Google Home: How to start a smart home - The Verge

Google Home: How to start a smart home

How to start a smart home using Google Home

After a messy start, Google’s Home ecosystem is finally starting to come together.

By Megan Wollerton

Jun 13, 2023, 1:00 PM UTC |

If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission.See our ethics statement.

The smart home isn’t perfect. No matter how many times a company claims “seamless” integration with third-party devices or “effortless” use of voice commands to bend your connected gadgets to your will, there’s no one platform that gets everything exactly right. Depending on your specific needs, any of the major options — Amazon Alexa, Apple HomeKit (now just Home), Google Home, Home Assistant, or Samsung SmartThings — could be the best fit for you and your home. Recently, I’ve been taking a long look at Google Home.

The Google Home app has recently been updated.

Google got a lot right when it bought Nest in 2014, but it ramped up too slowly, releasing only a modest trickle of new connected home hardware before eventually introducing its first Google Assistant-powered smart speaker in 2016. That was followed by a protracted rebranding once Google decided the smart home was indeed a thing. The tech giant brought Nest officially under the Google name in 2019, which involved a frustratingly glitchy software migration from the Nest app to Google Home.

But now, at last, a Google-led smart home is starting to make sense.

The newly updated Google Home app improves a lot of basic smart home functions. Google’s refreshed software also comes with a long-awaited addition: support for Matter on the Google Home app with an iPhone running iOS 16.5.

Put all that together, plus Google Nest’s pretty strong lineup of branded products, and the Google smart home is finally hitting its stride. But before I talk about where it is today and how I use it, let’s take a brief look at the history of Google’s smart home attempts.

Working backward

Google didn’t take a linear path to building its smart home platform. In 2014, it bought Nest, then a startup with just two products: the Nest Learning Thermostat and the Nest Protect smoke and carbon monoxide detector. Later the same year, Nest, now a part of Google (but still operating separately from its corporate owner), purchased startup Dropcam, maker of Wi-Fi security cameras, and replaced the Dropcam Pro with a similar Nest-branded camera, the Nest Cam. Nest also introduced a couple next-gen versions of its thermostat and smoke detector and created Works with Nest, its own platform consisting of third-party device partners that integrated with its products.

Then things began to change. Google Assistant arrived, followed shortly after by Google’s first smart speaker. Finally, five years after buying it, Google announced it was moving Nest under its purview, making the former startup Google’s official smart home brand.

The move from Nest to Google Nest was fraught with all kinds of problems

The move from Nest to Google Nest was fraught with all kinds of problems. Google did away with the Works with Nest platform, which ended certain integrations for existing Nest users. The Google Home app didn’t support all Nest devices, which meant that, in some cases, you had to use the old Nest app for certain products and the new Google Home app for others (this is still an ongoing issue for some legacy products).

There were also some privacy concerns around the same time concerning an undisclosed microphone built into the Nest Secure security system. The Nest Secure has since been discontinued and will no longer be supported in the Nest app starting in 2024.

Currently, there are over a dozen Google Nest products, including four Google Assistant-driven smart speakers and displays that support “over 50,000 smart home devices from more than 10,000 popular brands,” according to Google. The latest version of the Google Home app, now live and rolling out to users, makes significant improvements for smart home configuration and control.

“OK, Google, build me a smart home”

Google’s smart home platform has broad appeal due to its wide variety of third-party partners and easy setup and control, especially now that the app has been overhauled.

If you have an Android phone, you can simply use that to command your various compatible connected devices. If you have an iPhone, you can access Google Assistant through the Google Home app. In either case, you can also use one of their smart speakers or displays.

Personally, after years of testing Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri, and other voice assistants with all sorts of products and different commands, Google Assistant overwhelmingly feels more natural. It does a great job answering general questions clearly and thoroughly without either misunderstanding me or not knowing the answer.

The Google Nest Hub Max’s audio quality and display resolution were strong enough for the author to overcome her general dislike of smart displays.

Photo by Dan Seifert / The Verge

My current setup includes an iPhone with the Google Home app, a Google Nest Hub Max smart display, a couple of Nest Protect smoke detectors and a Nest Thermostat E. As far as third-party integrations go, I currently have a bunch of Wyze lights and an old Wyze Cam v2, though as a product reviewer, I’m regularly swapping products in and out for testing.

The Google Nest Hub Max’s audio quality and display resolution are strong enough for me to overcome my general dislike of smart displays. I can easily view my connected products on the display and make adjustments there if I don’t have my phone handy — or use a quick voice command.

I also really like being able to control my thermostat on my smart display. Unfortunately, the Nest Thermostat E has since been discontinued in the US, though you can still find it on Amazon. I’ve also tested the Nest Learning Thermostat and the newer Nest Thermostat, and they’re both solid products as well that I can comfortably recommend as part of a Google smart home.

The Nest Thermostat is being updated to the Matter standard

Photo by Dan Seifert / The Verge

While I don’t currently have any Google Nest cameras or doorbells installed at home, I’ve tested most of them and consider them excellent security devices. In fact, a huge part of my interest in a Google smart home lies with these Google Nest products. I’ve tested many Nest devices over the years, and most of them have stood out from the competition due to their attractive hardware and strong performance. It’s worth noting, though, that Google typically charges a premium for its products, which won’t fit with everyone’s budget. That’s especially true if you want to outfit your home with multiple thermostats, smoke detectors, cameras, and doorbells to cover different levels and entry points.

If you have a Chromecast with Google TV, you can view your Google Nest camera or doorbell’s live feed on your TV — and use Google Assistant on the Chromecast remote to play your favorite shows.

I’d also wholeheartedly suggest Wyze light bulbs as part of your setup. They’re cheap, they work well, and they’re compatible with Google Assistant. I have a combination of their white-light-only and color-changing bulbs. All of them are dimmable and have adjustable white-light color temperature, so you can switch between cooler-toned white light during the day when you’re trying to get things done and warmer light in the evening as you wind down.

In fact, you may already have a device at home that’s compatible with Google. Check out your device options to see what companies and specific products will work.

Working with Google Home

While you can use the Google Home app or the touchscreen on your smart display to control your smart home devices, the core (and, in my opinion, best) functionality is tied to voice commands. Say, “OK, Google” or “Hey, Google” to kick things off.

I use these types of commands often, especially when there’s something I can’t schedule, like asking Google for the current weather in my area or the local traffic report. I also use commands to make one-off adjustments to my lights and thermostat separate from their normal schedule.

Google lets you add a number of routines to your devices.

It’s very simple to assemble a Routine.

Those individual “OK, Google” commands are nice, but Routines (Google’s word for customizable smart home automations) are even better. Routines can modify the thermostat, lights, and garage door simultaneously, and all with just one command. For example, if I say, “OK, Google, goodnight,” the voice assistant adjusts my various connected lights for bedtime, as well as the thermostat. You can also create schedules with Routines so it’s a bit more automated and doesn’t require a voice command as a prompt, such as, “At sunrise, open my window shades and turn off my outdoor lights.”

It’s basic, but having a single “OK, Google” command to handle multiple things saves me a small amount of time each day. It probably also means I’m saving money and energy over time because I’m less likely to leave lights on or forget to adjust the thermostat during parts of the day when we need less heat or AC.

Google has also updated the available options for triggers in Routines. Rather than just a voice command, a specific time, at sunrise or sunset, or turning off an alarm, you can now start a routine “when a device does something,” which is a major upgrade. That means you can start an automation when your camera detects motion or when your lights, smart plugs, or any other compatible devices do something.

Room for improvement

On the other hand, I wish Google’s smart home (or any of them, really) was a bit more predictive. The smart home is likely some time off from this, but I’d love to see Google’s platform advance to the point where it knows exactly what you want and automatically makes those changes on your behalf.

For example, what if in the morning when I woke up, the shades opened and the lights turned on automatically? Then, as I headed downstairs, what if my electric kettle started boiling and the smart display in the kitchen started giving me a news briefing, all without me saying a word? Yes, I could schedule some of these things today, but I don’t always get up at the exact same time every day. I could use a voice command, too, but it would be even easier if I didn’t even have to ask Google Assistant to read me the news.

The Nest Protect detector still isn’t supported by the Google Home app.

Photo: Google

There are other improvements I’d appreciate. In addition to Nest Secure and Dropcam (both of which are being discontinued next year anyway), the Nest Protect smoke and carbon monoxide detector still isn’t supported by the Google Home app. The lack of support for the Protect seems particularly odd since it was one of Nest’s first devices. Google has had plenty of time to figure out how to migrate it over effectively. And yet, it doesn’t work.

That means anyone who uses a Protect smoke detector along with other Google Nest devices likely needs both apps, which is annoying. Fortunately, that’s supposed to change soon, but again, as with motion triggers for Routines, I haven’t seen it yet in the latest version of my Google Home app.

What’s coming

I’m curious to see how Matter works with the Google Home app on my iPhone running iOS 16.5. The software update only just went live, so I haven’t had much time to mess around with it. In theory, it should make it even easier to set up and use smart devices. Despite my feelings about smart displays, I am interested in trying out my Google Nest Hub Max as a Matter hub. I’m also excited to experiment with the refreshed Google Home app a bit more. The updated app and iPhone support for Matter make Google’s platform significantly more appealing.

Things still aren’t perfect in the Google smart home, but many of the pieces we’ve been waiting for are finally coming together. We just had to get through Google Nest’s awkward teenage years.

Google will shut down Dropcam and Nest Secure in 2024

Google is giving one year’s notice as it ditches more products it can’t migrate to Google Home, but there’s still no official end-of-life for the Nest app.

By Nathan Edwards , a senior reviews editor who's been testing tech since 2007. Previously at Wirecutter and MaximumPC. Current fixations: keyboards, DIY tech, and the smart home.

UpdatedApr 7, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC |

If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission.See our ethics statement.

Moody photo of Dropcam on a black background — *One more year.*

Google is ending support for the Dropcam and the Nest Secure home security system in one year, on April 8th, 2024. They are among the few remaining Nest products that haven’t been brought over to Google Home, and their demise hints that the new Google Home app might almost be here. At least, no more than a year away. Surely.

Google is also winding down the last few legacy Works with Nest connections, but not ‘til September 29th.

Good looking out.

Image: The Verge

Dropcam had a good run

Existing Dropcam cameras will keep working until April 8th, 2024, after which you won’t be able to access them from the Nest app. To soften the blow, Google’s offering a free indoor wired Nest Cam to Dropcam owners who subscribe to Nest Aware. Nonsubscribers will get a 50 percent-off coupon. The promotion runs until May 7, 2024, so you can keep using your Dropcam until it stops working.

The Dropcam (fka Dropcam HD) came out in 2012, and the Dropcam Pro in 2013. Then, Google bought Nest, and Nest bought Dropcam. In 2015, Google spun Nest out when it formed Alphabet, and for a while, Google and Nest were both making smart home products. Then, Google reabsorbed Nest in 2018, and there’s been a whole lot of messy business trying to integrate Nest products into the Google Home app — and killing off the ones that can’t be integrated.

Now that it’s dropping Dropcam and Nest Secure, the Nest Protect smart smoke alarms are the only Nest App-only devices left, and Google has promised to bring them to the new Google Home app. The updated app has been in public preview since October, and there’s still no firm date, but it must be getting close, right?

Presumably, there are people out there who bought the very first Dropcam back in 2010 and traded it in for a free Dropcam HD in 2015 who are now gonna be trading that in for a Nest Cam. That’s kinda neat from a customer service standpoint but not that great from an e-waste standpoint (though Google will ship you a prepaid recycling box if you ask.)

Nest Secure, we hardly knew ye

The Nest Secure had... a less auspicious run and a less graceful offramp. It launched in 2017 and was canceled three years later, right after Google invested a bunch of money into ADT. Like the Dropcam, it’ll continue to work until April 8th, 2024, but Google would sure like you to upgrade before then. Google’s statement says,

We will be contacting eligible Nest Secure customers on Friday with an exclusive offer for a complimentary next-generation security system from ADT (up to $485 value), or $200 to use on the Google Store.

That’d be the ADT Self Setup system Google announced last week, with an ADT smart home hub, two door / window sensors, a motion sensor, and a year of free monitoring. That promotion also goes until May 7, 2024. While it’s better than a kick in the pants, I’m not sure the people who bought the Nest Secure are eager to run back into the arms of a traditional security company. (Maybe they’ve changed! Google’s statement says you can cancel the $20 / month monitoring fee for the self-setup system at any time). The ADT system does have the advantage of working with Google Home, which is kinda the whole point here.

Works with Nest won’t

Google sorta shut down the Works With Nest program back in 2019 in favor of Works With Google Assistant, but it let existing connections slide. That door officially closes on September 29th, 2023. Ruchi Desai, Group Product Manager at Google Nest, told The Verge, “All WWN connections will be impacted: for example legacy Alexa skill, legacy Google Assistant integration, all legacy Nest integrations with 3P partners (IFTTT, Lutron, etc.), and individual developers who use the WWN platform in their solutions.”

Most legacy Works with Nest integrations, including the Alexa one, have already been replaced with Google Assistant ones, but not all features of the IFTTT integration, for example, seem to be available in its replacement. Google says the web-based script editor it teased in October should close some of the remaining gaps. It isn’t live yet — Google would only tell me “it’ll be launching in 2023” — so it remains to be seen whether any features will get lost in translation.

A less messy home, eventually

Google previously committed to supporting Nest products for at least five years, and it did meet that standard. If you’ve been holding onto a Dropcam for more than a decade, it’s hard to argue that you didn’t get your money’s worth, I guess. And the new one is much better. Though on the other hand, if the hardware still works, why shouldn’t it keep working?

If I was a Nest Secure owner, though, I’d be pissed! Nobody wants to buy a new security system ever if they don’t have to, and having to get a new one from ADT feels like salt in a wound, even if it is a year off.

It’s great that the Nest and Google Home ecosystems are finally almost merged. I’m sure the headwinds were considerable! I am looking forward to the new Google Home app when it gets here. Now if only they’d do something about that Nest Hub Max interface...

Updated April 13, 2023, 10:54AM EST: Google reached out to confirm that there is a Google Assistant equivalent for the Works with Nest Alexa skill.

Correction April 7, 2023, 11:53AM EST: Removed a line that erroneously stated that Google had dropped support for the Nest x Yale lock and Nest Guard door sensor in 2022. The Matter update for the Nest Hub Max removed the ability to connect those devices directly to the Hub Max via Thread , but they are still supported through the Nest Connect device, which Google offered for free to those impacted by the update. We regret the error.

Source

Apple MacBook Pro 16 (2023) review: the core count grows - The Verge

Apple MacBook Pro 16 (2023) review: the core count grows

Apple’s new MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max has exactly one significant upgrade from the 2021 model: a more powerful chip.

By Monica Chin , a senior reviewer covering laptops and other gadgets. Monica was a writer for Tom's Guide and Business Insider before joining The Verge in 2020.

Photography by Amelia Holowaty Krales

Jan 23, 2023, 2:00 PM UTC |

If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission.See our ethics statement.

The MacBook Pro 16 (2023) on a pink table. The screen displays a blue and yellow desktop pattern. — *This is nothing we haven’t seen before, in most respects.*

We meet again, MacBook Pro 16. And it’s a rather boring meeting. We don’t have all that much to say to each other.

The 2023 MacBook Pro 16 is almost exactly the same as the 2021 MacBook Pro 16 except that there is a new chip inside. And just to get one thing out of the way: no, there is not a good reason to buy the 2023 model if you already have the 2021 model. I don’t assume many folks were thinking of doing that. But in case you were tempted, consider this a friendly finger wag in your direction. Your $2,500-plus 2021 model is still fine.

With the straightforward question addressed, we can dive into matters that are a bit more interesting and less straightforward. This is going to be an unusual review in that you (the reader) and I (the writer, hello) have access to all the same information. I won’t be talking about the keyboard, touchpad, or anything of that sort because those are all the same as they were on the 2021 MacBook Pro 16, and you can just go read about that.

What I’ve done here is run various benchmarks on the 2023 MacBook Pro 16 (I was sent a $4,299 M2 Max model with a 12-core CPU, 38-core GPU, 64GB of memory, and 2TB of storage — eight performance cores, four efficiency cores), and I’ll be presenting you with all of the numbers I got. I’ll be telling you my interpretations of those numbers, but the way I’m interpreting them doesn’t necessarily need to be the way you interpret them; our opinions on how many real dollars a make-believe Cinebench point is worth are all our own. (Note: while we reviewed the 16-inch M2 Max MacBook Pro here, most everything save for our battery life impressions can also apply to the 14-inch model, which can be configured identically.)

All that said, I do have opinions about those numbers, and you presumably clicked on this article because you’re at least somewhat interested in hearing what they are. I’ll be dividing them into two broad areas: the M2 Max vs. the M1 Max, and the M2 Max vs. the M2 Pro.

Alright. Get out your calculator and take a good long look at the charts below. When you’re ready, let’s dive into this together.

Apple MacBook Pro 16 (2023)

$2499

The Good

Incredible performance
Big gains in battery life
Huge gorgeous display
Unbelievable speakers

The Bad

Very expensive
Limited upgradability
May be hard for some people to justify buying over the M1 Max

How we rate and review products

Our M1 Max MacBook Pro unit is still in transit to me, so I haven’t been able to run the XcodeBenchmark on it by the time of this review’s publication. We’ll get this result into the table ASAP.

How much better is the M2 Max than the M2 Pro?

Full disclosure: we were not sent an M2 Pro MacBook to review in time for this article’s publication. We’re working on getting one. In the meantime, we do have a Mac Mini with an M2 Pro chip inside, which I’ll be using for comparison here. That unit has a 12-core CPU, 19-core GPU, 1TB of storage, and 16GB of memory. (While the Mac Mini and the MacBook are different form factors, the M2 Pro is so efficient that I wouldn’t expect this to cause huge discrepancies between their scores.) The only thing we can’t test on the Mini is battery life, so stay tuned for an update on that.

The M2 Pro is available with 10 CPU cores in the 14-inch MacBook Pro, but in the 16-inch model, both the M2 Pro and M2 Max have 12. That makes GPU power the significant difference between these two chips. The M2 Pro has 19 GPU cores (and can come with 16 in the 14-inch model), while M2 Max buyers have a choice of 30 or 38.

Still no USB-A.

Can charge with USB-C or MagSafe.

There are a couple other distinctions to be aware of. Foremost, the M2 Pro starts at 16GB of memory and maxes out at 32. The M2 Max starts at 32GB RAM and goes up to a whopping 96GB. (Although that option is only available with the 38-core GPU — don’t you love how straightforward this all is?) M2 Max systems also have twice the memory bandwidth (400GB/s to the M2 Pro’s 200GB/s).

Oh, and there’s a big price difference. As mentioned, our 16-inch review model spec costs $4,299. The absolute cheapest 16-inch M2 Max model would be $3,299, and the cheapest 16-inch M2 Pro model would be $2,499. (The additional RAM is a big chunk of that upgrade.) The 14-inch model starts at $1,999, though it has fewer CPU and GPU cores in its very base configuration.

You’re looking at a 16.2-inch Mini LED display with 3456 x 2234 resolution.

The M2 Max and the M2 Pro are neck and neck on the CPU-bound synthetic benchmarks we ran. In most cases, the M2 Max was a bit ahead but within the margin of error. We can look to the XcodeBenchmark as well, a task that we’d expect to be CPU-intensive. The scores are close together.

Looking at benchmarks that measure graphics, by contrast, the M2 Pro and M2 Max appear to be on different planets. The M2 Max is far and away the most graphically powerful laptop chip that Apple has released; the M2 Pro is much closer to the rest of the pack. The M2 Max machine got the fastest time I’ve ever seen from a laptop on our 4K Premiere Pro export test (which is GPU-accelerated); the M2 Pro Mac Mini took over a minute longer. On both Geekbench Compute and the Puget Systems benchmark for Premiere Pro, the M2 Max displayed over a 40 percent increase over the M2 Pro. (Neither system is touching the ludicrous M1 Ultra, of course.)

But the most drastic improvement is also the one that’s likely least relevant to the average Mac user: gaming. The M2 Max put up 103fps on Shadow of the Tomb Raider’s highest settings at 1920 x 1200 resolution, a whole 66 percent improvement over the M2 Pro. That’s a very visible difference — the sort of difference that gamers spend extra money on high-resolution screens in order to see.

The notch is still with us.

I think — put the pitchforks away, I know these are totally different things and there are all sorts of problems with this comparison — that the simplest way to think of the MacBook Pro with M2 Max is as the addition of an RTX 3070 GPU. It’s not quite providing the frame rates that we’ve seen from the biggest RTX 3070 computers out there (MSI’s GS76 gave us 114fps, for example) but it’s not too far off, and it’s well above what we’d expect to see from an RTX 3060 gaming machine. The M2 Pro Mac Mini, which only put up 62fps on Tomb Raider, is closer to RTX 3050 territory.

Now, the MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max is not a gaming laptop. It’s a Mac. If you want a gaming laptop, you can get actual RTX 3070 gaming laptops for over a thousand dollars less. I’m merely proposing this as a thought experiment for those debating between the M2 Pro and M2 Max. The M2 Pro, like the RTX 3050, can handle the occasional game, has no trouble with Premiere, and is fine for most people. Folks who are buying a laptop primarily to do a graphically intensive task will have a more fun time on the M2 Max.

Stick some RGB on this, and it could be a (very expensive) gaming laptop.

How much better is the M2 Max than the M1 Max?

The M2 Max is an incremental upgrade. I don’t mean to use that word as a synonym for “inadequate” or “boring”; I just mean that the M2 Max is a relatively similar package to the M1 Max. The MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max is also priced the same way the M1 Max model was, though you can now regularly find the M1 Max on sale.

There’s no shortage of USB-C ports, but I’m still missing USB-A.

Here’s what’s different (in addition to the fact that the M2 Max uses Apple’s second-generation architecture). The M1 Max maxed out at 10 CPU cores, while the M2 Max has 12 — though it’s worth noting that those two additional cores are efficiency cores. The M1 Max maxed out at 32 GPU cores, while its successor has up to 38. And the M2 Max can also accommodate up to 96GB of memory where its predecessor was capped at 64. (Though our review unit has 64GB, as did our M1 Max model.)

This means, by the way, that the M1 Max still has fewer CPU cores but quite a few more GPU cores than the M2 Pro, which will explain some of the numbers here.

This system was running macOS Ventura 13.2.

One other thing: the MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max is hotter and louder than the M1 Max machine was. While it was running PugetBench, the M2 Max machine’s fans were so loud that people across the office were coming over to see what was going on. I would not have wanted to be typing at that time — the top of the keyboard was toasty. I only saw this during PugetBench — it was not at all loud or hot during everyday Chrome usage — but the M1 Max machine, by contrast, was astonishingly silent and cool all throughout my testing period.

This is the part that got quite hot.

Anyway, what do the numbers show? I’m going to come right out and say that the most impactful difference between the M1 Max and the M2 Max is the efficiency. For my particular workload (which includes office work in 20-ish Chrome tabs at a time with occasional streaming overtop through Apple Music, Apple TV, and the like) that translates to several additional hours of work that I can get to one charge. I usually got just around 10 hours out of the MacBook Pro 16 with M1 Max; I’m averaging close to 14 out of the M2 Max model and have seen over 18 hours from some trials. Everyone’s workload is different, but I’m confident most people will see additional hours of battery life from the 2023 MacBook Pro. (I expect to see an even longer lifespan from the M2 Pro machine based on the M1 Pro’s impressive results.)

Those few hours are quite a big deal in the current laptop landscape. The MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max is now very competitive (in battery life) with pretty much every other laptop on the market. That includes laptops like LG’s Gram and Asus’ ExpertBook, whose entire shtick is long battery life — the M1 Max was a bit behind those models, while the M2 Max is very well ahead.

Look how much touchpad there is!

Getting into the benchmarks, we’re looking at around a 20 percent CPU uplift in multicore performance and a 10–15ish percent increase in single-core performance in the tests we ran. We also saw around a 20 percent increase in graphic performance on Geekbench and Tomb Raider. We did not see that large of an increase in Premiere Pro performance, where scores were much closer together, so take from that what you will if you’re primarily looking to edit video on this machine.

We’re looking at a solid 20 percent CPU uplift in multicore performance

There’s an elephant in the room, which may already be evident to some readers from the somewhat tepid tone of my summary here. If the differences between the M1 Max and the M2 Max are so incremental but the M1 Max is now being sold for clearance prices at places like Best Buy and Amazon, should one not just purchase a discounted or refurbished MacBook Pro 16 with M1 Max instead?

Short answer: maybe. Long answer: it depends on the discount. Here’s one way to look at it: as of this writing, there is a 10C / 32C / 32GB / 1TB M1 Max machine on sale for $2,999 on Amazon. A similarly specced M2 Max device is currently going for $3,499 on Apple’s website, meaning that you’ll be paying 14 percent more for a 15–20 percent increase in multicore CPU power. On paper, that seems worth springing for — especially considering the battery life impact — but any markdown bigger than that makes the M1 Max look like a better deal.

Of course, most people don’t shop this robotically. Many people (especially those with pockets deep enough to be shopping in this category) just want the shiny new thing. To which I say: fine. It’s faster. It’s not knock-your-socks-off faster, but if your job depends on your compiling and exporting being super hella fast, it’s not like there’s no difference.

The question of whether to buy this laptop has gotten a bit more... complicated.

Who is the MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max for?

Ultimately, the MacBook Pro 16 hasn’t changed all that much since 2021. But the laptop market has.

Intel’s laptop chips couldn’t hold a candle to the M1 Max’s CPU performance when those first 16 inchers hit shelves. That’s no longer the case, and I don’t expect it to be the case this upcoming year. Intel’s Core i9-12950HX has put up multicore scores that are quite competitive with these. The company has a 24-core chip coming out that looks likely to blow every benchmark out of the water. AMD has a 16-core monstrosity on the way, and that one’s not even using big.LITTLE architecture with different sized cores. I don’t expect that Intel’s and AMD’s top H-series chips will be out of their depth in the Geekbench database this year.

That doesn’t make the MacBook Pro 16 any less of a good purchase. It does mean that the archetypal 2021 M1 Max buyer and the archetypal 2023 M2 Max buyer look a bit different.

It does mean that the archetypal 2021 M1 Max buyer and the archetypal 2023 M2 Max buyer look a bit different

The M1 Max, despite having less raw power than its successor, was the obvious choice for shoppers trying to maximize their CPU power in 2021. The M2 Max is no longer that — the core-hungry shopper who never unplugs their laptop will have better options from Intel and AMD in 2023. What we don’t expect those options to have, in any capacity, is battery life. That’s where the M1 Max is the undeniable champion. And that’s the calculus that does remain unchanged from 2021: the MacBook Pro 16 remains the best combination of performance and efficiency that you can get. That’s why the M2 Max, despite being more powerful than the M1 Max, may target less of a “power user” crowd this year.

The MacBook hasn’t changed all that much, but the competition has.

If I ran a Windows laptop company, I wouldn’t be too scared of the MacBook Pro 16 with M2 Max. What I’d be terrified of is the backlog of M1 Max and M1 Pro laptops that are about to go on big-time sale. If even one of those 16-inch models (okay, maybe not one with 16GB of RAM) is regularly available for less than $2,000, I can imagine that tempting even some of the most loyal Windows users.

Even with performance aside, the MacBook Pro 16 is far ahead of most Windows laptops in areas like screen quality, audio, touchpad size, and build. And there are just so many compromises that today’s Windows workstations ask when it comes to battery life, efficiency, noise, and heat — and if you can get your hands on one of these 16-inch MacBooks, you just don’t have to worry about any of them anymore.

Agree to Continue: Apple MacBook Pro 16

Every smart device now requires you to agree to a series of terms and conditions before you can use it — contracts that no one actually reads. It’s impossible for us to read and analyze every single one of these agreements. But we started counting exactly how many times you have to hit “agree” to use devices when we review them since these are agreements most people don’t read and definitely can’t negotiate.

In order to get past the setup and actually use the MacBook Pro, you are required to agree to:

The macOS software license agreement, which includes Apple’s warranty agreement and the Game Center terms and conditions

These agreements are nonnegotiable, and you cannot use the laptop at all if you don’t agree to them.

There are also several optional agreements, including:

Location services
Using an iCloud account adds iCloud terms and conditions and Find My location services
Sending crash and usage data to Apple to help app developers
Allowing Apple to use your Siri transcripts to improve voice recognition
Apple Pay terms and conditions

The final tally is three mandatory agreements and six optional ones.

Source