I bought 2 MBAs a couple of months ago instead of this compromised device. An 11 and 13. The 11 really does have an ordinary screen. The 13 is fine. in fact, the 13 MBA's greater flexibility, extra ports, battery life and better price so outweigh the thinness and higher quality screen of the rMB, The exec at Apple whose brainchild is the rMB will obviously have to do a lot of manoeuvring to kill the MBA or sales of the rMB will never justify its development costs.
The rMB is the cube of laptops in sooo many ways. The ultimate expression of form over function.
That's the problem right there. When Apple pulls their head out their ass and adds the second port and/or an SD card slot that SO MANY PEOPLE WANT, then maybe.
Wake the hell up, Apple! Stop blaming forces out of your control for your falling sales in all three of major product categories. Innovate. Innovate. You're sitting on more cash than ANY OTHER COMPANY ON EARTH. More than every oil company, bank, Wall Street firm -- you name it. Innovate!
Thunderbolt 3 why? Will you attach a bunch of external 4K monitors?
The only real reason for the audience of this laptop to want TB is to attach Apple's Thunderbolt Display. However, the current TB display is old and probably due for an update soon, and when they do update it, it's very likely that it will be powered by USB-C instead of Thunderbolt, so.
"We ran a 64-bit Geekbench 3 test on the early 2016 MacBook to give a quantitative measurement of the Core M processor's performance. It clocked in with a single-core score of 2510, and a multi-core score of 5002.
Though it's hardly a fair comparison, we ran the same test on a high-end 2015 13-inch MacBook Pro with a 3.1-gigahertz Intel Core i7 processor, to put the numbers in perspective. It earned a single-core score of 3487 and a multi-core score of 7515."
Comparing a 2-core chip (Core M) to a 4-core chip (i7) is more than unfair, almost a joke...
But it turns out as if Core M outperformed the i7 in multi-core :-))) 5002 with 2-core versus 7515 with 4-core !!!
"Perhaps those who want a better integrated camera want an iPhone 6s-style camera bump?"
The article asks the above question as if to defend Apple's choice of camera resolution, but then the article lists the 480p camera as a CON.
Let's face it, no one outside Apple really knows if there is thin enough 720p camera tech that can fit in the MacBook's thin enclosure. To say "720p won't fit" is pure speculation, especially when the thinnest notebook in the world (HP SPECTRE) has a 720p camera.
But even if one can show definitive proof that only a 480p camera would fit into the MacBook's thin enclosure, that is still no excuse. Why? Have you not heard of multiple cameras producing higher resolutions? This tech is speculated for the iPhone 7. Apple could have used two 480p cameras to give us HD resolution. It is technologically possible and that would have fit perfectly too. Furthermore, it would have been on of those "this is awesome" features that would have transformed the CON into a PRO. And consider every review of the MacBook (and I mean, EVERY ONE) puts the 480p camera as a CON, it would have been a rather decent PR boost for Apple too.
It doesn't matter if the camera resolution is important to you personally. It would have been the best thing to do to INNOVATE higher resolution camera tech in the MacBook.
5. 480p FaceTime camera is an insult for a machine this expensive in 2016. There are machines this thin with better cameras and the cost difference for a FaceTime HD can would be nothing. Therefore the only sensible conclusion for the inclusion of such a low res cam in this MacBook is to make the third version of this machine more attractive when it arrives. Beyond questionable is this thinking. Apple are about building the best products, apparently. Steve used talk about companies losing it when they were run by their sales dept. Schiller and co. need to catch their reflection in a mirror and question why they go to work in the morning. Not crippling the SE too much proves they have some conscious. This machine proofs they don't always listen to it.
Both of these are still limitations of the current fanless formfactor. The current thunderbolt chipsets cannot run within the current thermal limits of the macbook. And of course the 480p facetime camera has to fit into a gap a fraction of that available in the iPhone (metal + glass + gap = 1.5ish mm at most so the gap would be basically paper thin).... So yes, the macbook does have limitations because of the thinness of design and it is not for everyone.
Thunderbolt 3 why? Will you attach a bunch of external 4K monitors?
The only real reason for the audience of this laptop to want TB is to attach Apple's Thunderbolt Display. However, the current TB display is old and probably due for an update soon, and when they do update it, it's very likely that it will be powered by USB-C instead of Thunderbolt, so.
Thunderbolt 3 (over USB-C connector) is superior to just a USB-C port. For things like keyboards, mice -- USB 3 over USB-C is fine. A hard drive that you just connect, do a backup and then disconnect ... also fine. USB 3 over USB-Cs advantage is the price of the devices are cheaper. Thunderbolt 3 (over USB-C connector) is better if you are connecting external hard drive or SSD devices that are active storage because Thunderbolt 3 has a much lower latency and can bypass the additional layers that is USB-C and connect directly to the internal PCIe bus basically. Professional audio devices, wired Ethernet connections are much better served being directly connected to Thunderbolt 3 rather than USB. External docks can provide much higher bandwidth and better connectivity options because you are not cramming everything over one USB-C protocol -- with inherent higher latency. Thunderbolt 3 will allow for external GPUs to be connected to the computer, which would allow Apple to build external monitors that have a built in discrete GPU .... so that you can connect a laptop and you have much more video processing power but if you want to take the laptop with you .... give you better battery in a smaller package.
The problem is that Intel has not created a Core-M version of the Thunderbolt chipset that can be used in the same thermal restrictions. Boo Intel! Boo Intel!
...the 480p facetime camera has to fit into a gap a fraction of that available in the iPhone (metal + glass + gap = 1.5ish mm at most so the gap would be basically paper thin).... So yes, the macbook does have limitations because of the thinness of design and it is not for everyone.
So many of you keep saying this, despite the fact you lack 100% proof to back up what you're saying. And even if you could prove it, Apple can solve the problem by adding two 480p cameras. Read my previous post. That says it all.
"We ran a 64-bit Geekbench 3 test on the early 2016 MacBook to give a quantitative measurement of the Core M processor's performance. It clocked in with a single-core score of 2510, and a multi-core score of 5002.
Though it's hardly a fair comparison, we ran the same test on a high-end 2015 13-inch MacBook Pro with a 3.1-gigahertz Intel Core i7 processor, to put the numbers in perspective. It earned a single-core score of 3487 and a multi-core score of 7515."
Comparing a 2-core chip (Core M) to a 4-core chip (i7) is more than unfair, almost a joke...
But it turns out as if Core M outperformed the i7 in multi-core :-))) 5002 with 2-core versus 7515 with 4-core !!!
I guess you don't know the 13" i7 is a dual core chip.
Even then the benchmarks aren't indicative of real life performance due to thermal throttling.
Try watching a youtube video while trying to compile some code or transcode video, the gap will be much greater between the Macbook and the Pro models than what the benchmarks indicate.
...the 480p facetime camera has to fit into a gap a fraction of that available in the iPhone (metal + glass + gap = 1.5ish mm at most so the gap would be basically paper thin).... So yes, the macbook does have limitations because of the thinness of design and it is not for everyone.
So many of you keep saying this, despite the fact you lack 100% proof to back up what you're saying. And even if you could prove it, Apple can solve the problem by adding two 480p cameras. Read my previous post. That says it all.
Yes, I see your point... Apple is out to get you on one of their premier products by saving about $1 (probably less when you deduct the price for 480p camera) [i.e. component price of iPhone 6 front facing camera is less than $2 / unit in bulk]. They decided to use rather high priced (in comparison) component parts for SSD, controller, screen, re-engineered the keyboard, etc.... then decided to save $1 on the camera.... yep, I can see it now. I personally cannot find any components that would fit, of course it would be easier for you to prove me incorrect than for me to prove that something does not exist.....
The rMB is the cube of laptops in sooo many ways. The ultimate expression of form over function.
I disagree with that assessment. rMB function is an ultra-portable laptop, one that you can carry with you all day and not be bothered by it. If the function you require is more of a portable desktop then that laptop is not for you. In many ways the rMB is the laptop/OS X version of iPad. I already have a desktop computer, so my rMB serves as my portable device when I am on the go. Amazingly when I am moving around ... I don't have lots of devices to plug into it.... just need to recharge.... and power is more than enough for me to do coding in it, run vmware fusion with an Oracle Enterprise RDBMS on Linux, as well as the lighter tasks. I have no need for video processing power, since I don't do video editing. It has no problem handling light photo editing with Serif products.
The only real reason for the audience of this laptop to want TB is to attach Apple's Thunderbolt Display. However, the current TB display is old and probably due for an update soon, and when they do update it, it's very likely that it will be powered by USB-C instead of Thunderbolt, so.
Thunderbolt 3 (over USB-C connector) is superior to just a USB-C port. For things like keyboards, mice -- USB 3 over USB-C is fine. A hard drive that you just connect, do a backup and then disconnect ... also fine. USB 3 over USB-Cs advantage is the price of the devices are cheaper. Thunderbolt 3 (over USB-C connector) is better if you are connecting external hard drive or SSD devices that are active storage because Thunderbolt 3 has a much lower latency and can bypass the additional layers that is USB-C and connect directly to the internal PCIe bus basically. Professional audio devices, wired Ethernet connections are much better served being directly connected to Thunderbolt 3 rather than USB. External docks can provide much higher bandwidth and better connectivity options because you are not cramming everything over one USB-C protocol -- with inherent higher latency. Thunderbolt 3 will allow for external GPUs to be connected to the computer, which would allow Apple to build external monitors that have a built in discrete GPU .... so that you can connect a laptop and you have much more video processing power but if you want to take the laptop with you .... give you better battery in a smaller package.
You know what would be even better? A superconductor-based interconnect cooled to absolute zero would allow even faster data transfer.
You know who cares? No one who's using this machine.
The problem is that Intel has not created a Core-M version of the Thunderbolt chipset that can be used in the same thermal restrictions. Boo Intel! Boo Intel!
The idea that someone would have high enough requirements to require Thunderbolt and would be doing their work on a Core M-based machine is strange to say the least.
You know what would be even better? A superconductor-based interconnect cooled to absolute zero would allow even faster data transfer.
You know who cares? No one who's using this machine.
The idea that someone would have high enough requirements to require Thunderbolt and would be doing their work on a Core M-based machine is strange to say the least.
You don't really know what you are talking about, I talk about latency and you respond about some theoretical thing that would be better bandwidth.... not the same thing.
The problem is that Intel has not created a Core-M version of the Thunderbolt chipset that can be used in the same thermal restrictions. Boo Intel! Boo Intel!
The fanless Dell XPS 12 with Core M has two TB3 ports:
The choice to exclude TB3 might have been to do with the Macbook's motherboard layout. The motherboard is positioned in the middle of the laptop so the ports on either side aren't directly attached to it but via cables that pass behind the battery.
vs the MBP:
This design might cause problems when such high bandwidth (40Gbps) and low latency is required. Apple advertises the Macbook USB-C port as having 5Gbps bandwidth, which isn't enough for 4K at 60Hz.
If they reduce the battery to fit a chip in that space, they'd probably want to do that on both sides to keep the batteries even but they wouldn't want to leave a gap on the other side. Hopefully they'll figure out a way to get TB3 on because it's about compatibility. People who already own Apple TB displays and peripherals like storage can't use them with the Macbook.
Cutting down the largest battery to fit TB3 might mean losing 10% battery life. Battery performance is one major criticism of the Dell XPS 12, the above review mentioned just 3 hours of use in one of their tests. It has a 30Wh battery vs 41Wh in the MB. Just on battery capacity, with the same power profile, you'd expect the MB to last 36% longer. In a similar test at higher display brightness, the above site that tested the Dell managed 10 hours on the Macbook, over 3x longer battery:
Perhaps there would be a way to fit a large thin battery behind the display now that the Apple logo is sealed up and this added thickness can allow them to put a 720p camera in. The iPads and iPhones have batteries behind the displays ok so there shouldn't be a problem with heat damage or anything. They can then cut down the battery a little in the base to get TB3 in.
"We ran a 64-bit Geekbench 3 test on the early 2016 MacBook to give a quantitative measurement of the Core M processor's performance. It clocked in with a single-core score of 2510, and a multi-core score of 5002.
Though it's hardly a fair comparison, we ran the same test on a high-end 2015 13-inch MacBook Pro with a 3.1-gigahertz Intel Core i7 processor, to put the numbers in perspective. It earned a single-core score of 3487 and a multi-core score of 7515."
Comparing a 2-core chip (Core M) to a 4-core chip (i7) is more than unfair, almost a joke...
But it turns out as if Core M outperformed the i7 in multi-core :-))) 5002 with 2-core versus 7515 with 4-core !!!
I guess you don't know the 13" i7 is a dual core chip.
Even then the benchmarks aren't indicative of real life performance due to thermal throttling.
Try watching a youtube video while trying to compile some code or transcode video, the gap will be much greater between the Macbook and the Pro models than what the benchmarks indicate.
It's important to remember that this laptop, like many of Apples devices, is ahead of its time. Those same PC companies who ridiculed a MacBook Air back in 2008 because it didn't have a CD drive, lacked ports and only had a relatively small SSD. In 2016, most PC makers have now finally managed to copy the MacBook Air (there's not a lot of laptops that don't look like Macs these days) after scrambling to catch up in the last 8 or 9 years. Apple often designs for the future, and in another 8 years, I'm sure PCs will look like this, when we live in a world of total reliance on wireless/cloud technology, and USB ports are a quaint relic of a bygone era!
At $1000 these laptops will do really well...perfect for students and travelers. Hopefully Apple will be smart enough to drop the price with in the next year or so...although I'd agree a 720p camera is needed for it to sell in large numbers...regardless of price.
If Apple would release a 24"+ monitor for a reasonable price (<$600) with a USB-C port that could plug into this MacBook and provide charging, USB, Thunderbolt, SD card, etc. ports...this laptop would be looking a lot more attractive.
You know what would be even better? A superconductor-based interconnect cooled to absolute zero would allow even faster data transfer.
You know who cares? No one who's using this machine.
The idea that someone would have high enough requirements to require Thunderbolt and would be doing their work on a Core M-based machine is strange to say the least.
You don't really know what you are talking about, I talk about latency and you respond about some theoretical thing that would be better bandwidth.... not the same thing.
The problem is that Intel has not created a Core-M version of the Thunderbolt chipset that can be used in the same thermal restrictions. Boo Intel! Boo Intel!
The fanless Dell XPS 12 with Core M has two TB3 ports:
That one is a toaster-fridge, it wouldn't compare to a Retina Macbook which is true laptop without any design compromise.
The reason Apple omitted TB3 may be more probably the necessity of an additional TB3 controller, because Core-M does not natively support TB3, original poster is right in that regard. Due to that additional controller that XPS 12 toaster-fridge should heat like hell during TB3 use, if the battery does not drain earlier, of course...
Comments
The rMB is the cube of laptops in sooo many ways. The ultimate expression of form over function.
That's the problem right there. When Apple pulls their head out their ass and adds the second port and/or an SD card slot that SO MANY PEOPLE WANT, then maybe.
Wake the hell up, Apple! Stop blaming forces out of your control for your falling sales in all three of major product categories. Innovate. Innovate. You're sitting on more cash than ANY OTHER COMPANY ON EARTH. More than every oil company, bank, Wall Street firm -- you name it. Innovate!
The article asks the above question as if to defend Apple's choice of camera resolution, but then the article lists the 480p camera as a CON. Let's face it, no one outside Apple really knows if there is thin enough 720p camera tech that can fit in the MacBook's thin enclosure. To say "720p won't fit" is pure speculation, especially when the thinnest notebook in the world (HP SPECTRE) has a 720p camera.
But even if one can show definitive proof that only a 480p camera would fit into the MacBook's thin enclosure, that is still no excuse. Why? Have you not heard of multiple cameras producing higher resolutions? This tech is speculated for the iPhone 7. Apple could have used two 480p cameras to give us HD resolution. It is technologically possible and that would have fit perfectly too. Furthermore, it would have been on of those "this is awesome" features that would have transformed the CON into a PRO. And consider every review of the MacBook (and I mean, EVERY ONE) puts the 480p camera as a CON, it would have been a rather decent PR boost for Apple too.
It doesn't matter if the camera resolution is important to you personally. It would have been the best thing to do to INNOVATE higher resolution camera tech in the MacBook.
The problem is that Intel has not created a Core-M version of the Thunderbolt chipset that can be used in the same thermal restrictions. Boo Intel! Boo Intel!
You know who cares? No one who's using this machine.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/dell-xps-12-2015-review
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Dell-XPS-12-now-available-for-purchase-starting-at-999-USD.153879.0.html
The choice to exclude TB3 might have been to do with the Macbook's motherboard layout. The motherboard is positioned in the middle of the laptop so the ports on either side aren't directly attached to it but via cables that pass behind the battery.
vs the MBP:
This design might cause problems when such high bandwidth (40Gbps) and low latency is required. Apple advertises the Macbook USB-C port as having 5Gbps bandwidth, which isn't enough for 4K at 60Hz.
If they reduce the battery to fit a chip in that space, they'd probably want to do that on both sides to keep the batteries even but they wouldn't want to leave a gap on the other side. Hopefully they'll figure out a way to get TB3 on because it's about compatibility. People who already own Apple TB displays and peripherals like storage can't use them with the Macbook.
Cutting down the largest battery to fit TB3 might mean losing 10% battery life. Battery performance is one major criticism of the Dell XPS 12, the above review mentioned just 3 hours of use in one of their tests. It has a 30Wh battery vs 41Wh in the MB. Just on battery capacity, with the same power profile, you'd expect the MB to last 36% longer. In a similar test at higher display brightness, the above site that tested the Dell managed 10 hours on the Macbook, over 3x longer battery:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/12-inch-macbook-2015-review-battery-life-and-verdict-page-3
Perhaps there would be a way to fit a large thin battery behind the display now that the Apple logo is sealed up and this added thickness can allow them to put a 720p camera in. The iPads and iPhones have batteries behind the displays ok so there shouldn't be a problem with heat damage or anything. They can then cut down the battery a little in the base to get TB3 in.
The reason Apple omitted TB3 may be more probably the necessity of an additional TB3 controller, because Core-M does not natively support TB3, original poster is right in that regard. Due to that additional controller that XPS 12 toaster-fridge should heat like hell during TB3 use, if the battery does not drain earlier, of course...