Why is the MacBook Air?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    There are several books detailing everything, but the typical PC gamer/"computer geek", even though he knows absolutely nothing about theoretical computer science, compiler design, database theory, microprocessor design, the mathematics of computer graphics, the history of computer graphics, or anything else except what Tomshardware says about the latest "card", hasn't read them.



    Righteous summation. But they're all "experts."
  • Reply 22 of 45
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:

    Now while I will admit they have come down in price (Apple), let me ask you this...the first two macbooks ($1099-1499) had a bench mark of 156% and 186% when Leopard was installed.

    Now, its barely 76%. Why is that? Why is it that apple refuses to put in a $35 dollar part (cheap but great compared to on-board crap) graphic card? Why, why why?



    Because customers don't give a shit about the damn graphics card? And can't tell the difference?
  • Reply 23 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    Because customers don't give a shit about the damn graphics card? And can't tell the difference?



    R U serious? The gaming market is much bigger than the music industry (shows how little you know), its not about these cows that come into the apple store not knowing the difference between RAM and a HD.



    Thats too funny.



    Look it up. Gaming is a multi BILLION dollar business dude.



    As far as MSFT stealing, look up silicon valley, they both stole from a copy company, and SPOTLIGHT was an MSFT idea and APPLE introduced it first, as far as the DOCK, google Y'Z'Dock and you'll see SPOTLIGHT, far before apples dock.



    plllllease.



    Only Apple would think that consumers don't care - in time they will have no choice as the mindless parents and their iMacs will have children that want better gaming machines.
  • Reply 24 of 45
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,224moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post


    The problem here is that what you call "logic" is just your opinion. It's not backed up by any statistics.



    The argument is that logically, a general purpose computer would be more use than a specialized thin computer that is slower with less connectivity. Logically the definition of general purpose means that it satisfies more needs than a specialist device. The MBA is an ultra-portable and I rarely see people with ultra-portables.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post


    And your "separate cultures" thoughts. How amazingly bigoted. First, you lump the largest continent with a complexity of different cultures into "silly game shows, dog meat and Sushi." How condescending is that?



    Not quite, what I said was that in Asian cultures, those things are popular but they are not in Western culture. Similarly, ultra-portables are more popular there than they are here due to different living conditions.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post


    As for -- and I paraphrase here -- Apple being all about you. That's the only thought here that's intellectually honest. You only care about what you want, which is fine. I couldn't agree with you more there.



    Yep, I think everyone is the same way, you already bought two MBAs so they certainly satisfy your needs and I'm sure if they satisfied mine, I'd be saying the same things as you. Unfortunately, I need good graphics and powerful CPUs and would probably buy a 12"/13" MBP at the MBA price. I need a home computer with good graphics and the lowest Mac Pro is still a bit much and the iMac is a no go so the MBP is the closest option.



    A 15" MBP is just too much to lug around between home and work and the MBA isn't powerful enough and I'd buy a MB over a MBA because I wouldn't mind sacrificing weight for extra power and ethernet, optical drive etc.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mtk75


    I'm getting a little tired of seeing the argument that the Air can't be used as a person's main machine.



    I didn't say it couldn't but it's lacking in some essential areas. For me, lack of ethernet (I know there's an adaptor), 1 USB port and firewire is a big problem and I simply couldn't use that machine as a main computer and a lot of people will be the same.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy


    My point has always been that it won't sell. People will buy the iMac instead.



    Isn't one of the main arguments against the xMac that it will kill off the iconic iMac?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy


    If that were really true, the iMac wouldn't be selling.



    The iMac is selling because it's all Apple offer in the mid-range. What other choice do you have if you are in the market for a mid-range priced computer?



    This is why the MBA will sell too. There are people who loved the old 12" powerbooks and have been waiting for Apple to make a 12"/13" MBP. But all they offer in that price range is the MBA so what choice is there? If Apple offered a 2.2GHz MBP with a 8600M GT, DVD burner, ethernet, two USB, FW400 and FW800 at 13" weighing 4.6lbs, would you spend the same amount of money on the MBA with 1.6GHz and X3100 graphics weighing 3lbs? Some people would who value the weight saving but I reckon most people looking for a general purpose computer at that price range would not.
  • Reply 25 of 45
    yamayama Posts: 427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frankiilacomposer View Post


    R U serious? The gaming market is much bigger than the music industry (shows how little you know), its not about these cows that come into the apple store not knowing the difference between RAM and a HD.



    Thats too funny.



    Look it up. Gaming is a multi BILLION dollar business dude.



    Only Apple would think that consumers don't care - in time they will have no choice as the mindless parents and their iMacs will have children that want better gaming machines.



    The majority of multi billion dollar gaming business is made from casual gamers and the console market. The high end PC games market has been a niche market and is currently in decline.



    Look at the list of the best selling games for 2007: It's all console games.



    Compare that to games aimed specifically at the high-end PC gaming crowd: Crysis and UT3 - they both bombed last year.



    I can understand that hardcore gamers would love to have an xMac they could configure to their hearts content, but these people are not in the majority. Furthermore, the hardcore PC gamer/tech crowd are the absolute last people on earth who would ever consider getting a Mac anyway, even if Apple delivered the "perfect" xMac.
  • Reply 26 of 45
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yama View Post




    I can understand that hardcore gamers would love to have an xMac they could configure to their hearts content, but these people are not in the majority. Furthermore, the hardcore PC gamer/tech crowd are the absolute last people on earth who would ever consider getting a Mac anyway, even if Apple delivered the "perfect" xMac.



    Exactly. And neither would any of the gamers on this board calling for an xMac. They would get a PC.
  • Reply 27 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post


    Sorry, I think I missed the part where you showed the proof of that statement. Just ignorance on my part, of course. Could you please give your data that shows that a "12"/13" Macbook Pro would have sold far in excess of the Macbook Air if it was the same price?" Just some numbers to back it up so I'll understand, as I'm slow at this sort of thing without numbers. You know... proof. Data. Facts.



    Passive-aggressive much?
  • Reply 28 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dovetail View Post


    Passive-aggressive much?



    Only when I'm not being aggressive-aggressive.
  • Reply 29 of 45
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mzaslove View Post


    Only when I'm not being aggressive-aggressive.



    A 15-inch MBP for $1999, and supposedly a 12-13 inch MBP for $1799 is going to outsell the Air? Dream on.



    - Customers looking for a Pro notebook will ignore the 12-inch and pay the extra $200 for the 15-inch.



    - Customers looking for a subnotebook will find it too heavy and thick compared to PC subnotebooks, and prefer the Air.



    - There is no market for it. It's essentially saying that customers would pay a $800 premium over the MacBook to get a discrete GPU instead of integrated GPU. As if anybody is going to play games on a 12-inch notebook.
  • Reply 30 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by yama View Post


    The majority of multi billion dollar gaming business is made from casual gamers and the console market. The high end PC games market has been a niche market and is currently in decline.



    Look at the list of the best selling games for 2007: It's all console games.



    Compare that to games aimed specifically at the high-end PC gaming crowd: Crysis and UT3 - they both bombed last year.



    I can understand that hardcore gamers would love to have an xMac they could configure to their hearts content, but these people are not in the majority. Furthermore, the hardcore PC gamer/tech crowd are the absolute last people on earth who would ever consider getting a Mac anyway, even if Apple delivered the "perfect" xMac.





    HOLD on a second...



    First off, the macbook pro plays unreal, xplane, battefield quite well, sure its not directx 10, and the gaming took a hit last year, but that also goes in with weak PC sales.



    Now, lets take a step back. Sure, the mindless consumer and imac don't care, which by the way can play a game if they wanted, not as well as MBP or Macpro, but can play nonetheless.



    Now ask, why is it that apple STILL REFUSES to put in a good or even decent cheap $35 GPU? Its because they think that the pro user will buy this machine and the truth of the matter is the PRO market makes up a small percentage of the user base. If you look at gamin laptops, you can get into unreal 2004/UR3 for under $1000.00, you could also argue its due to battery life, but that would be wrong, the MBP uses a GPU thats under clocked to save battery life, so in theory, they could do it, but won't.



    I have a friend at the Apple store and is asked all the time from college kids that won't buy a macbook pro but want gaming, something you can't do without spending $2000 for a laptop.



    This is a scam from Apple. While the iMac is a good deal, just the fact that Apple really took a hammer to the 1st/2nd gen macbook and brought the benchmarks down from 187% to 76% is proof that apple STILL thinks PROS will buy a macbook. But lets take out the battery factor.



    What about the mini? Why not a X1700? Or cheap ATI? Again, afraid (Apple) that PROS would use it. Again, we don't make up the market share, Apple needs to get a grip and the air at $1799 makes no sense. Sure at $800-1000 maybe, and even then, the battery life stinks. Its selling now but I believe it will go the way of the cube, then you'll see the new macbook pro.



    You watch, as soon as the sales go down, out comes the pro.



    But it still doesn't address that Apple should release something better than the on-board poopy graphics.
  • Reply 31 of 45
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Ah you have now said the two magic words, "decent" and "crappy", always said without fail by the GPU Club.



    It's hysterical - try it sometime. They will ALWAYS say "decent" and "crappy."



    GPU Club Definition of Computer: A Video Card Connected To Whatever Circuits It Needs To Make It Go.
  • Reply 32 of 45
    yamayama Posts: 427member
    Don't forget "poopy" - that's a new one
  • Reply 33 of 45
    Explain something to me, frank. When you say Apple "brought the benchmark down from 187% to 76%"...



    ...what the hell are you talking about? Last time I checked (and I sell the damned things, so I check often), every MacBook update has yielded either equal or increased performance in every field.
  • Reply 34 of 45
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,224moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    neither would any of the gamers on this board calling for an xMac. They would get a PC.



    PCs are ugly and noisy and don't run OS X.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy


    A 15-inch MBP for $1999, and supposedly a 12-13 inch MBP for $1799 is going to outsell the Air? Dream on.



    Maybe not in Asia but I reckon it would in Western countries. In much the same way the XBox 360 outsells the Wii here but it is the opposite in Asia.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy


    - Customers looking for a Pro notebook will ignore the 12-inch and pay the extra $200 for the 15-inch.



    Not necessarily, I would use that $200 to buy a 20" external display.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy


    - Customers looking for a subnotebook will find it too heavy and thick compared to PC subnotebooks, and prefer the Air.



    Perhaps but 4.6lbs vs 3lbs isn't a huge amount to be concerned with. I agree that some would still prefer the Air but there should be the choice and simply let the consumer decide the market instead of Apple.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy


    - There is no market for it. It's essentially saying that customers would pay a $800 premium over the MacBook to get a discrete GPU instead of integrated GPU. As if anybody is going to play games on a 12-inch notebook.



    The GPU isn't just for games. It's also for 3D and motion graphics artists. The 12"/13" MBP would be a big hit with artistic students because it is powerful enough graphically to handle the work while also being portable enough to take to lectures.



    Similarly architects who take 3D designs to clients.
  • Reply 35 of 45
    Took two days away from AI just to return to find the bashers are at it again.



    Don't they have anything better to do with their lives?
  • Reply 36 of 45
    I didn't quite get the MacBook Air when I first saw it, but then it struck me that it was because I was stuck in thinking in conventional ways and wasn't thinking differentLY.



    The concept behind the MacBook Air is this: Wireless N has arrived and with it the speed to do most anything you want wirelessly. The computer itself is a way to view and organise files and interact with applications...it need not be weighed down with a massive hard drive, optical drive or countless ports as these will be accessed via a wireless hub. This wireless hub will have connected to it a large capacity hard drive, optical drives and ports including ethernet etc. Think of a household where everyone has their own MBA...why should each laptop have an optical drive and all these ports when they can all share storage and an optical drive wirelessly off the same hub? By building excess ports and optical drives into each laptop is just creating a redundance or oversupply of technology. When you take your laptop to a friend's place...just jump on their wireless network to access things such as hard drives and optical drives...why weigh the computer down with these?



    With this in mind it occurs to me that there are some very intelligent people at Apple that have correctly predicted (and caused) a future trend in laptop computers, but like their early rejection of the floppy disk that so many people critisised, they are perhaps just too far ahead of the times for people to realise why this is going to be the start of a trend. There will still be a market for the "all-in one" portable and desktop, but it's possible that even the iMac could go along this route. Only time will tell...
  • Reply 37 of 45
    I find that Apple is avoiding the gaming market for a reason, but eventually they will have to make comprimises. When average gamers playing say second life, the sims, Wow, and other casual demand a mild graphics cards the laptop market will change. I've noted that Apple doesn't really appeal to even a casual gamer and there are large markets for them that are untapped (Females anyone? with a iMAc and the Sims??). But I suppose the biggest problem for Apple is OSX. But thats solved now with Bootcamp. MAybe we will see more graphical focus from Apple int he future then?
  • Reply 38 of 45
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post


    ...



    Quoted for truth.
  • Reply 39 of 45
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Karelia View Post


    Explain something to me, frank. When you say Apple "brought the benchmark down from 187% to 76%"...



    ...what the hell are you talking about? Last time I checked (and I sell the damned things, so I check often), every MacBook update has yielded either equal or increased performance in every field.



    1st Macbook OPEN GL TIGER 2.2 156% AUGUST

    2nd Macbook same machine, LEOPARD OPENGL 178%

    Newest Macbook, Leopard new X300, OPENGL 76%, and the other tests are slower dropping the overall score to under 100 whereas BEFORE apple crippled the MACBOOK with X300, it had decent marks.
  • Reply 40 of 45
    Really, because every benchmark I've seen puts the GMA X3100 at a good 25-40% better than the GMA 950.
Sign In or Register to comment.