New 13" MacBook to launch in Q3, end development of MacBook Air insider says

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    metrixmetrix Posts: 256member
    redstater said:
    MacBook Air as an entry level device for $700 or even $500 is a bad idea why? If Apple is able to manufacture the things for $250 and sell then for $500, what is the problem? Do you want Apple products to be for the masses or don't you? Or would you rather them remain a product for the elite? Another thing: an entry level MacBook Air wouldn't even need the A9 or another ARM chip, which everyone wants to see happen for geeky tech reasons, not because it fills an actual market need. (Never mind the fact that it would force Apple to tune one version of OS X for ARM and another for x86 and maintain two separate OS streams; something that has never been Apple's thing - it is more like what Microsoft and Google specialize in - and should never be.) Instead, it could simply use a cheaper Intel i-series chip (not a Pentium or Celeron type that is being used for Chromebooks and cheaper Windows 10 devices) than are in the MacBook Pros, which quite honestly should cost the same as an A9 anyway. It may even cost less! If Apple is able to build a quality machine that capably runs Mac OS X and sell it for $500-$700 and still make a large per-device margin, then why not? It could target Windows users, public schools and even the users of better Chromebooks (which run about $350-$400). If there is a downside, explain it to me. And if the claim is that Apple cannot POSSIBLY make a device with an i3 or i5 processor that capably runs OS X for that amount of money, make that case also. Kind of difficult to do so if you ask me when you consider that the Mac Mini already starts at $499. (Had I known of the Mac Mini's existence I would not have bought my last Windows PC. I am still hoping that the thing kicks the bucket soon so I can replace it with one.) http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/.
    There are way to many companies just giving their laptops away because someone just undercut them. It's similar to the tablet business, only Apple is making any money and their market share is eaten up by players just trying to get a foothold. I don't think Apple should budge on pricing let other companies survive on $99 laptops. 
  • Reply 22 of 51
    kpomkpom Posts: 660member
    linkman said:
    ireland said:
    Stop referring to him as "insider". He's an Asian analyst. Also agree with new poster. We want a 14" Retina machine, not 13"—it's too close to 12".

    12", 14", 16" (Pro)
    Having approximately 1" diagonal measurement size difference in screen size definitely does not make for product differentiation. There would have to be some other significant changes to allow for almost exactly the same dimensions.
    It seems to me that the 13.3" MacBook would have enough room for the 15W Skylake Core i5/i7 processor (look at the HP Spectre and Dell XPS 13) and maybe (just maybe) a second USB-C port. The price would likely overlap with the 12" MacBook. The 12" would be the ultraportable while the 13" would become the mainstream. Apple could then reserve the 28W Skylake chips to the MacBook Pro.
  • Reply 23 of 51
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    macxpress said:
    wiggin said:
    Or it becomes the "education" model for those schools who feel that a tablet is not the best device for their students. If a school decides that a tablet (of any kind) is not enough and want to go with laptops, Apple really offers no affordable options. I'm not suggesting that Apple compete with Chromebook on price, but if they keep with the slightly older technology in the Air and bump the price down just a tad it would be competitive. 11" model for younger students, 13" for older students which would give continuity as students progress through the grades.

    I don't think giving students an old under powered Mac with a horrible screen is in the best interest of Apple. Most schools such as ours just buy 13" MacBook Pro Retina models (or the 13" MacBook Pro w/SuperDrive). There's a large difference between a chromebook and a Mac. We use both and both have their places. There are many things a Mac can do that a ChromeBook cannot. The only place Apple is getting hurt are these 1-to-1 initiatives which from our experience and others in this same region never work. 

    If Apple really wanted to compete with the ChromeBook they'd release a regular iPad with the smart connector on it and include the keyboard case. The keyboard is the iPad's biggest downfall because the onscreen one sucks for typing and others are bluetooth with constant dead batteries. Other than that an iPad will do far more than any ChromeBook would and isn't any harder to manage with the right management software (JAMF Casper). iPads just get a bad reputation because schools don't plan before they deploy so iPads turn in to "toys" instead of learning tools. 
    Some fair points, and it was the 1-1 initiatives I was thinking of. If a school is looking to do that (arguments as to whether that's a good idea), a $1300 MBP for every student probably isn't feasible except for schools in fairly affluent school districts or with wealthy benefactors. So I'd still argue that for most schools, if a school decides that laptops are the way they want to go, Apple doesn't really have an offering that is cost sensitive. Even an iPad starts getting expensive if you are adding keyboard and cases.

    As for performance, a MBA is only under powered if you compare it to your MBP. The low-end MBA compares favorably to the current mid-range MacBook...Apple's "latest technology". On Geekbench 3 for single-core it's a score of 2835 vs 2878. Multi-core similarly shows the MB with only a slight edge. That year-old, low-end MBA actually beats the low-end MB that was just released this year. (Yes, there is more to performance than that. Just showing that they are about on par.)

    And of course the screen isn't Retina, but ask yourself, what are we using them for? Other than some classes (film editing, some art classes, etc), for general school work I'd consider Retina display a nice-to-have, but not a necessity.

    I'm not suggesting Apple shouldn't make any improvements to the Air. But IF they did want to offer an affordable educational laptop, it could be a viable alternative for about the same price as an iPad plus accessories. (I can't even imagine the nightmare of trying to manage an iPad + keyboard set-up in a school. The keyboard would be lost, forgotten, and/or broken in about 5 minutes. A MBA would probably be more durable and much easier to manage from a logistics perspective.)
    edited May 2016 elijahg
  • Reply 24 of 51
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,114member
    He forgot to mention "Intel Inside" sticker...

    He tries to push someone else's model with all that fancy oled bar and alike. But who's? That would be news reporting...

    And don't cheer, Apple won't release a 13 inch Macbook. That may be an 13 inch Macbook Pro but not 13 inch Retina Macbook. 12 inch was an achievement, 13 inch would mean going backwards. Apple's response to 13 inch convertible crowd is the 12.9 inch iPad Pro.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 25 of 51
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,729member
    jkichline said:
    I agree. This would make sense. I'm still hoping they make an entry-level device with an A10X processor just to get rid of the Intel tax and show the power and efficiency of those processors. Maybe in a visited Air concept? The current processor in my iPad Pro is actually faster than my Late 2013 rMBP so it could be done especially since Apple is known for their agility in porting their OS to different platforms.
    So what's the iPad Pro for then?
    Touch UI vs KB / mouse / trackpad UI
    williamlondon
  • Reply 26 of 51
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,379member
    So what's the iPad Pro for then?
    Touch UI vs KB / mouse / trackpad UI
    I think that's it exactly.

    Would be interesting if this purported 13" laptop came with an A-series chip running a non-touch version of iOS, and the OLED "touchbar" strip we heard about in the MBP really is meant for this device, as a way of adding some sort of "touch interface with visual feedback" while reducing the space required for (function row) keys, potentially making this 13" (non-touch) iOS laptop no bigger than the existing 12" rMB (in weight certainly and even some dimensions) - what a selling point to have: faster than the rMB in a similar-sized package for cheaper, only "downside" is it only runs iOS apps (and actually not a downside to most likely 10s of millions of people who have need of nothing more regarding computing needs related to their use cases).
  • Reply 27 of 51
    stevehsteveh Posts: 480member
    appex said:
    Whatever, but bring standard ports like Thunderbolt 3 and USB 3.1 Type-C (reversible) generation 2 to all Apple devices, together with SDXC supporting maximum read/write speed (300 MB/s).
    Any product model has a finite life. This has been true since wheels were square. Some have very long market lives, granted, but still finite.
  • Reply 28 of 51
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,329member
    Poor MacBook Air lineup...it will have to die a long and slow death, if the rumor true. Once revered has a technological wonder, will now be relegated to periodically, unimaginative updated entery model most users rather not get stuck with. Kind of sad. 
    A little melodramatic, perhaps. It's a computer line up, for goodness sake, not an old dog being replaced by a new puppy.
  • Reply 29 of 51
    why-why- Posts: 305member
    my biggest question is why? why not just release a new MacBook Air?
  • Reply 30 of 51
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,784member
    I'm glad I just bought a top of the line MBA for my wife then.  She was flying to Boston and her 2011 MBP was a bit heavy with all her other carry on stuff.  First we ever owned and as a new Mac Pro and MBPro user I was very impressed with the thing.  Especially the weight and speed.  It's as light as an iPad or it seems to me it is and I love all the ports.  I think it will keep her happy for years to come.  So now selling an immaculate 13.3" i5, 16 GB RAM MBP.
  • Reply 31 of 51
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    levi said:
    foggyhill said:
    I'm so  tired of hearing from that so called analysts, every few days there is something "new".
    Doesn't matter if it contradicts himself 5 times in a few months, parrots what 20 others already said or issues a big duh : only his last damn entry "counts" for anything.
    If he's  wrong 100 times, it doesn't matter cause he was right that one time.

    He's more a god damn publicist than analyst.


    Kuo is the best of any when it comes to product launches and features. 
    Prove it of LOSE it. Put me the hundreds of notes he sends a year with the date they were released and the note of every one else OK BUDDY.
    Otherwise it is just blah blah blah.
  • Reply 32 of 51
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,447member
    why- said:
    my biggest question is why? why not just release a new MacBook Air?
    How on earth does the Air fit in the lineup? It was replaced by the rMB. It's dead, forget about it.  
  • Reply 33 of 51
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    kpom said:
    If it is 13.3" rather than 13 then it is not "only an inch" larger. 
    Which brings up the question "why bother"? This report seems to be totally bogus based on this one point what value, realistically, is there in one more inch of screen size. Now a 14" machine I could see as it is a rational step up in size.
  • Reply 34 of 51
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,329member
    designr said:
    why 13"? wouldnt 14" make much mur sense? 12",14"mb and 14",16" mbp
    This raises a (admittedly trivial) question I've wondered about for a while:

    Does anyone have any insight to why Apple has (for a long time and with rare exceptions anyway) gone with the odd numbered screen sizes (11", 13", 15" 17")? Is there a technical reason? Are they simply being more honest than the vendor that calls a 13" (plus some fraction) a 14"? Even iMacs have followed this (15", 17", 21(.5)", 27") with occasional exceptions (20" and 24").
    In the old days, computer monitors were CRTs that mirrored the sizes being produced for televisions. With a very few high-end exceptions, that was the only way to procure displays for monitors. In more recent times, LCD panels for monitors also mirrored their TV counterparts, most often at 20", 24", 32", 42", 46" and 50" at the tops because some combination of these sizes maximized the yields of the raw panels as they were cut down. That was when a few panel makers sold to many TV and monitor suppliers. Now, there are many panel makers producing panels at varying quality levels, making it pretty simple for the TV or monitor producer to specify the size they want. With the influx of cheap and often poor quality panels, you can buy basic TV or monitor for next to nothing. This is why the major TV manufacturers have pretty much abandoned the smaller screen sizes below 32" and even trimmed their 32" - 40" offerings quite a bit.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 35 of 51
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    redstater said:
    MacBook Air as an entry level device for $700 or even $500 is a bad idea why? If Apple is able to manufacture the things for $250 and sell then for $500, what is the problem? Do you want Apple products to be for the masses or don't you? Or would you rather them remain a product for the elite? Another thing: an entry level MacBook Air wouldn't even need the A9 or another ARM chip, which everyone wants to see happen for geeky tech reasons, not because it fills an actual market need. (Never mind the fact that it would force Apple to tune one version of OS X for ARM and another for x86 and maintain two separate OS streams; something that has never been Apple's thing - it is more like what Microsoft and Google specialize in - and should never be.) Instead, it could simply use a cheaper Intel i-series chip (not a Pentium or Celeron type that is being used for Chromebooks and cheaper Windows 10 devices) than are in the MacBook Pros, which quite honestly should cost the same as an A9 anyway. It may even cost less! If Apple is able to build a quality machine that capably runs Mac OS X and sell it for $500-$700 and still make a large per-device margin, then why not? It could target Windows users, public schools and even the users of better Chromebooks (which run about $350-$400). If there is a downside, explain it to me. And if the claim is that Apple cannot POSSIBLY make a device with an i3 or i5 processor that capably runs OS X for that amount of money, make that case also. Kind of difficult to do so if you ask me when you consider that the Mac Mini already starts at $499. (Had I known of the Mac Mini's existence I would not have bought my last Windows PC. I am still hoping that the thing kicks the bucket soon so I can replace it with one.) http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/.
    I think there is considerable signs here of your misunderstanding technology.

    First going ARM isn't anymore of a running effort than using Intel.   The fact is they need to work on drivers for every version of Intel chip that comes out.    At the larger scale they have been tuning the operating system for years to work out some of the performance kinks in Mac OS this is done at the software level for the most part and such improvements have little to do with the chips the software runs on.   

    Second estimates put Apples chip at extremely low price points compared to Intel hardware at similar performance points.  This stands to reason as Intel has been a customed to rather large margins for years.  Beyond that the Ability Apple has to tailor a chip to its specific needs is golden from the performance per watt point of view.  Apples A series is still a significantly better chip on a performance per watt basis compared to Intel's M series.  

    On on ther other hand I have to agree with you with respect to the cost of Apples laptops and their ability to lower those prices.   The problem seems to be an unwillingness to compete in the sub $1000 laptop market.    The reason here isn't obvious, however I hold out hope.   For one technology just gets better and better for a given price point.   For another there is extremely strong evidence that we will be hit by a very hard recession in the next few months to a year, that means cash flow may depend upon a cheap laptop.   Frankly. I'm not sure why people even argue against a $700 dollar laptop anymore, there are many shipping at that price point that are in fact good quality and only hobbled by Windows.  

    In in any event the above paragraph was about an Intel based laptop.   The idea behind an ARM based laptop lies in the benefits one would gain from a highly customized SoC made soecifically for an Apple laptop.   One only has to digest the benefits Apple gained from custom SoC in Apples iOS devices to realize the huge pay off potential of a custom circuit in a Mac Laptop.   This is especially important if they want to implement AI support circuitry in the chip.   

    Beyond all all of that there is a third path Apple can follow.   That is to put an AMD chip in the low end machine.   The low end AMD chips still have a viable GPU and the performance isn't that bad.    With ZEN performance might actually be pretty good on the CPU side.   This third course of action is something I've suggested for years for the Mini.   AMD could result in lower hardware prices for many of Apples low end machines with no practical  impact on the software base.   Plus AMD is very willing to do custom chips.  
    docno42
  • Reply 36 of 51
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    metrix said:
    redstater said:
    MacBook Air as an entry level device for $700 or even $500 is a bad idea why? If Apple is able to manufacture the things for $250 and sell then for $500, what is the problem? Do you want Apple products to be for the masses or don't you? Or would you rather them remain a product for the elite? Another thing: an entry level MacBook Air wouldn't even need the A9 or another ARM chip, which everyone wants to see happen for geeky tech reasons, not because it fills an actual market need. (Never mind the fact that it would force Apple to tune one version of OS X for ARM and another for x86 and maintain two separate OS streams; something that has never been Apple's thing - it is more like what Microsoft and Google specialize in - and should never be.) Instead, it could simply use a cheaper Intel i-series chip (not a Pentium or Celeron type that is being used for Chromebooks and cheaper Windows 10 devices) than are in the MacBook Pros, which quite honestly should cost the same as an A9 anyway. It may even cost less! If Apple is able to build a quality machine that capably runs Mac OS X and sell it for $500-$700 and still make a large per-device margin, then why not? It could target Windows users, public schools and even the users of better Chromebooks (which run about $350-$400). If there is a downside, explain it to me. And if the claim is that Apple cannot POSSIBLY make a device with an i3 or i5 processor that capably runs OS X for that amount of money, make that case also. Kind of difficult to do so if you ask me when you consider that the Mac Mini already starts at $499. (Had I known of the Mac Mini's existence I would not have bought my last Windows PC. I am still hoping that the thing kicks the bucket soon so I can replace it with one.) http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/.
    There are way to many companies just giving their laptops away because someone just undercut them. It's similar to the tablet business, only Apple is making any money and their market share is eaten up by players just trying to get a foothold. I don't think Apple should budge on pricing let other companies survive on $99 laptops. 
    We aren't talking $99 dollar laptops here!! We are talking lower cost laptop, one model line, that would allow a Apple to pull in more customers. This especially during a period of economic down turn. Frankly Apple wouldn't be competing with anybody but themselves here as the machines would still be relatively high cost compared to the rest of the industry. We are still talking similar Apple margins, rather the hardware mix is adjusted to lower costs and thus selling price.
  • Reply 37 of 51
    initiatorinitiator Posts: 104member
    With the retina MacBook and the retina MacBook Pros why in the world would anyone think or expect Apple would bring retina to the MacBook Air? It should be obvious to anyone that the Air is on its way out.
    Because in their quest for the thinnest portable Mac possible, Apple created one of THE worst keyboards on any Mac bar none. It's truly horrible to use.

    That coupled with the fact that there is only a single port for everything makes this a non-starter for those in the market for Mac portables.
    edited May 2016
  • Reply 38 of 51
    anomeanome Posts: 1,533member

    Just had a thought, what if it's not a 13" MacBook, but a MacBook Pro, with the 15" following in Q4 as reported in that other rumour? A 13" rMB doesn't make much sense, but releasing the 13" rMBP ahead of the 15" like they did last time does.

    Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. (The Head Canon is strong with this one.) Still, I don't see how a 13" vs a 12" rMB fits into the product line, or why it's taking so long to refresh the rMBP line.

  • Reply 39 of 51
    sirdirsirdir Posts: 189member
    Porting the OS wouldn't be so much of a problem, but if you want to emulate another CPU, the CPU you have should be a good bit faster than the CPU you're emulating...
  • Reply 40 of 51
    dm3dm3 Posts: 168member
    I hope they manage to squeeze a 14" in the footprint of the 13" Macbook Air. I'm waiting for it as my next laptop.
Sign In or Register to comment.