...My gut feeling: Apple's sales volumes are such that Apple can easily request a custom run of any panel they want for negligibly more than an off the shelf. They seem to have things made for them to suit their desires...
I'm not too sure about that. They are already investing heavily in custom displays for iPhone, iPod touch *and* iPad. They've been getting some pressure from analysts due to lower gross profit margins. I think a custom screen for 11" was possibly too much risk/margin cut for them to bear.
I can't think of any reason they would intentionally want a 16:9 screen on the 11".
I saw the 11" MBA in the Apple shop in Enschede today and I was blown away by it. It's a netbook, sure, but other netbooks pale in comparison. It's so thin and so light, with a good screen and a good, usable keyboard. I almost bought it on the spot, but luckily I could restrain myself. ?1000,- is a fair price for it IMO, though it's still a lot of money.
Another thing that struck me again was how enthousiastic the persons who visit the shop were. Clients explain to each other the ins and outs of the machines. So cool! Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the personell and the clients because also the people who work there just radiate 'Apple is fun.' I had a good time there in the Apple shop
I had the same impression. I was surprised by how quick and responsive it felt. I kept looking for some sign that the 1.4Ghz Core 2 Duo was going to disappoint, that Apple had finally made a netbook: a crappy underpowered laptop with a cramped keyboard and tiny display, and I have to say: except for the tiny display, the 11" MacBook Air isn't a netbook. It feels solid, not cheap. The keyboard and trackpad are full sized. I've seen Windows Vista running on 1.6Ghz Sony VAIO P's, and this blows it away. In fact, it's comparable to the speed and responsiveness of top-of-the-line MacBook Pros from a few years ago, when they were still using the Core Duo (derived from the old Pentium III chip). Those first-gen Intel-based MacBook Pros can still run OS X Snow Leopard quite well, so it's no wonder the 11" Air can too, (not to mention that the graphics and memory run are faster on the AIr).
Or, think of it this way: both iPad and MacBook Air run versions of OS X, which itself is a version of NeXTStep--an OS that originally ran on Motorola 68030s and Intel 486s. Surely if the iPad's 1Ghz A4 can run it well, the Air's 1.4Ghz or 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo can too. And it does.
The SSD more than makes up for the lower processor clock speed. This sucker will boot in 15 secs. Resume is instantaneous, like waking an iPad. Go see one for yourself.
Most people seem attracted to the 11" model, but I prefer the 13" model. It feels barely heavier, but still much lighter than the MacBook Pros, which, after handling the Air, feel like they're filled with lead bricks. I just felt after seeing one in the store that the 11" screen was too much of a compromise in screen real-estate. The 11" has a 16:9 screen (unlike the 13" model, which still uses 16:10) which surrenders vertical resolution for extra width. Seriously, for $100 more, the 13" has a larger & higher resolution screen, faster CPU, 2 hours longer battery life and a SD card reader built-in? No-brainer.
I had the same impression. I was surprised by how quick and responsive it felt. I kept looking for some sign that the 1.4Ghz Core 2 Duo was going to disappoint, that Apple had finally made a netbook: a crappy underpowered laptop with a cramped keyboard and tiny display, and I have to say: except for the tiny display, the 11" MacBook Air isn't a netbook. It feels solid, not cheap. The keyboard and trackpad are full sized. I've seen Windows Vista running on 1.6Ghz Sony VAIO P's, and this blows it away. In fact, it's comparable to the speed and responsiveness of top-of-the-line MacBook Pros from a few years ago, when they were still using the Core Duo (derived from the old Pentium III chip). Those first-gen Intel-based MacBook Pros can still run OS X Snow Leopard quite well, so it's no wonder the 11" Air can too, (not to mention that the graphics and memory run are faster on the AIr).
I think this is where some, even long term techy people, will need to stop and reevaluate their definition of netbook. They came into being because Intel made the Atom processor. These cheap little, low-power CPUs, that weren?t very good but at least were x86 compatible. We can call netbooks ultraportables, but just being small and light doesn?t mean they are netbooks.
The CPUs in either MBA costs more than most netbooks and, as you stated, they have full-sized keyboards.
I can?t wait for a site like AnandTech to do a full comparison and review. It?s funny, they will say how top notch the engineering is, how so far above even pricey notebooks the displays on Mac notebooks are, how great the 320M for an IGP, battery life, etc., but then end up forgetting all that when it comes to the CPU and thus conclude that Apple is charging way too much for the machine despite the fact that the CPU price difference between C2D and Core-iX is minor and their obvious knowledge that it?s not the only component of a system. They did that recently testing a 13? MBP as a Windows machine.
But this is a little difference as there are no Core-iX chips that could possibly make sense here and they may be testing it against Atom processors, so we?ll see. Anand does have an interest in highly-portable computing devices so I am sure he bought one immediately.
Quote:
The SSD more than makes up for the lower processor clock speed. This sucker will boot in 15 secs. Resume is instantaneous, like waking an iPad. Go see one for yourself.
FYI: The SSD is a mini-PCIe with Serial-ATA passthrough and the physical dimensions match up with mini-PCIe WiFi card in these systems. What isn?t know is if uses the wonky passthrough that Asus used in the past (whom Apple has had ties with before) or if they are uses mini-PCIe compatible interface standards thus making 3rd-party mini-PCIe SATA SSDs in this shape board an easy task for manufacturers.
The MacBook Air 11.6-inch is great, but a lighter (400 to 600 g) and smaller one (5 to 9 inches) would be even better as an ultra-mobile (inside a bag or purse) and even pocketable Mac. The full Mac always with you!
Went to have a good second look at both machines today. As a current owner of the now old MBA, the new 13 is not quite enough to drive me to upgrade (I did upgrade once from HD to SSD; what a difference!). The 11 is another story. Smaller (less space in my bag), lighter (yes, it does matter) and with a nicer screen and no fiddly USB door and same battery life but better holding power than now. Ordered! Now I just gotta talk one of my friends into buying my old one...
I think this is where some, even long term techy people, will need to stop and reevaluate their definition of netbook. They came into being because Intel made the Atom processor. These cheap little, low-power CPUs, that weren?t very good but at least were x86 compatible. We can call netbooks ultraportables, but just being small and light doesn?t mean they are netbooks.
Well, there's no rigorous dictionary definition, but ASUS made up the term netbook, and their Eee PC 701 was the first one. This weak Linux machine was the epitome of cheap: 7-inch screen, 4Gb of flash storage, instant on, and basic software like a web browser and email client. It wasn't meant to be a general PC, or even to sell in developed countries. Eee PC was meant for the OLPC market--giving internet access to children in poorer countries. The target price was $199. It just happened that during our nice little economic downturn that these cheap laptops seemed to have found a footing in the US market. That was further made possible by Microsoft jumping into this market in order to make sure that their Windows hegemony would not be threatened by Linux netbooks. The need to run Windows on netbooks necessitated bigger hard drives and erased the "limited purpose" for which the original netbooks were created. The result is that more recent netbooks (since 2008) have been cheap, underpowered, general-purpose Windows PCs.
The Eee PCs produced for the OLPC project aren't necessarily ultraportables: they are defined by their cheapness and limited abilities above all other considerations. If they are small and light it's because of the amount of de-contenting ASUS had to make in order to keep costs low, so ultraportability is an incidental side-effect. Products like the Sony VAIO X and the MacBook Air are not in the same league nor built for the same purpose. They were designed to put portability at a premium.
Hence, I take issue with people calling the MacBook Air a "netbook".
They're always worried about all sorts of micromanaging things they've been whipped into thinking by MS. Where files are, how much space they're taking, how many apps are running, how to defrag, how to cleanly uninstall, etc etc. In some ways the simplicity and rationale of the Mac is Apple's own enemy.
You don't really believe this, do you? It has no reality.
I don’t get this line of thinking at all. Who would by a ultra-portable and expect it to have massive internal storage that is found in a notebook or desktop HDD.
As for your comment that these limitations are artificial, OF COURSE THEY ARE. Apple specifically tried to make a light and thin notebook that was highly-portable with decent usage time. If those aspects don’t fit your primary needs then this isn’t the machine for you, plain and simple. Could Apple have halved the battery and stuck in dual 9.5mm 750GB HDDs for a total of 1.5TB storage. Sure, but that doesn’t make any sense.
I think you've completely missed the point. Where you pulled "massive internal storage" and invented numbers like "750GB" and "1.5TB" is unknown. As I look at our posts, I noted a 300GB HDD installed in a MacBook, using 111GB, and wizard69 noted something in the 80 to 90GB area in terms of a loaded drive. Far, far from 1.5TB.
You're putting words into people's mouths and you need to know that's highly unsanitary :-)
When wizard69 talked about artificial limitations, I believe the comment referred to the fact that the 256GB module that Apple sells as an option with the 13" unit looks as though it would fit in the 11" unit. Same footprint, same height, same length, same controller. However, it's not a BTO option, so the storage limitation on the 11" is self-imposed. Putting the 256GB module into the 11" would fit the bill.
Both myself & wizard69 never claimed a need for "massive storage," as you put it. Reasonable storage, yes. Our point was that 64GB & 128GB is not reasonable, and you missed this completely.
I don?t get this line of thinking at all. Who would by a ultra-portable and expect it to have massive internal storage that is found in a notebook or desktop HDD.
.
Most ultraportables have massive internal storage. That is why most people expect it.
I saw the 11" MBA in the Apple shop in Enschede today and I was blown away by it. It's a netbook, sure, but other netbooks pale in comparison. It's so thin and so light, with a good screen and a good, usable keyboard.
It is easily the best netbook ever made. The 11 inch is great. The upgraded model is necessary, for RAM and disk, but in that configuration it could easily be someone's primary computer.
I never really saw the appeal of the 13 in the past. I was prepared to be underwhelmed by the Mini 11. But as soon as I closed the lid and picked it up, I was amazed.
While the specs are weak, they are plenty good enough for the vast majority of tasks. I fired up Jimcarrey.com to test whether it could handle flash, and it did just fine. A little slow, but hell, it's a netbook! Otherwise it handled it fine.
Perhaps this interest is another testament evidenced by the success of the iPad. I.e., a lot of people don't need a full blown computer or use the likes of Photoshop/Illustrator/Final Cut Pro/Lightroom/Aperture/Logic, etc.
.
I think that your premise is flawed, because the Air IS a full blown computer.
It should handle many of the programs you listed with no real problems. It is as powerful as the average workstation used to be not so long ago.
I think that the 64 is too small, but 128 should be OK for most folks if they use an external drive for the big stuff, like massive video libraries. But 128 is enough for most users photos and such.
The iPad is not really in the same league with the Air. It is wholly different category. The Air IS a "full blown computer". The iPad is an accessory appliance.
Mono or stereo, laptop speakers suck. If you care about the sound on the road, use headphones. At home, plug in.
OT: I just bought a tube-type iPod dock to use as my primary computer speakers. It was an old discontinued one I bought for a song, brand new and in the box. It sounds great. I can plug in my iPhone to the dock, or I can use it hooked up to the laptop at my desk. The tubes glow red, and are lit up with blue LEDs. It looks cool and sounds good. And it was cheap
So they should've stuck an Atom CPU there to increase the battery life. Sony's Vaio X series have them and get you up to 10h at the same 11" form factor at almost the price of the new MBAs.
Would you care if it had an Atom over the Core2Duo?
Doesn't the Core2Duo have, well, twice the power of a comparably clocked Atom? Or not?
A dual core processor allows you to do CPU intensive stuff in the background, while seamlessly working in the foreground, doesn't it?
Because for some people, they want something that is ultra portable. They don't need a large display, an optical drive, etc. For those people, a very light and compact 11.6'' will fit their needs better than a 13'' model.
Bingo.
Is it really so confusing that different products have the same price?
The alternative is to be asked "how much do you want to spend?" and then to be steered to the only model in the price range.
The price is less important to Apple customers than other factors. I see the choice between different form factors to be a good thing. I see no problem whatsoever if, for example, higher-end iPads overlap the bottom end Airs which, when decked out, overlap the MBPs.
I think that is a good thing. I doubt that most people will get befuddled by having a choice.
The MacBook Air 11.6-inch is great, but a lighter (400 to 600 g) and smaller one (5 to 9 inches) would be even better as an ultra-mobile (inside a bag or purse) and even pocketable Mac. The full Mac always with you!
If Apple ever gets its shit together WRT voice recognition, that could work great. Maybe they will buy Dragon?
Never mind what the word really means. It is important that it not include the Air, so just use it in that manner and the meme might eventually catch on. At least it might here, in this forum, and it may even become an unassailable shibboleth eventually.
Long explanations with "reasoning" are totally unnecessary. Words and phrases mean whatever the speaker intends. So Netbook cannot include the Air, by definition. Period. End of story.
NetBooks IMO are defined by smaller than full sized keyboards, and slow graphic cars, and usually a very, very slow processor to seal the deal. That's not the Air. And it's definitely not the 13" Air. Most people are buying the 11.6" Air, but I think the 13.3" Air is the better purchase.
Comments
...My gut feeling: Apple's sales volumes are such that Apple can easily request a custom run of any panel they want for negligibly more than an off the shelf. They seem to have things made for them to suit their desires...
I'm not too sure about that. They are already investing heavily in custom displays for iPhone, iPod touch *and* iPad. They've been getting some pressure from analysts due to lower gross profit margins. I think a custom screen for 11" was possibly too much risk/margin cut for them to bear.
I can't think of any reason they would intentionally want a 16:9 screen on the 11".
I saw the 11" MBA in the Apple shop in Enschede today and I was blown away by it. It's a netbook, sure, but other netbooks pale in comparison. It's so thin and so light, with a good screen and a good, usable keyboard. I almost bought it on the spot, but luckily I could restrain myself. ?1000,- is a fair price for it IMO, though it's still a lot of money.
Another thing that struck me again was how enthousiastic the persons who visit the shop were. Clients explain to each other the ins and outs of the machines. So cool! Sometimes it's hard to distinguish the personell and the clients because also the people who work there just radiate 'Apple is fun.' I had a good time there in the Apple shop
I had the same impression. I was surprised by how quick and responsive it felt. I kept looking for some sign that the 1.4Ghz Core 2 Duo was going to disappoint, that Apple had finally made a netbook: a crappy underpowered laptop with a cramped keyboard and tiny display, and I have to say: except for the tiny display, the 11" MacBook Air isn't a netbook. It feels solid, not cheap. The keyboard and trackpad are full sized. I've seen Windows Vista running on 1.6Ghz Sony VAIO P's, and this blows it away. In fact, it's comparable to the speed and responsiveness of top-of-the-line MacBook Pros from a few years ago, when they were still using the Core Duo (derived from the old Pentium III chip). Those first-gen Intel-based MacBook Pros can still run OS X Snow Leopard quite well, so it's no wonder the 11" Air can too, (not to mention that the graphics and memory run are faster on the AIr).
Or, think of it this way: both iPad and MacBook Air run versions of OS X, which itself is a version of NeXTStep--an OS that originally ran on Motorola 68030s and Intel 486s. Surely if the iPad's 1Ghz A4 can run it well, the Air's 1.4Ghz or 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo can too. And it does.
The SSD more than makes up for the lower processor clock speed. This sucker will boot in 15 secs. Resume is instantaneous, like waking an iPad. Go see one for yourself.
Most people seem attracted to the 11" model, but I prefer the 13" model. It feels barely heavier, but still much lighter than the MacBook Pros, which, after handling the Air, feel like they're filled with lead bricks. I just felt after seeing one in the store that the 11" screen was too much of a compromise in screen real-estate. The 11" has a 16:9 screen (unlike the 13" model, which still uses 16:10) which surrenders vertical resolution for extra width. Seriously, for $100 more, the 13" has a larger & higher resolution screen, faster CPU, 2 hours longer battery life and a SD card reader built-in? No-brainer.
I had the same impression. I was surprised by how quick and responsive it felt. I kept looking for some sign that the 1.4Ghz Core 2 Duo was going to disappoint, that Apple had finally made a netbook: a crappy underpowered laptop with a cramped keyboard and tiny display, and I have to say: except for the tiny display, the 11" MacBook Air isn't a netbook. It feels solid, not cheap. The keyboard and trackpad are full sized. I've seen Windows Vista running on 1.6Ghz Sony VAIO P's, and this blows it away. In fact, it's comparable to the speed and responsiveness of top-of-the-line MacBook Pros from a few years ago, when they were still using the Core Duo (derived from the old Pentium III chip). Those first-gen Intel-based MacBook Pros can still run OS X Snow Leopard quite well, so it's no wonder the 11" Air can too, (not to mention that the graphics and memory run are faster on the AIr).
I think this is where some, even long term techy people, will need to stop and reevaluate their definition of netbook. They came into being because Intel made the Atom processor. These cheap little, low-power CPUs, that weren?t very good but at least were x86 compatible. We can call netbooks ultraportables, but just being small and light doesn?t mean they are netbooks.
The CPUs in either MBA costs more than most netbooks and, as you stated, they have full-sized keyboards.
I can?t wait for a site like AnandTech to do a full comparison and review. It?s funny, they will say how top notch the engineering is, how so far above even pricey notebooks the displays on Mac notebooks are, how great the 320M for an IGP, battery life, etc., but then end up forgetting all that when it comes to the CPU and thus conclude that Apple is charging way too much for the machine despite the fact that the CPU price difference between C2D and Core-iX is minor and their obvious knowledge that it?s not the only component of a system. They did that recently testing a 13? MBP as a Windows machine.
But this is a little difference as there are no Core-iX chips that could possibly make sense here and they may be testing it against Atom processors, so we?ll see. Anand does have an interest in highly-portable computing devices so I am sure he bought one immediately.
The SSD more than makes up for the lower processor clock speed. This sucker will boot in 15 secs. Resume is instantaneous, like waking an iPad. Go see one for yourself.
FYI: The SSD is a mini-PCIe with Serial-ATA passthrough and the physical dimensions match up with mini-PCIe WiFi card in these systems. What isn?t know is if uses the wonky passthrough that Asus used in the past (whom Apple has had ties with before) or if they are uses mini-PCIe compatible interface standards thus making 3rd-party mini-PCIe SATA SSDs in this shape board an easy task for manufacturers.
11" MacBook Air: AUDIO: MONO
13" MacBook Air: AUDIO: STERIO
wait, who do you work for? I caught a whiff earlier of the mis-info campaigns rolling out of various competitor bunkers…*
they should teach you guys to spell. honestly…. stereo? Is it that hard?
*(e.g. a 2-post user loudly declaring something completely wrong? usually a dead give-away)
I think this is where some, even long term techy people, will need to stop and reevaluate their definition of netbook. They came into being because Intel made the Atom processor. These cheap little, low-power CPUs, that weren?t very good but at least were x86 compatible. We can call netbooks ultraportables, but just being small and light doesn?t mean they are netbooks.
Well, there's no rigorous dictionary definition, but ASUS made up the term netbook, and their Eee PC 701 was the first one. This weak Linux machine was the epitome of cheap: 7-inch screen, 4Gb of flash storage, instant on, and basic software like a web browser and email client. It wasn't meant to be a general PC, or even to sell in developed countries. Eee PC was meant for the OLPC market--giving internet access to children in poorer countries. The target price was $199. It just happened that during our nice little economic downturn that these cheap laptops seemed to have found a footing in the US market. That was further made possible by Microsoft jumping into this market in order to make sure that their Windows hegemony would not be threatened by Linux netbooks. The need to run Windows on netbooks necessitated bigger hard drives and erased the "limited purpose" for which the original netbooks were created. The result is that more recent netbooks (since 2008) have been cheap, underpowered, general-purpose Windows PCs.
The Eee PCs produced for the OLPC project aren't necessarily ultraportables: they are defined by their cheapness and limited abilities above all other considerations. If they are small and light it's because of the amount of de-contenting ASUS had to make in order to keep costs low, so ultraportability is an incidental side-effect. Products like the Sony VAIO X and the MacBook Air are not in the same league nor built for the same purpose. They were designed to put portability at a premium.
Hence, I take issue with people calling the MacBook Air a "netbook".
They're always worried about all sorts of micromanaging things they've been whipped into thinking by MS. Where files are, how much space they're taking, how many apps are running, how to defrag, how to cleanly uninstall, etc etc. In some ways the simplicity and rationale of the Mac is Apple's own enemy.
You don't really believe this, do you? It has no reality.
I don’t get this line of thinking at all. Who would by a ultra-portable and expect it to have massive internal storage that is found in a notebook or desktop HDD.
As for your comment that these limitations are artificial, OF COURSE THEY ARE. Apple specifically tried to make a light and thin notebook that was highly-portable with decent usage time. If those aspects don’t fit your primary needs then this isn’t the machine for you, plain and simple. Could Apple have halved the battery and stuck in dual 9.5mm 750GB HDDs for a total of 1.5TB storage. Sure, but that doesn’t make any sense.
I think you've completely missed the point. Where you pulled "massive internal storage" and invented numbers like "750GB" and "1.5TB" is unknown. As I look at our posts, I noted a 300GB HDD installed in a MacBook, using 111GB, and wizard69 noted something in the 80 to 90GB area in terms of a loaded drive. Far, far from 1.5TB.
You're putting words into people's mouths and you need to know that's highly unsanitary :-)
When wizard69 talked about artificial limitations, I believe the comment referred to the fact that the 256GB module that Apple sells as an option with the 13" unit looks as though it would fit in the 11" unit. Same footprint, same height, same length, same controller. However, it's not a BTO option, so the storage limitation on the 11" is self-imposed. Putting the 256GB module into the 11" would fit the bill.
Both myself & wizard69 never claimed a need for "massive storage," as you put it. Reasonable storage, yes. Our point was that 64GB & 128GB is not reasonable, and you missed this completely.
I don?t get this line of thinking at all. Who would by a ultra-portable and expect it to have massive internal storage that is found in a notebook or desktop HDD.
.
Most ultraportables have massive internal storage. That is why most people expect it.
500 Gigs is not unheard of.
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/colle...e_laptops.html
I saw the 11" MBA in the Apple shop in Enschede today and I was blown away by it. It's a netbook, sure, but other netbooks pale in comparison. It's so thin and so light, with a good screen and a good, usable keyboard.
It is easily the best netbook ever made. The 11 inch is great. The upgraded model is necessary, for RAM and disk, but in that configuration it could easily be someone's primary computer.
I never really saw the appeal of the 13 in the past. I was prepared to be underwhelmed by the Mini 11. But as soon as I closed the lid and picked it up, I was amazed.
While the specs are weak, they are plenty good enough for the vast majority of tasks. I fired up Jimcarrey.com to test whether it could handle flash, and it did just fine. A little slow, but hell, it's a netbook! Otherwise it handled it fine.
Ignore the ethernet talk, I admit that isn't needed.
I was told by the PBTC at the iStore that you can get an ethernet dongle. Was he right?
Perhaps this interest is another testament evidenced by the success of the iPad. I.e., a lot of people don't need a full blown computer or use the likes of Photoshop/Illustrator/Final Cut Pro/Lightroom/Aperture/Logic, etc.
.
I think that your premise is flawed, because the Air IS a full blown computer.
It should handle many of the programs you listed with no real problems. It is as powerful as the average workstation used to be not so long ago.
I think that the 64 is too small, but 128 should be OK for most folks if they use an external drive for the big stuff, like massive video libraries. But 128 is enough for most users photos and such.
The iPad is not really in the same league with the Air. It is wholly different category. The Air IS a "full blown computer". The iPad is an accessory appliance.
11" MacBook Air: AUDIO: MONO
13" MacBook Air: AUDIO: STERIO
Mono or stereo, laptop speakers suck. If you care about the sound on the road, use headphones. At home, plug in.
OT: I just bought a tube-type iPod dock to use as my primary computer speakers. It was an old discontinued one I bought for a song, brand new and in the box. It sounds great. I can plug in my iPhone to the dock, or I can use it hooked up to the laptop at my desk. The tubes glow red, and are lit up with blue LEDs. It looks cool and sounds good. And it was cheap
So they should've stuck an Atom CPU there to increase the battery life. Sony's Vaio X series have them and get you up to 10h at the same 11" form factor at almost the price of the new MBAs.
Would you care if it had an Atom over the Core2Duo?
Doesn't the Core2Duo have, well, twice the power of a comparably clocked Atom? Or not?
A dual core processor allows you to do CPU intensive stuff in the background, while seamlessly working in the foreground, doesn't it?
Because for some people, they want something that is ultra portable. They don't need a large display, an optical drive, etc. For those people, a very light and compact 11.6'' will fit their needs better than a 13'' model.
Bingo.
Is it really so confusing that different products have the same price?
The alternative is to be asked "how much do you want to spend?" and then to be steered to the only model in the price range.
The price is less important to Apple customers than other factors. I see the choice between different form factors to be a good thing. I see no problem whatsoever if, for example, higher-end iPads overlap the bottom end Airs which, when decked out, overlap the MBPs.
I think that is a good thing. I doubt that most people will get befuddled by having a choice.
The MacBook Air 11.6-inch is great, but a lighter (400 to 600 g) and smaller one (5 to 9 inches) would be even better as an ultra-mobile (inside a bag or purse) and even pocketable Mac. The full Mac always with you!
If Apple ever gets its shit together WRT voice recognition, that could work great. Maybe they will buy Dragon?
Well, there's no rigorous dictionary definition,
Never mind what the word really means. It is important that it not include the Air, so just use it in that manner and the meme might eventually catch on. At least it might here, in this forum, and it may even become an unassailable shibboleth eventually.
Long explanations with "reasoning" are totally unnecessary. Words and phrases mean whatever the speaker intends. So Netbook cannot include the Air, by definition. Period. End of story.