32Gb of ram requires DDR4 which in this case, requires 10th gen chips.

Reading through this, I can't help but think this feels like Apple's 2.5Ghz PowerMac G5 all over again, back in like 2004.

Back then, they promised a 3Ghz G5 CPU in under a year and IBM just couldn't do it. Apple even noted it as why they were switching to Intel at the time. They couldn't keep promises and it seemingly pissed Steve off to the point of basically trashing them on stage.

This order sheet only makes sense if you think: 'What would they do if Apple couldn't get enough 10th gen parts and they showed up late?'

Obviously they would skew them to the high end models as they move mostly lower spec models. That way your product line still offers the fastest Intel hardware. But it makes for a messy nonsensical spec sheet that confuses customers.

When should I get the 8th Gen i7 that Turbos to 4.5Ghz but then when should I get the 10th Gen i7 that Turbos to 4.1Ghz?

You know what floored me?

This press release: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/05/apple-updates-13-inch...

It seems to not mention 'Intel' until nearly half way through and exclusively uses it as a technical descriptor twice. (not `Intel's newest processors`, but instead the `10th Generation Intel Core' and 'Intel Iris Plus') The first reference to the CPU just calls them '10th gen processors'. It's like watching a person refer to an ex. This is the first Macbook Pro with a 10nm processor...why don't they say that?

This mess of product line just isn't Apple-like...And I think it has them pissed.

> why they were switching to Intel at the time. They couldn't keep promises

Makes the switch to their own ARM chips even more plausible.

I was going to correct you, the 8th gen intel chips support DDR4, but you're right, they don't support LPDDR4.

It's non-obvious, but the 13" MacBook Pro is actually two different computers. On the low end it has a 15W CPU, two Thunderbolt 3 ports, and a single fan, and on the high end it has a 28W CPU, four Thunderbolt 3 ports, and a dual-fan system. The low end version can only be configured with 16GB of memory, whereas the high end version can be configured with 32. It's not artificial price inflation, they're actually different computers.

(p.s. - I mentioned the fans not because it's an important spec for consumers, but to highlight that the two variants are physically different internally, it's not just about swapping in a 28W CPU for a 15W one)

But of course, as is the Apple way, this is deliberately unclear. You would have no idea about this at all unless you were, at-minimum, keeping up with Intel CPU improvements (or regularly browsed Hacker News.)

Of course. Why would a consumer care how many watts CPU or fans it has? You would, but that's <1% of people who buy Macbooks.

If you're a dumb customer who doesn't care about how fast your computer is, then why are you going out of your way to buy the more expensive macbook, instead of buying an Air?

Caring about how fast your computer is isn't the same thing as caring about CPU generations, wattage or cooling solutions. Everyone wants their computer to run fast, and people know that the more expensive MacBooks are faster.

It's completely clear. You can read the RAM and CPU specs right there on the website. Hardly anyone cares how many fans their laptop has.

No, there is nothing clear about marketing a brand new laptop with a 3-year old CPU alongside a current-gen one under the same name. It's exactly as the parent comment said, they may as well be two completely different models of computer.

I really think you're off base here. Apple list the different models together with their specs (including the generation of the CPU). Are you saying that they have to make them look different because they have different internals? For most users the experience of using any of these models would be exactly the same.

Agreed. MacBook Air has quad-core in similar clock ranges but tops out at 16GB of RAM. Pay an extra $1300-ish for Pro, you can get 32GB of RAM. There's literally nothing else in this refresh that's compelling.

And the only reason I want that RAM is for Chrome.

FWIW, Firefox on 32 gb got me to over 2000+ tabs the one time I tried.

Check out: The great suspender.

I use it. I wish I didn't need to.