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 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.
The limitation of the port at home (without Thunderbolt) will hit when you want to plug in the power, a monitor (HDMI) and another USB 3.0 device. The USB-C port is used by the charger, so after you plug into the HDMI monitor... that other port on the AV adapter is ONLY USB 2.0. This means external USB 3.0 drives, and USB 3.0 hubs will not work. If the port were thunderbolt 3, then it would not be a problem.
The limitation of the port at home (without Thunderbolt) will hit when you want to plug in the power, a monitor (HDMI) and another USB 3.0 device. The USB-C port is used by the charger, so after you plug into the HDMI monitor... that other port on the AV adapter is ONLY USB 2.0. This means external USB 3.0 drives, and USB 3.0 hubs will not work. If the port were thunderbolt 3, then it would not be a problem.
1. That's not true; the USB ports on all the Apple adapters support USB 3.1 Gen 1, supporting up to 5 Gbps. (Source)
2. The port on the Apple adapter is USB-A, not USB-C, yes. This is because almost all the devices that people have right now are USB-A. This will change.
3. Most Thunderbolt hubs right now also offer USB-A rather than USB-C ports, for the same reason.
4. It wouldn't matter if Thunderbolt hubs could cure cancer; they are far too expensive for the consumer space, and no one will buy them.
Thunderbolt is effectively dead for all other than the very top end of the market. Giving the MacBook a Thunderbolt port that will never be used is pointless added cost for no benefit.
The limitation of the port at home (without Thunderbolt) will hit when you want to plug in the power, a monitor (HDMI) and another USB 3.0 device. The USB-C port is used by the charger, so after you plug into the HDMI monitor... that other port on the AV adapter is ONLY USB 2.0. This means external USB 3.0 drives, and USB 3.0 hubs will not work. If the port were thunderbolt 3, then it would not be a problem.
1. That's not true; the USB ports on all the Apple adapters support USB 3.1 Gen 1, supporting up to 5 Gbps. (Source)
2. The port on the Apple adapter is USB-A, not USB-C, yes. This is because almost all the devices that people have right now are USB-A. This will change.
3. Most Thunderbolt hubs right now also offer USB-A rather than USB-C ports, for the same reason.
4. It wouldn't matter if Thunderbolt hubs could cure cancer; they are far too expensive for the consumer space, and no one will buy them.
Thunderbolt is effectively dead for all other than the very top end of the market. Giving the MacBook a Thunderbolt port that will never be used is pointless added cost for no benefit.
You are reading specs about what the port without digging in and understanding that because it can be used that way for one device, does not mean that it can be used for multiple devices in combination in the same manner (whereas Thunderbolt does not have the same limitation). I have a Macbook and I like it for what I use it very much, but I know from personal experience that once you connect the HDMI connector through that port (Apple USB-C AV Adapter) - you no longer have USB 3.1 Gen 1 because the same data lines that are used for Superspeed (aka USB 3) are reconfigured for use for the displayport/HDMI data.
What this means in practicality is that when you use the Apple USB-C AV Adapter to plug in an external display you cannot use it for USB 3 -- which is why when you go into Apple's website it mentions:
Note: The Apple USB-C Digital AV Multiport Adapter is not compatible with the G-Tech G-DRIVE mobile USB 3.0 Hard Drive (Apple part number HF4F2VC/A).
It is also the reason why the TP-Link 5Gbps 7 ports USB 3.0 (UH700) hub will NOT WORK.
However they will work IF you use the USB-C to USB-A cable since the datalines are not hijacked for the HDMI connector. Even after hijacking the datalines for HDMI it does not even have enough to drive a 4K monitor at 60 hz.
Whereas Thunderbolt 3 would have the more than sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K monitor at 60hz (in fact it could drive 2), while connecting a USB-C hub and be fully functional at the same time. USB-C now is just catching up to firewire in regards to latency, whereas Thunderbolt 3 has a latency of a fraction of that.
Yes Thunderbolt 3 devices will cost more than USB-C devices, which means that your devices that don't require much will be USB devices connected through USB-C, whereas if you require more advanced devices connected then Thunderbolt through that same port would be available.
You are reading specs about what the port without digging in and understanding that because it can be used that way for one device, does not mean that it can be used for multiple devices in combination in the same manner (whereas Thunderbolt does not have the same limitation). I have a Macbook and I like it for what I use it very much, but I know from personal experience that once you connect the HDMI connector through that port (Apple USB-C AV Adapter) - you no longer have USB 3.1 Gen 1 because the same data lines that are used for Superspeed (aka USB 3) are reconfigured for use for the displayport/HDMI data.
Really? That sucks. Still, adding a second USB-C port would solve the problem much more cheaply than adding Thunderbolt would be, and it's something Apple's probably going to have to do anyway, since there seems to be demand for a second port (it's usually the first thing people complain about in reviews).
You are reading specs about what the port without digging in and understanding that because it can be used that way for one device, does not mean that it can be used for multiple devices in combination in the same manner (whereas Thunderbolt does not have the same limitation). I have a Macbook and I like it for what I use it very much, but I know from personal experience that once you connect the HDMI connector through that port (Apple USB-C AV Adapter) - you no longer have USB 3.1 Gen 1 because the same data lines that are used for Superspeed (aka USB 3) are reconfigured for use for the displayport/HDMI data.
Really? That sucks. Still, adding a second USB-C port would solve the problem much more cheaply than adding Thunderbolt would be, and it's something Apple's probably going to have to do anyway, since there seems to be demand for a second port (it's usually the first thing people complain about in reviews).
I think it funny that you are worried about component prices, but adding it (if the chipset with proper thermals could be sourced in the future) would likely not increase the price of already premium products - just add to the feature-set.
Thunderbolt has never gained traction because it is more controlled and not widely supported, but that has changed with TB3.... It is no longer just an Apple supported standard but now can be found in laptops from: HP, Asus, Acer, Lenovo and Dell -- among a few other lesser brands. I am skipping this release cycle and waiting til 2017 to see if they support TB3 ... I don't really need a second port - one is fine since I don't drag around a bunch of peripherals.
I think it funny that you are worried about component prices, but adding it (if the chipset with proper thermals could be sourced in the future) would likely not increase the price of already premium products - just add to the feature-set.
Talking about component prices from Apple's POV here. Apple has a long history of dropping features, ports, etc. that cost them money if they feel not enough users are using them, to increase their profits. And almost no one is using Thunderbolt.
From the consumer's POV, though, it's also bad. Not only is the Thunderbolt hub going to cost $200-$300, but since that one port has to charge your machine, too, you're probably going to need some kind of adapter so you can still charge the thing, and of course in addition to the TB and charging ports, that adapter's going to have to provide a USB port since everyone uses USB, and Apple's not going to release an adapter for the thing without putting a USB port in it. Since I'm almost positive Thunderbolt will take over all the USB SuperSpeed lanes (and probably everything else, too, although I'm too lazy to look up the spec right now), the adapter will need to include what's essentially a PCI-Express USB card, which will add to the cost. Plus, the thing itself will be a Thunderbolt device, which guarantees it'll be expensive right off the bat. So yeah, Thunderbolt is convenient, but it's not $500-$600 convenient. Just putting two USB-C ports on the thing would be much easier, and if I were a betting man, that's where I'd put my money.
Thunderbolt has never gained traction because it is more controlled and not widely supported, but that has changed with TB3.... It is no longer just an Apple supported standard but now can be found in laptops from: HP, Asus, Acer, Lenovo and Dell -- among a few other lesser brands. I am skipping this release cycle and waiting til 2017 to see if they support TB3 ... I don't really need a second port - one is fine since I don't drag around a bunch of peripherals.
I've been hearing that Thunderbolt song and dance for years now. Sure, it hasn't gained any ground in the five years it's been out and is essentially dead in the water, but this year! It'll be different now! Yeah! I'll believe it when I see it.
The big problem with TB is that hardly anyone needs it. FireWire had trouble getting traction against USB 2.0, which was horrible; USB 3.x, on the other hand, is actually pretty good. It's certainly better than what 99% of users need it to be; remember that most of these were fine with USB 2.0, and 3 fixes most of the things that sucked about that protocol. The only real audience for TB is at the very top end of the market; they're the only ones that actually need the latency and bandwidth that TB provides. There would be the "prosumer" segment of geeks who don't really need it but want it, but the insane prices make it difficult to justify when there's perfectly good USB 3 kit for a fraction of the price which, truth be told, will work just as well for what they're doing with it. TB will probably hang on in the Mac Pro and the high-end MBP; anything else that it appears in I'd just consider a bonus (and then never actually use it).
Has the reviewer actually *tried* even installing, say, Final Cut on this, let alone using it? Because you can use it for that *without any problems* - and have been able to with any new mac for 5+ years. I know, I have done that and much more on entry level 11" Airs - with zero issues.
This has very similar Geekbench results to the 2015 MacBook Air - and the early 2015 Core i5 MacBook PRO.
Instead of just repeating the narrative "this machine is meant for light computing" - how about actually trying to use it in the real world. Geekbench for the m3/m7 = ~2500/3000 single core, and ~5000/6700 multicore.
Early 2015 Core i5 MacBook PRO Geekbench 3263 single core, 6938 multi core. And this is in a world where half that would be perfectly usable because CPUs have been plenty fast enough for years.
This isn't for "light computing" - this is the machine for 99% of people to do 99% of tasks.
Further - thunderbolt 3? Who cares - there is almost never a good reason to plug anything into your machine anymore. it's called the cloud, use it. If you're carrying around an external drive you're doing it wrong & you are so prone to data loss. Local spinning disks get lost and stolen - and have a failure rate of 20%/year+ in many cases.
Facetime Camera - who cares? Probably nobody will ever notice.
The reviewer above "10 hour battery life is not enough having had a 13" MBA". It's actually rated thus:
Up to 10 hours wireless web
Up to 11 hours iTunes movie playback
The 13" air
Up to 12 hours
Oooooh no - 1 whole hour less of rated battery.
You can use a 13" non retina screen with a gigantic bezel - but not a retina 12" screen?! I think you'd be fine snowflake.
Also anyone suggesting the Air will get a retina upgrade is a moron. OBVIOUSLY this replaces the Air once the price has come down.
This is the machine for everyone right now. Anyone who gets it will love it - but many people are too stuck in their ways to realise they're living in the past. Buy it - love it.
I will be running a Windows VM on top of OS X - and running dev tools in it - just like I do now on a slower performing Air - and i will be loving it.
Mag Safe - THANKS F*** that has died. I use blutac to secure mine in when not using it on a desk. it probably comes out about 100 times per day otherwise. Awful and needs to die fast.
To say users should "get a pro instead of getting the faster version of this" places zero utility on portability. Like anyone who feels like they want a faster CPU - obviously would want a larger heavier machine. Size and weight for most people are FAR more important than CPU speed as virtually nothing is ever CPU bound anymore. if you want to get a little more speed but still have a lighter thinner machine - then upgrading the CPU on THIS MODEL makes a ton of sense rather than compromising portability. Why do so many reviewers just not understand the importance of portability?
1. That's not true; the USB ports on all the Apple adapters support USB 3.1 Gen 1, supporting up to 5 Gbps. (Source)
2. The port on the Apple adapter is USB-A, not USB-C, yes. This is because almost all the devices that people have right now are USB-A. This will change.
3. Most Thunderbolt hubs right now also offer USB-A rather than USB-C ports, for the same reason.
4. It wouldn't matter if Thunderbolt hubs could cure cancer; they are far too expensive for the consumer space, and no one will buy them.
Thunderbolt is effectively dead for all other than the very top end of the market. Giving the MacBook a Thunderbolt port that will never be used is pointless added cost for no benefit.
You are reading specs about what the port without digging in and understanding that because it can be used that way for one device, does not mean that it can be used for multiple devices in combination in the same manner (whereas Thunderbolt does not have the same limitation). I have a Macbook and I like it for what I use it very much, but I know from personal experience that once you connect the HDMI connector through that port (Apple USB-C AV Adapter) - you no longer have USB 3.1 Gen 1 because the same data lines that are used for Superspeed (aka USB 3) are reconfigured for use for the displayport/HDMI data.
What this means in practicality is that when you use the Apple USB-C AV Adapter to plug in an external display you cannot use it for USB 3 -- which is why when you go into Apple's website it mentions: It is also the reason why the TP-Link 5Gbps 7 ports USB 3.0 (UH700) hub will NOT WORK.
However they will work IF you use the USB-C to USB-A cable since the datalines are not hijacked for the HDMI connector. Even after hijacking the datalines for HDMI it does not even have enough to drive a 4K monitor at 60 hz.
Whereas Thunderbolt 3 would have the more than sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K monitor at 60hz (in fact it could drive 2), while connecting a USB-C hub and be fully functional at the same time. USB-C now is just catching up to firewire in regards to latency, whereas Thunderbolt 3 has a latency of a fraction of that.
Yes Thunderbolt 3 devices will cost more than USB-C devices, which means that your devices that don't require much will be USB devices connected through USB-C, whereas if you require more advanced devices connected then Thunderbolt through that same port would be available.
Why are you plugging *anything* into your laptop? It's 2016 - local storage fails frequently & gets dropped, lost, stolen and nocked about in bags. It's called the cloud - use it. Also buy the 512gb model to begin with.
There is no good reason to have cables dangling off this.
You are reading specs about what the port without digging in and understanding that because it can be used that way for one device, does not mean that it can be used for multiple devices in combination in the same manner (whereas Thunderbolt does not have the same limitation). I have a Macbook and I like it for what I use it very much, but I know from personal experience that once you connect the HDMI connector through that port (Apple USB-C AV Adapter) - you no longer have USB 3.1 Gen 1 because the same data lines that are used for Superspeed (aka USB 3) are reconfigured for use for the displayport/HDMI data.
What this means in practicality is that when you use the Apple USB-C AV Adapter to plug in an external display you cannot use it for USB 3 -- which is why when you go into Apple's website it mentions: It is also the reason why the TP-Link 5Gbps 7 ports USB 3.0 (UH700) hub will NOT WORK.
However they will work IF you use the USB-C to USB-A cable since the datalines are not hijacked for the HDMI connector. Even after hijacking the datalines for HDMI it does not even have enough to drive a 4K monitor at 60 hz.
Whereas Thunderbolt 3 would have the more than sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K monitor at 60hz (in fact it could drive 2), while connecting a USB-C hub and be fully functional at the same time. USB-C now is just catching up to firewire in regards to latency, whereas Thunderbolt 3 has a latency of a fraction of that.
Yes Thunderbolt 3 devices will cost more than USB-C devices, which means that your devices that don't require much will be USB devices connected through USB-C, whereas if you require more advanced devices connected then Thunderbolt through that same port would be available.
Why are you plugging *anything* into your laptop? It's 2016 - local storage fails frequently & gets dropped, lost, stolen and nocked about in bags. It's called the cloud - use it. Also buy the 512gb model to begin with.
There is no good reason to have cables dangling off this.
Well, for idiots that don't know how to handle sensitive data.... I guess cloud is an ok solution.... but I would never trust any important data to the cloud (even if I could). Since I only have ADSL (which is common in many parts of the world still), it would take years if not decades to sync everything up. In fact I don't even trust wireless (like many businesses).... my primary data is located in back of an enterprise level firewall on wired networking only. My wireless access is segregated to the DMZ only... if I want to get in I have to VPN through the firewall from a set of restricted addresses. Backup is simple - 3 copies... one the online copy, a second copy is copied to an offline drive -- for important data it is on a mirrored drive and then there is an offsite backup done weekly which is stored in a bank safety deposit box. 512gb of storage is .... small.... would never be able to use that on a primary computer.... luckily I only use my Macbook for coding while away so it is doable - even with a sizeable (200gb - sample sized) Oracle database on it.
You are reading specs about what the port without digging in and understanding that because it can be used that way for one device, does not mean that it can be used for multiple devices in combination in the same manner (whereas Thunderbolt does not have the same limitation). I have a Macbook and I like it for what I use it very much, but I know from personal experience that once you connect the HDMI connector through that port (Apple USB-C AV Adapter) - you no longer have USB 3.1 Gen 1 because the same data lines that are used for Superspeed (aka USB 3) are reconfigured for use for the displayport/HDMI data.
What this means in practicality is that when you use the Apple USB-C AV Adapter to plug in an external display you cannot use it for USB 3 -- which is why when you go into Apple's website it mentions: It is also the reason why the TP-Link 5Gbps 7 ports USB 3.0 (UH700) hub will NOT WORK.
However they will work IF you use the USB-C to USB-A cable since the datalines are not hijacked for the HDMI connector. Even after hijacking the datalines for HDMI it does not even have enough to drive a 4K monitor at 60 hz.
Whereas Thunderbolt 3 would have the more than sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K monitor at 60hz (in fact it could drive 2), while connecting a USB-C hub and be fully functional at the same time. USB-C now is just catching up to firewire in regards to latency, whereas Thunderbolt 3 has a latency of a fraction of that.
Yes Thunderbolt 3 devices will cost more than USB-C devices, which means that your devices that don't require much will be USB devices connected through USB-C, whereas if you require more advanced devices connected then Thunderbolt through that same port would be available.
Why are you plugging *anything* into your laptop? It's 2016 - local storage fails frequently & gets dropped, lost, stolen and nocked about in bags. It's called the cloud - use it. Also buy the 512gb model to begin with.
There is no good reason to have cables dangling off this.
The Cloud is impractical for many people on the planet. Fast broadband is not universal. I think it would take me about 3 hours to upload a Gb - not exactly practical for backups and such.
Apple should have added another USB-C port or a MagSafe connector. This would have saved a lot of discussions would allow to be used in clam shell mode.
Other than that, the MB12 is an awesome laptop for people who wants small computer running OS X.
Apple should have added another USB-C port or a MagSafe connector. This would have saved a lot of discussions would allow to be used in clam shell mode.
Other than that, the MB12 is an awesome laptop for people who wants small computer running OS X.
Yes, it's really a shame they didn't just add another USB-C port. I think that one feature has been a deciding factor for many people, including myself, on whether to get the Macbook or not, especially with the bump in power with the refresh.
And given the fact that EVERY single review complains about this??? Hello, anyone listening at Apple?
I get the feeling the people running Apple are more clueless than everyone realizes. Given the fact they were surprised at how well the iPhone SE was received, I mean, did they not know there were many people who specifically loved the iPhone because it was a premium phone in a small package???
I hope Apple doesn't abandon the Mac users, I feel it's still their core loyal user base, but things are not looking good.
Comments
The limitation of the port at home (without Thunderbolt) will hit when you want to plug in the power, a monitor (HDMI) and another USB 3.0 device. The USB-C port is used by the charger, so after you plug into the HDMI monitor... that other port on the AV adapter is ONLY USB 2.0. This means external USB 3.0 drives, and USB 3.0 hubs will not work. If the port were thunderbolt 3, then it would not be a problem.
2. The port on the Apple adapter is USB-A, not USB-C, yes. This is because almost all the devices that people have right now are USB-A. This will change.
3. Most Thunderbolt hubs right now also offer USB-A rather than USB-C ports, for the same reason.
4. It wouldn't matter if Thunderbolt hubs could cure cancer; they are far too expensive for the consumer space, and no one will buy them.
Thunderbolt is effectively dead for all other than the very top end of the market. Giving the MacBook a Thunderbolt port that will never be used is pointless added cost for no benefit.
What this means in practicality is that when you use the Apple USB-C AV Adapter to plug in an external display you cannot use it for USB 3 -- which is why when you go into Apple's website it mentions:
It is also the reason why the TP-Link 5Gbps 7 ports USB 3.0 (UH700) hub will NOT WORK.
However they will work IF you use the USB-C to USB-A cable since the datalines are not hijacked for the HDMI connector. Even after hijacking the datalines for HDMI it does not even have enough to drive a 4K monitor at 60 hz.
Whereas Thunderbolt 3 would have the more than sufficient bandwidth to drive a 4K monitor at 60hz (in fact it could drive 2), while connecting a USB-C hub and be fully functional at the same time. USB-C now is just catching up to firewire in regards to latency, whereas Thunderbolt 3 has a latency of a fraction of that.
Yes Thunderbolt 3 devices will cost more than USB-C devices, which means that your devices that don't require much will be USB devices connected through USB-C, whereas if you require more advanced devices connected then Thunderbolt through that same port would be available.
Thunderbolt has never gained traction because it is more controlled and not widely supported, but that has changed with TB3.... It is no longer just an Apple supported standard but now can be found in laptops from: HP, Asus, Acer, Lenovo and Dell -- among a few other lesser brands. I am skipping this release cycle and waiting til 2017 to see if they support TB3 ... I don't really need a second port - one is fine since I don't drag around a bunch of peripherals.
From the consumer's POV, though, it's also bad. Not only is the Thunderbolt hub going to cost $200-$300, but since that one port has to charge your machine, too, you're probably going to need some kind of adapter so you can still charge the thing, and of course in addition to the TB and charging ports, that adapter's going to have to provide a USB port since everyone uses USB, and Apple's not going to release an adapter for the thing without putting a USB port in it. Since I'm almost positive Thunderbolt will take over all the USB SuperSpeed lanes (and probably everything else, too, although I'm too lazy to look up the spec right now), the adapter will need to include what's essentially a PCI-Express USB card, which will add to the cost. Plus, the thing itself will be a Thunderbolt device, which guarantees it'll be expensive right off the bat. So yeah, Thunderbolt is convenient, but it's not $500-$600 convenient. Just putting two USB-C ports on the thing would be much easier, and if I were a betting man, that's where I'd put my money.
The big problem with TB is that hardly anyone needs it. FireWire had trouble getting traction against USB 2.0, which was horrible; USB 3.x, on the other hand, is actually pretty good. It's certainly better than what 99% of users need it to be; remember that most of these were fine with USB 2.0, and 3 fixes most of the things that sucked about that protocol. The only real audience for TB is at the very top end of the market; they're the only ones that actually need the latency and bandwidth that TB provides. There would be the "prosumer" segment of geeks who don't really need it but want it, but the insane prices make it difficult to justify when there's perfectly good USB 3 kit for a fraction of the price which, truth be told, will work just as well for what they're doing with it. TB will probably hang on in the Mac Pro and the high-end MBP; anything else that it appears in I'd just consider a bonus (and then never actually use it).
This has very similar Geekbench results to the 2015 MacBook Air - and the early 2015 Core i5 MacBook PRO.
Instead of just repeating the narrative "this machine is meant for light computing" - how about actually trying to use it in the real world. Geekbench for the m3/m7 = ~2500/3000 single core, and ~5000/6700 multicore.
Early 2015 Core i5 MacBook PRO Geekbench 3263 single core, 6938 multi core. And this is in a world where half that would be perfectly usable because CPUs have been plenty fast enough for years.
This isn't for "light computing" - this is the machine for 99% of people to do 99% of tasks.
Further - thunderbolt 3? Who cares - there is almost never a good reason to plug anything into your machine anymore. it's called the cloud, use it. If you're carrying around an external drive you're doing it wrong & you are so prone to data loss. Local spinning disks get lost and stolen - and have a failure rate of 20%/year+ in many cases.
Facetime Camera - who cares? Probably nobody will ever notice.
The reviewer above "10 hour battery life is not enough having had a 13" MBA". It's actually rated thus:
Up to 10 hours wireless web
Up to 11 hours iTunes movie playback
The 13" air
Up to 12 hours
Oooooh no - 1 whole hour less of rated battery.
You can use a 13" non retina screen with a gigantic bezel - but not a retina 12" screen?! I think you'd be fine snowflake.
Also anyone suggesting the Air will get a retina upgrade is a moron. OBVIOUSLY this replaces the Air once the price has come down.
This is the machine for everyone right now. Anyone who gets it will love it - but many people are too stuck in their ways to realise they're living in the past. Buy it - love it.
I will be running a Windows VM on top of OS X - and running dev tools in it - just like I do now on a slower performing Air - and i will be loving it.
Mag Safe - THANKS F*** that has died. I use blutac to secure mine in when not using it on a desk. it probably comes out about 100 times per day otherwise. Awful and needs to die fast.
To say users should "get a pro instead of getting the faster version of this" places zero utility on portability. Like anyone who feels like they want a faster CPU - obviously would want a larger heavier machine. Size and weight for most people are FAR more important than CPU speed as virtually nothing is ever CPU bound anymore. if you want to get a little more speed but still have a lighter thinner machine - then upgrading the CPU on THIS MODEL makes a ton of sense rather than compromising portability. Why do so many reviewers just not understand the importance of portability?
There is no good reason to have cables dangling off this.
Well, for idiots that don't know how to handle sensitive data.... I guess cloud is an ok solution.... but I would never trust any important data to the cloud (even if I could). Since I only have ADSL (which is common in many parts of the world still), it would take years if not decades to sync everything up. In fact I don't even trust wireless (like many businesses).... my primary data is located in back of an enterprise level firewall on wired networking only. My wireless access is segregated to the DMZ only... if I want to get in I have to VPN through the firewall from a set of restricted addresses. Backup is simple - 3 copies... one the online copy, a second copy is copied to an offline drive -- for important data it is on a mirrored drive and then there is an offsite backup done weekly which is stored in a bank safety deposit box. 512gb of storage is .... small.... would never be able to use that on a primary computer.... luckily I only use my Macbook for coding while away so it is doable - even with a sizeable (200gb - sample sized) Oracle database on it.
Other than that, the MB12 is an awesome laptop for people who wants small computer running OS X.
And given the fact that EVERY single review complains about this??? Hello, anyone listening at Apple?
I get the feeling the people running Apple are more clueless than everyone realizes. Given the fact they were surprised at how well the iPhone SE was received, I mean, did they not know there were many people who specifically loved the iPhone because it was a premium phone in a small package???
I hope Apple doesn't abandon the Mac users, I feel it's still their core loyal user base, but things are not looking good.