What if the Apple Silicon Transition merges the MacBook Air with the 13" MacBook Pro?

[Yebubbleman]

Here's something I've been thinking about ever since the Intel to Apple Silicon transition was formally announced:

Intel has varying CPUs at varying form factor/power consumption/performance tiers (Y-series for the 12" MacBooks and Retina MacBook Airs; U-series for the 13" MacBook Pro; H-series for the 15"/16" MacBook Pros; etc.). I guess it remains to be seen how Apple differentiates its processors across the various Mac lines.

But, it's seeming like Apple is not going to have to have to have such a disparity between, say, the processor it would put in an Apple Silicon replacement to the retina MacBook Air and the processor it would put in an Apple Silicon replacement to the current 13" MacBook Pros because, for Apple Silicon (ARM), Apple has much greater flexibility when it comes to thermal limitations.

So, let's say Apple puts in an SoC into the first Apple Silicon MacBook Air that blows the current Intel 13" 4-port MacBook Pro with its 10th Generation Quad-Core chips out of the water. If Apple tacks on two more USB-C connectors, and adds a TouchBar and adds whatever other remaining features are on the 13" Pro but not the Air, what is the need for a 13" MacBook Pro at that point? Aside from those two ports and maybe the name "Pro", what need is there for two 13" Mac notebooks when an Apple Silicon Air can run rings around an Intel 13" Pro?

I've posed this before in various threads and the best answer for a "why not?" response had to do with marketing. The only case I can see for that is that the word "Pro" sells more than the word "Air". Otherwise, it seems highly redundant to have two 13" Mac notebooks when the supposed "lower end" is able to do everything that its previous "higher end" equivalent could've otherwise done.

As far as Apple's notebooks are concerned, we have a rumored Apple Silicon 13" MacBook Pro in the works. We also have a Apple Silicon MacBook Air that is also in the works. The battery of the latter just passed certification. Are we not sure that the machine rumored to be that first Apple Silicon 13" MacBook Pro isn't INSTEAD an Apple Silicon MacBook Air with Apple either (a) saving the ACTUAL first Apple Silicon replacement to the 13" MacBook Pros for the rumored 14" MacBook Pro launch slated for next year (so that Apple could launch both sizes of Apple Silicon MacBook Pro in unison) or (b) just not having a 13" MacBook Pro in the lineup (because those functions are now adequately served by the MacBook Air finally)?

(I've heard chatter about a 12" MacBook revival, but mostly that's from people that are speaking out of wishful thinking (wanting to see that machine revived for themselves rather than based on facts or anything actually speculative). Certainly, I could picture a 12" and 14" MacBook Air pair or even a scenario where a 12" notebook is either MacBook or MacBook Pro, with the 14" notebook being whichever one the 12" notebook wasn't, and the 16" notebook remaining "MacBook Pro". I could also picture two sizes of MacBook Air. But unless Apple adds something high-end that the Apple Silicon 16" MacBook Pro would also get, it seems silly to keep a lower-end 13" MacBook Pro around. Then again, changing the name of the original 13" MacBook to the 13" MacBook Pro always seemed more like something that was rooted in marketing more than it was about keeping any kind of parity between the 13" and 15"/16"/17" Macs.)

 

[Boil]

You will note the specs for my fever dream line-up (just showing the consumer half here) are oddly identical:

MacBook - starting at US$1,299.00

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores - Monolithic SoC design
LPDDR5 RAM Unified Memory Architecture - 16GB / 32GB / 64GB
NVMe SSD (single NAND blade) - 512GB / 1TB / 2TB
Two USB4 (TB3) ports
14" display / 2560x1600 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers / Nano texture option


Mac mini - starting at US$999.00

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores - Monolithic SoC design
LPDDR5 RAM Unified Memory Architecture - 16GB / 32GB / 64GB
NVMe SSD (single NAND blade) - 512GB / 1TB / 2TB
Four USB4 (TB3) ports
One Gigabit Ethernet port
One HDMI 2.1 port

 

[theluggage]

TLNR - sure - even if Apple used the existing A12Z chip, the only necessary distinction between the Air and the low-end 13" MBP would be the touch bar. However, Apple can create their own distinctions (they already have, partly, by skimping on heatpipes in the current Air, limiting its performance).

There's certainly every reason for the Apple Silicon switch to mark a major re-think of the current product categories, and I wouldn't bet on anything beyond there being a good/better/best laptop and an all-in-one desktop.

I don't know that I believe the 14" rumours - but a 13" "Air", a 14" "MacBook" and a 16" "Macbook Pro" - each in good/better/best flavours - seems like a sensible line-up.

But, it's seeming like Apple is not going to have to have to have such a disparity between, say, the processor it would put in an Apple Silicon replacement to the retina MacBook Air and the processor it would put in an Apple Silicon replacement to the current 13" MacBook Pros

Apple can very easily create multiple performance options by simply producing different "grades" of exactly the same chip, by certifying them for different clock speeds and disabling some of the GPU and/or CPU cores or cache memory in the lower-end options. That is pretty common practice in the semiconductor industry - and justified by the fact that there is always a failure rate during fabrication and there is no point throwing away chips which can't quite cope with the maximum clock speed or have one faulty CPU core but are otherwise serviceable. (That's the rose-tinted version: the reality is probably more about creating artificial scarcity by only testing a fraction of the chips made for the top-end specs).

So, having "good/better/best" chips to distinguish (say) an Air, a low-end 13" MBP and a high-end 13: MBP doesn't involve Apple going back to the drawing board 3 times, since they're all physically the same design.

My guess is that all the machines currently using Intel graphics (plus, probably, the smaller iMac which currently only has a dGPU because the Intel desktop chips don't offer Iris/Iris Pro iGPUs) will get, fundamentally, the same silicon with varying clock speeds and numbers of enabled GPU cores. Those are the ones where even an A12 would likely outperform the Intel alternative. The 16" MacBook Pro and the 27" iMac might have to wait for an "Apple Silicon Pro" (my made-up name) SoC with souped up GPUs and on-chip accelerators to wean creative pros away from their discrete GPUs.

 

[Puonti]

Apple likes to talk about performance and user-facing features instead of RAM and gigahertz, because that's a clean, simple message to the majority of their customers. This narrative is what forms a big part of the differentiation within their product lines, and allows for nice overlapping of price ranges (which in turn promotes upsell).

To that end the 13" MacBook Air and MacBook Pro are less about the screen size and more about everything else. If Apple still sees value in screen size overlap they will make absolutely sure that they don't put too much performance and too many features into the Air.

Within this product space Apple most likely does not have a problem of "too little performance" - they can underclock and de-core their own silicon to give the Air just enough performance to feel like a great laptop at its price range (better than the Intel MacBook Airs), but not so much that it makes the Pro useless.

 

[matram]

I believe we will see a ”value line” and a ”pro line” as for the iDevices, each line may have two screen sizes, e.g. a 14 and 16” pro model.

They will not sell on technical detail but on relative improvements to previous generation, so for the value line which I think will be called simply MacBook we will see something like 20% better performance, 50% better battery life, quite and compact, i.e. no fans.

 

[Mikael H]

The Air is about being an iconic computer, of course - but the most important factor of the Air is that it's the Mac people can afford. This means no Touch bar, it means no P3 gamut display, and it has traditionally meant slower CPUs.

Contrary to suggestions in this thread I'd say it would be a marketing bonus if Apple could tell students and "regular people" that the Air is as capable - in terms of CPU and GPU - as the 13" MBP, but for $n you can have "these additional features".

 

[Puonti]

Contrary to suggestions in this thread I'd say it would be a marketing bonus if Apple could tell students and "regular people" that the Air is as capable - in terms of CPU and GPU - as the 13" MBP, but for $n you can have "these additional features".

There's definitely going to be feature differences between the two, but the reason why I believe there will still also be a performance difference is that Apple doesn't need to convince typical Air customers that the laptop is "as performant as a Pro" - they just need to say it's a very good laptop for that customer segment's expected use cases. If more tech-savvy customers are interested in the Air, it's not primarily because of performance anyway.

Plus, this approach makes the Pro an easier sell for its intended target market. More performance plus better features such as more ports. After all, "pro(sumer)s" are not a homogenous group. Not all need all of the features (such as more ports). If the Air was as performant as the Pro, more of the customers Apple wants to sell Pros to would go with the cheaper Air instead.

 

[BlankStar]

They can easily make an A13, A13X, A13Z, A13PRO, A13Whatever with more/less cores for the different products. Doubt they'll change the lineup of products.

Same goes for I/O-ports/throughput.

 

[nothingtoseehere]

The Air is about being an iconic computer, of course - but the most important factor of the Air is that it's the Mac people can afford. This means no Touch bar, it means no P3 gamut display, and it has traditionally meant slower CPUs.

This is important. Apple needs an (within the Apple universe) affordable entry model that covers the needs of students etc. Lower price tag and portability are the main features for this user group. They definitively will stay there with Apple Silicon.

Someone else wrote in some other thread that the former lineup - 11 and 13 MBA, 13 and 15 MBP - was rather clear and logical. I agree. With smaller bezels, this would translate in 12/14 vs. 14/16.
Around 2015, the main difference between the 13 MBA and the 13 MBP was the retina display (to ignore here the still lingering 13 cMBP) which was the main point for me to buy the MBP.

Now retina is everywhere. But I think if Apple stays with, let's say, 14 MBA and 14 MBP, they will define distinctions. More computing power would be the main point, I think, including graphics power.

So, let's say Apple puts in an SoC into the first Apple Silicon MacBook Air that blows the current Intel 13" 4-port MacBook Pro with its 10th Generation Quad-Core chips out of the water.

Therefore I think this kind of SoC would go into the 14 MBP. The MBAs would get something with less power, smaller or no fans and longer battery life.

 

[thenewperson]

A 13.3" Air (potentially smaller because reduce bezels, keeping the 12") and a pair of 14" and 16" Pros would be a more sensible lineup than what we have, so I'm hopeful.

 

[Woochoo]

It won't. What it will merge is the 12" MB with the 13" MBA into a (probably) single 13" Macbook with the MB design but with more than 1 port like the Air. The reason both coexisted is because Air was massively succesful and MB had thermal throttling problems. But now there's no reason to have both, while there's reasons for Apple to keep a "Pro" entry laptop more powerful and expensive than the Air, but still more portable than a 16" one.

 

[ChromeCloud]

I've posed this before in various threads and the best answer for a "why not?" response had to do with marketing. The only case I can see for that is that the word "Pro" sells more than the word "Air". Otherwise, it seems highly redundant to have two 13" Mac notebooks when the supposed "lower end" is able to do everything that its previous "higher end" equivalent could've otherwise done.

I see two reasons:

1. Apple makes more money by offering products at different price points, even if the difference between the Air and the Pro is only going to be about the touch bar and the screen quality (Pro has better screen). Plus they can restrict the best RAM and SSD options to the Pro model, for which you are going to pay more in addition to the price of upgrades.
2. It still makes sense to make different design tradeoffs for lower and higher TDPs in different products. Even if the base MacBook Air will run circles around the current MacBook Pro 13", people that care about performance will be happy to spend more to get a heavier/hotter laptop with even stronger CPU and GPU performance.

Regarding the choice of processors, it looks like Apple is going to debut 3 new SOCs for the Mac this year (t6000, t6001, t6002), each of them probably differentiated by core count and clock speed and suited for a different TDP (think MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac).

 

[nothingtoseehere]

The funny thing is that at , they have thought two, or three, or five years ago about all we here think about,
and made their decisions long ago. We just do not know about yet

 

[rumz]

I think it’s interesting to consider the iPhone, for example. There’s a product where they use the same SOC across a range of price points, and what differentiates them is other features— screen size, screen type, FaceID vs. TouchID, so on and so forth.

I look at how the iPhone and iPad Pro chips compare in the same generation and the differences seem to be more about maintaining the SoC’s performance while supporting different hardware (larger / higher resolution screen, etc) than it is about any kind of notable performance advantage of one device over another in terms of raw computing power.

This is not to say that Apple wouldn’t differentiate the Mac lineup of processors by more than just supporting different levels of hardware, I just don’t know how dramatic the performance difference would need to be for it to be a key selling point for higher priced Macs. At least in the laptop space, it doesn’t need to be that different, they can easily differentiate on other things and keep their SoC manufacturing fairly efficient.

At some point we’ll get to where they could have lower price options based on a previous SOC (look at how Apple uses older A series chips in lower price tier products like the standard iPad or an AppleTV.)

Can’t wait to see these new Macs!

 

[Yebubbleman]

Apple likes to talk about performance and user-facing features instead of RAM and gigahertz, because that's a clean, simple message to the majority of their customers. This narrative is what forms a big part of the differentiation within their product lines, and allows for nice overlapping of price ranges (which in turn promotes upsell).

To that end the 13" MacBook Air and MacBook Pro are less about the screen size and more about everything else. If Apple still sees value in screen size overlap they will make absolutely sure that they don't put too much performance and too many features into the Air.

Within this product space Apple most likely does not have a problem of "too little performance" - they can underclock and de-core their own silicon to give the Air just enough performance to feel like a great laptop at its price range (better than the Intel MacBook Airs), but not so much that it makes the Pro useless.

Right, so my question here is what is the "everything else" that makes the average consumer want to spend more on the 13" Pro versus the Air when the Air is otherwise feature-for-feature functionally identical to the 13" Pro? If it's the "Pro" name and design similarity to the 16" MacBook Pro, that's silly, but then again consumers are silly, so I'll take that as a valid response. Like, if a Pro photographer can get his or her job done on a MacBook Air, why are they going to shell out $300-500 more on a 13" Pro instead?

There's definitely going to be feature differences between the two, but the reason why I believe there will still also be a performance difference is that Apple doesn't need to convince typical Air customers that the laptop is "as performant as a Pro" - they just need to say it's a very good laptop for that customer segment's expected use cases. If more tech-savvy customers are interested in the Air, it's not primarily because of performance anyway.

Plus, this approach makes the Pro an easier sell for its intended target market. More performance plus better features such as more ports. After all, "pro(sumer)s" are not a homogenous group. Not all need all of the features (such as more ports). If the Air was as performant as the Pro, more of the customers Apple wants to sell Pros to would go with the cheaper Air instead.

That's my point though; the key difference between Air and 13" Pro is performance. Past that and you're left with incidental features that either (a) wouldn't be hard or expensive to move to the Air or (b) aren't enough to justify to someone who would rather not spend the money for the name "Pro". With Intel, the dividing line in performance had to be set because the fastest processor that Apple could fit in a 13" Pro was a whole class of processor beefier than that of the retina Air. With Apple Silicon, I cannot fathom that, unless Apple continues to push the thermal envelopes to their limit, it will be the same.

In the PowerPC days, you had the 12" PowerBook G4 and the iBook G4 (with 12 and 14" sizes). The latter had a plastic body and a lower-end set of components. Apple could cheapen the MacBook Air, but it's not going to really be doing so to that kind of degree, and, nowadays, the only substantial difference between the Air and the 13" Pro machines is performance, thus prompting this thread.

It won't. What it will merge is the 12" MB with the 13" MBA into a (probably) single 13" Macbook with the MB design but with more than 1 port like the Air. The reason both coexisted is because Air was massively succesful and MB had thermal throttling problems. But now there's no reason to have both, while there's reasons for Apple to keep a "Pro" entry laptop more powerful and expensive than the Air, but still more portable than a 16" one.

The 12" MacBook already merged with the MacBook Air to make the current MacBook Air. There's nothing left to merge anymore. The 12" MacBook is dead. Also, you don't really state reasons as to why there's a point to a 13" Pro laptop. "Pro" and "Entry" are oxymoronic at best.

I see two reasons:

1. Apple makes more money by offering products at different price points, even if the difference between the Air and the Pro is only going to be about the touch bar and the screen quality (Pro has better screen). Plus they can restrict the best RAM and SSD options to the Pro model, for which you are going to pay more in addition to the price of upgrades.
2. It still makes sense to make different design tradeoffs for lower and higher TDPs in different products. Even if the base MacBook Air will run circles around the current MacBook Pro 13", people that care about performance will be happy to spend more to get a heavier/hotter laptop with even stronger CPU and GPU performance.

Regarding the choice of processors, it looks like Apple is going to debut 3 new SOCs for the Mac this year (t6000, t6001, t6002), each of them probably differentiated by core count and clock speed and suited for a different TDP (think MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac).

View attachment 941579

The size difference between the current Air and current 13" Pro is small enough and Apple's ability to provide greater performance per watt with Apple Silicon is great enough, that the chassis disparity between the Air and the 13" Pro will be moot. I'll buy your argument of differing pricing/marketing tiers for a dollar, easily though.

But the two Macs will almost certainly be redundant given how close in feature-set they already are. With the current (and likely final) set of 13" laptops that Apple sells, you have three distinct models, all largely differentiated by which Intel chips Apple is able to put in there. This will absolutely not be necessary when there's one chip WAY faster than the current fastest Intel chip that can power the thinnest enclosure.

The funny thing is that at , they have thought two, or three, or five years ago about all we here think about,
and made their decisions long ago. We just do not know about yet

Y'know that really is funny to think about. I wonder if they read these threads and laugh like "these fools...if only they knew!"

 

[Boil]

MacBook - starting at US$1,299.00

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores - Monolithic SoC design
LPDDR5 RAM Unified Memory Architecture - 16GB / 32GB / 64GB
NVMe SSD (single NAND blade) - 512GB / 1TB / 2TB
Two USB4 (TB3) ports
14" display / 2560x1600 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers / Nano texture option


MacBook Pro - starting at US$2,499.00

24 P cores / 4 E cores / 48 GPU cores - CPU / GPU Chiplets & RAM on interposer / System in Package (SiP) design
HBM3 Unified Memory Architecture - 32GB / 64GB / 128GB
NVMe RAID 0 (dual NAND blades) - 1TB / 2TB / 4TB
Two USB4 (TB3) ports
Two TB4 ports
16" display / 3072x1920 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers / Nano texture option

 

[Puonti]

Right, so my question here is what is the "everything else" that makes the average consumer want to spend more on the 13" Pro versus the Air when the Air is otherwise feature-for-feature functionally identical to the 13" Pro?

...the key difference between Air and 13" Pro is performance. Past that and you're left with incidental features ...

...nowadays, the only substantial difference between the Air and the 13" Pro machines is performance, thus prompting this thread.

The fact is you can't plug four external devices directly to the Air, and you don't get the brighter display that supports P3 on the Air. Someone might even want the Touch Bar - no judgement - and you can't get that on the Air.

Your hypothetical photographer might see the display as reason enough to go for the Pro. Someone else might absolutely need more ports on-device. Apple has determined this plus performance plus price (made profitable by the differences in hardware) is sufficient differentiation for this particular point in time, between these particular products. You might not agree with that (and you're not alone) but it is what it is.

You made the case that with Apple's own silicon the Air would likely have sufficient thermal headroom to have the same performance as the Pro, making the product distinction meaningless. I'm not saying you're wrong about the potential for more thermal headroom. I'm just saying, as I understand Apple's Mac motivations over the past several years, they would rather gimp the silicon and hardware that goes into their future "Air" -type MacBook to make sure it remains squarely aimed at a more cost-conscious target market compared to their future "Pro" -type MacBook.

All of this assuming they want to maintain their current Mac product matrix, of course. Moving to their own silicon is certainly an opportunity to simplify - but it doesn't mean they can't keep the matrix if they want to. If there's thermal headroom on the future Air they can just remove the fan. It saves them some money and frees up room in the case for something else (or a smaller case).

 

[Yebubbleman]

The fact is you can't plug four external devices directly to the Air, and you don't get the brighter display that supports P3 on the Air. Someone might even want the Touch Bar - no judgement - and you can't get that on the Air.

Your hypothetical photographer might see the display as reason enough to go for the Pro. Someone else might absolutely need more ports on-device. Apple has determined this plus performance plus price (made profitable by the differences in hardware) is sufficient differentiation for this particular point in time, between these particular products. You might not agree with that (and you're not alone) but it is what it is.

You made the case that with Apple's own silicon the Air would likely have sufficient thermal headroom to have the same performance as the Pro, making the product distinction meaningless. I'm not saying you're wrong about the potential for more thermal headroom. I'm just saying, as I understand Apple's Mac motivations over the past several years, they would rather gimp the silicon and hardware that goes into their future "Air" -type MacBook to make sure it remains squarely aimed at a more cost-conscious target market compared to their future "Pro" -type MacBook.

All of this assuming they want to maintain their current Mac product matrix, of course. Moving to their own silicon is certainly an opportunity to simplify - but it doesn't mean they can't keep the matrix if they want to. If there's thermal headroom on the future Air they can just remove the fan. It saves them some money and frees up room in the case for something else (or a smaller case).

I see your point. But how much more does the disparity between the 13" Pro's display and the current Air's display really warrant?

Of course, if they want to maintain the product matrix, then sure. But especially with two essentially different 13" MacBook Pros spread across four models (the lower-end 13" Pro with the lower-end two of four models effectively being the spiritual successor to the 2010-2017 MacBook Airs) along with the Air (and the Intel CPU variants being the key differentiating factors therein), an Apple Silicon processor that blows all of that away, comfortably fits in the Air's current chassis, then it doesn't seem like there'd need to continue to be two, let alone three models of 13" Mac notebook.

Also, I'm pretty sure the limiting factors to give the two-port 13" MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air two additional Thunderbolt ports had to do with the Intel processors and their limitations therein. Apple Silicon should nix that. As for the TouchBar, I suppose that's a take-it-or-leave-it item. Certainly the display disparities, at that point, aren't so much that they warrant a distinctly different model of Mac, no? At worst, they can be a CTO option.

 

[Mikael H]

Someone might even want the Touch Bar - no judgement

What a nice euphemism. ?

 

[Boil]

All of this assuming they want to maintain their current Mac product matrix, of course. Moving to their own silicon is certainly an opportunity to simplify - but it doesn't mean they can't keep the matrix if they want to. If there's thermal headroom on the future Air they can just remove the fan. It saves them some money and frees up room in the case for something else (or a smaller case).

Back to the 2 X 2 product matrix!


MacBook - starting at US$1,299.00

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores - Monolithic SoC design
LPDDR5 RAM Unified Memory Architecture - 16GB / 32GB / 64GB
NVMe SSD (single NAND blade) - 512GB / 1TB / 2TB
Two USB4 (TB3) ports
14" display / 2560x1600 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers / Nano texture option


Mac mini - starting at US$999.00

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores - Monolithic SoC design
LPDDR5 RAM Unified Memory Architecture - 16GB / 32GB / 64GB
NVMe SSD (single NAND blade) - 512GB / 1TB / 2TB
Four USB4 (TB3) ports
One Gigabit Ethernet port
One HDMI 2.1 port


MacBook Pro - starting at US$2,499.00

24 P cores / 4 E cores / 48 GPU cores - CPU / GPU Chiplets & RAM on interposer / System in Package (SiP) design
HBM3 Unified Memory Architecture - 32GB / 64GB / 128GB
NVMe RAID 0 (dual NAND blades) - 1TB / 2TB / 4TB
Two USB4 (TB3) ports
Two TB4 ports
16" display / 3072x1920 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers / Nano texture option


Mac Pro Cube - starting at US$5,999.00

48 P cores / 4 E cores / 96 GPU cores - CPU / GPU Chiplets & RAM on interposer / System in Package (SiP) design
HBM3 Unified Memory Architecture - 128GB / 256GB / 512GB
NVMe RAID 0 (dual NAND blades) 4TB / 8TB / 16TB
Four USB4 (TB3) ports
Four TB4 ports
Two 10Gb Ethernet ports
One HDMI 2.1 port
Three MPX-C slots (for use with asst. MPX-C expansion modules)

 

[Puonti]

I see your point. But how much more does the disparity between the 13" Pro's display and the current Air's display really warrant?

Price-wise? I'd say there's no one answer, since it varies from person to person.

For someone prone to wishful thinking when it comes to the hardware makeup and prices of Apple's products, I'd say "just enough that it stings". For someone invested in Apple's ecosystem who really needs those features the higher-tier product becomes the default option regardless of price (within reason). If it won't do what you need it to do pining after the cheaper option doesn't really achieve anything. And if the device is provided by your employer, there's no need to anyway.

But especially with two essentially different 13" MacBook Pros spread across four models ... along with the Air ... it doesn't seem like there'd need to continue to be two, let alone three models of 13" Mac notebook.

Yeah, if you ask me the purpose of that two-port MacBook Pro 13" is to allow the four-port Pro to be priced the way it is.

Apple's product lineup hasn't been simple for a long time and I'm hoping the coming Apple silicon Macs will allow Apple to simplify it (once the Intel models are no longer sold). But if that two-port Pro is there solely for pricing structure reasons then that complicates matters; regardless of what chips the Macs use, Apple will probably want to maintain their pricing logic (if not exact price points) because it seems to be successful.

Also, I'm pretty sure the limiting factors to give the two-port 13" MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air two additional Thunderbolt ports had to do with the Intel processors and their limitations therein.

Yes, my understanding is that there's technical reasons, too, but they also happen to play well into Apple's need for differentiation. I imagine Apple is perfectly fine with using a more limited chipset (port support wise) in the Air.

As for the TouchBar, I suppose that's a take-it-or-leave-it item. Certainly the display disparities, at that point, aren't so much that they warrant a distinctly different model of Mac, no? At worst, they can be a CTO option.

I don't believe Apple has traditionally (recently anyway) offered display BTO options, and I don't see them doing that with Macs using their own silicon. That's more of a Windows PC thing. For Apple displays have been one of the cornerstones around which they build devices - a standard feature that comes with the product. That's probably why they consider it a differentiator (or at least I think they do).

 

[UltimateSyn]

MacBook - starting at US$1,299.00

You think they would increase their price of entry in the consumer laptop lineup to $1299 from $999? That's a $300 increase aka a lot.

To OP's question: I was actually just thinking about this yesterday. If they could now make the Pros just as thin and light as the Air without diminishing performance well then what's the point of the Air? The answer is probably price. They need a consumer entry-level model at ~$1000 and they also need models at $2000+ that they can hopefully upsell you to.

They could actually still distinguish based on processing power (e.g. actively cooled dual A14Ms in the MBP, passively cooled single A14M in the MBA) but there are also plenty of other distinguishing factors. Many already exist; number of ports, quality of screen, speakers, etc. What I'm expecting to see is an updated MBA that has features and performance very similar to the existing MBP but simultaneously a new MBP that blows that out of the water with a near bezel-less 120Hz mini-LED display, 1080p webcam with FaceID, dual processors, better speakers, new design, etc etc etc.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

Contrary to suggestions in this thread I'd say it would be a marketing bonus if Apple could tell students and "regular people" that the Air is as capable - in terms of CPU and GPU - as the 13" MBP, but for $n you can have "these additional features".

There's definitely going to be feature differences between the two, but the reason why I believe there will still also be a performance difference is that Apple doesn't need to convince typical Air customers that the laptop is "as performant as a Pro" - they just need to say it's a very good laptop for that customer segment's expected use cases.

I've been speculating about the subject of the OP myself for a while now too. I definitely think "It has the same processor as the Pro models" is definitely a selling point for the iPhone SE. Maybe not a huge selling point but a point nonetheless.

Right, so my question here is what is the "everything else" that makes the average consumer want to spend more on the 13" Pro versus the Air when the Air is otherwise feature-for-feature functionally identical to the 13" Pro? If it's the "Pro" name and design similarity to the 16" MacBook Pro, that's silly, but then again consumers are silly, so I'll take that as a valid response. Like, if a Pro photographer can get his or her job done on a MacBook Air, why are they going to shell out $300-500 more on a 13" Pro instead?

To address this specific difference, photographers have a choice. They can go with a 16" Pro and do everything on that one machine, or they can have an Air/non-Pro for when they have to work away or do things in the field, and something bigger like an iMac or even a Mac Pro back at base to do their real heavy lifting on big screens.

There are still customers with more money/aspirations than sense who like to overbuy. Sometimes theres some sense to it because they tend to keep things as long as possible, sometimes they just have to have the best one because they are vain and/or stupid.

That's my point though; the key difference between Air and 13" Pro is performance.

I think for some the size and weight is still a factor.

In the PowerPC days, you had the 12" PowerBook G4 and the iBook G4 (with 12 and 14" sizes). The latter had a plastic body and a lower-end set of components.

When you say "lower end" what exactly do you mean? For a while they had Combo drives instead of Superdrives. The HDDs might have been a little smaller as standard. Other than that there wasn't a huge amount of difference. The plastic body was about durability as they were built with school in mind. Schools don't need more than iPads these days so its not really a consideration any more.

The 12" MacBook is dead.

The 12" died because it was a low entry spec laptop with medium/pro price and unlike the original Air, it never had that wow factor of being half as thick as anything else on the market when it launched. Nothing could really justify the price of it when you compared it to an Air or a Pro for the same money.
Apple still wants to make the thinnest, sexiest form factors possible and the 12" MacBook was that.

Y'know that really is funny to think about. I wonder if they read these threads and laugh like "these fools...if only they knew!"

I know I would. Some of them must. Or would if they had that kind of time to waste. Theres products to be built and a world to change you know!

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm now starting to wonder if we'll see a mirror of the iPhone product matrix.

MacBook 13" (looks like the 12" but even thinner and prettier)
MacBook Pro 14"
MacBook Pro Max 16"


iMac 24"
iMac Pro 27"
iMac Pro Max 30"

Mac (Drops the Mini)
Mac Pro (Like the MBPM but in the Mini style case)
Mac Pro Max (24+Cores Tower)

One SoC for the laptops, one for all the desktops except the Max, one for the Max. First two are similar, higher clocks in the iMacs, more GPU cores enabled in the Pros, even more in the maxes.
MacBook Pro/Max and iMac Pro/Max have a T3 chip based on A12 instead of the T2 based on A10. Since this chip handles an amount of audio, image and video processing in existing Macs, it will provide an even bigger boost to the performance of these. The A12Z can handle 3 streams of 4K video right? So these Pro Macs will have a significant boost for pro work with photos and videos.

Also, Apple decides given the bleak nature of the last few years, its time to bring more colour back into our lives and the various models are available with cases anodised in various vivd and funky colours. Same sort of brightness as the second gen iPod Minis. Large bulk buying customers can mix their own shades. They wisely wait 6 months after launch before making a bright shiny gold option available so that customers in the middle east replace all their brand new machines with gold ones long before they needed to.

 

[Boil]

I'm now starting to wonder if we'll see a mirror of the iPhone product matrix.

MacBook 13" (looks like the 12" but even thinner and prettier)
MacBook Pro 14"
MacBook Pro Max 16"


iMac 24"
iMac Pro 27"
iMac Pro Max 30"

Mac (Drops the Mini)
Mac Pro (Like the MBPM but in the Mini style case)
Mac Pro Max (24+Cores Tower)

NO...!