Firstly, let’s leave the boring technical details to someone else. Dan Moren at sixcolors on the new MacBook Pro models:

The MacBook Pro update is basically a speed bump: the base level $1999 14-inch model moves to a M2 Pro 10-core CPU/16-core GPU configuration, with build to configure options for M2 Pro 12-core with a 19-core GPU, or to M2 Max with 12 cores and either 30 or 38 cores of GPU. Options at $2499 and $3099 come with the higher M2 Pro and the M2 Max, respectively. Meanwhile, the 16-inch model’s base configuration, at $2499, starts with a 12-core CPU/19-core GPU M2 Pro, while the $2699 and $3499 models feature the 12-core/19-core M2 Pro and 12-core/38-core M2 Max options. 

On the new Mac mini models:

On the Mac mini side, Apple has finally axed the Intel Mac model and now offers three configurations of mini, starting with the same 8‑core CPU/10-core GPU M2 configuration in the MacBook Air at $599—$100 less than its M1-powered predecessor. While a $799 model features more storage with the same chip configuration, there’s also for the first time an option for Apple’s more powerful M2 Pro chip, in a $1299 10-core CPU/16-core GPU option, with a build to order configuration also offering a bump to a 12-core/19-core GPU M2 Pro. The M2 Pro configuration also offers four Thunderbolt 4 ports on the back, up over just two on the M2 configurations. 

When rumours started circulating about these new machines, I didn’t expect any external redesign for the MacBook Pro, and in fact, as Moren writes, it’s all basically a speed bump. This is great for those who wanted to upgrade their MacBooks and were patient enough to wait for a ‘second-generation’ machine. Upgrading now means having more powerful MacBooks for the same prices as the previous M1 lineup.

Possibly controversial observation on battery life

In the short keynote-like presentation Apple prepared to introduce the new M2 Macs, there is a fun section where three pros are each tasked with completing a project in one day using the new M2 MacBook Pros unplugged, on just a single charge. This is done to demonstrate just how powerful and efficient these machines are. “One-day battery life” is undoubtedly a great accomplishment and a great feature to tout. Don’t get me wrong: having the peace of mind that you can rely on your MacBook for a whole day without needing to use its AC adapter is exhilarating. 

In practical terms, however, when was the last time you’ve found yourself without access to a wall socket for that long? If you mainly use a laptop at home or in your studio, it’s not an issue. If you’re working while travelling, yes, using the laptop unplugged on a plane or train is definitely more comfortable even when these means of transportation offer outlets, as they may be scarce or already in use by other passengers. Hotels have outlets. AirBnB accommodations have outlets. Maybe my imagination is limited, but at the moment the only scenarios where having a laptop with a one-day battery life truly makes a difference is when you have to work from remote locations, outdoors, and your power solutions are precious and can only afford limited charges or one long charge overnight. In many other common ‘working offsite’ scenarios, having a laptop with extremely long battery life is a luxury, a nice-to-have feature, but not strictly a need or requirement.

I’m sharing this observation because battery life is something that gets constantly mentioned in laptop reviews, and I often notice that laptops with a 5–6 hour battery life tend to be treated negatively by most tech reviewers. I’ll probably be misunderstood about this, so I’ll try to be clear — battery life is an important metric for a laptop, for sure, but I think it’s often overrated. In a realistic scenario, a laptop with a battery that lasts ‘only’ 6 hours in actual use and allowing for an unrestricted performance, is not bad as it’s made out to be, because the chances that you have to work continuously for more than 6 hours without finding a wall socket or a charging spot are in most cases rather low.

If you’re thinking this is just an elaborate excuse on my part to find something, anything, to criticise Apple… no, it isn’t. I’d be deranged for criticising Apple for offering laptops that last a whole day on a charge! My point is simply that battery life feels more and more like an overrated feature that is often used as the definitive metric to decide whether a laptop, any laptop, is absolutely good or not. It somehow reminds me of the ‘Megahertz wars’ back when Macs were still using PowerPC processors, and PC manufacturers kept pushing the narrative that ‘more Megahertz equals faster and better machines.’ And sure, today a laptop with just a 3‑hour battery life is best avoided (unless you’re looking at a very powerful gaming laptop). But realistically, anything with an actual battery life that’s over 6 or 7 hours is a good machine overall, and you can’t tell me that it’s worse than another laptop which lasts one hour more but has e.g. a worse CPU or GPU.

On the other hand, give me a smartphone that lasts four days on a charge, and I’ll be unquestionably impressed. That would have more practical sense.

Upgrading my Mac setup: maybe now is the time?

As I already said in recent times, I’m once again at that point where I’m looking to upgrade my Mac setup. The big difference is that, for the first time in all my 30+ years history as an Apple customer, the reason for needing an upgrade is merely work-related. Up to now for me, getting a new Mac has always been a work & leisure experience. It has always been an experience that involved emotion and a sprinkle of non-rationality in my purchase decision process. Getting a new Mac has always felt great until now. 

It’s kind of ironic that the Macs we can buy today are on paper the most qualified for providing a feels great experience, given they’re amazing machines performance- and efficiency-wise; the problem is they’re also the most boring and disappointing when it comes to everything else. This is of course a partially-subjective observation. A lot of people love the latest MacBook Pro design, I do not. While I’m glad Apple has reverted to a chunkier chassis for a better thermal management, and to a more reliable keyboard design, putting a stupid notch at the top of the display is just unforgivable in my book. This was the ‘subjective’ portion of my observation. Less subjective is the matter of Mac OS, which has objectively got worse for at least the past four iterations. Something that won’t really bother the regular user or the die-hard Apple fanboy, yet something that’s painfully apparent to any experienced or veteran Mac user.

Sorry for this little ranting excursion, but it’s once again to emphasise how hard upgrading my Mac setup is for me today. Even if it’s mainly for work purposes, I want something I can comfortably look at while I work, and these MacBook Pros ain’t it, no matter how good their performance is. I know, superficially this doesn’t make sense: if I want a new Mac just for work, and dispassionately so, I should put performance and power before looks. But see, for the kind of work I do, I don’t really need the most powerful Mac or the Mac with the best absolute performance. Now I simply need a Mac with an updated architecture and the latest Mac OS. My current 2017 Intel-based iMac is a fantastic machine, quite versatile, and the one that has turned out to be of great value and reliability over the years, a proud successor of my 2009 15-inch MacBook Pro in this regard. Still running Mac OS 10.13 High Sierra, this iMac is going to remain the machine I most enjoy using. But to be able to test new Mac apps that are written for the Apple Silicon architecture, I need a more modern Mac. I’ve always preferred the flexibility of Mac laptops, but of all the current offerings, only the M1 MacBook Air pleases me. But it’s a 2020 machine by now, without many useful ports. 

That’s why I’m once again looking at desktop Macs. At first I thought the Mac Studio would be the perfect upgrade; then I started thinking that it may be too overkill (and expensive) a solution. So I was waiting for the new M2 Mac mini.

Actually, I was waiting for an Apple Silicon 27-inch iMac Pro, but Apple has decided that we should buy a Mac Studio or a Mac mini with an M2 Pro chip, and their over-priced and underwhelming 27-inch Studio Display, so that we can spend more money to achieve the same performance an all-in-one solution could otherwise provide.

But anyway: the M2 Mac minis are here, and they’re very likely the perfect fit for my current needs. Powerful enough, affordable enough, with just-enough ports. That they retain the same old design was, I confess, a bit disappointing — I had seen very interesting renderings based on early leaks and rumours where the mini looked wider and flatter, almost resembling the first-generation Apple TV. But in the end it doesn’t matter: I’ve always liked the mini’s form factor and compactness.

As for the M2 Mac mini main configurations, Apple is being Apple once again. Again, instead of offering good/better/best variants, they’ve settled for worse/okay/better:

• $599 (€719 in my country) is very affordable indeed, but offering a computer with just 256 GB of storage in this day and age is a joke. Apple could easily offer 512 GB of storage at this price point (or for little more), with less nickel-and-diming involved.
• Even more criminal is charging $799 (€949 in my country) for a configuration whose only difference from the base model is the 512 GB of storage. In other words, you pay $200 more (€230 more in my country) just for having 256 GB more in your internal SSD.
• With those $200/€230 I could easily find a fast-enough external Thunderbolt SSD drive with at least 1TB of storage.
• Like I wrote on social media, if I customise the base M2 Mac mini with a more reasonably-current configuration — 16 GB of RAM, 1 TB of storage — the price goes from $599/€719 to $1,199/€1,409. It’s still not terribly expensive, but I’m not sure about the ‘value’ proposition at this point, considering that for $1,299/€1,569 I could purchase the base M2 Pro Mac mini, which comes with 16 GB of RAM, 512 GB of storage, and two more Thunderbolt ports.
• Also, in my case, I have to add the expense of getting a new external display. If I were silly enough to choose the 27-inch Studio Display, I’d have to add another $1,599 (€1,779) minimum to my Mac mini customised configuration, for a total of $2,798 or €3,188. The mini is the most affordable Mac, provided you stick to mediocre specs and you either already have a good display or you choose wisely outside the Apple ecosystem.

For the moment, here’s what I’ve planned to do for my Mac upgrade:

• Getting the base M2 Mac mini with 256 GB of storage but choosing 16 GB of RAM. Cost: €949.
• Getting a high-performance external NVMe Thunderbolt SSD of at least 1 TB of storage. Projected cost: about €150.
• As for the display, for the kind of work I do (mostly testing apps and dealing with lots of documentation), the LG 28-inch DualUp Monitor with Ergo Stand is an excellent candidate. Cost: €600 at the time of writing.
• The total cost for this setup would be about €1,699, which is €100 or so more than what I paid for my current iMac back in 2018 — for a setup that packs good performance, good overall storage, and a very nice display.

Still, to me the golden era of the Mac will always remain the years between 1998 and 2012. During that time, purchasing a Mac — for me at least — was always a thrilling experience. It never felt something coldly planned beforehand or laboriously calculated by comparing prices and poring over tech specifications. Sure, there were considerations related to costs and needs, but there also was a fun, whimsical component. Macs were fun, powerful enough for their time, with unique designs and quirks, with an amazing operating system that felt truly integrated with and optimised for the hardware it was running on. Today it’s all boring clinical performance, an OS that doesn’t feel capable and as fun to use as it once was, and every purchase essentially feels like writing down a costs/benefits table and little more.