Apple unveils new 13-inch MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon M1 for $1299

Comments

• Reply 1 of 50

  80s_Apple_Guy Posts: 286member

  November 10, 2020 6:47PM

  Was hoping for 14”. Will wait for it. Excited about the new chips though. 

  
• Reply 2 of 50

  JinTech Posts: 1,022member

  November 10, 2020 6:49PM

  Laughable that these are only able to be upgraded to 16GBs of memory though.

  
• Reply 3 of 50

  Svesan Posts: 2unconfirmed, member

  November 10, 2020 6:55PM

  I was hoping for a 16" MacBook Pro with at least 32 Gb RAM. I'm a little disappointed right now, anyone else??

  
• Reply 4 of 50

  AI_lias Posts: 434member

  November 10, 2020 6:57PM

  Only two ports...

  
• Reply 5 of 50

  chemengin1 Posts: 31member

  November 10, 2020 7:01PM

  Is this a joke?
  

  • Same old design
  • Massive bezels
  • No 14" display
  • Only 2 TB ports??
  • 720p front camera??
  • 16gb max memory

  
• Reply 6 of 50

  JonDiesel Posts: 8member

  November 10, 2020 7:02PM

  I feel like it's going to be more difficult for them to upsell the pro models now when they include the same processor as the lower end air models.  kind of how they did with the iPhones, the only real difference between them is going to be the added features like increased battery and "pro microphones" but does that justify another 300 dollars to most consumers?  

  edited November 2020
• Reply 7 of 50

  AI_lias Posts: 434member

  November 10, 2020 7:09PM

  chemengin1 said:

  Is this a joke?
  

  • Same old design
  • Massive bezels
  • No 14" display
  • Only 2 TB ports??
  • 720p front camera??
  • 16gb max memory

  To be honest, I wish they settled on one design and not change it. Could save development $, similar to Tesla cars, for example. You don’t need to change them for sake of changing. 

  
• Reply 8 of 50

  doozydozen Posts: 539member

  November 10, 2020 7:12PM

  JinTech said:

  Laughable that these are only able to be upgraded to 16GBs of memory though.

  Chiiiillll, do you have any idea how efficient 16GB will run on Apple silicon? No one does. So bide your time until this thing can be tested. 

  
• Reply 9 of 50

  tzeshan Posts: 2,351member

  November 10, 2020 7:12PM

  Apple should compare the performance of old and new MacBook pros side by side in the presentation. 

  
• Reply 10 of 50

  Eric_WVGG Posts: 966member

  November 10, 2020 7:13PM

  No signs that the M1 in the Pro is any faster than the Air. All the speed comparisons used the same line: "faster than 98% of PC laptops at the same price." 
  
  I've always thought the 13" Pro was the worst-of-both-worlds model, more true now than ever. I'm pretty sure all you get from it is a Touch Bar that most people hate, and a bigger battery… even the RAM options are the same!
  
  oh, I guess the 13" Pro has a fan, so could conceivably turbo-boost a lot longer, better sustained GPU performance.

  edited November 2020
• Reply 11 of 50

  cloudguy Posts: 323member

  November 10, 2020 7:14PM

  All right folks. The people who claimed that getting rid of the "Intel tax" was going to result in MacBooks costing up to $300 less, where are you? Exactly. Intel never did charge Apple very much for the same Core i3 and Core i5 processors that were in Windows and ChromeOS machines that cost half as much. An Acer Nitro 5 is actually better than an entry level MacBook Pro because it contains a 4 GB dedicated graphics card - you can choose between AMD and Nvidia - and starts for under $700. Granted it doesn't have the "light thin premium" build of the MacBook Pro - the thing is thick and heavy and even the keys are massive (though the latter is by choice because lots of gamers prefer to use the keyboard as opposed to the controller) but it is still sufficient evidence that the Intel CPU never cost Apple that much. 

  
• Reply 12 of 50

  JinTech Posts: 1,022member

  November 10, 2020 7:18PM

  Eric_WVGG said:

  No signs that the M1 in the Pro is any faster than the Air. All the speed comparisons used the same line: "faster than 98% of PC laptops at the same price." 
  
  I've always thought the 13" Pro was the worst-of-both-worlds model, more true now than ever. I'm pretty sure all you get from it is a Touch Bar that most people hate, and a bigger battery… even the RAM options are the same!
  
  oh, I guess the 13" Pro has a fan, so could conceivably turbo-boost a lot longer, better sustained GPU performance.

  Yeah it's very interesting that they do not mention the clock speeds of the M1 chips anywhere on their website!

  
• Reply 13 of 50

  Eric_WVGG Posts: 966member

  November 10, 2020 7:19PM

  Mac Mini, $100 cheaper
  
  Macbook Pro M1 13" w/ 16gb RAM and 512gb SSD, $100 cheaper than identically spec'ed Intel 

  
• Reply 14 of 50

  9secondkox2 Posts: 2,702member

  November 10, 2020 7:23PM

  Called the "M" series. That's so cool.
  
  A Series wouldn't be right.
  
  A few things to keep in mind:
  
  1) Apple is navigating a tricky transition. Retaining the current form factor and other specs in some areas ensures that current and recent customers don't feel like Apple has just abandoned them. There are valid reasons for some to have purchased Intel Macs even after the AS announcement. Apple has been the standout company that does right by its customers for years and years. They aren't changing that DNA now.
  
  2) The M series are amazing already. Kind of blown away.  Sure in some cases, they are performing 2x the speed of their predecessors, but in others, it's 4, 8, and 10x. the M series low power chips are already Far better for video editors than most desktop class chips from Intel. We recently built a video editing dream machine with the best i9 money can buy. It doesn't handle 4k amazingly well, but performs acceptably in Adobe Premiere. A Mac mini with Final Cut will destroy that. 
  
  3) Even better performance-centric M series chips are coming. The larger MacBook Pros, the iMac, the Mac Pro, and whatever else Apple wants to do have a different thermal envelope and will. require more power, which yields much better performance. 8 cores in the M1 isn't a lot. The M2 or M1X or whatever will likely. double up on that.  
  
  In conclusion, Apple just opened the door to a bright, new, game-changing era and signaled the death knell of the X86 era for all of computing. 
  
  p.s. Already, the M series outpaces its x86 contemporaries by a lot. And that margin will exponentially increase in the coming years. You will see every PC maker follow suit into new RISC CPU designs. Intel would be wise to invest heavily into either its own, custom RISC architecture, or get on the custom ARM bandwagon. Samsung has already tried and failed to gain the upper hand with its mobile CPUs. but they are a waste. of time in this race. The one company I feel somewhat bad for is AMD, who has recently made a resurgence and matching (in some cases exceeding) Intels performance dominance. They enjoy success for a few years and ... AS drops. It's rough. But for us in the. Apple community, it's amazing and encouraging to witness. Wow.
  
  
  

  
• Reply 15 of 50

  Eric_WVGG Posts: 966member

  November 10, 2020 7:24PM

  oh, one other interesting bit of fine print: the Air defaults to 7-core GPUs, probably chips that came off the line and aren't quite up-to-snuff. 8-core is available as an option. 

  
• Reply 16 of 50

  cloudguy Posts: 323member

  November 10, 2020 7:25PM

  chemengin1 said:

  Is this a joke?
  

  • Same old design
  • Massive bezels
  • No 14" display
  • Only 2 TB ports??
  • 720p front camera??
  • 16gb max memory

   Apple is still selling Intel based Macs for the next 2 years. Not only are they still being sold, they are still being manufactured. So if you give the ARM-based Macs this new revolutionary design, who on earth is going to buy the Intel-based Macs and why? Apple would have no choice but to fire sale them and eat the losses. (Or more accurately accept the usual industry standard 10% margin instead of their current 40% one.) 

  
• Reply 17 of 50

  tahoejr Posts: 3member

  November 10, 2020 7:28PM

  Oh well, need to be patient here for the richer features as well as existing ones come to future MacBook Pro models.  

  
• Reply 18 of 50

  Eric_WVGG Posts: 966member

  November 10, 2020 7:41PM

  cloudguy said:

   Apple is still selling Intel based Macs for the next 2 years. Not only are they still being sold, they are still being manufactured. So if you give the ARM-based Macs this new revolutionary design, who on earth is going to buy the Intel-based Macs and why?

  Anyone who needs a 16" Macbook Pro, an iMac, or a Mac Pro, for starters.
  
  Apple has pledged 7 years of OS upgrades, which is similar to how long they supported PowerPC Macs during the last transition.
  
  I personally wouldn't go near an Intel Mac today, and advise anyone to try to hold out, but buying one is neither crazy or stupid.

  edited November 2020
• Reply 19 of 50

  cloudguy Posts: 323member

  November 10, 2020 7:49PM

  9secondkox2 said:

  Called the "M" series. That's so cool.
  
  A Series wouldn't be right.
  
  A few things to keep in mind:
  
  1) Apple is navigating a tricky transition. Retaining the current form factor and other specs in some areas ensures that current and recent customers don't feel like Apple has just abandoned them. There are valid reasons for some to have purchased Intel Macs even after the AS announcement. Apple has been the standout company that does right by its customers for years and years. They aren't changing that DNA now.
  
  2) The M series are amazing already. Kind of blown away.  Sure in some cases, they are performing 2x the speed of their predecessors, but in others, it's 4, 8, and 10x. the M series low power chips are already Far better for video editors than most desktop class chips from Intel. We recently built a video editing dream machine with the best i9 money can buy. It doesn't handle 4k amazingly well, but performs acceptably in Adobe Premiere. A Mac mini with Final Cut will destroy that. 
  
  3) Even better performance-centric M series chips are coming. The larger MacBook Pros, the iMac, the Mac Pro, and whatever else Apple wants to do have a different thermal envelope and will. require more power, which yields much better performance. 8 cores in the M1 isn't a lot. The M2 or M1X or whatever will likely. double up on that.  
  
  In conclusion, Apple just opened the door to a bright, new, game-changing era and signaled the death knell of the X86 era for all of computing. 
  
  p.s. Already, the M series outpaces its x86 contemporaries by a lot. And that margin will exponentially increase in the coming years. You will see every PC maker follow suit into new RISC CPU designs. Intel would be wise to invest heavily into either its own, custom RISC architecture, or get on the custom ARM bandwagon. Samsung has already tried and failed to gain the upper hand with its mobile CPUs. but they are a waste. of time in this race. The one company I feel somewhat bad for is AMD, who has recently made a resurgence and matching (in some cases exceeding) Intels performance dominance. They enjoy success for a few years and ... AS drops. It's rough. But for us in the. Apple community, it's amazing and encouraging to witness. Wow.
  
  
  

  1. True
  2. True
  3. True
  p.s. is problematic.
  
  The margin will not exponentially increase in the coming years. They are primarily due to A14 being on a 5nm process while Intel's performance chips are on a 14nm process and AMD's performance chips are on a 10nm process. What happens when AMD and especially Intel get to 5nm? AMD's 5nm chips are being manufactured by TSMC for a 2021 release as we speak. Intel has a 7nm design ready but their foundry cannot manufacture it. They are going to decide in 1Q 2021 whether to pay TSMC to manufacture their design or wait another year on their own foundry. They will probably decide to wait a year because their 10nm chips have just hit the market anyway. As for Apple's capacity to improve, they will hit 3nm in 2022. After that, will 2nm be a thing? 1nm? Not likely. After Apple hits 3nm, what will be left is overclocking while using less power. 
  
  As for every PC maker following suit into the new RISC CPU designs: why? First off, Intel and AMD are going to narrow, catch up and surpass the A14 when they reach 5nm and 3nm. Second, unless their RISC CPU designs A) surpass the existing Qualcomm and other ARM Holdings-based designs like the M1 chip does, why bother? You may want this to happen in order for Intel to be marginalized - funny how it is only the Apple fans that want every other tech company to go out of business but that isn't going to happen. Wintel is the dominant hardware computing platform in everything but mobile. There isn't going to be this mass abandonment just because ARM is faster, especially since the alternative is Apple machines running a proprietary OS that cost as much as twice as much as Intel and AMD machines with similar specs. And even if they wanted to abandon it, they couldn't. There is too much x86 and x86-64 code - personal, business, enterprise, server - that would need to be rewritten. There is no business or technical justification for such a massive, expensive, lengthy and risky undertaking beyond making Apple fans feel about themselves.
  
  Samsung has already tried and failed to gain the upper hand with its mobile CPUs but they are a waste of time in this race.
  
  Yeah ... more "wishful thinking about Apple's competitors" stuff. The reality is that Samsung worked with ARM Holdings to design the new X1 Cortex super core and has worked with Google to design Whitechapel, Google's new hardware platform for Pixel phones and tablets. The new Samsung Exynos CPUs that used the core that they designed with ARM Holdings will be commercially available in devices in February and it significantly outperforms the Qualcomm 865+. The Qualcomm 875 might outperform it but not by much. In any event, if you are going to make a mobile device or Chromebook, Samsung's chips are going to be as good as any.
  
  So long story short: there will be no mass migration from Wintel to ARM-based Macs because said Macs still cost way more AND the software compatibility problems that already existed for Intel-based Macs that people addressed with Parallels and bootcamp are going to get even worse. You should know from the experience with the iPhone and iPad that faster does not equal market share. The iPhone, the iPad and the Apple TV are all significantly faster than their competitors yet none of them have greater than 35% market share. Apple sold fewer smartphones in the United States - the market where it has the largest share by far - than Samsung last quarter, and they also sold only 5 million fewer iPads than Samsung sold tablets. Give most people the choice between "faster but way more expensive" and "not as fast but still accomplishes everything I need it to do" and they are going to go with the latter. And given that ARM-based Macs are going to have even less software options to "accomplish everything I need it to do" beyond offer desktop versions of iPad apps that were designed to run on touchscreens than the current Wintel ones ... you get the picture. Apple had 8% market share last quarter - ChromeOS had 11% by comparison - in its best quarter for selling Macs ever. Don't think that switching to Apple Silicon is going to move that very much, and for that matter I don't think that Apple is counting on it moving that much either.

  
• Reply 20 of 50

  commentzilla Posts: 725member

  November 10, 2020 7:53PM

  I can only wonder if Star Trek influenced the name of the chip series.
  
  M-5 multitronic unit
  https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/M-5_multitronic_unit
  
  
  

  

  M-5_multitronic_unit.jpg 9.2K