Why not a 13” and 15” MacBook that focuses on battery, and a 13” and 15” (and 17”) MacBook Pro that focuses on power? And then get rid of the Air.
Or make a 12 or 13" MacBook Air (change the name) with an Apple CPU and make it K-12 only to compete with Google Crapbooks? I think Apple should do this anyways. Kinda like what Apple did back in the day with the eMac (Educational Mac), but just don't give in and start selling it to the public like they did with eMac. Obviously Apple isn't gonna sell it at $299, but if they could get it down to maybe $500 or so its a full blown computer running a modern OS that can support Google Classroom, Office365, as well as Apple SchoolWork which is Apple's version of Google Classroom.
Apple have already said it won't be a Mac if it's solely powered by ARM Soc.
Source?
Now your testing my memory will need to dig to find it, pretty sure it wasn't the Keynote at WWDC but around that time. So it was either, best guess, WWDC Talk Show edition or State of Platform at WWDC.
It jumped out at me because it seemed like an Apple Exec trying his hand at a Steve Jobs style offhand dismissal that later turns out to be a teaser.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt there are a lot of Pros using a 12" MacBook today. I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Allow me to (perhaps) correct you: you're (at least partially) wrong.
Of course this depends on what you mean by "pros," and by what you imagine their workflow to be. If "Pro" only applies to people who tax processors with high-intensity graphic card/CPU sucking applications 24/7, then you'd be completely right.
But what about a novelist who makes a living writing books? Do they need a MacBook Pro, or would a MacBook run Scrivener or Final Draft (et al) every bit as well, and be a equal or better choice for portability/battery life? An bookkeeper can run Quicken (et al) exactly the same on the low-end MacBook as on the maxed out MBP, but are they not "pros"?
Or take another real-world example: a graphic designer who mostly runs InDesign or Photoshop (CC). They might choose a deskop model for their 9-5 work, but desire a small portable for their light-duty off-time. Does that person stop being a "pro" when they switch to an iPad with keyboard after work?
I'm certainly not against clear delineation between Intel-powered Macs and future ARM-powered ones -- assuming there's any perceptible difference in performance by the time they actually get here -- but just saying "Pros use Intel, consumers use ARM" is drawing sharp lines that, in real life, are quite blurry.
I think the MacBook will stick with Intel for a while yet. When Apple finally does release Macs with there own chipset inside they will need a clear branding strategy to separate the two families of computers.
They could move the Air moniker to the low end for an even smaller lighter Axx powered laptop. Apple also has a history of bringing back old marketing terms so it we see a Mac that is not much larger than the Apple TV perhaps it cold be the Mac Nano.
Will be interesting to see how they brand this transition.
No they won't. No need at all... Quite the opposite actually.
Why not a 13” and 15” MacBook that focuses on battery, and a 13” and 15” (and 17”) MacBook Pro that focuses on power? And then get rid of the Air.
Or make a 12 or 13" MacBook Air (change the name) with an Apple CPU and make it K-12 only to compete with Google Crapbooks? I think Apple should do this anyways. Kinda like what Apple did back in the day with the eMac (Educational Mac), but just don't give in and start selling it to the public like they did with eMac. Obviously Apple isn't gonna sell it at $299, but if they could get it down to maybe $500 or so its a full blown computer running a modern OS that can support Google Classroom, Office365, as well as Apple SchoolWork which is Apple's version of Google Classroom.
I think Apple has already targeted that market with their iPad. Adding a MacBook would be an expensive redundancy. But, to fully serve that market, they still need to add a cursor to the iPad.
Why not a 13” and 15” MacBook that focuses on battery, and a 13” and 15” (and 17”) MacBook Pro that focuses on power? And then get rid of the Air.
Or make a 12 or 13" MacBook Air (change the name) with an Apple CPU and make it K-12 only to compete with Google Crapbooks? I think Apple should do this anyways. Kinda like what Apple did back in the day with the eMac (Educational Mac), but just don't give in and start selling it to the public like they did with eMac. Obviously Apple isn't gonna sell it at $299, but if they could get it down to maybe $500 or so its a full blown computer running a modern OS that can support Google Classroom, Office365, as well as Apple SchoolWork which is Apple's version of Google Classroom.
Apple have already said it won't be a Mac if it's solely powered by ARM Soc.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt there are a lot of Pros using a 12" MacBook today. I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Allow me to (perhaps) correct you: you're (at least partially) wrong.
Of course this depends on what you mean by "pros," and by what you imagine their workflow to be. If "Pro" only applies to people who tax processors with high-intensity graphic card/CPU sucking applications 24/7, then you'd be completely right.
But what about a novelist who makes a living writing books? Do they need a MacBook Pro, or would a MacBook run Scrivener or Final Draft (et al) every bit as well, and be a equal or better choice for portability/battery life? An bookkeeper can run Quicken (et al) exactly the same on the low-end MacBook as on the maxed out MBP, but are they not "pros"?
Or take another real-world example: a graphic designer who mostly runs InDesign or Photoshop (CC). They might choose a deskop model for their 9-5 work, but desire a small portable for their light-duty off-time. Does that person stop being a "pro" when they switch to an iPad with keyboard after work?
I'm certainly not against clear delineation between Intel-powered Macs and future ARM-powered ones -- assuming there's any perceptible difference in performance by the time they actually get here -- but just saying "Pros use Intel, consumers use ARM" is drawing sharp lines that, in real life, are quite blurry.
All good points that I agree with. Strongly agree with.
I am thinking that the problem is mostly with the word "Pro". Apple has made it to mean users demanding very high performance and, in the Mac line, that has devolved to mean mostly graphics applications.
There is a large block of very professional users who simply don't need the high performance/high priced equipment of the -Pro line(s) -- but still require professional level equipment that meets their needs for performance, reliability & dependability, usability, flexibility, etc...
I think the MacBook will stick with Intel for a while yet. When Apple finally does release Macs with there own chipset inside they will need a clear branding strategy to separate the two families of computers.
They could move the Air moniker to the low end for an even smaller lighter Axx powered laptop. Apple also has a history of bringing back old marketing terms so it we see a Mac that is not much larger than the Apple TV perhaps it cold be the Mac Nano.
Will be interesting to see how they brand this transition.
No they won't. No need at all... Quite the opposite actually.
Actually the non-touch version didn't receive any spec bumps, maybe that'll mark the end of it.
I was hoping the next 12" MacBook refresh/update would have an Apple CPU/GPU inside of it. I can see both the Air and the regular 12" MacBook having this, along with the Mac mini, and maybe even a lower end 21.5" iMac model, leaving the mid to high end iMacs, MacBook Pro line, and obviously the Mac Pro on Intel or perhaps even AMD based CPU's.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt there are a lot of Pros using a 12" MacBook today. I'd be very surprised if that was the case.
Allow me to (perhaps) correct you: you're (at least partially) wrong.
Of course this depends on what you mean by "pros," and by what you imagine their workflow to be. If "Pro" only applies to people who tax processors with high-intensity graphic card/CPU sucking applications 24/7, then you'd be completely right.
But what about a novelist who makes a living writing books? Do they need a MacBook Pro, or would a MacBook run Scrivener or Final Draft (et al) every bit as well, and be a equal or better choice for portability/battery life? An bookkeeper can run Quicken (et al) exactly the same on the low-end MacBook as on the maxed out MBP, but are they not "pros"?
Or take another real-world example: a graphic designer who mostly runs InDesign or Photoshop (CC). They might choose a deskop model for their 9-5 work, but desire a small portable for their light-duty off-time. Does that person stop being a "pro" when they switch to an iPad with keyboard after work?
I'm certainly not against clear delineation between Intel-powered Macs and future ARM-powered ones -- assuming there's any perceptible difference in performance by the time they actually get here -- but just saying "Pros use Intel, consumers use ARM" is drawing sharp lines that, in real life, are quite blurry.
All good points that I agree with. Strongly agree with.
I am thinking that the problem is mostly with the word "Pro". Apple has made it to mean users demanding very high performance and, in the Mac line, that has devolved to mean mostly graphics applications.
There is a large block of very professional users who simply don't need the high performance/high priced equipment of the -Pro line(s) -- but still require professional level equipment that meets their needs for performance, reliability & dependability, usability, flexibility, etc...
You’re right, not all Pros need the horsepower and neither do all Pro apps, especially corporate in-house apps. Apple have a broader dilemma; those who do need to use Windows often use Boot Camp at which point Apple have lost their brand/desktop to MS. Collaborating with MS they could officially support Windows to provide Windows app virtualisation preserving the macOS desktop and using x86/64 emulation which should be adequate for both Windows/Intel & macOS/Intel apps whilst the latter are being converted.
Comments
Of course this depends on what you mean by "pros," and by what you imagine their workflow to be. If "Pro" only applies to people who tax processors with high-intensity graphic card/CPU sucking applications 24/7, then you'd be completely right.
But what about a novelist who makes a living writing books? Do they need a MacBook Pro, or would a MacBook run Scrivener or Final Draft (et al) every bit as well, and be a equal or better choice for portability/battery life? An bookkeeper can run Quicken (et al) exactly the same on the low-end MacBook as on the maxed out MBP, but are they not "pros"?
Or take another real-world example: a graphic designer who mostly runs InDesign or Photoshop (CC). They might choose a deskop model for their 9-5 work, but desire a small portable for their light-duty off-time. Does that person stop being a "pro" when they switch to an iPad with keyboard after work?
I'm certainly not against clear delineation between Intel-powered Macs and future ARM-powered ones -- assuming there's any perceptible difference in performance by the time they actually get here -- but just saying "Pros use Intel, consumers use ARM" is drawing sharp lines that, in real life, are quite blurry.
Of course this depends on what you mean by "pros," and by what you imagine their workflow to be. If "Pro" only applies to people who tax processors with high-intensity graphic card/CPU sucking applications 24/7, then you'd be completely right.
But what about a novelist who makes a living writing books? Do they need a MacBook Pro, or would a MacBook run Scrivener or Final Draft (et al) every bit as well, and be a equal or better choice for portability/battery life? An bookkeeper can run Quicken (et al) exactly the same on the low-end MacBook as on the maxed out MBP, but are they not "pros"?
Or take another real-world example: a graphic designer who mostly runs InDesign or Photoshop (CC). They might choose a deskop model for their 9-5 work, but desire a small portable for their light-duty off-time. Does that person stop being a "pro" when they switch to an iPad with keyboard after work?
There is a large block of very professional users who simply don't need the high performance/high priced equipment of the -Pro line(s) -- but still require professional level equipment that meets their needs for performance, reliability & dependability, usability, flexibility, etc...
You’re right, not all Pros need the horsepower and neither do all Pro apps, especially corporate in-house apps. Apple have a broader dilemma; those who do need to use Windows often use Boot Camp at which point Apple have lost their brand/desktop to MS. Collaborating with MS they could officially support Windows to provide Windows app virtualisation preserving the macOS desktop and using x86/64 emulation which should be adequate for both Windows/Intel & macOS/Intel apps whilst the latter are being converted.