Embracing a wireless future: What it's like to use Apple's 12" MacBook as your main computer

1356712

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 222
    tronald wrote: »
    That's a lot of criticism in the comments for an article saying that the device is awesome, but that it just isn't practical for even slightly power-oriented users, at least not yet, which seems very true.

    The frustrating thing for people like the reviewer is that the Macbook *Air* has all the required connectivity, but really could use a better screen. The new Macbook has a stunning screen and is almost entirely adequate, but the "almost" makes it essentially unusable, as it would be for me for roughly the same reasons. Sure, the Macbook Pro is designed for all the uses that the new Macbook isn't, but it's heavier and bulkier than the Macbook Air. So, we who need just slightly more than the Macbook is capable of have to add another pound due to limitations that have little to do with fundamental technology, or accept a non retina screen. Now, the 13" Macbook Pro is a pretty awesome machine, and isn't that heavy or bulky. That doesn't mean there isn't some reason to be frustrated by some of Apple's choices.

    I am also frustrated by Apple's stubborn refusal for the last decade to ship a machine without a monitor that is positioned somewhere between the underpowered Apple Mini and the ridiculously expensive (and frankly overpowered) Mac Pro. My frustration doesn't stop me from using apple's products. That's one of the things about staying with the Apple ecosystem. Unless you do your own Hackintosh, which can be a questionable proposition, the only way to get Mac OS X is to live within Apple's sometimes frustratingly limited hardware choices.

    Apple tried a midrange tower. No one bought it. Apple has no reason to do it again.
  • Reply 42 of 222
    if you're an "amateur or professional photographers" you're not who this laptop is targeting.
    There are "Pro" laptops made by Apple for amateur or professional photographers. The Retina MacBook probably couldn't handle the processing these individuals would want to do anyways. This is a lightweight laptop for a specific user. Complaining about the inability to use an SD card with it would be like complaining that your MBA isn't able to run 2 4K thunderbolt displays, it never was supposed to do that and if you want that functionality there is the 15" retina pro.
  • Reply 43 of 222

    I think the review is spot on.  How you hook this to your external monitor?  Charge a iPhone and the laptop at the same time.  It was almost as if no one at Apple used the device as a daily drive machine.

  • Reply 44 of 222

    I use AirDrop to transfer file between iPhone, iPad and Macs on my network. In Finder on the left. Piece of cake.

  • Reply 45 of 222
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post





    Apple tried a midrange tower. No one bought it. Apple has no reason to do it again.

    Apple hasn't had a midrange tower since the perfoma.

  • Reply 46 of 222
    davemcm76davemcm76 Posts: 266member
    rob bonner wrote: »
    How you hook this to your external monitor?  Charge a iPhone and the laptop at the same time.

    You buy the adapter that has a usb-c for charging the MacBook, an hdmi port for your external display and a usb-a for charging your phone.

    Was it that difficult to work out?

    This MacBook was designed for portability above all else - hooking up to an external monitor and charging your other devices is possible with the adapter but these were never primary design concerns.
  • Reply 47 of 222
    The "average" target user of this laptop already uploads images automatically to the cloud, so there's no reason to fret the device's limited direct access. Also, serious photogs are using Macbook Pros or similar units. This ultra portable unit is elegant, gorgeous, ingenious, and I'm coveting it so hard. But I do think they should include the silly little adapter cable, though, at a somewhat reasonable $19, for once Apple isn't raping its customers for an accessory. It is a slick little gadget.
  • Reply 48 of 222
    evilutionevilution Posts: 1,373member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by vfx2k4 View Post



    An EyeFI wireless SD card would have easily solved this "roadblock."



    Unless your camera has a micros SD slot. The minute that EyeFi come out with a Micro SD version of their card, I'm upgrading because the file handling and wireless sending of the Galaxy Camera 2 is dire. I wish that Apple would make a dedicated camera.

  • Reply 49 of 222
    ac88ac88 Posts: 24member
    I don't think the future is for me if it means I can't play my Ally McBeal dvd collection.
  • Reply 49 of 222

    The "average" target user of this laptop already uploads images automatically to the cloud, so there's no reason to fret the device's limited direct access, and serious photogs are using Macbook Pros or similar units. I do think Apple should include the silly little adapter cables. Though, at a somewhat reasonable $19, for once Apple isn't raping its customers for an accessory.

     

    It's a super slick mini laptop. This ultra portable unit is elegant, gorgeous, ingenious, and I'm coveting it so hard.

  • Reply 51 of 222
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member

    So the point of this article was, "when ports improve it's a problem, because some people will need an adapter during the transition. To use my camera that still has the old port, I either needed an old-standard computer or a cheap adapter. But I didn't have an adapter yet. There are many users with legacy needs. Move to the future carefully, when you are ready, because there is a risk of adapters."

     

    Though it sounds boring that way.

  • Reply 52 of 222
    tronaldtronald Posts: 16member

     



    Quote:




    I am also frustrated by Apple's stubborn refusal for the last decade to ship a machine without a monitor that is positioned somewhere between the underpowered Apple Mini and the ridiculously expensive (and frankly overpowered) Mac Pro. My frustration doesn't stop me from using apple's products. That's one of the things about staying with the Apple ecosystem. Unless you do your own Hackintosh, which can be a questionable proposition, the only way to get Mac OS X is to live within Apple's sometimes frustratingly limited hardware choices.



    Apple tried a midrange tower. No one bought it. Apple has no reason to do it again.



     

     

    Are you referring to the Powermac G4 Cube? That was a very long time ago, and it had a tendency to melt. I don't even care if the mid-range is a tower, as there is at this point little reason for actual PCI card extension. Two-to-four thunderbolt ports, several USB ports, a reasonable quad core CPU, and a discrete graphics chip running at a good speed would be enough. The guts of an iMac.

     

    Then, I can use it for photography or 1080P video with high-end color-controlled monitors. This isn't to say that Apple's monitors aren't bad, but you can do better, particularly if you are trying to work in Adobe RGB color space. Heck, a souped-up old-style Mac Mini might do it. The new one is too small, so they can't quite stuff enough hardware in it without it melting. So close, just not quite there. 

     

    Anyway, my point stands. When operating within the Apple ecosystem, you are stuck with Apple's limited range of choices. That would be less of an issue if they did a better job of covering a slightly broader range of hardware configurations. The Macbook/Macbook Air/Macbook Pro situation illustrates one, though that isn't too bad since the Macbook Pro is a pretty sweet machine. The Mac Mini/iMac/Mac Pro is a much more serious issue, since the gaps are much more obvious and frustrating. 

  • Reply 53 of 222
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rob Bonner View Post

     

    It was almost as if no one at Apple used the device as a daily drive machine.




    Or perhaps some people don't understand the actual criteria that went into building this most perfect device? Obviously, if it doesn't fit your needs or requirements, the criteria they had in mind weren't yours, which means, it's not for you, which means, it's not a terrible device, to say so is like a man declaring a tampon to be a stupid and pointless product. FFS, what is the problem here? If you really do indeed not understand the use cases or criteria or people who would actually find this a useful machine, a polite and respectful, "this doesn't fit my needs for xxx reason(s) but I was wondering whose needs it does and what those might be" question would be appropriate, and it would indicate said person actually wanted to understand (and learn!) and didn't just simply assume to know everything, while at the same time declaring those of us who might find actual utility in it to be morons and idiots duped by the ghost of Steve Jobs.

  • Reply 54 of 222
    jdwjdw Posts: 798member
    Thank you, AppleInsider, for this great article and for your excellent MacBook review. I loath the majority of the comments here though. Most griping and moaning commenters are far more out of touch with reality than the ariticle's author whom they desperately seek to bash. These readers tend to forget that regardless of what target customer Apple designed this super thin and light MacBook for, people outside that very narrow target group will still lust after it while at the same time lamenting what they perceive to be it's shortcomings. (If it wasn't lustworthy, why would any of us even care?) These discontent readers often defend the absolute perfection of everything new from Apple as if those products were given some heavenly stamp of divine approval. These readers then conveniently forget to mention that even this "heavenly wave of the future" notebook isn't truly wireless yet. That won't come until the cord can be cut entirely by wireless charging. The bashers also foolishly suggest that just because they are happy with a tiny CCD sensor camera that lacks an SD card, a lot of other people out therefore must be exactly like them! They then go on with their blunder by suggesting that WiFi photo and video transfer (especially as we enter the 4K video world) is somehow preferred (in terms of sheer speed) over SD card transfer. They forget that transfer speed is critically important for some of us, and not all of us think the "Pro" machines from Apple should have an exclusive grip on that.

    Lastly, we all need to keep our own group in perspective. Despite the PC market share gains Apple has made in recent years, we Mac users are still a tiny boat afloat in a sea of low tech Windows machines. A lot of those folks are still using Windows 7, and you'd be surprised at how many still run Vista! Most of those machines are still desktops, and the notebooks are thick, heavy, riddled with ever port imaginable, and have horrible battery life. The future where most people are using a truly modern computing device is still a long way off. Transitions take time. The future where most of us see the MacBook as a machine free of limitations is not here yet... Not even close.
  • Reply 55 of 222
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hypercommunist View Post



    I'm sorry but this is retarded. The "harsh reality" is that you'd have to buy a USB-C to USB-A adapter. 19$ from Apple, cheaper elsewhere.



    http://store.apple.com/us/product/MJ1M2AM/A/usb-c-to-usb-adapter

    http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=103&cp_id=10303&cs_id=1030319&p_id=13005&seq=1&format=2



    Totally agree but would it have killed Apple to include an adapter with the MacBook, especially at this price point. 

  • Reply 56 of 222
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,328member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JDW View Post



    Thank you, AppleInsider, for this great article and for your excellent MacBook review. I loath the majority of the comments here though. Most griping and moaning commenters are far more out of touch with reality than the ariticle's author whom they desperately seek to bash. These readers tend to forget that regardless of what target customer Apple designed this super thin and light MacBook for, people outside that very narrow target group will still lust after it while at the same time lamenting what they perceive to be it's shortcomings. (If it wasn't lustworthy, why would any of us even care?) These discontent readers often defend the absolute perfection of everything new from Apple as if those products were given some heavenly stamp of divine approval. These readers then conveniently forget to mention that even this "heavenly wave of the future" notebook isn't truly wireless yet. That won't come until the cord can be cut entirely by wireless charging. The bashers also foolishly suggest that just because they are happy with a tiny CCD sensor camera that lacks an SD card, a lot of other people out therefore must be exactly like them! They then go on with their blunder by suggesting that WiFi photo and video transfer (especially as we enter the 4K video world) is somehow preferred (in terms of sheer speed) over SD card transfer. They forget that transfer speed is critically important for some of us, and not all of us think the "Pro" machines from Apple should have an exclusive grip on that.



    Lastly, we all need to keep our own group in perspective. Despite the PC market share gains Apple has made in recent years, we Mac users are still a tiny boat afloat in a sea of low tech Windows machines. A lot of those folks are still using Windows 7, and you'd be surprised at how many still run Vista! Most of those machines are still desktops, and the notebooks are thick, heavy, riddled with ever port imaginable, and have horrible battery life. The future where most people are using a truly modern computing device is still a long way off. Transitions take time. The future where most of us see the MacBook as a machine free of limitations is not here yet... Not even close.

     

    On what evidence do you assert that it is a "very narrow target group"? As the basis for almost the entirety of your argument, that looks very shaky to me.

  • Reply 57 of 222
    tronald wrote: »

    Are you referring to the Powermac G4 Cube? That was a very long time ago, and it had a tendency to melt. I don't even care if the mid-range is a tower, as there is at this point little reason for actual PCI card extension. Two-to-four thunderbolt ports, several USB ports, a reasonable quad core CPU, and a discrete graphics chip running at a good speed would be enough. The guts of an iMac.

    Then, I can use it for photography or 1080P video with high-end color-controlled monitors. This isn't to say that Apple's monitors aren't bad, but you can do better, particularly if you are trying to work in Adobe RGB color space. Heck, a souped-up old-style Mac Mini might do it. The new one is too small, so they can't quite stuff enough hardware in it without it melting. So close, just not quite there. 

    Anyway, my point stands. When operating within the Apple ecosystem, you are stuck with Apple's limited range of choices. That would be less of an issue if they did a better job of covering a slightly broader range of hardware configurations. The Macbook/Macbook Air/Macbook Pro situation illustrates one, though that isn't too bad since the Macbook Pro is a pretty sweet machine. The Mac Mini/iMac/Mac Pro is a much more serious issue, since the gaps are much more obvious and frustrating. 

    Tendency to melt? What? I guess I should tell mine that it's supposed to have melted by now. Clearly it's slacking.

    Regardless, no one bought it. They whined about how it didn't have feature x or feature y, because whining always accomplishes everything, Apple ended up in financial trouble again, and they haven't bothered since. You can't try to make every market segment happy, because there are some who will NEVER be happy. They'll always have a complaint. Apple can do no right for those people.
  • Reply 58 of 222

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JDW View Post



    Thank you, AppleInsider, for this great article and for your excellent MacBook review. I loath the majority of the comments here though. Most griping and moaning commenters are far more out of touch with reality than the ariticle's author whom they desperately seek to bash. These readers tend to forget that regardless of what target customer Apple designed this super thin and light MacBook for, people outside that very narrow target group will still lust after it while at the same time lamenting what they perceive to be it's shortcomings. (If it wasn't lustworthy, why would any of us even care?) These discontent readers often defend the absolute perfection of everything new from Apple as if those products were given some heavenly stamp of divine approval. These readers then conveniently forget to mention that even this "heavenly wave of the future" notebook isn't truly wireless yet. That won't come until the cord can be cut entirely by wireless charging. The bashers also foolishly suggest that just because they are happy with a tiny CCD sensor camera that lacks an SD card, a lot of other people out therefore must be exactly like them! They then go on with their blunder by suggesting that WiFi photo and video transfer (especially as we enter the 4K video world) is somehow preferred (in terms of sheer speed) over SD card transfer. They forget that transfer speed is critically important for some of us, and not all of us think the "Pro" machines from Apple should have an exclusive grip on that.



    Lastly, we all need to keep our own group in perspective. Despite the PC market share gains Apple has made in recent years, we Mac users are still a tiny boat afloat in a sea of low tech Windows machines. A lot of those folks are still using Windows 7, and you'd be surprised at how many still run Vista! Most of those machines are still desktops, and the notebooks are thick, heavy, riddled with ever port imaginable, and have horrible battery life. The future where most people are using a truly modern computing device is still a long way off. Transitions take time. The future where most of us see the MacBook as a machine free of limitations is not here yet... Not even close.



    My goodness, how sycophantic! :p

  • Reply 59 of 222
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,151member

    Reading this piece, the majority of the negative criticism of the author is very much justified, and those praising the piece and the author are living in the past, or wreak of your stuck-in-the-sand PC user...

     

    This new machine is targeting a very specific audience; the ultra-mobile crowd, and to that end, is tailored specifically to meet their needs; wanting to be wireless, usually not into heavy-duty / CPU-intensive tasks, needing all-day battery life, very lightweight and portable, and not foreseeing a need to hookup to projectors or external display systems to do presentations. This machine fits those criteria with ease. I've recommended this machine to several staff where I work, but also dissuaded them from it, and instead pushed them onto a rMBP or MBA, because after doing a needs analysis for them, I determined this wasn't going to be the product for them.

     

    This reviewer seems to be superimposing his own work criteria onto this machine, this nullifying the reviews' significance to others based on different requirements. A prime example is that he took photos for this project using an out-of-date, poor quality Sony P&S camera, which I might add, have extremely poor white balance on 3 out of the 4 photos published, and then went on to complain that an older, irrelevant piece of tech, suddenly doesn't want to play nice with a new, state-of-the-art, forward-thinking machine. Cry me the proverbial river! I am also a semi-pro photographer, who owns a DSLR using SD cards. Even though my MBP comes with an SDXC slot, and I own a SD adapter for my iPad, guess what? I almost never use them, because I've equipped my camera with the EyeFi Mobi Pro SD card, and love it! The convenience it affords me whilst out in the field more than compensates for the slightly reduced transfer performance over a physical connection to my MBP. I still own a MBP because it's a more powerful machine, which I need to perform photo editing, amongst other more CPU intensive tasks, and would never fool myself into buying a rMB, not because it's not a phenomenal machine, but because my usage needs exceed the target demographic for this machine. In fact, despite drooling over the rMB having now seen and played with one, I still wouldn't get it, because it lacks what I need. This reviewer doesn't exercise their mental foresight nearly enough to take that into consideration in writing this "piece"; I can't even call it a review.

     

    Those agreeing with the author and his article are quite literally, not just stuck in the past, but unaware of the current reality of those who will be buying these machines, and what peripherals they'll be using them with; mostly iPhone's. I love how narrow minded and tunnel visioned people can become when a new, polarizing product such as this, or the ?WATCH, jump onto the scene, and then proceed to do everything they can to superimpose their limited mentality and foresight onto something that doesn't even remotely apply. Just like what happened with the Macintosh in 1984, the iPod in 2001, the iPhone in 2007, the iPad in 2010, these products will re-define the categories they're entering in ways people with such tunnel vision cannot begin to comprehend. I can see MASSIVE potential in the rMB and ?WATCH, and can't wait to see all the naysayers of today squirm when they're all proven wrong, as you have time and time again, or find newer, more creative excuses to claim you were actually right by twisting the facts and changing history to support your baseless positions of today.

  • Reply 60 of 222
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MrEdofCourse View Post

     

    Photos.app isn't for me either, a prosumer photographer, and more and more we're being told what Apple products aren't for us, despite "us" still wanting them.




    So you'd better buy a Lenovo or HP ultrabook running Windows because Apple products don't run Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop. Oh wait...

Sign In or Register to comment.