Did anyone else notice that this new product uses only an iSight camera and not an HD like the other products? That is disappointing to me.
Yes, it's 480p resolution. I am not one to FaceTime people (hell I even hate talking on the phone when text-based communication is so much more efficient) so that doesn't bother me, although i can see how a heavy FaceTime/Skype user might see that as a deal breaker.
MY hypothesis is that it's simply not possible with the new lid design. It's simply too thin. I also hypothesis that it's also the reason why the lid no longer has a cut out with a plastic insert for a glowing Apple logo. I would imagine that smaller or flatter camera modules will arrive soon enough. We saw a patent from Apple for this very thing just last month, as I recall.
For those that don't know, there is no discreet light for the logo, it's the actual backlight for the display that creates that glowing Apple logo. In fact, in bright sunlight you can put your hand back there and see a shadow on your display.
I don't think it will replace the Air. The 12" screen is too small, but the single port is a real show stopper for me. As an app developer I always use 2 USB ports for testing and debugging and the macbook won't hold 10 hours (my typical workday) without power.
As I am not the only app developer with these constraints, I am not so sure it will sell like crazy.
LOL, as if 13" gives you so much more screen space. And it's not like you're going to saturate the USB-C using two usbs for debugging and app loading.
Frankly, as a developer, this is a complete non-issue. At my desk it now becomes one cable vs two to connect to the monitor that also serves as a usb3 hub.
On the road, I have to have my cables and test devices that the addition of a dongle or hub is a not much of a change. Some but not much.
LOL, as if 13" gives you so much more screen space.
It does. The MB display is only 81% the area of the MBA display.
MacBook Air
13.3"
16:10
11.3" × 7.0"
79.5" square
Macbook
12.0"
16:10
10.2" × 6.4"
64.72 square
Good comparison though I think I read here that the new MacBook was actually 12.1"; you may wish to adjust your figures, though it'll still be a significant difference, obviously.
Edit: well, the website says 12", so your figures are correct.
It does. The MB display is only 81% the area of the MBA display.
MacBook Air
13.3"
16:10
11.3" × 7.0"
79.5" square
Macbook
12.0"
16:10
10.2" × 6.4"
64.72" square
And the size difference in terms of lines of code you can see in one display vs the other (at the same character size in inches to remain fair) is minimal. And if you have good eyes the higher resolution on the 12 allows you to see more.
Compare with the development environment you have with a 27" display or what I use, the 29" ultra wide from dell and the difference is meaningless to productivity. Both the 12 and 13 are essentially single application displays. Having Xcode up while perusing Stack Overflow at the same time is not practical. Typically I'll have two or more editor windows open, Safari for googling stack overflow or looking at documentation, messenger and email.
And the size difference in terms of lines of code you can see in one display vs the other (at the same character size in inches to remain fair) is minimal. And if you have good eyes the higher resolution on the 12 allows you to see more.
That wasn't your argument. You clearly limited it to screen space.
Personally, I would absolutely recommend the 12" MB over the 13" MBA for pretty much everyone, if not everyone, I know looking for a simple Mac notebook, but the "screen space" is definitely smaller, as I've shown.
Compare with the development environment you have with a 27" display or what I use, the 29" ultra wide from dell and the difference is meaningless to productivity. Both the 12 and 13 are essentially single application displays. Having Xcode up while perusing Stack Overflow at the same time is not practical. Typically I'll have two or more editor windows open, Safari for googling stack overflow or looking at documentation, messenger and email
I absolutely disagree. If Apple released a 32-34" utra-wide 21:9 5K display I would likely but it. This would be brilliant for an app like Xcode or Final Cut Pro because you'd have much less of a need to reduce sidebars. 32-34" would mean that it's right about the same display height of the current 27" which I think is a good height.
Seems like the Airs were getting more and more into Pro territory though and probably why Apple didn't just stick a retina screen in the current Airs. I'm really interested in the possibilities with the new trackpad. I believe Apple said there would be an API for developers. And on Apple's website it lists "pressure sensitive drawing"....hmmm could we see this 'force touch' on iPhones and iPads in the future?
Why not? Add haptic feedback while they're at it. Maybe you can "feel" on-screen button and key presses.
Seems like the Airs were getting more and more into Pro territory though and probably why Apple didn't just stick a retina screen in the current Airs. I'm really interested in the possibilities with the new trackpad. I believe Apple said there would be an API for developers. And on Apple's website it lists "pressure sensitive drawing"....hmmm could we see this 'force touch' on iPhones and iPads in the future?
Why not? Add haptic feedback while they're at it. Maybe you can "feel" on-screen button and key presses.
I'd be happy with haptic feedback, whether it came in the tock of the 6s or the tick of the 7.
That wasn't your argument. You clearly limited it to screen space.
The retina resolution will give options to display more on a smaller screen, if a user doesn't mind GUI elements being smaller.
So while the physical screen space may be smaller, the pixel count is much greater, and the point* count can be greater if the user chooses, which affects the virtual screen space**.
* I think point is the correct term.
** I think I made this one up, but hopefully you understand what I mean.
That wasn't your argument. You clearly limited it to screen space.
lol. You want so much to be right that you pick the definition of screen space that favors you as opposed to what I meant in terms of productivity as a developer.
Personally, I would absolutely recommend the 12" MB over the 13" MBA for pretty much everyone, if not everyone, I know looking for a simple Mac notebook, but the "screen space" is definitely smaller, as I've shown.
Yes, physical screen space is bigger. Depending on how the user decides to scale the usable screen space smaller. Depending on you eyesight and scaling clarity the 12" is smaller, bigger or the same. The productivity difference is neglible which was my point.
I absolutely disagree. If Apple released a 32-34" utra-wide 21:9 5K display I would likely but it. This would be brilliant for an app like Xcode or Final Cut Pro because you'd have much less of a need to reduce sidebars. 32-34" would mean that it's right about the same display height of the current 27" which I think is a good height.
Again you want so badly to disagree with me that you misread what I wrote. The difference between 12" and 13" even at max native resolution is meaningless compared to the desktop environment. Which is what you restated.
It's funny that you recreate your account to reset your post count but indulge in pointless disagreements that bump your post counts to ridiculous levels.
That wasn't your argument. You clearly limited it to screen space.
lol. You want so much to be right that you pick the definition of screen space that favors you as opposed to what I meant in terms of productivity as a developer.
Personally, I would absolutely recommend the 12" MB over the 13" MBA for pretty much everyone, if not everyone, I know looking for a simple Mac notebook, but the "screen space" is definitely smaller, as I've shown.
Yes, physical screen space is bigger. Depending on how the user decides to scale the usable screen space smaller. Depending on you eyesight and scaling clarity the 12" is smaller, bigger or the same. The productivity difference is neglible which was my point.
I absolutely disagree. If Apple released a 32-34" utra-wide 21:9 5K display I would likely but it. This would be brilliant for an app like Xcode or Final Cut Pro because you'd have much less of a need to reduce sidebars. 32-34" would mean that it's right about the same display height of the current 27" which I think is a good height.
Again you want so badly to disagree with me that you misread what I wrote. The difference between 12" and 13" even at max native resolution is meaningless compared to the desktop environment. Which is what you restated.
It's funny that you recreate your account to reset your post count but indulge in pointless disagreements that bump your post counts to ridiculous levels.
He's right, though.
There is considerably more screen estate with the 13.3" Air. Yes, you can increase the resolution on the 12", but that is a different parameter.
You want so much to be right that you pick the definition of screen space that favors you as opposed to what I meant in terms of productivity as a developer.
I have no interest in being right, only in being correct, as well as others around me being correct. Your use of space has only one definition in this regard without qualification. If you wanted to refer to the display resolution, pixel density, or pixel count then you should have said so. Now you just look like you're backpedaling after your error has been pointed out.
Furthermore, since Apple's goes Retina specifically so 1 pixel can be represented by 4 pixels in a 2x2 grid, Apple simply wants elements to look crisper without giving the user any additional workspace. In fact, going from, say, the 13" MBP to the 13" Retina MacBook Pro you have a cursor and Menu Bar that are the same size as before. You do have some options to make them larger and smaller, but these are not enabled by default so if you did mean to say, "Well, on the 12" MacBook I can scale the resolution to shrink all the element thereby giving me more virtual space in which to work," you didn't come close to stating that in any regard.
It's funny that you recreate your account to reset your post count but indulge in pointless disagreements that bump your post counts to ridiculous levels.
Could you explain what that means? You think I created a new account that has nearly the exact name as my old one because I'm trying to hide my post count? Do you not see a flaw in that plan? I agree a debate is pointless when the person you're having a conservation with decides to backpedal on what they stated thereby creating the pointless conservation in which you refer, but I have no control over you and others, so it's not really something I can stop. You do think I post simply to get a post count? If so, then why I try to thorough in my replies, as well as use the multi-quote function?
I compared it to the 13" rMBP , both with retina screens and same price. I am saying no thanks to the new macbook because there is too much trade off in performance of the CPU and GPU for that 1.5 pound. I am sure some people won't care, but I prefer the rMBP over this.
I love the color options, I hope they extend it to the entire macbook lines later. At some point, they could have only 2 lines, MacBooks and Macbook pro.
I was thinking the same thing until I saw that the rMBP at the same price has half the storage.
I think I will be going for absolute portability as I have iMacs both at home and in the office to do the heavy lifting.
That doesn't come as a surprise. The rest of the industry is very reluctant to move to new ports. Apple pushed mini-displayport and was met with resistance.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll ditch Lightning because those ports help keep iOS hardware Apple exclusives and also certified but if they switched, it means a laptop charger can be shared easily with iOS.
What I hope it means is that Thunderbolt 3 can switch over to using the USB C connector now that it incorporates displayport. Apple and Intel both had input in USB C and they originally wanted to use the USB connector for Thunderbolt but weren't allowed to.
What this would mean is hard drive manufacturers could include a USB C port and if it was TB3 driving it, it would just operate at 40Gbps vs 10Gbps. If not, it operates at 10Gbps. Displays would work on either one. TB3 would effectively become a superspeed PCIe mode for peripherals that need it and otherwise, you use it as a USB C port. They'd just put the lightning marker next to it so you know the difference.
Google has added USB C to their Chromebook and they have some USB C adaptors, which should work on the Mac and are a bit cheaper. They put 2x USB C and 2x USB A on theirs and charging is over USB C.
That doesn't come as a surprise. The rest of the industry is very reluctant to move to new ports. Apple pushed mini-displayport and was met with resistance.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll ditch Lightning because those ports help keep iOS hardware Apple exclusives and also certified but if they switched, it means a laptop charger can be shared easily with iOS.
What I hope it means is that Thunderbolt 3 can switch over to using the USB C connector now that it incorporates displayport. Apple and Intel both had input in USB C and they originally wanted to use the USB connector for Thunderbolt but weren't allowed to.
What this would mean is hard drive manufacturers could include a USB C port and if it was TB3 driving it, it would just operate at 40Gbps vs 10Gbps. If not, it operates at 10Gbps. Displays would work on either one. TB3 would effectively become a superspeed PCIe mode for peripherals that need it and otherwise, you use it as a USB C port. They'd just put the lightning marker next to it so you know the difference.
Google has added USB C to their Chromebook and they have some USB C adaptors, which should work on the Mac and are a bit cheaper. They put 2x USB C and 2x USB A on theirs and charging is over USB C.
I can't say I agree with his reasoning. I've been saying since the spec was released that I can see Apple moving this way to replace their USB-A and Lightning connectors across the board, but I don't think the "well it looks like something Apple would have created" is a valid argument, and I think the "no one would adopt USB-C if people know Apple had designed it" is absolute rubbish.
A laptop should be at least 13". I think Apple should offer 13", 15" and 17" sizes only.
12 inch is the new 13 inch because of the Retina Display.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Same for the 15 inch, it is the new 17 inch.</span>
I think that should Apple only offer 12" and 15" laptops one day, that the pros will migrate towards the 15" and most of the others towards an iPad. The current 12" is well over twice the price of an iPad for just two more inches.
I don't think the "well it looks like something Apple would have created" is a valid argument, and I think the "no one would adopt USB-C if people know Apple had designed it" is absolute rubbish.
Manufacturers resisted Firewire just because it was Apple, which eventually got into cameras. They resisted mini-displayport until Apple got VESA to adopt it. They resisted Thunderbolt before Intel started pushing it. Even HTML5 Canvas:
"First of all, “flash” is not proprietary. The SDK, compiler and Flex framework is FOSS. Swf and RTMP formats are open, and the VM is open.
Why don’t they open source the player as well?
I guess one reason could be that it contains proprietary code that Adobe have licensed, and that’s obviously not theirs to open. HTML5 hands over the responsibility of selecting codecs to the browser developers, so if you want to watch video on for example youtube without the Flash Player you need a browser containing that licensed code instead. Moving the proprietary code to another part of the system does not make the web more open.
So who do we want to trust? Is it better to have Apple in control over the technology than Adobe?
Adobe is a very open company compared to Apple in every aspect."
I agree that them simply knowing that Apple designed it shouldn't put them off a connector that has already been made a standard from a 3rd party company. The resistance in the past has come from companies before Apple's tech was standardized by a 3rd party. Apple seems to be figuring out the best process of getting these ports adopted quickly but I would say companies tend to have a problem with anything Apple does.
While the design looking like something Apple would do doesn't necessarily mean they designed it, the design would have come from a single source to begin with. And this time, it really looks like something Apple designed:
It seems more than a coincidence that the two ports look so alike if those designs were arrived at by different companies.
I just read some of the USB C documents and there's talk of digital audio headsets with USB C. There was a suggestion for analog audio headsets but this was rejected so that 3.5mm stays analog and USB C stays digital. Google has been talking up USB C here:
Android phones will likely switch over to it. One of Google's electrical engineers is in the video talking about being part of the design.
Rejecting analog audio support means that headphones with USB C plugs couldn't be backwards compatible with 3.5mm jacks. You couldn't just put a passive attachment onto a USB C plug and put it in a 3.5mm analog port. If Apple made Beats with a USB C plug, it wouldn't be able to work with any analog devices with passive adaptors. One thing they could do is make a proprietary connector on the headphone end (Lightning?) that supports both USB C and 3.5mm and then provide a cable for each. Or, given that 3.5mm jacks provide power, have an active adaptor to digitize the analog audio and put it out over USB C but active adaptors would probably introduce some latency. Maybe converting digital optical audio would be easy enough.
Lack of analog support is going to hold back USB C support on headphones unfortunately but they'll mostly go wireless anyway. I'm sure eventually that the 3.5mm jack will be phased out. I hate hearing power noise and crackling from headphones just because of the connector turning or cable bending. These should have been made digital a long time ago. The big headphone companies need to start moving with this. Beats is the biggest on the high-end but it's in all their best interests to ditch 3.5mm jacks and provide active adaptors for legacy sound systems. It means some people will buy all new equipment.
Manufacturers resisted Firewire just because it was Apple, which eventually got into cameras. They resisted mini-displayport until Apple got VESA to adopt it. They resisted Thunderbolt before Intel started pushing it. Even HTML5 Canvas.
None of that had to do with it being something Apple had their hands in. It had to do with cost v usefulness. FireWire and B are expensive. Canvas uses a lot resources.
It seems more than a coincidence that the two ports look so alike if those designs were arrived at by different companies.
It could be a coincidence, but I think its design is heavily inspired by the existence of Lightning.
Comments
Yes, it's 480p resolution. I am not one to FaceTime people (hell I even hate talking on the phone when text-based communication is so much more efficient) so that doesn't bother me, although i can see how a heavy FaceTime/Skype user might see that as a deal breaker.
MY hypothesis is that it's simply not possible with the new lid design. It's simply too thin. I also hypothesis that it's also the reason why the lid no longer has a cut out with a plastic insert for a glowing Apple logo. I would imagine that smaller or flatter camera modules will arrive soon enough. We saw a patent from Apple for this very thing just last month, as I recall.
For those that don't know, there is no discreet light for the logo, it's the actual backlight for the display that creates that glowing Apple logo. In fact, in bright sunlight you can put your hand back there and see a shadow on your display.
LOL, as if 13" gives you so much more screen space. And it's not like you're going to saturate the USB-C using two usbs for debugging and app loading.
Frankly, as a developer, this is a complete non-issue. At my desk it now becomes one cable vs two to connect to the monitor that also serves as a usb3 hub.
On the road, I have to have my cables and test devices that the addition of a dongle or hub is a not much of a change. Some but not much.
It does. The MB display is only 81% the area of the MBA display.
MacBook Air
13.3"
16:10
11.3" × 7.0"
79.5" square
Macbook
12.0"
16:10
10.2" × 6.4"
64.72" square
LOL, as if 13" gives you so much more screen space.
It does. The MB display is only 81% the area of the MBA display.
MacBook Air
13.3"
16:10
11.3" × 7.0"
79.5" square
Macbook
12.0"
16:10
10.2" × 6.4"
64.72 square
Good comparison though I think I read here that the new MacBook was actually 12.1"; you may wish to adjust your figures, though it'll still be a significant difference, obviously.
Edit: well, the website says 12", so your figures are correct.
And the size difference in terms of lines of code you can see in one display vs the other (at the same character size in inches to remain fair) is minimal. And if you have good eyes the higher resolution on the 12 allows you to see more.
Compare with the development environment you have with a 27" display or what I use, the 29" ultra wide from dell and the difference is meaningless to productivity. Both the 12 and 13 are essentially single application displays. Having Xcode up while perusing Stack Overflow at the same time is not practical. Typically I'll have two or more editor windows open, Safari for googling stack overflow or looking at documentation, messenger and email.
That wasn't your argument. You clearly limited it to screen space.
Personally, I would absolutely recommend the 12" MB over the 13" MBA for pretty much everyone, if not everyone, I know looking for a simple Mac notebook, but the "screen space" is definitely smaller, as I've shown.
I absolutely disagree. If Apple released a 32-34" utra-wide 21:9 5K display I would likely but it. This would be brilliant for an app like Xcode or Final Cut Pro because you'd have much less of a need to reduce sidebars. 32-34" would mean that it's right about the same display height of the current 27" which I think is a good height.
Seems like the Airs were getting more and more into Pro territory though and probably why Apple didn't just stick a retina screen in the current Airs. I'm really interested in the possibilities with the new trackpad. I believe Apple said there would be an API for developers. And on Apple's website it lists "pressure sensitive drawing"....hmmm could we see this 'force touch' on iPhones and iPads in the future?
Why not? Add haptic feedback while they're at it. Maybe you can "feel" on-screen button and key presses.
I'd be happy with haptic feedback, whether it came in the tock of the 6s or the tick of the 7.
That wasn't your argument. You clearly limited it to screen space.
The retina resolution will give options to display more on a smaller screen, if a user doesn't mind GUI elements being smaller.
So while the physical screen space may be smaller, the pixel count is much greater, and the point* count can be greater if the user chooses, which affects the virtual screen space**.
* I think point is the correct term.
** I think I made this one up, but hopefully you understand what I mean.
lol. You want so much to be right that you pick the definition of screen space that favors you as opposed to what I meant in terms of productivity as a developer.
Yes, physical screen space is bigger. Depending on how the user decides to scale the usable screen space smaller. Depending on you eyesight and scaling clarity the 12" is smaller, bigger or the same. The productivity difference is neglible which was my point.
Again you want so badly to disagree with me that you misread what I wrote. The difference between 12" and 13" even at max native resolution is meaningless compared to the desktop environment. Which is what you restated.
It's funny that you recreate your account to reset your post count but indulge in pointless disagreements that bump your post counts to ridiculous levels.
He's right, though.
There is considerably more screen estate with the 13.3" Air. Yes, you can increase the resolution on the 12", but that is a different parameter.
I have no interest in being right, only in being correct, as well as others around me being correct. Your use of space has only one definition in this regard without qualification. If you wanted to refer to the display resolution, pixel density, or pixel count then you should have said so. Now you just look like you're backpedaling after your error has been pointed out.
Furthermore, since Apple's goes Retina specifically so 1 pixel can be represented by 4 pixels in a 2x2 grid, Apple simply wants elements to look crisper without giving the user any additional workspace. In fact, going from, say, the 13" MBP to the 13" Retina MacBook Pro you have a cursor and Menu Bar that are the same size as before. You do have some options to make them larger and smaller, but these are not enabled by default so if you did mean to say, "Well, on the 12" MacBook I can scale the resolution to shrink all the element thereby giving me more virtual space in which to work," you didn't come close to stating that in any regard.
Could you explain what that means? You think I created a new account that has nearly the exact name as my old one because I'm trying to hide my post count? Do you not see a flaw in that plan? I agree a debate is pointless when the person you're having a conservation with decides to backpedal on what they stated thereby creating the pointless conservation in which you refer, but I have no control over you and others, so it's not really something I can stop. You do think I post simply to get a post count? If so, then why I try to thorough in my replies, as well as use the multi-quote function?
I compared it to the 13" rMBP , both with retina screens and same price. I am saying no thanks to the new macbook because there is too much trade off in performance of the CPU and GPU for that 1.5 pound. I am sure some people won't care, but I prefer the rMBP over this.
I love the color options, I hope they extend it to the entire macbook lines later. At some point, they could have only 2 lines, MacBooks and Macbook pro.
I was thinking the same thing until I saw that the rMBP at the same price has half the storage.
I think I will be going for absolute portability as I have iMacs both at home and in the office to do the heavy lifting.
http://www.cultofmac.com/315671/it-turns-out-apple-invented-usb-c/
That doesn't come as a surprise. The rest of the industry is very reluctant to move to new ports. Apple pushed mini-displayport and was met with resistance.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll ditch Lightning because those ports help keep iOS hardware Apple exclusives and also certified but if they switched, it means a laptop charger can be shared easily with iOS.
What I hope it means is that Thunderbolt 3 can switch over to using the USB C connector now that it incorporates displayport. Apple and Intel both had input in USB C and they originally wanted to use the USB connector for Thunderbolt but weren't allowed to.
What this would mean is hard drive manufacturers could include a USB C port and if it was TB3 driving it, it would just operate at 40Gbps vs 10Gbps. If not, it operates at 10Gbps. Displays would work on either one. TB3 would effectively become a superspeed PCIe mode for peripherals that need it and otherwise, you use it as a USB C port. They'd just put the lightning marker next to it so you know the difference.
Google has added USB C to their Chromebook and they have some USB C adaptors, which should work on the Mac and are a bit cheaper. They put 2x USB C and 2x USB A on theirs and charging is over USB C.
Gruber clarified his comment today.
I can't say I agree with his reasoning. I've been saying since the spec was released that I can see Apple moving this way to replace their USB-A and Lightning connectors across the board, but I don't think the "well it looks like something Apple would have created" is a valid argument, and I think the "no one would adopt USB-C if people know Apple had designed it" is absolute rubbish.
The screen is too small, quite simply.
A laptop should be at least 13". I think Apple should offer 13", 15" and 17" sizes only.
12 inch is the new 13 inch because of the Retina Display.
Same for the 15 inch, it is the new 17 inch.
I think that should Apple only offer 12" and 15" laptops one day, that the pros will migrate towards the 15" and most of the others towards an iPad. The current 12" is well over twice the price of an iPad for just two more inches.
Manufacturers resisted Firewire just because it was Apple, which eventually got into cameras. They resisted mini-displayport until Apple got VESA to adopt it. They resisted Thunderbolt before Intel started pushing it. Even HTML5 Canvas:
http://www.blixtsystems.com/2010/04/html5-canvas-proprietary-apple-technology/
"First of all, “flash” is not proprietary. The SDK, compiler and Flex framework is FOSS. Swf and RTMP formats are open, and the VM is open.
Why don’t they open source the player as well?
I guess one reason could be that it contains proprietary code that Adobe have licensed, and that’s obviously not theirs to open. HTML5 hands over the responsibility of selecting codecs to the browser developers, so if you want to watch video on for example youtube without the Flash Player you need a browser containing that licensed code instead. Moving the proprietary code to another part of the system does not make the web more open.
So who do we want to trust? Is it better to have Apple in control over the technology than Adobe?
Adobe is a very open company compared to Apple in every aspect."
I agree that them simply knowing that Apple designed it shouldn't put them off a connector that has already been made a standard from a 3rd party company. The resistance in the past has come from companies before Apple's tech was standardized by a 3rd party. Apple seems to be figuring out the best process of getting these ports adopted quickly but I would say companies tend to have a problem with anything Apple does.
While the design looking like something Apple would do doesn't necessarily mean they designed it, the design would have come from a single source to begin with. And this time, it really looks like something Apple designed:
It seems more than a coincidence that the two ports look so alike if those designs were arrived at by different companies.
I just read some of the USB C documents and there's talk of digital audio headsets with USB C. There was a suggestion for analog audio headsets but this was rejected so that 3.5mm stays analog and USB C stays digital. Google has been talking up USB C here:
http://www.droid-life.com/2015/03/11/google-usb-type-c-coming-to-android-phones-in-near-future/
Android phones will likely switch over to it. One of Google's electrical engineers is in the video talking about being part of the design.
Rejecting analog audio support means that headphones with USB C plugs couldn't be backwards compatible with 3.5mm jacks. You couldn't just put a passive attachment onto a USB C plug and put it in a 3.5mm analog port. If Apple made Beats with a USB C plug, it wouldn't be able to work with any analog devices with passive adaptors. One thing they could do is make a proprietary connector on the headphone end (Lightning?) that supports both USB C and 3.5mm and then provide a cable for each. Or, given that 3.5mm jacks provide power, have an active adaptor to digitize the analog audio and put it out over USB C but active adaptors would probably introduce some latency. Maybe converting digital optical audio would be easy enough.
Lack of analog support is going to hold back USB C support on headphones unfortunately but they'll mostly go wireless anyway. I'm sure eventually that the 3.5mm jack will be phased out. I hate hearing power noise and crackling from headphones just because of the connector turning or cable bending. These should have been made digital a long time ago. The big headphone companies need to start moving with this. Beats is the biggest on the high-end but it's in all their best interests to ditch 3.5mm jacks and provide active adaptors for legacy sound systems. It means some people will buy all new equipment.
None of that had to do with it being something Apple had their hands in. It had to do with cost v usefulness. FireWire and B are expensive. Canvas uses a lot resources.
It could be a coincidence, but I think its design is heavily inspired by the existence of Lightning.