices cost the same when configured with the same specs.

So the Apple customer prefers a thermal throttling, slightly thinner machine with worse battery life over a machine that weighs only 160 grams more while having none of those issues and superior battery life.

That is exactly what the MBP has been with Jony his obession with thinnes rather than designing a proper chassis that could handle the Intel chips.

Bring back Jony!!!

Or maybe people just don't like fan noise and like more screen space.

 

[iGeneo]

Play WoW and you will see it thermal throttle. It is pretty easy to thermal throttle these machines.

I don't play WOW.. but, if you could do so and record it on YOUR M2 Air... we'd all like to see

 

[FrontFoot]

Forgive me if anyone else mentioned this already but, according to the recent book After Steve, I’m not so sure we can accurately attribute specific designs of the past 6 years or so to Jonny Ive himself.

He shifted to part-time for a while, focused almost exclusively on the Apple Watch and outreach to the fashion community, was involved in Apple Park construction as well as working on some non-Apple charity projects. According to the book, he was, at many points, checked out, burnt out, and MIA, giving fleeting design feedback to his team.

Ive’s contributions over the years are legendary and he certainly still impacted a variety of products even in his waning days, but it doesn’t seem so black and white to say anything before the 2022 MBA is the Ive era separated by a definitive demarcation line.

 

[canadianpj]

I have noticed the following:
- 13” M2 MBP, will be delivered next day
- 13” M2 MBA will be delivered in 2 weeks.

And both devices cost the same when configured with the same specs.

So the Apple customer prefers a thermal throttling, slightly thinner machine with worse battery life over a machine that weighs only 160 grams more while having none of those issues and superior battery life.

That is exactly what the MBP has been with Jony his obession with thinnes rather than designing a proper chassis that could handle the Intel chips.

Bring back Jony!

I hate to contradict your conspiracy theories and overall incorrect assumptions about the M2 MBA but, here we go.

I've had mine for 2 weeks and it's the fastest machine I've ever used. Have I used a benchmark? No. Have I actually checked the thermals? No. What I can tell you is my 2019 15" Macbook Pro gets warm just running a terminal and a lto of Chrome tabs whereas my MBA, which feel is so crippled, does not.

Strange.

Ive was growing increasingly out of touch without someone to keep his designs in check. Sorry.

 

[canadianpj]

I don't play WOW.. but, if you could do so and record it on YOUR M2 Air... we'd all like to see

Really?

I played for 2 hours last night, with high graphic settings, and had a consistent, never below 60 FPS the entire time? I think you widely misunderstand how 99% of people use their computers.

 

[MayaUser]

Jony Ive was the one who brought to you the butterfly keyboard and the most hot devices of all time
Dont even want to know how the iphone 13 would have been under Jony at 5mm thick with that SoC...even now it gets hots sometimes
Probably Jony would place the M1 into the iphone...undoubtedly performance guys
Jony Ive had the best era when he was under Steve...it was a more balance duo...under Tim Jony was too free to do whatever he wants

 

[iPadified]

So many here need to understand the difference between design and engineering. The total thickness of a keyboard is a design choice. How the keyboard is constructed and produced is engineering. Furthermore, specs is not about design but choices based on markets. Design is to make a machine that looks nice, can be carried, slips nicely into bags and still include the desired specs. I think you blame Ive for far too much.

Ive haters:
1. The ASi is a consequence of Ives thrive for thinness and of course Intels complete failure to deliver what Apple wanted.
2. Get out of your MR typical comfort zone and put yourself in the vast majority of end users who rather want a laptop that is somewhat high performing, light, silent, with excellent battery life and nice looking rather than a thick, noisy, heavy and high performing laptops (that mostly is used as a movable desktop anyway).
3. Apple design team is reusing Ives design language. They are not moving the goal posts. Look at the Mac studio or the new MPB. That is NOT good in the long run.

 

[cupcakes2000]

The 13" MBP is .3 pounds heavier than the M2 Air. Also with a smaller footprint. Calling it heavier or bulkier is a bit of a stretch. Also the performance between the M2 Air and the M2 Pro is pretty much similar save for areas where the fan helps stave off throttling. So, not sure where you get all that in your argument.

How much smaller, thinner, lighter and obviously less bulky a product is over another product, doesn’t negate where the first product stands.

Im not suggesting that the other is somehow massive, or even not absolutely workably portable itself, but
It’s a pretty simple fact that the air is a lighter laptop. It is a thinner laptop. It’s a smaller laptop. Therefore it is a less bulky laptop.

It’s weird to deny that.

 

[Bug-Creator]

put yourself in the vast majority of end users who rather want a laptop that is somewhat high performing, light, silent, with excellent battery life and nice looking rather than a thick, noisy, heavy and high performing laptops (that mostly is used as a movable desktop anyway).

Going super thin made perfect sense for something like the 12" or the Air. Forcing it onto the "Pro" line that is bought based on performance and usability is just wrong. You can split hairs as much as you want but Jony did clearly have a lot of influence leading into those shipping in the form they did.

Look at the Mac studio

And you see something that never would have shipped with Jony having any say. He would have insisted in putting it into the Mini case, limiting it as much thermally as the space grey Intel ones. Front I/O would also have been an instant nogo.

 

[monol0g]

If I had to choose between MBA and MBP13 I’d go with the MBA because of the ****ing Touch Bar. I never want to see this pos again in my life.

If they’d ship the MBP13 without the Touch Bar I’d of course go for the MBP 🤷

 

[Wokis]

You're also comparing the use of an M1 in an iPad to the use of it in a Mac. iPadOS doesn't even come close to pushing that SoC to its limits. macOS is a different story entirely. People do things on macOS that will push any processor to its knees eventually. iPadOS is intentionally inhibited from that sort of riff raff.

Still, if it even remotely could become an issue that the SoC could "fry itself", you'd think someone'd done it. LumaFusion, Procreate and other demanding iPad apps are a thing after all. And that we'd hear about a couple of fried M1 Macbook Airs by now since it's been out for two years.

 

[MayaUser]

Going super thin should remain on non electronics objects
Pure art is not something that has an operation system behind, or any electronics
An laptop or any Apple devices or similar...should be functional first , then beautiful second since they are born with limited time from the beginning, while true arts can last for decades or centuries

 

[Le0M]

Not knocking your choice really. But the last claim I find interesting. Going by chip size and power envelope we can deduct that with the old naming conventions, Apple would have called the M1 the "A14X", and the M2 "A15X". (For reference, A12X is a 122mm² die while the M1 is 119mm².)

How many ipads have you heard over the years that have fried? Heck, it's been 2 years now.. how many M1 ipads and Airs have fried?

That is complete opposite my findings. Do you have an M1? Not that I think it should be that bad, even there.

On M2 I've outlined my settings in this post. Never becomes unplayable and things look quite nice.

With the iPad you can't play AAA games (simply cuz there aren't), nor deal with 3D apps like blender, so chances to make the SoC very hot are extremely rare on iPad.
Not so much on a Mac.
Either way, it's just logical that with a fan it's safer for the SoC.

 

[Bug-Creator]

it's just logical that with a fan it's safer for the SoC.

Only if the chip can die from the max temperature Apple allows it to go before throttling and only if that temperature is lower or allowed for a shorter period in devices with a fan.

Or if you never task the device to go close to that temperature even with the fans staying at default speed.

 

[iPadified]

Going super thin made perfect sense for something like the 12" or the Air. Forcing it onto the "Pro" line that is bought based on performance and usability is just wrong. You can split hairs as much as you want but Jony did clearly have a lot of influence leading into those shipping in the form they did.

How much thicker is the new MBP compared to the old one? No much. The problem with the Pro line is that these machines gets heavy really fast and therefore they have tendency to stay on the desk. Basically, MBP is used as compact desktop computers that can be moved around occasionally. Someone needs to lead towards thinner and lighter Pro laptop. Sure is not Hp and Dell.

And you see something that never would have shipped with Jony having any say. He would have insisted in putting it into the Mini case, limiting it as much thermally as the space grey Intel ones. Front I/O would also have been an instant nogo.

Compare it to trash can Mac Pro from 2013 (which should have been named Mac studio). The trash can despite its nick name is beautiful compared to the Mac studio. 2013 MP could amazingly cool (almost) 500W without using heatsinks on the chips. That is impressive compared to the heavy Cu block on the ultra.

Ports on the front on the studio are horrible arranged. Tilt the USC C 90 C so they have the same orientation as the SD card slot. Could easily been make looking like a decoration if done properly.