Ports probably wouldn't add much weight but would likely require the machine to be thicker. A bigger HD would require going from a 1.8 version to the 2.5 - I don't see how that could not increase weight and likely size as well. An optical drive would also add size and weight.
I disagree. I really think they would not have increased weight or forced them to enlarge the case. However they save money in material cost (and frankly make it look better) by not including them and I truly believe that was the decision.
What makes you think the pricing would be a lot better? Ultralights are more expensive than regular notebooks.
yeah and they don't sell well because of it. Worst they don't have to be expensive.
Quote:
No it's not. It's possible to be profitable in a niche.
Sure but even Apple has failed trying to make niche markets. That is why this guy gets compared to the Cube. Frankly it looks like jobs making the same mistakes over and over again.
Quote:
But the cost/return is comparable. A car that costs twice as much isn't going to be twice the car. It'll be nicer, have a few gimmicky features, but in all, the diminishing returns takes hold.
I personally wouldn't buy a MBA until they lower the price a few hundred dollars. The premium for the portability is too high in my opinion.
The premium for portability IS high, but therein lies the issue, is it going to be worth it to catch enough buyers, and there is a question of what "enough buyers" means.
I don't think forum goers are representative of the buying public, so the two should not be treated as interchangeable.
yeah and they don't sell well because of it. Worst they don't have to be expensive.
How do you know that they don't have to be expensive? Making components smaller, thinner and lower power consuming requires components that are more expensive to make. Sometimes they require chips that are harder to make because of the fab process needed to make them. For others, like the Air and X61S, it needs to meet a harder-to-come-by "bin" requirement that the chip manages to meet a lower power rating.
This "too expensive" and "underpowered" ultraportable offers performance in the same class as some dual-G5 pro towers that people somehow manage to keep working with. (And not "just surfing.") It's certainly faster than most computers out there in the world that people are using every day for a whole range of things.
I'd agree with the above and that is why I don't have a problem with the processor.
Quote:
It outruns many current Windows notebooks and especially ultraportables. It also has a bigger screen in a smaller volume unit--making it a BETTER ultraportable. (But with fewer ports, a poorer "desktop replacement.")
This size issue is what I do have a problem with. One it takes up more area. Second volume doesn't mean a lot if the most basic of I/O is ignored.
Quote:
And with all that, it's still CHEAPER than many Windows ultraportables. And even cheaper than some high-end mainstream notebooks and desktops--the larger, more powerful ones. People do spend $1800 on a computer sometimes and still make rent. Some of them will find the Air to be a good choice--better than the ultraportables that have come before it.
There are some that likely will find use for an AIR. The problem is I don't see enough of those people laying out the cash to sustain the units production.
Quote:
Mac sales have taken off, notebook sales in general are a huge market, and therefore the mainstream MacBook is a BIG seller. If the Air, released for a smaller (but still important) ultraportable market is coming anywhere close to mainstream MacBook sales at any stores, that's surprising to me.
In the first month or two I'm not surprised at all considering Apple customer base. It is what happens after the honeymoon is over that makes the difference.
Quote:
Now let's start criticizing the iPod Classic because it lacks a touch screen and is selling "poorly" compared to the mainstream Nano Be sure to note that the Classic costs SHOCKINGLY MORE than the Nano, and of course pretend that there's no justification for that. Because, like maximum portability in notebooks, maximum capacity in media players is not the top priority for most buyers. And products should not exist for any group except the majority
Now that is just over the board ignorance. One due to the iPods being a significantly different market. And two you totally dismiss what many are saying here. Which is by the way, that the AIR has a lot of potential but Apple blew it bad with this model and its lack of I/O. I/O by the way that would not of impacted the design of the unit significantly nor the price. The complaints about the high price are largely due to what you are not getting out of AIR not about what it is.
Ahh but you are still missing the point, those trucks still have the basic hardware that allows them to sell well to those that buy them. That is a base of features that modern transportation requires.
You're defining "basic hardware" to be a radio and heater. I consider it the ability to seat four people. Your analogy that any car/truck meets mainstream needs while the air doesn't, doesn't hold up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Everyone as I see the market.
Well I guess since I'm included in "everyone" I've already proven that wrong. People said the same about floppy disks, and yet here we are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
All I'm saying is that the numbers are good for nothing more than marketing. Most users simply won't care and walking into the store they are not going to see and size advantage at all.
Your opinion, the fact that so many have put forth being impressed by the form factor seems to discount your guess of what "most people" think. And people do make notebook buying decisions based on size and weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Acknowledge that it is what physically bigger? I just don't see the advantage of leaving stuff out to reduce weight.
Acknowledge that smaller and ligher is an advantage. You've already made it perfectly clear that you don't find value in that advantage, or consider it worth the tradeoffs, at least you could admit the advantage exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
No it doesn't. At least not in the electronics industry. The whole premise of the modern electronic IC is that smaller is cheaper is more capability.
That's true in the case of a chip, but people aren't buying an individual chip. They're buying a computer, which includes many parts including keyboard, display, IO, storage, cooling, power, etc. Until someone can figure out how to put the monitor and keyboard (and everything else) on a chip, putting together a laptop has design constraints that mean smaller=more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Well if they don't exist it is pretty had to find a machine isn't it. Instead look at something like the ASUS Eee PC and the packaging density they achieved there. Not that I want to imagine an AIR with Eee PC performance just that there is nothing fancy happening with respect to the electronics in AIR.
You just provided your own rebuttal. The Eee has a fraction of the memory, drive space (flash), performance, and a seven inch screen. If anything, it shows that you have to cut corners in a huge way to get drastic size and weight reductions.
If it's really so easy to make a comparable machine for hundreds less (and add ports and other stuff in the process), why isn't some other company doing it? Why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
yeah and they don't sell well because of it. Worst they don't have to be expensive.
If they don't have to be, then why are they expensive? If it was possible to sell an ultraportable for way cheaper, why doesn't some company do it and sell a boatload?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Sure but even Apple has failed trying to make niche markets. That is why this guy gets compared to the Cube. Frankly it looks like jobs making the same mistakes over and over again.
The cube was released in 2000. The apple hifi was another apple flop, and the aTV is a question mark with the new software update. When you look at what the company has done right since 2000, is "making the same mistakes over and over again" really the best way to describe the situation?
I guess to some the MBA has to be the best selling Mac computer ever, if not it's a failure, just because the laptop is not for them, they want it to fail so they can say i told you so but unfortunately for them it won't.
I guess to some the MBA has to be the best selling Mac computer ever, if not it's a failure, just because the laptop is not for them, they want it to fail so they can say i told you so but unfortunately for them it won't.
Absolutely.
To put things in context, apple sold 1.3 million laptops last quarter. Even if air sales are only about 8 percent of all of their laptops sold, that's still 100k units. Which grosses the company upwards of 180 million. Even if they only sell 13 thousand airs (one percent of their laptop sales), that's a gross of 23 million for the company.
What do people think the R&D costs for this unit were to imagine a situation where apple actually loses money on the model? This thing doesn't have to be a huge seller for apple to come out ahead on it, is it really so horrible that apple took a risk with this model?
To put things in context, apple sold 1.3 million laptops last quarter. Even if air sales are only about 8 percent of all of their laptops sold, that's still 100k units. Which grosses the company upwards of 180 million. Even if they only sell 13 thousand airs, that's a gross of 23 million for the company.
What do people think the R&D costs for this unit were to imagine a situation where apple actually loses money on the model? This thing doesn't have to be a huge seller for apple to come out ahead on it, is it really so horrible that apple took a risk with this model?
Yea! at least the sales on the air will pay for their superbowl commercial ... partially
I agree apple not making a lot of money on this will be no big deal. The R&D benefits of this miniaturization will help future products.
Well I'd hardly call starting most threads with "Jobs is a crook, Apple is out to rip you off, and you're all fanboy suckers" fact based, but we enjoy the irony.
You're wack! Show where I've said any of that. I could now call you a LIAR but I'm a nice guy.
Not to mention PC users who come in to check out the air and walk out with a MB or MBP instead - while it's not a sale of the air, it's still an increase in marketshare because of it.
I always find it amusing how people almost always trash the findings made by researchers... funny.
I think what the article was trying to convey is that if the MBA had had a lower price point, a lot more people would be buying it.
Well, duh. If a Ferrari had a lower price point, more people would be buying it, too.
The MBA is priced competitively for the market it is in. It doesn't need to compete on price with the MacBook any more than Ferrari needs to compete on price with a Hyundai.
I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that 1.6 GHz is one of the slower processor speeds out there for a new computer/laptop. As I mentioned above, you can pay less money for a faster Macbook with a minimal increase in actual physical size.
ROTFLMAO. I'll take your bet.
1.6 GHz is one of the FASTEST CPUs in the ultralight segment. The Sony that it is most frequently compared to is 1.0 or 1.2 GHz.
1.6 GHz is one of the FASTEST CPUs in the ultralight segment. The Sony that it is most frequently compared to is 1.0 or 1.2 GHz.
I read on Engadget that Sony is updating their Vaio TZ series to have an option for 1.33GHz C2D. They will also have an option for a 250GB alongside a 64GB SSD, for whatever reason. It also comes in at around $3700.
10. Apple/Steve Jobs is ?dumb/greedy?; the MBA will NEVER sell.
Bottom line is, who am I going to give the benefit of the doubt about what the correct trade-off is between engineering, packaging, marketing and pricing - the guys who created the completely new categories of personal computer and revolutionized the portable music player and the cellphone industry, or the know-it all guys who rant rabidly on Appleinsider forums on how NOBODY will buy it?
Who obviously aren't even successful enough to afford the MBA! I think I'll listen to the successful company of people.
Munster uses statements by independent resellers as Apple employees aren't supposed to talk. The conclusion he draws is that lots of lookers, a good thing, and the MBA buyers are not cannibalizing sales of other models, another very good thing. We are left to imagine who these buyers are, switchers, 12"PB, MB and or MBP etc. uses that have been making do waiting for a light weight to be introduced.
Repeating that most of the people looking aren't buying is not a negative and there is no implication that it is. Attracting interest beyond the target is a positive. It is no surprise that many store personal don't get the pricing model as most of the fan boys don't either. Those that care and want the light well designed laptop enough to pay can generally afford it and might have paid more as evidenced by the apparent popularity of the SSD.
I think Apple has a bona fide hit. Of course it will never come close to the numbers for the MB. It wasn't meant to. I would hazard to guess that most of us using our time to post on this site don't fly 3 or more time a month let alone 3 or more time a week. The number of people who do is huge and if Apple can gain 10, 20, 50% market share in this group of highly networked above average earners they should. These are trendsetters whose influence extends beyond their spending.
I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that 1.6 GHz is one of the slower processor speeds out there for a new computer/laptop. As I mentioned above, you can pay less money for a faster Macbook with a minimal increase in actual physical size.
The first thing you've said is the most important part of your statement. There are ultra-light notebooks with far slower processors and cost $2000 - $3000.
Quote:
My questions:
1.) Wouldn't new MacBooksPros especially a 12' version sell better?
2.) Didn't most people want a tablet at a lower cost instead of this since it's not very powerful?
3.) Are PC people really going to switch for this with all that it's lacking?
- No a 12" MacBookPro would not necessarily sell better. Especially if it were to thick or too heavy.
- The tablet market is going nowhere. What tablet have you heard of that sells well.
- PC people that want a ultra-light yes they will.
To put things in context, apple sold 1.3 million laptops last quarter. Even if air sales are only about 8 percent of all of their laptops sold, that's still 100k units. Which grosses the company upwards of 180 million. Even if they only sell 13 thousand airs (one percent of their laptop sales), that's a gross of 23 million for the company.
What do people think the R&D costs for this unit were to imagine a situation where apple actually loses money on the model? This thing doesn't have to be a huge seller for apple to come out ahead on it, is it really so horrible that apple took a risk with this model?
I plan on getting an MBA in a couple of weeks, I absolutely love the computer, the best looking laptop I've ever seen. I don't know why some people want it to fail, I just can't see the reasoning behind it, what point are you trying to prove, if the MBA isn't for you move on and buy something else, people will always find ways to complain and some people will even go as far as to want the product to fail to it can discontinued, a tad bit selfish. What I've also noticed is the MBA attracts people into the Apple stores who are fascinated by it, they may not buy the MBA but they may buy an Apple product which is good for Apple.
Comments
.
Ports probably wouldn't add much weight but would likely require the machine to be thicker. A bigger HD would require going from a 1.8 version to the 2.5 - I don't see how that could not increase weight and likely size as well. An optical drive would also add size and weight.
I disagree. I really think they would not have increased weight or forced them to enlarge the case. However they save money in material cost (and frankly make it look better) by not including them and I truly believe that was the decision.
They could have gone with the 160GB 1.8" drive - that wouldn't have been as big of a size jump as going with a 2.5" drive.
This is true, but the 160 is a two platter drive and is thicker.
What makes you think the pricing would be a lot better? Ultralights are more expensive than regular notebooks.
yeah and they don't sell well because of it. Worst they don't have to be expensive.
No it's not. It's possible to be profitable in a niche.
Sure but even Apple has failed trying to make niche markets. That is why this guy gets compared to the Cube. Frankly it looks like jobs making the same mistakes over and over again.
But the cost/return is comparable. A car that costs twice as much isn't going to be twice the car. It'll be nicer, have a few gimmicky features, but in all, the diminishing returns takes hold.
I personally wouldn't buy a MBA until they lower the price a few hundred dollars. The premium for the portability is too high in my opinion.
The premium for portability IS high, but therein lies the issue, is it going to be worth it to catch enough buyers, and there is a question of what "enough buyers" means.
I don't think forum goers are representative of the buying public, so the two should not be treated as interchangeable.
yeah and they don't sell well because of it. Worst they don't have to be expensive.
How do you know that they don't have to be expensive? Making components smaller, thinner and lower power consuming requires components that are more expensive to make. Sometimes they require chips that are harder to make because of the fab process needed to make them. For others, like the Air and X61S, it needs to meet a harder-to-come-by "bin" requirement that the chip manages to meet a lower power rating.
This "too expensive" and "underpowered" ultraportable offers performance in the same class as some dual-G5 pro towers that people somehow manage to keep working with. (And not "just surfing.") It's certainly faster than most computers out there in the world that people are using every day for a whole range of things.
I'd agree with the above and that is why I don't have a problem with the processor.
It outruns many current Windows notebooks and especially ultraportables. It also has a bigger screen in a smaller volume unit--making it a BETTER ultraportable. (But with fewer ports, a poorer "desktop replacement.")
This size issue is what I do have a problem with. One it takes up more area. Second volume doesn't mean a lot if the most basic of I/O is ignored.
And with all that, it's still CHEAPER than many Windows ultraportables. And even cheaper than some high-end mainstream notebooks and desktops--the larger, more powerful ones. People do spend $1800 on a computer sometimes and still make rent. Some of them will find the Air to be a good choice--better than the ultraportables that have come before it.
There are some that likely will find use for an AIR. The problem is I don't see enough of those people laying out the cash to sustain the units production.
Mac sales have taken off, notebook sales in general are a huge market, and therefore the mainstream MacBook is a BIG seller. If the Air, released for a smaller (but still important) ultraportable market is coming anywhere close to mainstream MacBook sales at any stores, that's surprising to me.
In the first month or two I'm not surprised at all considering Apple customer base. It is what happens after the honeymoon is over that makes the difference.
Now let's start criticizing the iPod Classic because it lacks a touch screen and is selling "poorly" compared to the mainstream Nano
Now that is just over the board ignorance. One due to the iPods being a significantly different market. And two you totally dismiss what many are saying here. Which is by the way, that the AIR has a lot of potential but Apple blew it bad with this model and its lack of I/O. I/O by the way that would not of impacted the design of the unit significantly nor the price. The complaints about the high price are largely due to what you are not getting out of AIR not about what it is.
Dave
Ahh but you are still missing the point, those trucks still have the basic hardware that allows them to sell well to those that buy them. That is a base of features that modern transportation requires.
You're defining "basic hardware" to be a radio and heater. I consider it the ability to seat four people. Your analogy that any car/truck meets mainstream needs while the air doesn't, doesn't hold up.
Everyone as I see the market.
Well I guess since I'm included in "everyone" I've already proven that wrong. People said the same about floppy disks, and yet here we are.
All I'm saying is that the numbers are good for nothing more than marketing. Most users simply won't care and walking into the store they are not going to see and size advantage at all.
Your opinion, the fact that so many have put forth being impressed by the form factor seems to discount your guess of what "most people" think. And people do make notebook buying decisions based on size and weight.
Acknowledge that it is what physically bigger? I just don't see the advantage of leaving stuff out to reduce weight.
Acknowledge that smaller and ligher is an advantage. You've already made it perfectly clear that you don't find value in that advantage, or consider it worth the tradeoffs, at least you could admit the advantage exists.
No it doesn't. At least not in the electronics industry. The whole premise of the modern electronic IC is that smaller is cheaper is more capability.
That's true in the case of a chip, but people aren't buying an individual chip. They're buying a computer, which includes many parts including keyboard, display, IO, storage, cooling, power, etc. Until someone can figure out how to put the monitor and keyboard (and everything else) on a chip, putting together a laptop has design constraints that mean smaller=more expensive.
Well if they don't exist it is pretty had to find a machine isn't it. Instead look at something like the ASUS Eee PC and the packaging density they achieved there. Not that I want to imagine an AIR with Eee PC performance just that there is nothing fancy happening with respect to the electronics in AIR.
You just provided your own rebuttal. The Eee has a fraction of the memory, drive space (flash), performance, and a seven inch screen. If anything, it shows that you have to cut corners in a huge way to get drastic size and weight reductions.
If it's really so easy to make a comparable machine for hundreds less (and add ports and other stuff in the process), why isn't some other company doing it? Why not?
yeah and they don't sell well because of it. Worst they don't have to be expensive.
If they don't have to be, then why are they expensive? If it was possible to sell an ultraportable for way cheaper, why doesn't some company do it and sell a boatload?
Sure but even Apple has failed trying to make niche markets. That is why this guy gets compared to the Cube. Frankly it looks like jobs making the same mistakes over and over again.
The cube was released in 2000. The apple hifi was another apple flop, and the aTV is a question mark with the new software update. When you look at what the company has done right since 2000, is "making the same mistakes over and over again" really the best way to describe the situation?
I guess to some the MBA has to be the best selling Mac computer ever, if not it's a failure, just because the laptop is not for them, they want it to fail so they can say i told you so but unfortunately for them it won't.
Absolutely.
To put things in context, apple sold 1.3 million laptops last quarter. Even if air sales are only about 8 percent of all of their laptops sold, that's still 100k units. Which grosses the company upwards of 180 million. Even if they only sell 13 thousand airs (one percent of their laptop sales), that's a gross of 23 million for the company.
What do people think the R&D costs for this unit were to imagine a situation where apple actually loses money on the model? This thing doesn't have to be a huge seller for apple to come out ahead on it, is it really so horrible that apple took a risk with this model?
Absolutely.
To put things in context, apple sold 1.3 million laptops last quarter. Even if air sales are only about 8 percent of all of their laptops sold, that's still 100k units. Which grosses the company upwards of 180 million. Even if they only sell 13 thousand airs, that's a gross of 23 million for the company.
What do people think the R&D costs for this unit were to imagine a situation where apple actually loses money on the model? This thing doesn't have to be a huge seller for apple to come out ahead on it, is it really so horrible that apple took a risk with this model?
Yea! at least the sales on the air will pay for their superbowl commercial ... partially
I agree apple not making a lot of money on this will be no big deal. The R&D benefits of this miniaturization will help future products.
1. I own a 1999 BMW Z3.
2. I just bought an AirBook.
See me fit into target demo precisely. -- except that I never visit Starbucks.
I knew I was on to something.
Well I'd hardly call starting most threads with "Jobs is a crook, Apple is out to rip you off, and you're all fanboy suckers" fact based, but we enjoy the irony.
You're wack! Show where I've said any of that. I could now call you a LIAR but I'm a nice guy.
1)
Not to mention PC users who come in to check out the air and walk out with a MB or MBP instead - while it's not a sale of the air, it's still an increase in marketshare because of it.
.
Now that does make sense.
I always find it amusing how people almost always trash the findings made by researchers... funny.
I think what the article was trying to convey is that if the MBA had had a lower price point, a lot more people would be buying it.
Well, duh. If a Ferrari had a lower price point, more people would be buying it, too.
The MBA is priced competitively for the market it is in. It doesn't need to compete on price with the MacBook any more than Ferrari needs to compete on price with a Hyundai.
I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that 1.6 GHz is one of the slower processor speeds out there for a new computer/laptop. As I mentioned above, you can pay less money for a faster Macbook with a minimal increase in actual physical size.
ROTFLMAO. I'll take your bet.
1.6 GHz is one of the FASTEST CPUs in the ultralight segment. The Sony that it is most frequently compared to is 1.0 or 1.2 GHz.
1.6 GHz is one of the FASTEST CPUs in the ultralight segment. The Sony that it is most frequently compared to is 1.0 or 1.2 GHz.
I read on Engadget that Sony is updating their Vaio TZ series to have an option for 1.33GHz C2D. They will also have an option for a 250GB alongside a 64GB SSD, for whatever reason. It also comes in at around $3700.
10. Apple/Steve Jobs is ?dumb/greedy?; the MBA will NEVER sell.
Bottom line is, who am I going to give the benefit of the doubt about what the correct trade-off is between engineering, packaging, marketing and pricing - the guys who created the completely new categories of personal computer and revolutionized the portable music player and the cellphone industry, or the know-it all guys who rant rabidly on Appleinsider forums on how NOBODY will buy it?
Who obviously aren't even successful enough to afford the MBA! I think I'll listen to the successful company of people.
Repeating that most of the people looking aren't buying is not a negative and there is no implication that it is. Attracting interest beyond the target is a positive. It is no surprise that many store personal don't get the pricing model as most of the fan boys don't either. Those that care and want the light well designed laptop enough to pay can generally afford it and might have paid more as evidenced by the apparent popularity of the SSD.
I think Apple has a bona fide hit. Of course it will never come close to the numbers for the MB. It wasn't meant to. I would hazard to guess that most of us using our time to post on this site don't fly 3 or more time a month let alone 3 or more time a week. The number of people who do is huge and if Apple can gain 10, 20, 50% market share in this group of highly networked above average earners they should. These are trendsetters whose influence extends beyond their spending.
I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that 1.6 GHz is one of the slower processor speeds out there for a new computer/laptop. As I mentioned above, you can pay less money for a faster Macbook with a minimal increase in actual physical size.
The first thing you've said is the most important part of your statement. There are ultra-light notebooks with far slower processors and cost $2000 - $3000.
My questions:
1.) Wouldn't new MacBooksPros especially a 12' version sell better?
2.) Didn't most people want a tablet at a lower cost instead of this since it's not very powerful?
3.) Are PC people really going to switch for this with all that it's lacking?
- No a 12" MacBookPro would not necessarily sell better. Especially if it were to thick or too heavy.
- The tablet market is going nowhere. What tablet have you heard of that sells well.
- PC people that want a ultra-light yes they will.
Absolutely.
To put things in context, apple sold 1.3 million laptops last quarter. Even if air sales are only about 8 percent of all of their laptops sold, that's still 100k units. Which grosses the company upwards of 180 million. Even if they only sell 13 thousand airs (one percent of their laptop sales), that's a gross of 23 million for the company.
What do people think the R&D costs for this unit were to imagine a situation where apple actually loses money on the model? This thing doesn't have to be a huge seller for apple to come out ahead on it, is it really so horrible that apple took a risk with this model?
I plan on getting an MBA in a couple of weeks, I absolutely love the computer, the best looking laptop I've ever seen. I don't know why some people want it to fail, I just can't see the reasoning behind it, what point are you trying to prove, if the MBA isn't for you move on and buy something else, people will always find ways to complain and some people will even go as far as to want the product to fail to it can discontinued, a tad bit selfish. What I've also noticed is the MBA attracts people into the Apple stores who are fascinated by it, they may not buy the MBA but they may buy an Apple product which is good for Apple.