They changed the structure of the website. Navigations are different. Sitemaps have changed. A few UI/UX tweaks. Product cards are bigger. The flow of the content is optimized to compare the product lines.
too many ports 
2 Likes
My predictions: The notch, lack of Face ID, loosing a Thunderbolt port, lack of USB-A ports, no Ethernet on the power brick, lack of a under-$5000 Apple monitor, weight, price. To be clear, I don’t think any of these are disabling problems or unconscionable tradeoffs on Apple’s part, but there’s still plenty of stuff for reviewers who want to be Debbie Downers to harp on.
3 Likes
I think we’re about to see the end of the 13” Pro. I don’t see any real place for it in the lineup when it’s so similar to the Air. Unless of course it’s for those that still want a Touch Bar (which hasn’t been killed - just limited to the 13)
I agree that the current 13" Pro is not long for this world. However, I do think it’s going to get replaced by something. There’s an awful lot of space between the Air’s $999 starting price and the 14" MBP’s $1999. I think Apple will want something to fill that hole going forward.
One possibility that comes to mind: a lot of the rumors for the next generation MacBook Air indicate a much thinner and lighter laptop than the current model. That would probably involve sacrificing some of the battery surplus it gained moving to the M1. Probably a good tradeoff for a machine with “Air” in the name. However, I think there’s still a market for a machine with a ton of battery life that’s not as beefy as the new 16" MBP. So, what if Apple optimizes the Air to be thinand light, then uses the same tech (M2 chip, similar display, etc.) to make a more well-rounded laptop. Maybe trickling down some of the features from the 14" that take more space than you’d want to dedicate in a super thin Air like an SD card slot and HDMI. Start it at around $1300.
I called Apple and upgraded my storage from 512 to 1T. This should “future proof” the MBP for many years to come.
5 Likes
I felt the same. I was like shut up already. All that chatting at the end was enough time to say…. And the Mac Mini can be ordered with these new CPU also….
1 Like
My word, that’s a beast of a machine. I’ve realised I am content with my M1 Air, but, my word.
I’m also fan of 1TB. It seems to be a sweet spot at the moment; I could fit everything into less, but with this storage space I don’t have to worry about what to store where. Ample storage makes the computer more enjoyable.
2 Likes
Maybe a 14 inch that’s not quite the monster the current batch is.
1 Like
It is indeed!
4 Likes
Exciting tidbit from some analysts:
On paper, the M1 Max chip maxed out with 32-cores of GPU can tackle more teraflops of graphics than Sony’s PlayStation 5, which maxes out at 10.28 teraflops. Notebookcheck’s numbers are based on estimations and not real-world testing, but until the new laptops begin arriving in the hands of customers next week, they are all we have to rely on. As noted by YouTuber ZoneOfTech on Twitter, the M1 Max chip can also read up to 7.4GB per second, higher than the PlayStation 5’s 5.5GB read speed. (quoted from MacRumors)
…via….
Before the bots and the scalpers get a hold of it anyway.
I stopped being fluent in Graphics Card ~10 years ago, so it’s a useful comparison for me.
Or the Ti Book
https://twitter.com/zhenpixels/status/1450162245351006210
I think we need a video from @ismh86: Which Apple laptop does the new MacBook Pro most resemble?
1 Like
Although they’re comparing GPU performance. I get that a gaming PC would be a better measure, but the PS5 seems like a useful comparison given that it’s theoretically heavily-optimized for GPU-intensive tasks.
And anything else that Mac has had on-die up until this point probably wouldn’t compare favorably to a Nintendo 64. 
1 Like
The one in my heart.
6 Likes
I too agree that they should have compared to a gaming PC or similar computer. Consoles in general are not the most powerful computers in the world. They are optimized though, and they are guaranteed to run their games. So in other words, the games are designed to run on that system, not that the system is too powerful that continues to run games for 6 years.
Yes it might be helpful to compare to PS5 for many users, as the PS5 console is a widely known computer. But at the end of the day, that didn’t get me exited personally.
1 Like
I think PS5 is a good comparison. When DigitalFoundry articles were coming out last year, some, myself included, were looking at the performance and those crazy SSD access optimizations and wondering if general computing had any way to catch up. I think most PC manufacturers still have to answer that question…but it’s pretty cool to see that one of them figured it out with good SoCs, which are probably similarly priced to PS5 internals when the rest of the laptop/deskop is set aside.
This is the kind of article striking fear into PC gamers you may have seen going around.
1 Like
I understand. I remember the concern being that since PCs were made of modular components (board + chip + RAM + drive + GPU), there would be no easy way to get the industry to work together to widen and shorten the pipelines between those components, and to develop predictive loading standards from data/RAM. So it wasn’t so much about whether GPUs and CPUs would speed up over seven years as whether they could be used in these advances in overall system architecture that were speeding up many operations by an order of magnitude.
But Apple SoCs are showing exactly how to do that and will be copied to whatever degree is possible. It’s funny the Eurogamer reporting and the handwringing over it on gaming forums happened only a month before M1 SoC architecture was announced.
1 Like
No, you’re right; it’s more that Mac users looking at that and wanting those gains for general computing (I’d love to load a VM from disk in 20% the former time, for example.) The PC users presumably are looking at Apple SoCs and hoping they can appropriate some of that architecture for gaming purposes, so I think they also have reason to be excited. 
3 Likes