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

[awesomedeluxe]

A higher performance Apple Silicon 14" MacBook Pro replacing the 4-port Intel 13" MacBook Pro while an Apple Silicon MacBook Air replacing both the Intel MacBook Air and the 2-port Intel 13" MacBook Pro makes perfect sense. The 2-port 13" MacBook Pro was always the continuation of the 2010-2017 MacBook Air anyway while the 2018-2020 MacBook Air was the continuation of the 2015-2017 12" MacBook people here are all so crazy for. So, that kind of consolidation is good...on one condition. The Apple Silicon 14" MacBook Pro either needs to be closer to its 16" sibling in terms of features and performance or stand further apart from both the Air and the 16" Pro and have a name that isn't "MacBook Pro". Revive the triad of "MacBook Air" on the ultraportable side (13"); "MacBook" being the standard model that's just right in terms of being performant and portable (14"); and "MacBook Pro" for the ultra-performant notebook for high-end professionals (16"). Otherwise, there's too much redundancy.

Yeah, this is likely. I think there's a distinct audience who wants a laptop that doesn't break the budget and is super portable and a different audience that will pay a premium for a "no compromises" notebook that has power and portability.

Even though the screen sizes are similar, making a fanless machine is a drastically different undertaking than making something with active cooling.

If anything, by using their own hardware Apple can differentiate between different model lines better. The 13" Pro could have move GPU cores, faster CPUs and faster RAM for example. Basically, yes, I expect the upcoming "baseline" Mac laptop to be comparable or faster to the current 13" MBP, but the MBP instead could get even faster. For example, getting a GPU option that was so far reserved to larger models. With 16 GPU cores we should see performance levels comparable to a 5300M-5500M at ~30W

16 GPU cores is also about what I'd expect on the MBP13. How are you doing your performance estimate for GPUs? There very few 1:1 benchmark comparisons and I'm not sure they tell the full story.

I do think Apple's A14-gen graphics could really impress. nVidia has mobile cards competitive with AMD's that use a fraction of the power - for instance, notebookcheck ranks the Quadro T2000 Max-Q (35 - 40W) ahead of the Radeon 5500M (50W). And nVidia is on a 12nm process, which means Apple will be two full nodes ahead of them.

 

[leman]

16 GPU cores is also about what I'd expect on the MBP13. How are you doing your performance estimate for GPUs? There very few 1:1 benchmark comparisons and I'm not sure they tell the full story.

A12Z (8 GPU cores) are more or less equivalent to a 1050 GTX. I'd expect 16 A14 GPU cores to be more than 2x of that.

I do think Apple's A14-gen graphics could really impress. nVidia has mobile cards competitive with AMD's that use a fraction of the power - for instance, notebookcheck ranks the Quadro T2000 Max-Q (35 - 40W) ahead of the Radeon 5500M (50W). And nVidia is on a 12nm process, which means Apple will be two full nodes ahead of them.

T2000 Max-Q in 40W version appears to be 10-20% slower than the 5500M Pro (closer to 25% if you use modded newer gaming-optimized drivers).

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Don't see a fusion myself.

The Pro can potentially still retain many features that are absent on the Air, such as

- a larger chassis, which can accommodate USB-C ports parallel to each other (rather than space for only one), in addition to greater airflow and a fan for a more powerful chip,

- a Face ID camera, which I doubt would be on the consumer variant for costs (and up-purchasing),

- a Touch Bar, which like it or not, Apple still considers a 'pro' feature; either that or they know that mainstream would hate it if it appeared in the Air,

- and a more professionally-orientated display with micro LED.

The case for having an 'ultra light/slim' notebook is still relevant, but there needs to be a boundary between this and greater features. The 12" MacBook was a proof of concept for this, and I believe it's likely that this design could pave the way for the consumer variant. In addition, the more features you offer customers at the lower end of the product line, the less reasons they have to spend more at the top.

Whatever happens, they'll slim the product line down drastically. The 'MacBook' will be just that at around 12", the current 13" Pro will eventually be replaced by a 14" and another Pro at 16". Nice gradual increase in size and performance.

 

[aednichols]

Has anyone taken a look at the RAM on the DTK yet?

It should be possible to learn something from System Profiler, if it's working properly on that hardware. It shows how the memory is broken up into channels and modules (even if there are no removable SODIMMs, i.e. soldered).

 

[defferoo]

i wonder if they’ll bring back a fanless 12” with a 4P+4E SOC similar to the iPad Pro chip. it would be completely doable and would blow away the current Air in performance.

Although i’d personally be more interested in a more powerful 13” MBP (or 14” mini-LED). Hopefully they can get 8P+4E in there which would even outdo the current 16” MBP

 

[thunng8]

Remember to put a disclaimer that you got those "specs" from a fever dream or coffee stains from the bottom of a cup

Here we quickly compare the MacBook (with i7-7Y75) with the current iPhone 11 Pro (A13) in Geekbench 5. The single core performance is already ~35% faster and multi-core performance is 53% faster. Then factor in the Neural Processing Unit for applications that benefit from machine learning (photo editing etc.).

Your maths is way off. Iphone is 53% faster in single core and 113% faster multicore.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think this is the crucial point in this entire discussion. I agree with @Yebubbleman's logic that there is little sense to maintain both the MBA and the MBP — assuming that they will have similar tier of performance. That assumption itself however is a big "if".

Personally, I think that they will use the opportunity to better differentiate between the customer and the pro level of laptops. As I mentioned in my previous posts, they could make the 13" Pro more powerful (in relative scale) than it is now, something they couldn't do before since they were locked into third-party hardware.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the customer Mac laptops will simply use iPad chips. This would still make them more than fast enough for everyday tasks (comparable with 15W intel CPUs) while giving them better graphics, better thermals and very good battery life. The 13" Pro on the other hand could feature a beefier SoC (and to just a marginally overclocked one) with more CPU and GPU cores and faster RAM.

I guess a bigger point is that you have the 16" MacBook Pro, which, whether you go with a base model (give or take a couple tiers of larger storage) or a maxed out higher-end model, can serve pretty much every use case that can be done without needing a 27" iMac/iMac Pro or Mac Pro. The lower-end Hexa-core i7 models can still serve casual use cases just fine. The only reasons to not want a 16" MacBook Pro for one's uses are cost and size. The only reason why the MacBook Air can't currently suffice for those not needing that kind of power for that kind of size trade-off and price is that it is underpowered. However, if you make the MacBook Air more powerful enough and give it the features it currently can't have, then the 13" Pro is redundant. In fact, the best case scenario is that Apple just makes it a smaller version of the 16" MacBook Pro (which it definitely is not today in Intel land), but even then, the only reason why it exists is for people that want it smaller and want it cheaper. Not saying there's anything wrong with that (the iBook G4 models existed in a similar fashion and that made sense). Otherwise, it doesn't serve any additional function in the lineup.

Like, speaking practically, if the MacBook Air had all of the features of the current 4-port 13" MacBook Pro, what would anyone want out of a MacBook Pro that said Air or the 16" MacBook Pro couldn't already do better?

I think that's the main point here.

Yeah, this is likely. I think there's a distinct audience who wants a laptop that doesn't break the budget and is super portable and a different audience that will pay a premium for a "no compromises" notebook that has power and portability.

Even though the screen sizes are similar, making a fanless machine is a drastically different undertaking than making something with active cooling.

Depending on how Apple divides high-end and low-end among their notebooks once in Apple Silicon land (which likely won't be along the same lines as they currently do in Intel land because, on the 13" notebook side of things, they are literally at their thermal limits), active versus passive cooling may not matter so much. Which is to say that they can probably cool the Apple Silicon MacBook Air in exactly the same way as they currently are with the 2020 Intel MacBook Air and still have it handily beat every Intel MacBook Air and every Intel 13" MacBook Pro that have ever existed without having the kinds of thermal issues that said 2020 Intel Air currently has. It's highly likely that they designed the 2020 Intel Air with the Apple Silicon Air in mind (and just figured "this'll do until what we really want with this is ready to launch").

Don't see a fusion myself.

The Pro can potentially still retain many features that are absent on the Air, such as

- a larger chassis, which can accommodate USB-C ports parallel to each other (rather than space for only one), in addition to greater airflow and a fan for a more powerful chip,

- a Face ID camera, which I doubt would be on the consumer variant for costs (and up-purchasing),

- a Touch Bar, which like it or not, Apple still considers a 'pro' feature; either that or they know that mainstream would hate it if it appeared in the Air,

- and a more professionally-orientated display with micro LED.

The case for having an 'ultra light/slim' notebook is still relevant, but there needs to be a boundary between this and greater features. The 12" MacBook was a proof of concept for this, and I believe it's likely that this design could pave the way for the consumer variant. In addition, the more features you offer customers at the lower end of the product line, the less reasons they have to spend more at the top.

Whatever happens, they'll slim the product line down drastically. The 'MacBook' will be just that at around 12", the current 13" Pro will eventually be replaced by a 14" and another Pro at 16". Nice gradual increase in size and performance.

The 12" MacBook was too limiting even aside from performance. People complained about it only having one port and that one port not even being Thunderbolt 3 (which is STILL really obnoxious by today's standards). People on here act like sluggish performance was the only reason why that thing didn't sell well. Plus, it was still way pricier than it had any business being. Unless you can sell me a 12" Apple Silicon MacBook at $700, I'm always going to be better off spending that same money on yesterday's Air or 13" Pro instead and I'm far from alone in that regard (case in point, it doesn't exist anymore). Apple turned that machine into the 2018-2020 MacBook Air which serves those needs better than the 12" ever did despite more or less being the same computer under the hood (albeit with TouchID, an additional port, and a T2 chip).

Also, what you say mention isn't a slimming down of the line (other than nixing the whole 2-port versus 4-port dynamic). A slimming down of the line would be one kind of computer at one size and another kind of computer at another size.

Again, give me a reason for the middle machine to exist. It being a smaller version of the 16" Pro is viable; Apple did that in the PowerPC era and it worked well for them. But we now have the capability to have the lowest-end system cover the needs of those that previously needed that middle system (because the lower-end one was under-performing and the higher-end one was overkill).

i wonder if they’ll bring back a fanless 12” with a 4P+4E SOC similar to the iPad Pro chip. it would be completely doable and would blow away the current Air in performance.

Although i’d personally be more interested in a more powerful 13” MBP (or 14” mini-LED). Hopefully they can get 8P+4E in there which would even outdo the current 16” MBP

Seems like everyone on here wonders that same thing. I don't think there's a place for the 12". At best an Air at 13", and either a 14" "MacBook" with a 16" Pro or a 14" version of the 16" Pro to be sold alongside it. But anything else is functionally redundant once the Air actually gets some of the performance that it couldn't get with Intel but can get with Apple Silicon.

 

[Tech198]

Isn't this the reason they did separate models ?

I guess they did do same from PowerPC >> Intel. Apple seems to be all over the place

Make up your mind. You'll always have to keep 'that' model around for the basic laptop budget-er. What are ya gonna do? Tell them "Tough luck buddy,, get an iPad Air"

 

[leman]

Like, speaking practically, if the MacBook Air had all of the features of the current 4-port 13" MacBook Pro, what would anyone want out of a MacBook Pro that said Air or the 16" MacBook Pro couldn't already do better?

I understand what you mean, but you seem to be assuming that the 16" will stay on approximately the same power level as it is now. I think that all Apple laptops will receive a performance boost, shifting the capabilities 'upwards".

Let's look at it from this perspective: Apple laptop lines represent different thermal design brackets. Historically, it has been 7-15W for Air, 30W for the 13" MBP (right now they have a mix of 15W and 30W) and 60-75W for the "large" MBP.

Let's say that Apple is able to match the current Intel 13" MBP with a 15W SoC (a conservative assumptions since all they'd need to do is use an iPad Pro chip, voila). Your argument seems to be that this would make the 13" Pro obsolete. I disagree however. The 13" Pro still has the 30W advantage, it could host a larger SoC, bring it close to the power of the current 16". The 16" in turn could use even bigger chip, making it more powerful than is possible with Intel components.

With this kind of lineup, many people who currently buy the 16" for the faster CPU/GPU would instead get the 13" Pro. The 16" will be for users who want the absolute best performance in a laptop. And overall, the value proposition of Mac laptops will improve dramatically.

 

[Pressure]

Your maths is way off. Iphone is 53% faster in single core and 113% faster multicore.

Yeah, I shouldn't do math while distracted

 

[Yebubbleman]

I understand what you mean, but you seem to be assuming that the 16" will stay on approximately the same power level as it is now. I think that all Apple laptops will receive a performance boost, shifting the capabilities 'upwards".

Let's look at it from this perspective: Apple laptop lines represent different thermal design brackets. Historically, it has been 7-15W for Air, 30W for the 13" MBP (right now they have a mix of 15W and 30W) and 60-75W for the "large" MBP.

Let's say that Apple is able to match the current Intel 13" MBP with a 15W SoC (a conservative assumptions since all they'd need to do is use an iPad Pro chip, voila). Your argument seems to be that this would make the 13" Pro obsolete. I disagree however. The 13" Pro still has the 30W advantage, it could host a larger SoC, bring it close to the power of the current 16". The 16" in turn could use even bigger chip, making it more powerful than is possible with Intel components.

With this kind of lineup, many people who currently buy the 16" for the faster CPU/GPU would instead get the 13" Pro. The 16" will be for users who want the absolute best performance in a laptop. And overall, the value proposition of Mac laptops will improve dramatically.

I'm not sure what boosting the 16" MacBook Pro's capabilities would matter here. It's still the same computer that serves the same needs. It will just serve those needs with much greater performance than before. It's not like there's some tickle-up Computer-perform-nomics thing going on here. These models serve the needs of people. You only need a 13" Mac to be so performant before it checks all boxes for all users. The disparity between the thermal envelope of the Air and the 13" Pro will not matter for Apple Silicon the way it absolutely matters for Intel. If it did, like it does for Intel, then I could see your logic. But the one thing conspicuously absent from this thread is talk of the kinds of use cases that one even has for a 13" MacBook Pro today (other than it being a baseline portable performance given the Air's recent shift to Y-series processors [which honestly, shouldn't have ever been in any Mac]).

 

[bluecoast]

Whatever Apple silicon notebooks that releases over the next 12 months, after the discussion in this thread, I’m pretty excited for what we’ll all get.

It seems that the recent Intel era of glaring compromises is coming to an end.

Here’s hoping that Apple passes on some of the cost savings that they’ll get using the same architecture across all of their products to consumers and no doubt they’ll sell loads AS notebooks (pro and consumer models). I know that my credit card is ready.

 

[playtech1]

I could see the Apple Silicon lineup end up being a three model 13 / 14 / 16 inch selection, with the 13 inch taking the consumer 'Air' slot.

That said, I could easily be wrong, as Apple seems happy to segment their product lineup very narrowly. The 2018 MacBook Air clearly overlapped with the non touch-bar MBP 13, which they sold alongside it until July 2019!

As well as the 13 inch Air / Pro overlap, the iPad / iPad Air differences are pretty minor. The existence of the XR and 11 (and arguably the 11 Pro) seems the same on the phone side. Tim Cook's Apple feel this strategy works, so perhaps we should expect continued overlap.

A bit different from the Jobs days of a single product line improved every year, like the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 2, iPad 3, etc. Personally I like choice so don't mind a bit of clutter in the lineup. The only sad spot is that with all this segmentation no room was found for a refreshed 12 inch.

 

[bluecoast]

I could see the Apple Silicon lineup end up being a three model 13 / 14 / 16 inch selection, with the 13 inch taking the consumer 'Air' slot.

That said, I could easily be wrong, as Apple seems happy to segment their product lineup very narrowly. The 2018 MacBook Air clearly overlapped with the non touch-bar MBP 13, which they sold alongside it until July 2019!

As well as the 13 inch Air / Pro overlap, the iPad / iPad Air differences are pretty minor. The existence of the XR and 11 (and arguably the 11 Pro) seems the same on the phone side. Tim Cook's Apple feel this strategy works, so perhaps we should expect continued overlap.

A bit different from the Jobs days of a single product line improved every year, like the iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPad, iPad 2, iPad 3, etc. Personally I like choice so don't mind a bit of clutter in the lineup. The only sad spot is that with all this segmentation no room was found for a refreshed 12 inch.

Really agree. You make a great point in that maybe the iPad lineup is a better indicator of the AS notebook lineup than anything.

Mind you, it’s difficult to second guess Apple.

Many of the product lines now seem pretty logical, but as you say, the iPad line is cluttered - and the reason must be to do with price segmentation and the gulf between the price of the entry level iPad and the iPad Pro.

Like you say, I can’t help but think that the entry level MacBook (the ‘Air’) ‘the battery life champ‘ will be able to be specced up with more RAM and SSD so that it’s pretty much equivalent in price to the entry level 13 Pro ‘the portable power and battery life balance champ’.

Again, like you say, it’s hard to imagine Steve Jobs doing this - there would be clear space between each product. But Cook is a fan of segmentation.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think we keep looking at this from the standpoint of the lineup and not the standpoint of the individual use cases of each machine. When my tech-illiterate friends ask me which of the 13" Macs they should buy, they're not looking at the lineup and analyzing their question in terms of the lineup. They want to know what will serve their needs. If a 13" Apple Silicon Air serves the needs of anyone that isn't buying the 16" Pro (especially those not buying it primarily due to the physical size), then why is a 13" Pro necessary? So far, all answers to this question attack it solely from the standpoint of the lineup and marketing. But if any professional user (say the kind of professional photographer that buys a 13" Pro because they want something that can at least take care of their needs until they get back to their decked out 27" iMac) has all of their boxes checked by an Apple Silicon Air, the computer taking the spot that will have been occupied by the Intel 13" MacBook Pro (let's assume 4-port in this case, for the sake of argument) will have to be that much more capable of an option in order for it to not to be redundant. Again, I think a 14" MacBook Pro that is closer in terms of performance and specs to the 16" MacBook Pro is a good answer. We couldn't have this with Intel (especially since Apple kept prioritizing thin and light over powerful with the Intel-based 13" MacBook Pro for the entirety of its existence), but it is seeming like there isn't really a reason why we can't have this with Apple Silicon.

 

[dmccloud]

2. even the 16-inch has perhaps shifted too far away from the workhorse end of the spectrum. The Mac Pro is highly extensible; the MacBook Pro isn't. Why? It doesn't make sense in terms of marketing. Plus, the MacBook Pro lacks stuff the iPad Pro has: a cellular option, ProMotion, …

Most laptops don't have cellular capabilities built-in, because most people will be using them where there is already a network to connect to. Comparing an iPad Pro to an MBP is misleading, because the iPad was designed from the start to be a portable replacement for a laptop, which is why the cellular option has been there for so long. Your Mac pro vs MacBook Pro comparison is also based on a false assumption, because most Windows laptops are limited in their upgrade options as well, with RAM and in some cases storage being the only things a user can upgrade. The Mac Pro has to support more options for expansion, because it is commonly used in scenarios where tons of RAM and storage are a must.

 

[chucker23n1]

Most laptops don't have cellular capabilities built-in,

Why does the MacBook Pro need to be "most laptops", though?

Your Mac pro vs MacBook Pro comparison is also based on a false assumption, because most Windows laptops are limited in their upgrade options as well, with RAM and in some cases storage being the only things a user can upgrade.

Most Windows laptops don't. High-end ones, though? Yeah, they do.

(And, incidentally, being able to swap the RAM and SSD would already be plenty useful.)

The Mac Pro has to support more options for expansion, because it is commonly used in scenarios where tons of RAM and storage are a must.

You mean, like, "Pro" uses?

 

[dmccloud]

Why does the MacBook Pro need to be "most laptops", though?



Most Windows laptops don't. High-end ones, though? Yeah, they do.
(And, incidentally, being able to swap the RAM and SSD would already be plenty useful.)



You mean, like, "Pro" uses?

Even a high end gaming laptop only lets you upgrade the RAM and (in some cases HDD/SSD). The modular GPU idea nVidia pushed several years ago died on the vine, since only Alienware really jumped on that bandwagon. And I wouldn't buy an Alienware machine if you paid me to. Those machines are heavy, oversized, and run hotter than a NASCAR engine at Phoenix. As far as cellular goes, ask yourself why are there so few cellular-ready laptops on the market right now? Especially in the era of mobile hotspots and tethering, it's relatively simple to just connect to your iPhone or other smartphone for internet wherever you might be, and you're not paying more for cellular connectivity on a laptop when you likely already have it in hand.

 

[Boil]

I am a big fan for slimming down the Mac laptop line-up...

14" Macbook
16" Macbook Pro

Anything smaller/lighter could be an iPad (Pro) with an Apple Magic Keyboard Folio (or Logitech Smart Folio Keyboard Case)...?

 

[thenewperson]

I am a big fan for slimming down the Mac laptop line-up...

14" Macbook
16" Macbook Pro

Anything smaller/lighter could be an iPad (Pro) with an Apple Magic Keyboard Folio (or Logitech Smart Folio Keyboard Case)...?

I think 3 sizes is fine. 12/13, 14 & 16

 

[Kostask]

i think 3 sizes wil do it. The 13" MacBook Air, optimized for battery life and light weight, a 14" MacBook Pro, with more ports, a bigger screen, and higher RAM and SSD limits, as well as a higher quality screen, and the 16" MacBook Pro. The two port small MacBook Pro goes away. Educational buyers can buy the MacBook Air, since it will handily beat the existing MacBook Pro 13".

 

[chucker23n1]

Even a high end gaming laptop only lets you upgrade the RAM and (in some cases HDD/SSD).

The Dell in the office next door lets me replace the Wi-Fi, RAM, SSD, battery, …, and it's not even "high-end".

The modular GPU idea nVidia pushed several years ago died on the vine, since only Alienware really jumped on that bandwagon.

Yes, modular GPUs in laptops are rare.

And I wouldn't buy an Alienware machine if you paid me to. Those machines are heavy, oversized, and run hotter than a NASCAR engine at Phoenix.

Apple doesn't have to go to that extreme.

As far as cellular goes, ask yourself why are there so few cellular-ready laptops on the market right now?

First of all, looking at how the market is has never been and shouldn't be the way Apple functions. That kind of attitude would never have shipped the iPhone.

"Ask yourself why every smartphone has a physical keyboard?"

"Ask yourself why almost no computer has a GUI?"

(Because existing hardware is mediocre is why.)

Especially in the era of mobile hotspots and tethering, it's relatively simple to just connect to your iPhone or other smartphone for internet wherever you might be, and you're not paying more for cellular connectivity on a laptop when you likely already have it in hand.

And you have a bad experience, because cellular networking on a Mac is so rare that Apple doesn't even provide an API for apps to know that they should save on data, and because you have to constantly re-connect.

I know how tethering works. It's OK. It's not great. The Mac directly connecting to cellular would be better.

Plus, by your logic, an iPad shouldn't have cellular either.

 

[MisterMe]

....

And you have a bad experience, because cellular networking on a Mac is so rare that Apple doesn't even provide an API for apps to know that they should save on data, and because you have to constantly re-connect.

I know how tethering works. It's OK. It's not great. The Mac directly connecting to cellular would be better.

Plus, by your logic, an iPad shouldn't have cellular either.

There may be the odd duck who needs a cellular connection to his/her laptop, but I cannot imagine who that may be. And there are downsides.

A laptop will be virtually no one's first Wi-Fi hotspot. I have an iPhone. Many people replace their iPhone every year. This means that they always have an Internet connection that is less than one year old. I prefer a two-year replacement cycle. My technology is always less than two years old. My newest laptop is five years old. If my MacBook Pro had cellular service, then the technology would be no newer than five years old. During its lifecycle, it would be accompanied by a succession of iPhone little brothers have progressively newer technology than it.

So, I have three choices:

1. Accept the fact that my laptop will always lag my phone.
2. Update my laptop on a similar cycle as my phone.
3. Rely on my phone for my Wi-Fi hotspot and let my laptop do what it does best.

And did I say that my cars have been Wi-Fi hotspots for the last four years? My cars have had cellular connections for decades. This means that when I have my laptop in my car, I have two hotspots and two cellular connections. If my laptop were also cellular-connected with a hotspot, then I would have three of each. If I my iPad Pro had a cellular connection, then I would have four cellular connections.

Each cellular connection costs money. However, the only device that is with me 24/7 is my iPhone. It has the most reliable cellular connection. As a Wi-Fi hotspot, it is great. the other cellular connections are luxuries at best and wastes of money in many instances.

 

[chucker23n1]

There may be the odd duck who needs a cellular connection to his/her laptop, but I cannot imagine who that may be.

Nobody needs it, but you can argue that for the iPad, and even for the Watch.

And there are downsides.

A laptop will be virtually no one's first Wi-Fi hotspot. I have an iPhone. Many people replace their iPhone every year. This means that they always have an Internet connection that is less than one year old. I prefer a two-year replacement cycle. My technology is always less than two years old. My newest laptop is five years old. If my MacBook Pro had cellular service, then the technology would be no newer than five years old. During its lifecycle, it would be accompanied by a succession of iPhone little brothers have progressively newer technology than it.

Uhhhhh. That seems like quite a stretch. The original iPhone shipped with 2G, sure, but that was mainly because they hadn't prioritized it. 3G was already ready at the time, and came to the iPhone one year later.

Then you have the iPhone 5, which added 4G. And maybe, this year, we'll see 5G. So you have 2008, 2013, and 2020 as cellular technology transition years.

So, your five-year-old laptop would in fact be fine.

Plus, you can make that same argument for the iPad, which also few people replace as frequently as their phones.

(Not to mention all that technology in a laptop that does age far more quickly, such as its CPU.)

 

[BigSplash]

Apple has not shown any indication that it will use SMT/Hyperthreading. So if you want to be able to run 8 threads, you need 8 cores. If you stay with 4 HP cores, you get 4 threads.

At this time, there is no physical way to put 16GB on an SoC (might be in a year or two, but not right now). So some of the RAM will be off SoC.

You can get a bigger battery into an existing case, by making a smaller motherboard, and using the now free space to increase battery size. Luckily, using an SoC approach, this is very possible, in fact, likely.

The reason 'Hyperthreading' was invented was due to the inability to keep functional units busy due to memory subsystem latencies. By interleaving threads you are giving the memory system a longer period to complete the fetch for a particular thread. If you can keep your pipelines full then there is no need for hyperthreading because all required functional units will be 100% utilized.