Jony Ive was right

[Bug-Creator]

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.

The tMP needed to cool that 500W while the Studio can cool both the Max and the Ultra at very low fan rpm. Couldn't care at all about the size and material of the cooler. As for the looks, *shrug* don't care much not a big fan of the tMP.

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.

Doesn't matter, if Jony had a say there would have been none at all.

 

[973358]

Is Johny who created the BUTTerfly keyboard and the touch-bar while having a short display cable and made the device so thin despite having an oven heat level chip for MBP from 2016-2018? If so, I am so glad he left. Seeing the M1-series MBP 14 and 16 are thicker despite having more efficient chips, I am glad I still use a mac.

 

[MayaUser]

Is Johny who created the BUTTerfly keyboard and the touch-bar while having a short display cable and made the device so thin despite having an oven heat level chip for MBP from 2016-2018? If so, I am so glad he left. Seeing the M1-series MBP 14 and 16 are thicker despite having more efficient chips, I am glad I still use a mac.

that OP meant...Jony was right to leave and let Apple be a better place/company

 

[rgwebb]

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.

What specific tests are M1 MBAs outperforming M2 MBA?

The only examples I have read about where that may be true are base model comparisons with disk I/O intensive tasks. Accordingly, that has less to do with thermal throttling of the CPU/GPU and more to do with Apple's cost-saving measures with the base M2 Air's SSD configuration.

Genuinely interested in concrete examples of the M1 Air > M2 Air and the methods of the test.

 

[Elyzien]

You can’t say something is not true when anyone with eyes and a brain can confirm it.

You can throttle an RTX 3090 if you run a game at 8K with max settings and no DSLR.

You can throttle any device if the workload is intense enough.

And that is a fact.

You have to choose the right settings and the right workload for every type of computer you use if you want to minimize throttling.

If you are playing an intense game on an Air or a Pro, you adjust the settings to minimize throttling and maintain consistent performance.

If you are rending 4K or 8K video/CGI on an Air, you chose the wrong device.

If you are rending 4K or 8K video/CGI on an 16“ MBP, you might experience throttling.

If you are rending 4K or 8K video/CGI on a Mac Studio Ultra, you still might experience throttling but less than the laptops.

Yeah this is bonkers. Whomever is pretending Macs don’t thermal throttle is a troll. I’ve worked as an Apple tech for 20 years and I can tell you that every MacBook ever released does some kind of thermal throttling. Don’t matter the CPU or chipset…. meh, meh, meh… throttle! throttle! throttle!

 

[tarsins]

They're different machines for different people and have different purposes. I'm a software developer so I'm all about power, speed, memory and all that but for my own use the M2 Air is superb. It's the best machine I've ever used for lounging about on the bed/sofa/floor using it on any surface/lap without worrying about heat or blocking vents.

 

[ADGrant]

They're different machines for different people and have different purposes. I'm a software developer so I'm all about power, speed, memory and all that but for my own use the M2 Air is superb. It's the best machine I've ever used for lounging about on the bed/sofa/floor using it on any surface/lap without worrying about heat or blocking vents.

I can see the M1 MBA would be ideal for those casual use cases. I am a software developer too but I use an iPad Pro for lounging around with.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

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!!!

OP's assumptions:

1. That delivery time is solely linked to sales & popularity, even though the two machines were released at different times and one of them is a brand new chassis that requires beginning production from the ground up and the other is a years-old design, which could constrain early availability (and therefore lengthen delivery times) of the newer machine.
2. That the early adopters of the MBP may have already bought the machines they wanted, while the early adopters of the MBA are still buying theirs, once again constraining availability of the newer machine.
3. That production of the just-released MBA has had the same amount of time to fill the supply channel to meet demand as the older MBP.
4. That "the Apple customer" values hardware design over all other considerations.
5. That the MBA is an inferior machine, because he doesn't like its heat management while playing a game.
6. That the two machines "cost the same when configured with the same specs." They don't. The M2 MBA 8/256 is $1,199 and the M2 13" MBP 8/256 is $1,299.
7. That other non-design considerations (better FaceTime camera, MagSafe power, no touchbar, etc.) don't matter to "the Apple customer."
8. That the world's largest tech company by revenue, which is selling machines as fast as it can make them and which is sitting on billions in cash while returning huge profits to shareholders, needs Jony Ive back.

I love the work Ive did at Apple. I respect his design philosophy and how he helped create the company we know today through his innovation. But I also know he didn't do it alone, and that the post-Ive Apple has created an MBA which, OP implies, is a successful product. So why bring him back? If you don't like the MBA, don't buy one.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Outside of it being thin and light, the new MBA is the least Johnny Ive product Apple has made yet.

It’s a fantastic machine.
It’s thin, light, powerful. I love mine.
But, as this video demonstrates, it’s very basic.
The internal design is as un-Johnny Ive as it gets, and even-though it’s thin and light, it’s not shockingly so.

 

[Tagbert]

But with the 13" M2 MBP can run games without having to worry about it. And it basically weighs the same as the MBA. 160 grams is nothing.

I’m glad that you were able to find the machine that works for you. Now you can play the games and not worry about throttling and you won’t need to post so much about how awful you find the throttling on the MBA.

 

[Tagbert]

Or they do not realize they are throttling. I seriously doubt most people have never throttled.

Most of the tasks that people use their MBA for are not going to reach throttling levels. Unless you are doing video editing, 3D modeling, or playing games, you are unlikely to hit those thermal levels. You are right in that the people doing those tasks on a MBA probably don’t notice when it happens as the impact is small. Unless they do it on a regular basis, the small difference in performance is inconsequential.

 

[Tagbert]

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

…

Those numbers actually suggests that the demand is higher for the MBA as supply cannot meet demand.

Of course, reading delivery time tea leaves like that is inherently unreliable because we don’t know the supply situation. Still an honest take on those numbers do not support your basic assumption.

 

[quarkysg]

Forcing it onto the "Pro" line that is bought based on performance and usability is just wrong.

Personally I would love to own a super computer that is as thin as a piece of paper. Sadly current technology does not allow for that, but the technology is definitely heading in that direction.

 

[planteater]

This is thread about nothing to be fair

Agree. I’ve always thought that Ive was nothing at all for Apple.

 

[exoticSpice]

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.

The trash can started at $2999 and it had to cool 500W because the AMD and Intel chips were not efficient.

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.

I would much prefer front IO than not having it. The Mac Studio is a tool foremost. Apple also added really big blower fans. Something Ive would not do as well. Ive would use the Mac mini case and make it THIN as possible.

 

[exoticSpice]

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.

The M2 chip is faster than M1 period. The base M2 models have a slower SSD than M1 leading to slower export times.

A M2 512SSD Air vs M1 512SSD Air and the M2 Air will always be better in raw speed and exports.

 

[Zaydax333]

What? Forget thermal throttling for a second...

Have you considered the fact that the 13 inch macbook pro chassis is 6 years old and been on the production line for years so they probably have an easier time making them?

Where as the new MBA is a new design that required new toolings/lines in the middle of a pandemic where supply logistics are still messed up.

Your ship times are a useless point.

The 13 inch macbook pro is just logistical profit margin win for apple that provides more consumer choice.
Buy whatever you want, that's why the choice is there.

Also, If you really cared about performance that much you'd be getting a base 14 inch pro. Whose design is completely contrarian to Johnny Iveness.

User "Zest"? You do be zestin

Your post is bad and you should feel bad" - Dr. Zoidberg

 

[Yebubbleman]

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.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying it's splitting hairs.

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.

iPadOS limits the M1 to the point where you won't ever be able to push the M1 to the point where it even remotely fries itself. The amount of overkill that SoC is for that OS is ridiculous.

What specific tests are M1 MBAs outperforming M2 MBA?

The only examples I have read about where that may be true are base model comparisons with disk I/O intensive tasks.

Uh...no "may" about it. That's some straight up Apple apologist talk right there. Pretty much every reviewer out there has confirmed it.

Accordingly, that has less to do with thermal throttling of the CPU/GPU and more to do with Apple's cost-saving measures with the base M2 Air's SSD configuration.

Max Tech and a bunch of others did tests wherein the M2 throttled under load sooner than the M1. It's a hotter running chip. It's going to get hotter sooner than a cooler running chip. Not sure where this is a crazy notion here.

Genuinely interested in concrete examples of the M1 Air > M2 Air and the methods of the test.

Go forth to the YouTubes, my friend!

 

[exoticSpice]

It's a hotter running chip. It's going to get hotter sooner than a cooler running chip. Not sure where this is a crazy notion here.

This is because M2 is still on 5nm and M2 got more GPU cores and a higher clock than M1. M2 will shine really in the Mac mini where it has a huge fan.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I'm not denying that. I'm saying it's splitting hairs.

You explicitly stated that the machine was .3 pounds more in weight and that my saying it was heavier was a bit of a stretch.

It’s not splitting hairs. It’s not a bit of a stretch. It’s physically a lighter machine.

 

[MajorFubar]

Personally I would love to own a super computer that is as thin as a piece of paper. Sadly current technology does not allow for that, but the technology is definitely heading in that direction.

In one respect it happened a long time ago. One of the early supercomputers, Cray 1, could achieve 160MFLOPS (millions floating point operations per second) on a computer the size of a room. The iPhone 13's chip can accomplish 1,500 GFLOPS (billion floating point operations per sec) on a device that fits in your pocket.

The issue is, our computational expectations from our devices keeps getting exponentially bigger. Consequently the world's biggest supercomputers still occupy the size of a room.

 

[tracker_oz]

But with the 13" M2 MBP can run games without having to worry about it. And it basically weighs the same as the MBA. 160 grams is nothing.

So buy the MBP if that suits your needs. Others have other needs or wishes. BTW, 160gms is about 11%. Hardly nothing.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

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.

I bought the Air over the Pro because I much prefer the design of it, it has a better screen, much smaller screen bezels, 1080p webcam, keyboard (full height, proper function keys), larger trackpad and MagSafe.

With regards to throttling, I rarely push it to the point that it does, but even if it did, the M2 MBA still out performs the M1 MBA when not throttled.

The 13" MBP design isn't bad but it has basically been the same for 5 years and is definitely getting long in the tooth. It does not look or feel like a 2022 laptop.

 

[boss.king]

I’d agree that Ive was right if those laptops actually performed like the Apple Silicon ones, but while modern Macs are thin AND performant, his designs were thin at while absolutely hindering performance and still being loud. I get that the Intels chip design wasn’t his fault, but the awful thermals and throttling of some of the pre-M chip machines was completely his doing.

He was right that people like thinner, lighter machines, he was wrong about how much people want to compromise for them.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

since when does the M1 or M2 MBA Thermal Throttle?

The Air doesn't have a heatsink in it so performance on it is limited compared to the other Macbooks so it doesn't burn up. For normal tasks you won't see an issue. For more demanding workloads you will.