i agree. apple would make so much more money if other companies used their os on their systems. especially if the systems were cheaper. but i think stevey wants to be unique, and be in total control of his company and be the lone seller of his os.
I'm not sure they would make more money. The R&D costs become higher. You have to now supply an unconceivable amount of drivers and need work out compatibility issues for thousands instead of 5 machines.
When you say cheaper, are saying a lower introductory machine, or a cheaper machine at the current configuration level. If it's the latter, then you haven't done any price comparisons in the last few years.
The biggest problem with Apple willy-nilly selling its OS to OEMs and DIYs is the complete lack of quality that will ensue. The day Apple decides to run on any X86 (which it won't) is the day that I move away from OS X. Windows can't have the same interaction between the hardware and OS like OS X can because MS has deliberately spread itself to thin to make the quick buck.
Apple didn't bend to OEMs begging to get out from under the Windows crutch back when Apple was faltering so why do you think Apple will do it now when it is thriving?
The one that that I am waiting and hoping for... and I don't much care whether it pushes me towards a MacBook or a MacBook Pro is higher DPI to take advantage of resolution independence.
Is this only me? We've been promised resolution independence for 2-3 years now. What I would like to do with it is to have 15" macbook or pro, with the resolution of a 17" macbook pro.
I travel. On airplaces. The 17" isn't even legal carry-on in many places now, let alone practical in coach. But I need lots of screen real-estate. Resolution independence should allow me to vary the zoom factors of different things independently depending on how bleary-eyed I am, whether the sun is shining in from the window-seat of sleepy-guy on the left and so on without having to sacrifice detail on PDFs and manual pages and so on.
But it is all designed for CRTs. With LCDs, Apple remains the one manufacturer to continue selling the same-size chunky pixels. Resolution independence will bring us nothing unless they actually give us more DPI to display this glory on.
I'm not sure they would make more money. The R&D costs become higher. You have to now supply an unconceivable amount of drivers and need work out compatibility issues for thousands instead of 5 machines.
When you say cheaper, are saying a lower introductory machine, or a cheaper machine at the current configuration level. If it's the latter, then you haven't done any price comparisons in the last few years.
The biggest problem with Apple willy-nilly selling its OS to OEMs and DIYs is the complete lack of quality that will ensue. The day Apple decides to run on any X86 (which it won't) is the day that I move away from OS X. Windows can't have the same interaction between the hardware and OS like OS X can because MS has deliberately spread itself to thin to make the quick buck.
Apple didn't bend to OEMs begging to get out from under the Windows crutch back when Apple was faltering so why do you think Apple will do it now when it is thriving?
Apple could create a version of Leopard that works on pc's that uses windows drivers and what not. And by cheaper i mean that if you were to compare a pc to a mac and put the same configurations the mac would be a few hundred dollars more, and that few hundred dollars more can mean the difference between someone who's buying a new computer. If apple was to make the pc leopard and companies were to use it on pc's apple would still be making money off the software and more people would be using the mac os. for example dells are very inexpensive, of course depending on the model you get. but let's say you get a cheap-o pc from dell, and you could get mac os on it, it'd be less expensive and people who can't really afford the more high end technology would get the dell rather than the mac.
Apple could create a version of Leopard that works on pc's that uses windows drivers and what not.
That makes no sense. Drivers have to be tailored to each OS. Or haven't you noticed that WinXP drivers don't work with Win98 or Win2k (and vice versa)? If Microsoft can't get drivers to operate over different versions of their own OS, what makes you think Apple can?
The one that that I am waiting and hoping for... and I don't much care whether it pushes me towards a MacBook or a MacBook Pro is higher DPI to take advantage of resolution independence.
Is this only me? We've been promised resolution independence for 2-3 years now. What I would like to do with it is to have 15" macbook or pro, with the resolution of a 17" macbook pro.
I travel. On airplaces. The 17" isn't even legal carry-on in many places now, let alone practical in coach. But I need lots of screen real-estate. Resolution independence should allow me to vary the zoom factors of different things independently depending on how bleary-eyed I am, whether the sun is shining in from the window-seat of sleepy-guy on the left and so on without having to sacrifice detail on PDFs and manual pages and so on.
But it is all designed for CRTs. With LCDs, Apple remains the one manufacturer to continue selling the same-size chunky pixels. Resolution independence will bring us nothing unless they actually give us more DPI to display this glory on.
Is there any word at all?
THANKS!
Greg
There's a misunderstanding of RI.
Some people seem to think it requires even greater rez than now, but it doesn't.
RI isn't going to be used to make on-screen iobjects, or text, smaller. If it were, then a higher rez would be required.
But, it's going to be used to make the on-screen objects, and type, larger. Anything sized for the normal sized rez will simply be scaled up smoothly. Type will be larger, icons will be larger, and so on.
The idea, for example, would be to make the menu bar larger. Do we need higher rez to be able to do that? No, we don't.
I'm not saying that going to 150 ppi wouldn't be nice, but higher than that, FOR THIS PURPOSE, isn't required. I say for this purpose, because some people feel that going as high as 200 ppi would be good for them. So be it. If that's what they think they need, ok.
But, it's only when one makes an object, or text, SMALLER on screen, that a higher rez is needed.
You can easily see that now. Type in a large text size, then type the same thing in increasingly smaller sizes. The larger sizes will have much better detail, and smoothness, than the smaller sizes. The screen rez is the same, of course.
That's the equivelant of RI, where you are increasing the size of the interface to see small details more easily.
If you were going the other way, then I would agree.
With LCDs, Apple remains the one manufacturer to continue selling the same-size chunky pixels. Resolution independence will bring us nothing unless they actually give us more DPI to display this glory on.
Is there any word at all?
It's never been stated. I don't think they will offer it until Leopard. I wouldn't consider a higher dpi display until res independence is available and properly working. It is in Tiger but it's not really well supported, and is turned off by default.
Some people seem to think it requires even greater rez than now, but it doesn't.
RI isn't going to be used to make on-screen iobjects, or text, smaller. If it were, then a higher rez would be required.
But, it's going to be used to make the on-screen objects, and type, larger. Anything sized for the normal sized rez will simply be scaled up smoothly. Type will be larger, icons will be larger, and so on.
The idea, for example, would be to make the menu bar larger. Do we need higher rez to be able to do that? No, we don't.
I'm not saying that going to 150 ppi wouldn't be nice, but higher than that, FOR THIS PURPOSE, isn't required. I say for this purpose, because some people feel that going as high as 200 ppi would be good for them. So be it. If that's what they think they need, ok.
But, it's only when one makes an object, or text, SMALLER on screen, that a higher rez is needed.
You can easily see that now. Type in a large text size, then type the same thing in increasingly smaller sizes. The larger sizes will have much better detail, and smoothness, than the smaller sizes. The screen rez is the same, of course.
That's the equivelant of RI, where you are increasing the size of the interface to see small details more easily.
If you were going the other way, then I would agree.
as i see it the main benefit of resolution independence when it comes to pro machines is being able to have higher rez screens but still leaving the ui elements the same size. but higher rez screens would make everything sharper to the eye. so while you don't need ri to make things smaller, you do need them to keep things the same physical size but with a higher resolution. this is good for sharpness and for the ability to work in palette-heavy applications in a more flexible way.
as i see it the main benefit of resolution independence when it comes to pro machines is being able to have higher rez screens but still leaving the ui elements the same size. but higher rez screens would make everything sharper to the eye. so while you don't need ri to make things smaller, you do need them to keep things the same physical size but with a higher resolution. this is good for sharpness and for the ability to work in palette-heavy applications in a more flexible way.
That's not what most people would use it for. The idea is to make it easier to read when larger, hi rez screens, like the ones that are out now, are used by people who have problems with the elements that are already so small.
You're talking about those people who I mentioned who would like to see higher rez screens anyway.
I certainly wouldn't want to make text sizes smaller in pallets than they are now. They are already too small in Compressor.
Companies can arrange their pallets any way they want to. The idea is to simplify them, not to add more stuff. Make them more contextually relevant.
I have no problem with the rez on my monitor now. But, this is another argument altogether.
i wouldn't mind being able to shrink the pallettes on my powerbook screen. on my home machine i'm okay with everything the way it is. but resolution independence to me means more than just making things bigger for grannies. text rendering will be better across the board with higher rez monitors.
because it will be smaller and lighter for transportation (eg to and from work or abroad).
i actually like the idea of an external dvd drive and heres why:
i hardly ever use disks, most programs are downloaded (legally of course), so are my mp3's (again, its legal, honest!), the only thing i do use are dvd movies, and burning disks. if i move truly digital and rip all my dvd's to the hard drive, then it will all be inside and i will rarely need to use an optical drive.
Not everybody needs the dvd drive all the time, but just about everybody would like to have longer battery life. That's why the 13, 15 and 17 inch Apple laptops should have a multipurpose drive bay. So if you don't need to use the dvd drive, you can remove it and replace it with either a second battery or a second hard drive. And if Apple can make these design changes without severely impacting the the size and weight of the laptop, then I don't see why they shouldn't.
And when are the 15 and 17 inch MacBook Pros getting the magnetic display latch and user replaceable hard drive?
I didnt really have an idea of what ultra-portable meant until today at work. I'm an intern at a law firm, and i'm working on a project for this attorney. He whips out this tiny-ass centrino-duo IBM thinkpad. No optical drive, no hulk terrabite HD, the top of the clamshell is maybe the width of a pencil. It's pretty sweet. But then I think to myself, would I really want this as my home computer, or a main computer? The answer is NO.
The keyboard is (very) cumbersome, it's not practical to have more than one window/application open since the screen is tiny and low res. If the resolution were any smaller, I think I might need a magnifying glass. It's been enough on my eyes working on this all morning, let alone a 30 hr. flight to singapore.
So, i'm thinking of the true usability of a machine like this. I mean, could probably fit this in my shirt, or in a backpack/purse, etc. It would definitely fit in on an airline tray-table. But I'd be curious to see what it can run...email, web browsing, online othello....and thats probably about it. And not simultaneously without a mouse (but that will NOT fit on an airline tray-table...unless i'm flying 1st class). But then again, raise your hand if you often need to open photoshop and finalcut while on a plane. If you do, you probably have Steve Jobs' personal number anyways.
Not to mention, this thing isn't cheap. The model i'm running costs $1500. (http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c...DAD8E72CF6FD61) so Lenovo probably doesn't push a whole ton of these. You could convince me that it's profitable, but i have my doubts. What will apple charge for this thing? $1950? Idk that apple has a name with businesses anyways, or that they'd be willing to switch....IT people train the firm in document management, etc. on the same operating system that the secretaries have at home/learned at community college. PC wears a suit and can play fun lawyer games like "calculator" and someone at the firm today even commented "why the hell do I have a media player on my computer?"
And finally, I think an apple ultra-portable would hurt the apple name with students. As a student, I have one computer, so it needs to be good. I cannot imagine owning this as my only computer. It's not meant for that anyways. Apple could really break the market with a happy medium....a lighter MB is all with a removable optical drive. Everyone wants a lighter computer, so start there. This thinkpad may as well come with a stylus, leave me to associate this glorified Sidekick with Windows! (In fact...maybe it WOULD be better if I just typed with my thumbs)
So if Apple wants to break into the market of people who are rich as $h!t and fly around the world every day, be my guest. But please don't even think of selling this to a student or a processing power-hungry photographer.
I didnt really have an idea of what ultra-portable meant until today at work. I'm an intern at a law firm, and i'm working on a project for this attorney. He whips out this tiny-ass centrino-duo IBM thinkpad. No optical drive, no hulk terrabite HD, the top of the clamshell is maybe the width of a pencil. It's pretty sweet. But then I think to myself, would I really want this as my home computer, or a main computer? The answer is NO.
And that's exactly what an ultraportable is. It's not intended to be your main computer. It's for road warriors or for plugging in to the monitor/keyboard when back at home/the office.
I didnt really have an idea of what ultra-portable meant until today at work. I'm an intern at a law firm, and i'm working on a project for this attorney. He whips out this tiny-ass centrino-duo IBM thinkpad. No optical drive, no hulk terrabite HD, the top of the clamshell is maybe the width of a pencil. It's pretty sweet. But then I think to myself, would I really want this as my home computer, or a main computer? The answer is NO.
For one, some have internal optical drives.
You don't have to want it or buy it. There is no one size fits all, but lacking an ultraportable is a considerable oversight in Apple's current mobile line-up.
Quote:
Not to mention, this thing isn't cheap. The model i'm running costs $1500. (http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c...DAD8E72CF6FD61) so Lenovo probably doesn't push a whole ton of these. You could convince me that it's profitable, but i have my doubts. What will apple charge for this thing? $1950?
Most of the people I've seen that want one have realistic expectations on the price, being about $2000.
... Apple could really break the market with a happy medium....a lighter MB is all with a removable optical drive. Everyone wants a lighter computer, so start there.
Exactly. A MacBook that is a pound or so lighter and an inch or so smaller is all that's needed. Ultra portables are for a niche market and I doubt very many would sell, except to those who can afford a different computer for every need.
Exactly. A MacBook that is a pound or so lighter and an inch or so smaller is all that's needed. Ultra portables are for a niche market and I doubt very many would sell, except to those who can afford a different computer for every need.
The MBs are already 1.08" while the MBPs are 1.00". Or do you mean that the MB should be .08" and MBP the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper.
As for the niche market, Apple's increase in sales?doubling in the past 3 years?may warrant an sub-notebook class. Percentage-wise doesn't matter, but if Apple can sell as many of these theoretical sub-notebooks as it did their most popular PowerBook just 4 or 5 years ago then it will a sweeping success for Apple.
Exactly. A MacBook that is a pound or so lighter and an inch or so smaller is all that's needed. Ultra portables are for a niche market and I doubt very many would sell, except to those who can afford a different computer for every need.
So just make the MacBook lighter.
That still doesn't take away the need for an ultraportable from those that want a smaller laptop.
Apple doesn't need to have a major hit with every product it sells. A modest number of sales, as long as they are profitable, is fine. It will add incrementally to thir overall sales. Many large companies have thousands of products, Apple has just a couple of dozen, or so.
The MBs are already 1.08" while the MBPs are 1.00". Or do you mean that the MB should be .08" and MBP the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper.
I mean instead of 12.75 inches wide by 8.75 inches deep, reduce the bezel around the display and make it 11.75 inches wide by 7.75 inches deep, smart ass.
I've heard/read more pining for a replacement for the 12" PowerBook than I have for a sub-notebook. My suggestion in the post above would satisfy the former and maybe partially satisfy the later without having to have two models.
If Apple could make dozens of models and keep profits up without wasting R&D money, I'm sure they would. Since Steve Jobs returned, it seems the goal is to minimize the number of models on the market.
I mean instead of 12.75 inches wide by 8.75 inches deep, reduce the bezel around the display and make it 11.75 inches wide by 7.75 inches deep, smart ass.
Here's a question, though. I haven't had a good look at the makeup of the MacBook, but are there parts of the display or other hardware, like wireless antennae, under the bezel at all? If so, then Apple would probably have to totally redesign the MacBook, which can really cost a lot to get just right...
Comments
i agree. apple would make so much more money if other companies used their os on their systems. especially if the systems were cheaper. but i think stevey wants to be unique, and be in total control of his company and be the lone seller of his os.
I'm not sure they would make more money. The R&D costs become higher. You have to now supply an unconceivable amount of drivers and need work out compatibility issues for thousands instead of 5 machines.
When you say cheaper, are saying a lower introductory machine, or a cheaper machine at the current configuration level. If it's the latter, then you haven't done any price comparisons in the last few years.
The biggest problem with Apple willy-nilly selling its OS to OEMs and DIYs is the complete lack of quality that will ensue. The day Apple decides to run on any X86 (which it won't) is the day that I move away from OS X. Windows can't have the same interaction between the hardware and OS like OS X can because MS has deliberately spread itself to thin to make the quick buck.
Apple didn't bend to OEMs begging to get out from under the Windows crutch back when Apple was faltering so why do you think Apple will do it now when it is thriving?
The one that that I am waiting and hoping for... and I don't much care whether it pushes me towards a MacBook or a MacBook Pro is higher DPI to take advantage of resolution independence.
Is this only me? We've been promised resolution independence for 2-3 years now. What I would like to do with it is to have 15" macbook or pro, with the resolution of a 17" macbook pro.
I travel. On airplaces. The 17" isn't even legal carry-on in many places now, let alone practical in coach. But I need lots of screen real-estate. Resolution independence should allow me to vary the zoom factors of different things independently depending on how bleary-eyed I am, whether the sun is shining in from the window-seat of sleepy-guy on the left and so on without having to sacrifice detail on PDFs and manual pages and so on.
But it is all designed for CRTs. With LCDs, Apple remains the one manufacturer to continue selling the same-size chunky pixels. Resolution independence will bring us nothing unless they actually give us more DPI to display this glory on.
Is there any word at all?
THANKS!
Greg
I'm not sure they would make more money. The R&D costs become higher. You have to now supply an unconceivable amount of drivers and need work out compatibility issues for thousands instead of 5 machines.
When you say cheaper, are saying a lower introductory machine, or a cheaper machine at the current configuration level. If it's the latter, then you haven't done any price comparisons in the last few years.
The biggest problem with Apple willy-nilly selling its OS to OEMs and DIYs is the complete lack of quality that will ensue. The day Apple decides to run on any X86 (which it won't) is the day that I move away from OS X. Windows can't have the same interaction between the hardware and OS like OS X can because MS has deliberately spread itself to thin to make the quick buck.
Apple didn't bend to OEMs begging to get out from under the Windows crutch back when Apple was faltering so why do you think Apple will do it now when it is thriving?
Apple could create a version of Leopard that works on pc's that uses windows drivers and what not. And by cheaper i mean that if you were to compare a pc to a mac and put the same configurations the mac would be a few hundred dollars more, and that few hundred dollars more can mean the difference between someone who's buying a new computer. If apple was to make the pc leopard and companies were to use it on pc's apple would still be making money off the software and more people would be using the mac os. for example dells are very inexpensive, of course depending on the model you get. but let's say you get a cheap-o pc from dell, and you could get mac os on it, it'd be less expensive and people who can't really afford the more high end technology would get the dell rather than the mac.
Apple could create a version of Leopard that works on pc's that uses windows drivers and what not.
That makes no sense. Drivers have to be tailored to each OS. Or haven't you noticed that WinXP drivers don't work with Win98 or Win2k (and vice versa)? If Microsoft can't get drivers to operate over different versions of their own OS, what makes you think Apple can?
Hi all.
The one that that I am waiting and hoping for... and I don't much care whether it pushes me towards a MacBook or a MacBook Pro is higher DPI to take advantage of resolution independence.
Is this only me? We've been promised resolution independence for 2-3 years now. What I would like to do with it is to have 15" macbook or pro, with the resolution of a 17" macbook pro.
I travel. On airplaces. The 17" isn't even legal carry-on in many places now, let alone practical in coach. But I need lots of screen real-estate. Resolution independence should allow me to vary the zoom factors of different things independently depending on how bleary-eyed I am, whether the sun is shining in from the window-seat of sleepy-guy on the left and so on without having to sacrifice detail on PDFs and manual pages and so on.
But it is all designed for CRTs. With LCDs, Apple remains the one manufacturer to continue selling the same-size chunky pixels. Resolution independence will bring us nothing unless they actually give us more DPI to display this glory on.
Is there any word at all?
THANKS!
Greg
There's a misunderstanding of RI.
Some people seem to think it requires even greater rez than now, but it doesn't.
RI isn't going to be used to make on-screen iobjects, or text, smaller. If it were, then a higher rez would be required.
But, it's going to be used to make the on-screen objects, and type, larger. Anything sized for the normal sized rez will simply be scaled up smoothly. Type will be larger, icons will be larger, and so on.
The idea, for example, would be to make the menu bar larger. Do we need higher rez to be able to do that? No, we don't.
I'm not saying that going to 150 ppi wouldn't be nice, but higher than that, FOR THIS PURPOSE, isn't required. I say for this purpose, because some people feel that going as high as 200 ppi would be good for them. So be it. If that's what they think they need, ok.
But, it's only when one makes an object, or text, SMALLER on screen, that a higher rez is needed.
You can easily see that now. Type in a large text size, then type the same thing in increasingly smaller sizes. The larger sizes will have much better detail, and smoothness, than the smaller sizes. The screen rez is the same, of course.
That's the equivelant of RI, where you are increasing the size of the interface to see small details more easily.
If you were going the other way, then I would agree.
With LCDs, Apple remains the one manufacturer to continue selling the same-size chunky pixels. Resolution independence will bring us nothing unless they actually give us more DPI to display this glory on.
Is there any word at all?
It's never been stated. I don't think they will offer it until Leopard. I wouldn't consider a higher dpi display until res independence is available and properly working. It is in Tiger but it's not really well supported, and is turned off by default.
There's a misunderstanding of RI.
Some people seem to think it requires even greater rez than now, but it doesn't.
RI isn't going to be used to make on-screen iobjects, or text, smaller. If it were, then a higher rez would be required.
But, it's going to be used to make the on-screen objects, and type, larger. Anything sized for the normal sized rez will simply be scaled up smoothly. Type will be larger, icons will be larger, and so on.
The idea, for example, would be to make the menu bar larger. Do we need higher rez to be able to do that? No, we don't.
I'm not saying that going to 150 ppi wouldn't be nice, but higher than that, FOR THIS PURPOSE, isn't required. I say for this purpose, because some people feel that going as high as 200 ppi would be good for them. So be it. If that's what they think they need, ok.
But, it's only when one makes an object, or text, SMALLER on screen, that a higher rez is needed.
You can easily see that now. Type in a large text size, then type the same thing in increasingly smaller sizes. The larger sizes will have much better detail, and smoothness, than the smaller sizes. The screen rez is the same, of course.
That's the equivelant of RI, where you are increasing the size of the interface to see small details more easily.
If you were going the other way, then I would agree.
as i see it the main benefit of resolution independence when it comes to pro machines is being able to have higher rez screens but still leaving the ui elements the same size. but higher rez screens would make everything sharper to the eye. so while you don't need ri to make things smaller, you do need them to keep things the same physical size but with a higher resolution. this is good for sharpness and for the ability to work in palette-heavy applications in a more flexible way.
as i see it the main benefit of resolution independence when it comes to pro machines is being able to have higher rez screens but still leaving the ui elements the same size. but higher rez screens would make everything sharper to the eye. so while you don't need ri to make things smaller, you do need them to keep things the same physical size but with a higher resolution. this is good for sharpness and for the ability to work in palette-heavy applications in a more flexible way.
That's not what most people would use it for. The idea is to make it easier to read when larger, hi rez screens, like the ones that are out now, are used by people who have problems with the elements that are already so small.
You're talking about those people who I mentioned who would like to see higher rez screens anyway.
I certainly wouldn't want to make text sizes smaller in pallets than they are now. They are already too small in Compressor.
Companies can arrange their pallets any way they want to. The idea is to simplify them, not to add more stuff. Make them more contextually relevant.
I have no problem with the rez on my monitor now. But, this is another argument altogether.
because it will be smaller and lighter for transportation (eg to and from work or abroad).
i actually like the idea of an external dvd drive and heres why:
i hardly ever use disks, most programs are downloaded (legally of course), so are my mp3's (again, its legal, honest!), the only thing i do use are dvd movies, and burning disks. if i move truly digital and rip all my dvd's to the hard drive, then it will all be inside and i will rarely need to use an optical drive.
Not everybody needs the dvd drive all the time, but just about everybody would like to have longer battery life. That's why the 13, 15 and 17 inch Apple laptops should have a multipurpose drive bay. So if you don't need to use the dvd drive, you can remove it and replace it with either a second battery or a second hard drive. And if Apple can make these design changes without severely impacting the the size and weight of the laptop, then I don't see why they shouldn't.
And when are the 15 and 17 inch MacBook Pros getting the magnetic display latch and user replaceable hard drive?
The keyboard is (very) cumbersome, it's not practical to have more than one window/application open since the screen is tiny and low res. If the resolution were any smaller, I think I might need a magnifying glass. It's been enough on my eyes working on this all morning, let alone a 30 hr. flight to singapore.
So, i'm thinking of the true usability of a machine like this. I mean, could probably fit this in my shirt, or in a backpack/purse, etc. It would definitely fit in on an airline tray-table. But I'd be curious to see what it can run...email, web browsing, online othello....and thats probably about it. And not simultaneously without a mouse (but that will NOT fit on an airline tray-table...unless i'm flying 1st class). But then again, raise your hand if you often need to open photoshop and finalcut while on a plane. If you do, you probably have Steve Jobs' personal number anyways.
Not to mention, this thing isn't cheap. The model i'm running costs $1500. (http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c...DAD8E72CF6FD61) so Lenovo probably doesn't push a whole ton of these. You could convince me that it's profitable, but i have my doubts. What will apple charge for this thing? $1950? Idk that apple has a name with businesses anyways, or that they'd be willing to switch....IT people train the firm in document management, etc. on the same operating system that the secretaries have at home/learned at community college. PC wears a suit and can play fun lawyer games like "calculator" and someone at the firm today even commented "why the hell do I have a media player on my computer?"
And finally, I think an apple ultra-portable would hurt the apple name with students. As a student, I have one computer, so it needs to be good. I cannot imagine owning this as my only computer. It's not meant for that anyways. Apple could really break the market with a happy medium....a lighter MB is all with a removable optical drive. Everyone wants a lighter computer, so start there. This thinkpad may as well come with a stylus, leave me to associate this glorified Sidekick with Windows! (In fact...maybe it WOULD be better if I just typed with my thumbs)
So if Apple wants to break into the market of people who are rich as $h!t and fly around the world every day, be my guest. But please don't even think of selling this to a student or a processing power-hungry photographer.
Benny
B
I didnt really have an idea of what ultra-portable meant until today at work. I'm an intern at a law firm, and i'm working on a project for this attorney. He whips out this tiny-ass centrino-duo IBM thinkpad. No optical drive, no hulk terrabite HD, the top of the clamshell is maybe the width of a pencil. It's pretty sweet. But then I think to myself, would I really want this as my home computer, or a main computer? The answer is NO.
And that's exactly what an ultraportable is. It's not intended to be your main computer. It's for road warriors or for plugging in to the monitor/keyboard when back at home/the office.
I didnt really have an idea of what ultra-portable meant until today at work. I'm an intern at a law firm, and i'm working on a project for this attorney. He whips out this tiny-ass centrino-duo IBM thinkpad. No optical drive, no hulk terrabite HD, the top of the clamshell is maybe the width of a pencil. It's pretty sweet. But then I think to myself, would I really want this as my home computer, or a main computer? The answer is NO.
For one, some have internal optical drives.
You don't have to want it or buy it. There is no one size fits all, but lacking an ultraportable is a considerable oversight in Apple's current mobile line-up.
Not to mention, this thing isn't cheap. The model i'm running costs $1500. (http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c...DAD8E72CF6FD61) so Lenovo probably doesn't push a whole ton of these. You could convince me that it's profitable, but i have my doubts. What will apple charge for this thing? $1950?
Most of the people I've seen that want one have realistic expectations on the price, being about $2000.
... Apple could really break the market with a happy medium....a lighter MB is all with a removable optical drive. Everyone wants a lighter computer, so start there.
Exactly. A MacBook that is a pound or so lighter and an inch or so smaller is all that's needed. Ultra portables are for a niche market and I doubt very many would sell, except to those who can afford a different computer for every need.
Exactly. A MacBook that is a pound or so lighter and an inch or so smaller is all that's needed. Ultra portables are for a niche market and I doubt very many would sell, except to those who can afford a different computer for every need.
The MBs are already 1.08" while the MBPs are 1.00". Or do you mean that the MB should be .08" and MBP the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper.
As for the niche market, Apple's increase in sales?doubling in the past 3 years?may warrant an sub-notebook class. Percentage-wise doesn't matter, but if Apple can sell as many of these theoretical sub-notebooks as it did their most popular PowerBook just 4 or 5 years ago then it will a sweeping success for Apple.
Exactly. A MacBook that is a pound or so lighter and an inch or so smaller is all that's needed. Ultra portables are for a niche market and I doubt very many would sell, except to those who can afford a different computer for every need.
So just make the MacBook lighter.
That still doesn't take away the need for an ultraportable from those that want a smaller laptop.
The MBs are already 1.08" while the MBPs are 1.00". Or do you mean that the MB should be .08" and MBP the thickness of a sheet of notebook paper.
I mean instead of 12.75 inches wide by 8.75 inches deep, reduce the bezel around the display and make it 11.75 inches wide by 7.75 inches deep, smart ass.
If Apple could make dozens of models and keep profits up without wasting R&D money, I'm sure they would. Since Steve Jobs returned, it seems the goal is to minimize the number of models on the market.
I mean instead of 12.75 inches wide by 8.75 inches deep, reduce the bezel around the display and make it 11.75 inches wide by 7.75 inches deep, smart ass.
Here's a question, though. I haven't had a good look at the makeup of the MacBook, but are there parts of the display or other hardware, like wireless antennae, under the bezel at all? If so, then Apple would probably have to totally redesign the MacBook, which can really cost a lot to get just right...