- A higher resolution screen at 12.1" for a new iPad makes sense (a higher res screen for the iPad is simply unnecessary).
- A new Macbook Air with a higher res screen also makes sense, but perhaps that is also a 13" high-res screen.
I don't think a higher res (density/in) screen is needed…
Retina requires density over the visual arc of the screen… but the 'density' is more a factor or 3 things
1) viewing distance. at 50' (projector) you need fewer pixels per inch than you do at 12" (iPhone) Apple has established that the human eye needs about 220 pixels/inch at arm+keyboard length (macbook)
250+ pixels/in for arm length (iPad)
300+ pixels/in at bent arm length (phone)
?So a 12" iPad would require actually 20% more pixels at the same density, and my guess is like the 5, it will add a shadow box for iPad4 written apps and add a row and a column to the home screen. 20% isn't too noticeable on a black bezel screen).
Eventually, I think the MBA 11" is destined to die and no 12" MBA. If I were apple, I'd focus on Retina for Macs at 13"+, and iPads at 12" and less.
That's in a 4 year timeline… my guess is a Retina 13" Macbook Air will be the 'entry level' Macbook. Non retina MBP will disappear (except for a vestigual educational version.
And by then the questions of OSX and iOS Aseries vs Intel must be answered.
OSX is what iOS is under it's graphical front end. It's just the processor and the interface (touch versus Aqua) that's different. It still has the same unix-based underpinnings. From the command line, they both are the same.
Let me elaborate on the MacPad (as I have called it): I believe Apple is working on an iOS-based laptop, like a the Chromebook, but without a mouse. It would run all iOS apps as it would have the A7/A8 processor, and it could either also have a typical desktop filing system or further expand on the iOS system of tightly integrated apps that store their data in a manner consumers don't need to understand. It would be touch-based. It's something beyond what any of us have conceived. It will be more an iPad than a Mac.
However, Apple could really take the iOS system into the future if it could emulate an intel processor and run simple Mac apps. Apple has a great history of transitioning products through emulation from 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel via Rosetta. Today's processors are so damn fast that they can spin their wheels doing emulation and still run apps at what appears to be full-speed. The biggest problem with any app emulation is how to bridge a mouse and keyboard interface of an old app onto a touch device.
You'd need a touchpad. Wow. It's a laptop. It's an iPad. It's both. Or is it?
I don't know how they would handle the screen resolution differences from a Mac app to an iOS app, but Apple already has some screen fragmentation on their phones between the iPhone 4S and the 5s and 5ses (slightly taller). If they choose to go to anything on a future iPad that is not a 2x multiple of 1024x768, they will have to have to find a solution for non-integral display resolutions. This would open the door to ANY app resolution on the iPad (imagine 3840x2160 or 2160p) on a 9.7" iPad scaling to just about any resolution of a Mac app). I'd love to see Apple bring classic Mac OS apps to the iPad through emulation.
I think Apple is working on the "next big thing" and are about to re-redefine the home computing experience. PCs will eventually be dead to consumers. I see only graphics and other professionals, engineers, and scientists using true PCs in the future (5-10 years out). Consumers will use iOS devices for all their home-computing needs. They'll be so simple, ANYONE can use them without knowledge of the OS, file systems, etc. It's a concept Jobs had in the 80s that became reality with the iPad. It will lead to the death of the Macintosh platform for anyone other than those generating new content or writing software.
Eventually, programmers will write iPad apps on an iOS device. That device doesn't exist yet. But it will eventually.
I've been wondering the same thing. Recently, his drivel has been sourced from "the well connected Kuo" on AI. The most recent one says "Kuo, who has earned a positive reputation for accurately predicting Apple's future product plans, "
In reality, I haven't seen any evidence that Kuo is any more accurate than any of the other idiots who masquerade as analysts.
I wonder if Kuo pay AI a marketing fee.
It's more likely that AI writers are just not very bright, considering that they're willing to accept and present rumors from Kuo as virtual facts without any journalistic skepticism, validation, or source vetting. No, I contend that the writers for AI do worse than copy and paste rumors for click traffic, they are selling us Kuo's credibility, based on their opinion and their loose accounting of his record.
Kuo doesn't work for Apple and has no direct access to Apple's product plans. These so-called future products claimed by Kuo are his conjectures, based on supply chain whispers. That's not fact. Call it for what it is: another rumor from another analyst.
You're either being an idiot or trolling if you wanting us to think Steve Jobs actually meant there is "magic" in the display despite statements then regarding normal visual acuity and normal distances being held from the face.
I would be surprised if there's a long-term future for the MBA line, and even the non-retina MacBook / MBP line. In the next year or two, I see Apple's mobile computer line being reduced to the following;
You're either being an idiot or trolling if you wanting us to think Steve Jobs actually meant there is "magic" in the display despite statements then regarding normal visual acuity and normal distances being held from the face.
Where is the "magic" in this claim?
no......................... omj smh in my original comment i was simply mocking his hyperbolic description of retina displays
no......................... omj smh in my original comment i was simply mocking his hyperbolic description of retina displays
And was is hyperbolic about normal visual acuity and normal distances for a given device? You can claim that you have "magic" eyes that can see "jagged edges" on a 1/326th of an inch line on an iPhone from a normal viewing distance but don't make foolish claims that your potentially better than average vision is somehow the norm.
It's more likely that AI writers are just not very bright, considering that they're willing to accept and present rumors from Kuo as virtual facts without any journalistic skepticism, validation, or source vetting. No, I contend that the writers for AI do worse than copy and paste rumors for click traffic, they are selling us Kuo's credibility, based on their opinion and their loose accounting of his record.
Kuo doesn't work for Apple and has no direct access to Apple's product plans. These so-called future products claimed by Kuo are his conjectures, based on supply chain whispers. That's not fact. Call it for what it is: another rumor from another analyst.
Amazing how some people can get so worked up by some analyst throwing darts at the wall hoping one will hit the bullseye.
First, what would the point be of "increasing pixel density" on a device that is already "retina display"? School me please, because I really don't understand any possible benefit. Maybe it would just look nicer, or...?
Second, I find it unrealistic to imagine Apple squeezing model lines into 1" screen increments. Why? 11" + 12" + 13" MacBooks? It doesn't make sense.
The only possible route that COULD make sense to me is if the 11" and 13" MBA screens remain mostly unchanged, and a new 12" is billed as Apple's "Retina Display MacBook Air".
But sidle that up to the existing 13" MacBook Pro (Retina). Differentiation starts to blur. Where do the criteria for purchasing decisions fall?
Part of Apple's success is in making it easy for us to decide which model best suits our needs. They show no sign of losing that aspect of their business model. This wouldn't fit.
If they are in fact releasing a new 12" retina MacBook, then something else is going to change along with it (moving specs sizes and features of other models along with it, including a possible discontinuation).
For example: Perhaps this 12" rMBA replaces both the 11" and 13" MBAs of today? The new "best of both worlds" implied by the analyst note?
If Apple is making a retina MacBook Air, 12" might be the best tradeoff when considering battery life.
No matter, I'm buying a 13" MBA at the end of the month, along with a new iPhone 5s… iPad Mini too if they bump the screen res without losing battery life.
I for one hope they keep the 11 inch. If they can fit a bigger screen into that form factor, great. But the size of that thing is perfect for those if us get have to fly a lot. As many have said, I'd prefer more battery life over more pixels, thinner, lighter.
Despite what they say, Apple must be experimenting with hybrid iOSX models. Maybe the 12 inch is a prototype that is getting close to the "this might actually work" stage.
Those who think the "sore arm" is the problem with iOSX are missing the dual mode option. A device you can use as an iPad on the lounge at night, and as a MBA at your desk during the day. So not simultaneous iOSX, but switchable iOS/OSX.
But like I say, for my work style, the 11 inch is the perfect form factor and they should just keep adding watts to it as far as I'm concerned (and retina when it doesn't degrade the working-day battery life).
I for one hope they keep the 11 inch. If they can fit a bigger screen into that form factor, great. But the size of that thing is perfect for those if us get have to fly a lot. As many have said, I'd prefer more battery life over more pixels, thinner, lighter.
Despite what they say, Apple must be experimenting with hybrid iOSX models. Maybe the 12 inch is a prototype that is getting close to the "this might actually work" stage.
Those who think the "sore arm" is the problem with iOSX are missing the dual mode option. A device you can use as an iPad on the lounge at night, and as a MBA at your desk during the day. So not simultaneous iOSX, but switchable iOS/OSX.
But like I say, for my work style, the 11 inch is the perfect form factor and they should just keep adding watts to it as far as I'm concerned (and retina when it doesn't degrade the working-day battery life).
If it's bigger I wouldn't expect it to be so much so as to detract from it's small size utility. Since Apple uses metal as well as a milled top lid it's possible they could reduce the rim around the lid even more than it is now which could potentially allow for exactly what you want. If anyone can do it and would invest in making a mass produced reality I think it's Apple.
First, what would the point be of "increasing pixel density" on a device that is already "retina display"? School me please, because I really don't understand any possible benefit. Maybe it would just look nicer, or...?
Second, I find it unrealistic to imagine Apple squeezing model lines into 1" screen increments. Why? 11" + 12" + 13" MacBooks? It doesn't make sense.
The only possible route that COULD make sense to me is if the 11" and 13" MBA screens remain mostly unchanged, and a new 12" is billed as Apple's "Retina Display MacBook Air".
But sidle that up to the existing 13" MacBook Pro (Retina). Differentiation starts to blur. Where do the criteria for purchasing decisions fall?
Part of Apple's success is in making it easy for us to decide which model best suits our needs. They show no sign of losing that aspect of their business model. This wouldn't fit.
If they are in fact releasing a new 12" retina MacBook, then something else is going to change along with it (moving specs sizes and features of other models along with it, including a possible discontinuation).
For example: Perhaps this 12" rMBA replaces both the 11" and 13" MBAs of today? The new "best of both worlds" implied by the analyst note?
If Apple is making a retina MacBook Air, 12" might be the best tradeoff when considering battery life.
No matter, I'm buying a 13" MBA at the end of the month, along with a new iPhone 5s… iPad Mini too if they bump the screen res without losing battery life.
You're trying way too hard to disprove an unproven claim.
There's simply no need to.
Kuo published his guesses, AI put it on a pedestal and whitewash any skepticism of Kuo, and the people with scarcely any critical thinking skills accept AI's story without question. I don't see much point to debating these folks.
The only way 30-40% pixel increase makes sense is if they are increasing the size option of the iPad display. For example, an 11.5" iPad would have a 40% larger display area. If they keep the same pixel density (PPI) as they did with all other iDevice categories that could be why he's getting that number, assuming he's getting them an actual source.
I have to admit that I thought there was no point to the iPad Mini and was quite wrong about that one. Yet, my argument would be that the case for a bigger iPad is a weak one. If you're going to go there, the Air makes a whole lot more sense. Th 9.7-inch form factor would be just about perfect were the device in question significantly lighter than the current iPad. A significantly larger tablet would suffer from being about the same in price as the Air yet limited in comparison. A 128GB iPad comes in at $799. A 128GB Air starts at $999 (US). A larger iPad would be quite close in price to the Air, clearly having to cost more than the 9.7-inch unit.
It would not run OS X, include a physical keyboard, or be comfortable to use, being as it would be overweight for a handheld device. Awkward to hold, too, because of its dimensions. The Air would blow it away on so many levels. Who needs this thing and for what purpose, exactly? What can it do better than a 9.7-inch iPad or a MacBook Air? Is that a niche that needs addressing?
As I have noted, I got it wrong regarding the iPad Mini and perhaps I've got it wrong as far as this hypothetical supersize iPad is concerned. Yet, from my point of view, there is no case for this proposed piece.
I have to admit that I thought there was no point to the iPad Mini and was quite wrong about that one. Yet, my argument would be that the case for a bigger iPad is a weak one. If you're going to go there, the Air makes a whole lot more sense. Th 9.7-inch form factor would be just about perfect were the device in question significantly lighter than the current iPad. A significantly larger tablet would suffer from being about the same in price as the Air yet limited in comparison. A 128GB iPad comes in at $799. A 128GB Air starts at $999 (US). A larger iPad would be quite close in price to the Air, clearly having to cost more than the 9.7-inch unit.
It would not run OS X, include a physical keyboard, or be comfortable to use, being as it would be overweight for a handheld device. Awkward to hold, too, because of its dimensions. The Air would blow it away on so many levels. Who needs this thing and for what purpose, exactly? What can it do better than a 9.7-inch iPad or a MacBook Air? Is that a niche that needs addressing?
As I have noted, I got it wrong regarding the iPad Mini and perhaps I've got it wrong as far as this hypothetical supersize iPad is concerned. Yet, from my point of view, there is no case for this proposed piece.
Maybe this patent filing, which may or may not come to fruition, will answer your question. It shows, at the very least, that Apple is thinking about such a device.
Hmm, looking for your suggestions. I'm in for a new laptop, but now I'm not so sure which one to get and if it would pay off to hold another 8/9 months.
Option 1) maxed out MBA 13" Option 2) rMBP 13" with 512 GB
Portability of both seems to be comparable: the rMBP is only a tad heavier with retina display, a better CPU GPU and, with haswell, it has a comparable battery life. Plus, I prefer the design with the black bezel. All of this comes in at about 200 US$ more than the MBA. It is quite difficult to justify the 13" MBA.
Nevertheless, I am still amazed and in love with the MBA form factorI it might be plausible that a new MBA form factor will come up outdating the current model in less than a year. So, I guess: or you can hold another 9 months for the new MBAs (with all the risks of an early adopter) or you go for the 13" rMBP (that has only 1 year of life cycle and should be at his bests with the upcoming changes).
I've been wondering the same thing. Recently, his drivel has been sourced from "the well connected Kuo" on AI. The most recent one says "Kuo, who has earned a positive reputation for accurately predicting Apple's future product plans, "
Which history doesn't support.
In reality, I haven't seen any evidence that Kuo is any more accurate than any of the other idiots who masquerade as analysts.
Comments
I think he got the rumor backwards
- A higher resolution screen at 12.1" for a new iPad makes sense (a higher res screen for the iPad is simply unnecessary).
- A new Macbook Air with a higher res screen also makes sense, but perhaps that is also a 13" high-res screen.
I don't think a higher res (density/in) screen is needed…
Retina requires density over the visual arc of the screen… but the 'density' is more a factor or 3 things
1) viewing distance. at 50' (projector) you need fewer pixels per inch than you do at 12" (iPhone) Apple has established that the human eye needs about 220 pixels/inch at arm+keyboard length (macbook)
250+ pixels/in for arm length (iPad)
300+ pixels/in at bent arm length (phone)
?So a 12" iPad would require actually 20% more pixels at the same density, and my guess is like the 5, it will add a shadow box for iPad4 written apps and add a row and a column to the home screen. 20% isn't too noticeable on a black bezel screen).
Eventually, I think the MBA 11" is destined to die and no 12" MBA. If I were apple, I'd focus on Retina for Macs at 13"+, and iPads at 12" and less.
That's in a 4 year timeline… my guess is a Retina 13" Macbook Air will be the 'entry level' Macbook. Non retina MBP will disappear (except for a vestigual educational version.
And by then the questions of OSX and iOS Aseries vs Intel must be answered.
Quote:
Indeed, we’ve heard both of these separately already.
and that's how analysts work.
So an iPad. Since it isn’t a “Mac” without OS X.
OSX is what iOS is under it's graphical front end. It's just the processor and the interface (touch versus Aqua) that's different. It still has the same unix-based underpinnings. From the command line, they both are the same.
Let me elaborate on the MacPad (as I have called it): I believe Apple is working on an iOS-based laptop, like a the Chromebook, but without a mouse. It would run all iOS apps as it would have the A7/A8 processor, and it could either also have a typical desktop filing system or further expand on the iOS system of tightly integrated apps that store their data in a manner consumers don't need to understand. It would be touch-based. It's something beyond what any of us have conceived. It will be more an iPad than a Mac.
However, Apple could really take the iOS system into the future if it could emulate an intel processor and run simple Mac apps. Apple has a great history of transitioning products through emulation from 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel via Rosetta. Today's processors are so damn fast that they can spin their wheels doing emulation and still run apps at what appears to be full-speed. The biggest problem with any app emulation is how to bridge a mouse and keyboard interface of an old app onto a touch device.
You'd need a touchpad. Wow. It's a laptop. It's an iPad. It's both. Or is it?
I don't know how they would handle the screen resolution differences from a Mac app to an iOS app, but Apple already has some screen fragmentation on their phones between the iPhone 4S and the 5s and 5ses (slightly taller). If they choose to go to anything on a future iPad that is not a 2x multiple of 1024x768, they will have to have to find a solution for non-integral display resolutions. This would open the door to ANY app resolution on the iPad (imagine 3840x2160 or 2160p) on a 9.7" iPad scaling to just about any resolution of a Mac app). I'd love to see Apple bring classic Mac OS apps to the iPad through emulation.
I think Apple is working on the "next big thing" and are about to re-redefine the home computing experience. PCs will eventually be dead to consumers. I see only graphics and other professionals, engineers, and scientists using true PCs in the future (5-10 years out). Consumers will use iOS devices for all their home-computing needs. They'll be so simple, ANYONE can use them without knowledge of the OS, file systems, etc. It's a concept Jobs had in the 80s that became reality with the iPad. It will lead to the death of the Macintosh platform for anyone other than those generating new content or writing software.
Eventually, programmers will write iPad apps on an iOS device. That device doesn't exist yet. But it will eventually.
Visual acuity and length of measurement are now "magic" that Apple invented?
omj here's a video for reference
It's more likely that AI writers are just not very bright, considering that they're willing to accept and present rumors from Kuo as virtual facts without any journalistic skepticism, validation, or source vetting. No, I contend that the writers for AI do worse than copy and paste rumors for click traffic, they are selling us Kuo's credibility, based on their opinion and their loose accounting of his record.
Kuo doesn't work for Apple and has no direct access to Apple's product plans. These so-called future products claimed by Kuo are his conjectures, based on supply chain whispers. That's not fact. Call it for what it is: another rumor from another analyst.
You're either being an idiot or trolling if you wanting us to think Steve Jobs actually meant there is "magic" in the display despite statements then regarding normal visual acuity and normal distances being held from the face.
Where is the "magic" in this claim?
and that's how analysts work.
I would be surprised if there's a long-term future for the MBA line, and even the non-retina MacBook / MBP line. In the next year or two, I see Apple's mobile computer line being reduced to the following;
Consumers - iPads (8" / 9.7" / 12.9")
Pro Users - rMBP (13" / 15")
You're either being an idiot or trolling if you wanting us to think Steve Jobs actually meant there is "magic" in the display despite statements then regarding normal visual acuity and normal distances being held from the face.
Where is the "magic" in this claim?
no......................... omj smh in my original comment i was simply mocking his hyperbolic description of retina displays
And was is hyperbolic about normal visual acuity and normal distances for a given device? You can claim that you have "magic" eyes that can see "jagged edges" on a 1/326th of an inch line on an iPhone from a normal viewing distance but don't make foolish claims that your potentially better than average vision is somehow the norm.
First, what would the point be of "increasing pixel density" on a device that is already "retina display"? School me please, because I really don't understand any possible benefit. Maybe it would just look nicer, or...?
Second, I find it unrealistic to imagine Apple squeezing model lines into 1" screen increments. Why? 11" + 12" + 13" MacBooks? It doesn't make sense.
The only possible route that COULD make sense to me is if the 11" and 13" MBA screens remain mostly unchanged, and a new 12" is billed as Apple's "Retina Display MacBook Air".
But sidle that up to the existing 13" MacBook Pro (Retina). Differentiation starts to blur. Where do the criteria for purchasing decisions fall?
Part of Apple's success is in making it easy for us to decide which model best suits our needs. They show no sign of losing that aspect of their business model. This wouldn't fit.
If they are in fact releasing a new 12" retina MacBook, then something else is going to change along with it (moving specs sizes and features of other models along with it, including a possible discontinuation).
For example: Perhaps this 12" rMBA replaces both the 11" and 13" MBAs of today? The new "best of both worlds" implied by the analyst note?
If Apple is making a retina MacBook Air, 12" might be the best tradeoff when considering battery life.
No matter, I'm buying a 13" MBA at the end of the month, along with a new iPhone 5s… iPad Mini too if they bump the screen res without losing battery life.
Yes, he’s talking about curves, but that doesn’t immediately mean his statement was hyperbolic. ????
What does “omj” mean, anyway?
Despite what they say, Apple must be experimenting with hybrid iOSX models. Maybe the 12 inch is a prototype that is getting close to the "this might actually work" stage.
Those who think the "sore arm" is the problem with iOSX are missing the dual mode option. A device you can use as an iPad on the lounge at night, and as a MBA at your desk during the day. So not simultaneous iOSX, but switchable iOS/OSX.
But like I say, for my work style, the 11 inch is the perfect form factor and they should just keep adding watts to it as far as I'm concerned (and retina when it doesn't degrade the working-day battery life).
If it's bigger I wouldn't expect it to be so much so as to detract from it's small size utility. Since Apple uses metal as well as a milled top lid it's possible they could reduce the rim around the lid even more than it is now which could potentially allow for exactly what you want. If anyone can do it and would invest in making a mass produced reality I think it's Apple.
A couple of off-the-cuff thoughts on this.
First, what would the point be of "increasing pixel density" on a device that is already "retina display"? School me please, because I really don't understand any possible benefit. Maybe it would just look nicer, or...?
Second, I find it unrealistic to imagine Apple squeezing model lines into 1" screen increments. Why? 11" + 12" + 13" MacBooks? It doesn't make sense.
The only possible route that COULD make sense to me is if the 11" and 13" MBA screens remain mostly unchanged, and a new 12" is billed as Apple's "Retina Display MacBook Air".
But sidle that up to the existing 13" MacBook Pro (Retina). Differentiation starts to blur. Where do the criteria for purchasing decisions fall?
Part of Apple's success is in making it easy for us to decide which model best suits our needs. They show no sign of losing that aspect of their business model. This wouldn't fit.
If they are in fact releasing a new 12" retina MacBook, then something else is going to change along with it (moving specs sizes and features of other models along with it, including a possible discontinuation).
For example: Perhaps this 12" rMBA replaces both the 11" and 13" MBAs of today? The new "best of both worlds" implied by the analyst note?
If Apple is making a retina MacBook Air, 12" might be the best tradeoff when considering battery life.
No matter, I'm buying a 13" MBA at the end of the month, along with a new iPhone 5s… iPad Mini too if they bump the screen res without losing battery life.
You're trying way too hard to disprove an unproven claim.
There's simply no need to.
Kuo published his guesses, AI put it on a pedestal and whitewash any skepticism of Kuo, and the people with scarcely any critical thinking skills accept AI's story without question. I don't see much point to debating these folks.
It apparently means Oh My Jonas, as in the Jonas Brothers.
I have to admit that I thought there was no point to the iPad Mini and was quite wrong about that one. Yet, my argument would be that the case for a bigger iPad is a weak one. If you're going to go there, the Air makes a whole lot more sense. Th 9.7-inch form factor would be just about perfect were the device in question significantly lighter than the current iPad. A significantly larger tablet would suffer from being about the same in price as the Air yet limited in comparison. A 128GB iPad comes in at $799. A 128GB Air starts at $999 (US). A larger iPad would be quite close in price to the Air, clearly having to cost more than the 9.7-inch unit.
It would not run OS X, include a physical keyboard, or be comfortable to use, being as it would be overweight for a handheld device. Awkward to hold, too, because of its dimensions. The Air would blow it away on so many levels. Who needs this thing and for what purpose, exactly? What can it do better than a 9.7-inch iPad or a MacBook Air? Is that a niche that needs addressing?
As I have noted, I got it wrong regarding the iPad Mini and perhaps I've got it wrong as far as this hypothetical supersize iPad is concerned. Yet, from my point of view, there is no case for this proposed piece.
I have to admit that I thought there was no point to the iPad Mini and was quite wrong about that one. Yet, my argument would be that the case for a bigger iPad is a weak one. If you're going to go there, the Air makes a whole lot more sense. Th 9.7-inch form factor would be just about perfect were the device in question significantly lighter than the current iPad. A significantly larger tablet would suffer from being about the same in price as the Air yet limited in comparison. A 128GB iPad comes in at $799. A 128GB Air starts at $999 (US). A larger iPad would be quite close in price to the Air, clearly having to cost more than the 9.7-inch unit.
It would not run OS X, include a physical keyboard, or be comfortable to use, being as it would be overweight for a handheld device. Awkward to hold, too, because of its dimensions. The Air would blow it away on so many levels. Who needs this thing and for what purpose, exactly? What can it do better than a 9.7-inch iPad or a MacBook Air? Is that a niche that needs addressing?
As I have noted, I got it wrong regarding the iPad Mini and perhaps I've got it wrong as far as this hypothetical supersize iPad is concerned. Yet, from my point of view, there is no case for this proposed piece.
Maybe this patent filing, which may or may not come to fruition, will answer your question. It shows, at the very least, that Apple is thinking about such a device.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/04/finally-apple-reveals-their-hybrid-notebook-tablet-details.html
Option 1) maxed out MBA 13"
Option 2) rMBP 13" with 512 GB
Portability of both seems to be comparable: the rMBP is only a tad heavier with retina display, a better CPU GPU and, with haswell, it has a comparable battery life. Plus, I prefer the design with the black bezel. All of this comes in at about 200 US$ more than the MBA. It is quite difficult to justify the 13" MBA.
Nevertheless, I am still amazed and in love with the MBA form factorI it might be plausible that a new MBA form factor will come up outdating the current model in less than a year. So, I guess: or you can hold another 9 months for the new MBAs (with all the risks of an early adopter) or you go for the 13" rMBP (that has only 1 year of life cycle and should be at his bests with the upcoming changes).
- 12" rMBA
- 14" rMB
- 16" rMBP
Simple. Elegant. Streamlined. :smokey: