The Cost of Upgrades

[AbsurdlyJames]

Perhaps this is of no particular use to anyone, but it's a pet project of mine and I thought I'd share. I wanted to find out what the various costs are of switching from one Mac to another, and perhaps use that to determine the price of hypothetical Macs that might come out.

Let's start with the Mac Mini configs.
Mac Mini (M2/8 CPU Cores/10 GPU Cores/8GB RAM/256GB HDD) (hereafter (M2/8/10/8/256) costs $599.
Mac Mini (M2/8/10/8/512): $799
Mac Mini (M2/8/10/16/512): $999
Mac Mini (M2 Pro/10/16/16/512): $1299
Mac Mini (M2 Pro/12/19/16/512): $1599
Mac Mini (M2 Pro/12/19/16/1 TB): $1799

Now let's work with the MacBook Air.
Macbook Air (M2/8/10/8/512): $1499

Thus, an equivalent MacBook Air costs $700 more than a Mac Mini.

Now for the MacBook Pro 13".
Macbook Pro (M2/8/10/8/512): $1499

Thus, the MacBook Pro 13" costs $700 more than a Mac Mini, and the same as a the MacBook Air.

Now let's go with the iMac. Here's where things get a little tricky, because the iMac is only available with an M1.
iMac (M1/8/7/8/256): $1299

However, because the MacBook Air also is available in an M1 Config, we can calculate and speculate about that.
Macbook Air (M1/8/7/8/256): $999

Thus, the iMac is $300 more than an equivalent MacBook Air, and would therefore run $1000 more than an equivalent Mac Mini. Thus, a hypothetical M2 Pro (10/16/16/512) would cost $2299.

Now for the MacBook Pro 14":
MacBook Pro 14" (M2 Pro/10/16/16/512): $1999
MacBook Pro 14" (M2 Pro/12/19/16/1 TB): $2499

Thus, the MacBook Pro 14", like the MacBook Air, is $700 more than an equivalent Mac Mini. This leads to the surprising conclusion that the MacBook Pro 14" would be the same price as an equivalent MacBook Air (and should put to rest the idea that the MacBook Pro models are relatively expensive).

Now for the MacBook Pro 16":
MacBook Pro 16" (M2 Pro/12/19/16/1 TB): $2699
MacBook Pro 16" (M2 Max/12/38/32/1 TB): $3299

Thus, increasing the screen size by 2" costs $200. For this reason, I expect the 15" MacBook Air to cost $200 more than an equivalent 13" MacBook Air.

Finally the Mac Studio, which takes a bit of trickery.
Mac Studio: (M1 Max/10/32/32/1 TB): $2399

Now, we know from the MacBook Air that jumping from an M1 to an M2 costs $200. If that holds from the M1 Max to the M2 Max, we'd expect a Mac Studio (M2 Max/12/38/32/1 TB) to cost $2599. This is $700 less than the equivalent MacBook Pro 16", and because the MacBook Pro 16" is $900 more than an equivalent Mac Mini, thus a Mac Studio would be $200 more than an equivalent Mac Mini.

Now, I do expect instead that when the M2 version of the Mac Studio comes out (if it comes out at all), Apple is not going to raise prices on the standard configs. Thus, this would imply that the cost of moving from a Mac Mini to an equivalent Mac Studio would be $0.

Again, I'm not sure this will be of any use to anyone, but it was a fun little exercise for me so I thought I'd share.

 

[Gudi]

Now, we know from the MacBook Air that jumping from an M1 to an M2 costs $200.

And the new form factor and display was for free? Anyway inflation will hit all Macs released in the future.

 

[AbsurdlyJames]

And the new form factor and display was for free? Anyway inflation will hit all Macs released in the future.

True, forgot about that.

I suspect that accounts for most of the $200 difference, which would suggest that equivalent Mac Minis and Mac Studios would cost the same.

 

[okkibs]

And the new form factor and display was for free?

Yes? You can't just stack money on top every time a new design is released. Next you'll suggest CPUs should be 10x more expensive because they're 10x faster than some older chip. Designs get overhauled, HDDs get capacity increases, CPUs get performance uplifts, displays switch from static backlight to miniLED, and so on. None of that justifies a significant cost increase.

You can charge extra for new features that come with newer tech, for example the new Macbooks with miniLED screens aren't more expensive because of the miniLED tech, but because of the new HDR features it brings to the table.

The Macbook Air M2 doesn't introduce any new features over the Air M1. The screen is a bit brighter, a bit taller with smaller bezels but doesn't have a single new feature (like HDR). All other things are merely incremental improvements as well, webcam, bringing back Magsafe, faster M2 chip, and so on. What exactly is so great about the "new form factor" that you think charging extra is justified?

 

[Gudi]

Yes? You can't just stack money on top every time a new design is released.

Yes, you can! And here is how you do it. First you introduce the new silicon in the old form factor at the same great price. Performance oriented customers will get nuts about the value. The next year you bring a new form factor and a slightly faster chip at $200 more and keep the old design in the lineup at the same price. A lot of people will be swayed by the new design and stingy customers can still buy the old. One more year passes and hopefully the new form factor is cheap enough to produce to hit the old price point. Otherwise last years model will stay with us forever. Eventually every new design will one day become the cheaper old design. And after 7 years it starts all over again.

 

[AbsurdlyJames]

Yes? You can't just stack money on top every time a new design is released. Next you'll suggest CPUs should be 10x more expensive because they're 10x faster than some older chip. Designs get overhauled, HDDs get capacity increases, CPUs get performance uplifts, displays switch from static backlight to miniLED, and so on. None of that justifies a significant cost increase.

You can charge extra for new features that come with newer tech, for example the new Macbooks with miniLED screens aren't more expensive because of the miniLED tech, but because of the new HDR features it brings to the table.

The Macbook Air M2 doesn't introduce any new features over the Air M1. The screen is a bit brighter, a bit taller with smaller bezels but doesn't have a single new feature (like HDR). All other things are merely incremental improvements as well, webcam, bringing back Magsafe, faster M2 chip, and so on. What exactly is so great about the "new form factor" that you think charging extra is justified?

With respect, the whole point of this little exercise is about the different values Apple assigns to each computer’s form factor, so dismissing form factor changes as valueless (however small that value is) defeats the purpose of the exercise. There’s no question in my mind that the new Air would cost more than an equivalently spec’d old Air, so we can’t attribute the entire difference between the cost of the computers to the upgrade from M1 to M2. Is the form factor change worth $10? $50? $150? We don’t know from Apple’s pricing—which therefore makes it difficult to determine how much more the Mac Studio’s form factor costs as compared to the Mac Mini.

I suspect the difference between equivalent Mac Studios and Mac Minis would be $0. But I’m not certain.

 

[dmccloud]

With respect, the whole point of this little exercise is about the different values Apple assigns to each computer’s form factor, so dismissing form factor changes as valueless (however small that value is) defeats the purpose of the exercise. There’s no question in my mind that the new Air would cost more than an equivalently spec’d old Air, so we can’t attribute the entire difference between the cost of the computers to the upgrade from M1 to M2. Is the form factor change worth $10? $50? $150? We don’t know from Apple’s pricing—which therefore makes it difficult to determine how much more the Mac Studio’s form factor costs as compared to the Mac Mini.

I suspect the difference between equivalent Mac Studios and Mac Minis would be $0. But I’m not certain.

If you're just talking about the respective enclosures for the Mini vs. the Studio, the Studio enclosure is going to cost more simply because it's using over twice the materials to create it. I also wouldn't necessarily use the M2 air as a model for the cost of form factor changes, because the M1 seems to be more of a case of keeping a machine at that sub-$1000 price point than anything form factor related.

 

[AbsurdlyJames]

If you're just talking about the respective enclosures for the Mini vs. the Studio, the Studio enclosure is going to cost more simply because it's using over twice the materials to create it. I also wouldn't necessarily use the M2 air as a model for the cost of form factor changes, because the M1 seems to be more of a case of keeping a machine at that sub-$1000 price point than anything form factor related.

Your reasoning is undoubtedly sound, and therefore I would expect Apple to charge more for just the enclosure. However, it doesn’t seem like they are doing so! Before the MBP 14” got the M2 upgrade, it cost $700 more than equivalently specced Mac Studio ($3099 vs. $2399 for the full M1 Max chip). And the MBP 14” also costs $700 more than an equivalently specced Mac Mini.

I’m surprised at this, which is one of the joys of this exercise.

 

[okkibs]

With respect, the whole point of this little exercise is about the different values Apple assigns to each computer’s form factor

I am not sure why anyone assumes the two Airs have a different form factor in the first place. The weight and size are near identical. The only difference that stands out is the notched display. The display technology is exaxtly the same, Apple advertising claims the new Air has "liquid retina" but a "liquid retina" tech simply doesn't exist, it's just a meaningless word Apple made up. Same keyboard, same trackpad, I do not see any change in form factor whatsoever.

There’s no question in my mind that the new Air would cost more than an equivalently spec’d old Air, so we can’t attribute the entire difference between the cost of the computers to the upgrade from M1 to M2.

Why would any of the cost difference be due to the M1->M2 upgrade? The MBPs were just recently upgraded from M1 to M2 with no change in pricing, the M1 14" base model for example was 1999 and remains at 1999 with the M2.

Since none of the price increase should thus be attributed to the M1->M2 upgrade, I don't know what new stand-out feature justifies it. Magsafe, additional 64 pixels worth of height, 100 nits of additional brightness and increased battery runtime are all incremental improvements that you'd expect a newer machine to have anyways. The build quality of the new Air is actually even a step in the wrong direction as it has significant keyboard flex that no other Air or Pro of the recent years had. And that's without going into the QC issues and how some M2 Airs come with broken standby out of the box and lose more battery in sleep than Intel Macbooks.

Nobody forced Apple to redesign the Air like this, they could have switched out panel and SoC at the same 999 price point, why should consumers pay extra for a redesign that offers no tangible benefits? Don't tell me it's the 1.5 ounces in weight reduction or that it's a hair's width thinner.

 

[AbsurdlyJames]

I am not sure why anyone assumes the two Airs have a different form factor in the first place. The weight and size are near identical. The only difference that stands out is the notched display. The display technology is exaxtly the same, Apple advertising claims the new Air has "liquid retina" but a "liquid retina" tech simply doesn't exist, it's just a meaningless word Apple made up. Same keyboard, same trackpad, I do not see any change in form factor whatsoever.


Why would any of the cost difference be due to the M1->M2 upgrade? The MBPs were just recently upgraded from M1 to M2 with no change in pricing, the M1 14" base model for example was 1999 and remains at 1999 with the M2.

Since none of the price increase should thus be attributed to the M1->M2 upgrade, I don't know what new stand-out feature justifies it. Magsafe, additional 64 pixels worth of height, 100 nits of additional brightness and increased battery runtime are all incremental improvements that you'd expect a newer machine to have anyways. The build quality of the new Air is actually even a step in the wrong direction as it has significant keyboard flex that no other Air or Pro of the recent years had. And that's without going into the QC issues and how some M2 Airs come with broken standby out of the box and lose more battery in sleep than Intel Macbooks.

Nobody forced Apple to redesign the Air like this, they could have switched out panel and SoC at the same 999 price point, why should consumers pay extra for a redesign that offers no tangible benefits? Don't tell me it's the 1.5 ounces in weight reduction or that it's a hair's width thinner.

With respect, you seem to be missing the point of this exercise again. If you want to go argue about how horrible the redesign of the MBA is and how you think it sucks, there are many other places to do so. Please go there.

Apple offers an old MBA for $999, and a new MBA for $1199. The market seems to bear that. There are several differences between the machines to which one can attribute this difference in price. If the only difference were the SOC, one could assign that value to the change in the SOC, which would allow for speculation about other computers (e.g., how much would an iMac 24” with an M2 Pro cost?). Unfortunately, because the form factors are different, one can’t do that, regardless of your opinion on the value of the respective form factors.

 

[dmccloud]

Your reasoning is undoubtedly sound, and therefore I would expect Apple to charge more for just the enclosure. However, it doesn’t seem like they are doing so! Before the MBP 14” got the M2 upgrade, it cost $700 more than equivalently specced Mac Studio ($3099 vs. $2399 for the full M1 Max chip). And the MBP 14” also costs $700 more than an equivalently specced Mac Mini.

I’m surprised at this, which is one of the joys of this exercise.

The MBP also has a display, camera, keyboard, and mouse built into the system, which neither the Mac Studio nor Mac Mini include at all. You would need to factor those into the total system cost as well.

 

[NT1440]

I am not sure why anyone assumes the two Airs have a different form factor in the first place.

Just a guess, but most people have functional eyes…

We get it, you don’t think the redesign is better. That’s fine, but the Air is Apple’s highest selling Mac. Just like cars get redesigns for “freshness” so do computers. Just the color options alone (which are obviously superficial) are a departure from the previous design language.

Would just a spec bump been enough? Absolutely, but Apple is clearly differentiating their AS powered devices with a new design language across the board now that the initial AS launch is done.

 

[AbsurdlyJames]

The MBP also has a display, camera, keyboard, and mouse built into the system, which neither the Mac Studio nor Mac Mini include at all. You would need to factor those into the total system cost as well.

Yes, that's why it's $700 more than both the Mac Studio and the Mac Mini. The upshot, though, is that it's not $700 more than the Mac Mini and, say, $500 more than the Mac Studio. Apple's pricing reveals a few things about how it determines the price of machines.

Specifically, there is no cost difference between a Mac Mini and a Mac Studio that can be attributed to their form factor. Similarly, there is no cost difference between a MacBook Air, a 13" MacBook Pro, and a 14" MacBook Pro that can be attributed to their form factors either. The 14" MacBook Pro's higher cost is entirely attributable to the change in the SoC, RAM, and HDD space.