I have to admit that I thought there was no point to the iPad Mini and was quite wrong about that one. Yet, my argument would be that the case for a bigger iPad is a weak one. If you're going to go there, the Air makes a whole lot more sense. Th 9.7-inch form factor would be just about perfect were the device in question significantly lighter than the current iPad. A significantly larger tablet would suffer from being about the same in price as the Air yet limited in comparison. A 128GB iPad comes in at $799. A 128GB Air starts at $999 (US). A larger iPad would be quite close in price to the Air, clearly having to cost more than the 9.7-inch unit.
I'd think a 30-40% larger iPad with no other major changes outside of the larger display with increased resolution but with the same PPI, the larger casing in which to place it, and a larger battery to fill up the additional space as well as to account the additional power use for the display could start at $100-180 more which giving Apple their profit margin for what I assume will have a lower economics of scale associated with it. That makes it $599 to $679 to to start.
I do see what you're saying when you match a 128GB of NAND but I can't help but be reminded of the initial anti-iPad arguments that were comparing a $500 laptop with a 12-14" display, higher resolution, faster processor, more RAM, and a much larger storage capacity. Such a large tablet wouldn't be for me (I hardly using my 9.7" iPad 3 as it is) but I think it would be popular with many people, especially if it was there primary computing device and the total weight was at or under the current iPad 4 weight.
Sure, but in no way does that mean Apple will do something radically different just because they can.
I don't understand this mentality. Apple is the master at doing radical. Think about the Mac Pro, the Mini, the AIR, the iPad, the iPhone, the iMac and a bunch of other radical things they have come up with. Sure people take them for granted now but each was radical for the industry.
As previously noted adding 30-40% more pixels to the same size display adds a lot a negatives and no real bonus unless your eyesight is good enough that more than 265 PPI on a 9.7" display that "seeing" the pixels hurts your user experience.
It isn't that simple.
It's just not a very Apple-y route to take. Let's remember that they made statements about how developer guidelines before they had any Retina displays.
Maybe, but I see an issue with the 13" MBP being too close to the 13" MBA for Apple's liking that they would change it up to make the sizing different to help spread it out.
They are vastly different machine though.
Also consider that the 11" MBA is $999 WITHOUT a Retina display so I'm not really sure how a 12" Retina MacBook could be $600 simply by going plastic. Even if they use a slower Core chip that isn't a ULV SFF chip the cost would still likely be over $150 for that chip. The iPad is $500 without the same number of pixels expected here but there is a huge cost reduction in other areas.
I don't see a problem. Don't forget Intel has some very high integration chips coming. As for the screen nobody knows what sort of deal they cut with Sharp. Sharp was close to going under and apparently cut some sort of deal with somebody to survive long enough to get IGZO onto the market.
Finally, consider that it makes more sense to systematically step current products into lower price points since it's like a pyramid shape when it comes to potential buyers. To me this means they would offer no more than $799, $200 less than the current 11" MBA as the next available pricing tier (at the extreme end), but not drop it by $400. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it, but I don't think it's very likely.
There are many factors at work here. One thing that can be agreed upon here is that Apples line up doesn't serve the entire potential customer base out there. Many people simply won't spend a grand on a laptop. Combine that with a bunch of technology converging in 2014 allowing Apple to do a decent machine at a much lower price I don't see a problem. They could do a machine with everything soldered on one board and still have a printed circuit board that is smaller than the one in the MBP.
A point of thought here, if you track the ARM based single board computer market you will see what high integration provides hardware developers. Credit card sized boards are often very impressive as is Apples "A" based solutions. Once Intel starts shipping SoCs with that sort of integration, you will see very powerful computers coming to a shop near you at very good prices.
I'd think a 30-40% larger iPad with no other major changes outside of the larger display with increased resolution but with the same PPI, the larger casing in which to place it, and a larger battery to fill up the additional space as well as to account the additional power use for the display could start at $100-180 more which giving Apple their profit margin for what I assume will have a lower economics of scale associated with it. That makes it $599 to $679 to to start.
I do see what you're saying when you match a 128GB of NAND but I can't help but be reminded of the initial anti-iPad arguments that were comparing a $500 laptop with a 12-14" display, higher resolution, faster processor, more RAM, and a much larger storage capacity. Such a large tablet wouldn't be for me (I hardly using my 9.7" iPad 3 as it is) but I think it would be popular with many people, especially if it was there primary computing device and the total weight was at or under the current iPad 4 weight.
I don't understand this mentality. Apple is the master at doing radical.
When has Apple done something for the sake of doing it without having a clear goal in mind to amaze and profit? What you suggest doesn't have any of those aspects. What you suggest just sounds like the typical 'Step 1: Thow. Step 2: See if sticks to wall. Step 3: Repeat step 1." we see from nearly everyone else. It is that simple because we've seen Apple do 2x on the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, 15" MBP, and 13" MBP without once being "radical" as to negatively affect all developers and customers in more ways than they have to. Even with the MBPs the windowed OS environment means they didn't have to go exactly 2x to create a great high-density display but they did. Are you claiming Appel was boring because they didn't go 1.785304x for the MBP displays but instead thought about how this would work best as a business decision?
For the people that would read and comment on a tech forum our primary device is likely a Mac, but for a great many users and a growing segment of computer users the iPad is their primary device. If they have some form of PC they probably don't use it much because they find the iPad a better choice all around which is why they may think a larger iPad would be even better.
The 12" Air will most likely replace both the 11" and 13" Air.
It will certainly simplify Apple's 2014 product line up:
12" Macbook Air
15" Macbook Air ?
12" Macbook Pro
15" Macbook Pro
Interesting idea.. I see your post, and raise you this:
11" iBook (ARM-based, "unapologetically plastic," running iOS but able to run most general OSX apps)
12" Macbook Air
13" Macbook Pro
14" Macbook Air
15" Macbook Pro
I realize there's no obvious need to line up the screen sizes like that, but it feels right. Although there is no immediate benefit, I think it gives people a little peace of mind when things seem organized, and probably helps reduce the anxiety behind the "paradox of choice."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
OSX is what iOS is under it's graphical front end. It's just the processor and the interface (touch versus Aqua) that's different. It still has the same unix-based underpinnings. From the command line, they both are the same.
Let me elaborate on the MacPad (as I have called it): I believe Apple is working on an iOS-based laptop, like a the Chromebook, but without a mouse. It would run all iOS apps as it would have the A7/A8 processor, and it could either also have a typical desktop filing system or further expand on the iOS system of tightly integrated apps that store their data in a manner consumers don't need to understand. It would be touch-based. It's something beyond what any of us have conceived. It will be more an iPad than a Mac.
However, Apple could really take the iOS system into the future if it could emulate an intel processor and run simple Mac apps. Apple has a great history of transitioning products through emulation from 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel via Rosetta. Today's processors are so damn fast that they can spin their wheels doing emulation and still run apps at what appears to be full-speed. The biggest problem with any app emulation is how to bridge a mouse and keyboard interface of an old app onto a touch device.
You'd need a touchpad. Wow. It's a laptop. It's an iPad. It's both. Or is it?
I don't know how they would handle the screen resolution differences from a Mac app to an iOS app, but Apple already has some screen fragmentation on their phones between the iPhone 4S and the 5s and 5ses (slightly taller). If they choose to go to anything on a future iPad that is not a 2x multiple of 1024x768, they will have to have to find a solution for non-integral display resolutions. This would open the door to ANY app resolution on the iPad (imagine 3840x2160 or 2160p) on a 9.7" iPad scaling to just about any resolution of a Mac app). I'd love to see Apple bring classic Mac OS apps to the iPad through emulation.
I think Apple is working on the "next big thing" and are about to re-redefine the home computing experience. PCs will eventually be dead to consumers. I see only graphics and other professionals, engineers, and scientists using true PCs in the future (5-10 years out). Consumers will use iOS devices for all their home-computing needs. They'll be so simple, ANYONE can use them without knowledge of the OS, file systems, etc. It's a concept Jobs had in the 80s that became reality with the iPad. It will lead to the death of the Macintosh platform for anyone other than those generating new content or writing software.
Eventually, programmers will write iPad apps on an iOS device. That device doesn't exist yet. But it will eventually.
Great points, I've had the same thoughts (minus the technical knowhow). It seems that for most users, the only benefits a "truck" mac provides are higher-performing or more "productive" apps, extra screen real estate for running the apps side by side, and the versatility (albeit confusing to many) of the hierarchical file storage system. Apple can solve all these issues (respectively) with a specially designed ARM SOC, notebook form factor, and integration of an iCloud file system that organizes cross platform files with tags (which is a new feature in Mavericks). For most users it's the best of both worlds, ease of use and familiarity of iOS, security of iOS, but able to run almost all the apps they used on their macs. Apple gets to lower the entry price of their notebook line, while increasing profit margins from the money they're saving on the CPU, GPU, RAM, and manufacturing. It also happens to be something that no other competitor can effectively compete against/copy. Hopefully we'll see this soon.
Frankly I don't see much point in positioning an ultralight laptop between the 11" and 13" Macbook Air or 1 inch below the 13" MBP...Are they going to do 14 inches too? There's just not enough difference.
When has Apple done something for the sake of doing it without having a clear goal in mind to amaze and profit? What you suggest doesn't have any of those aspects. What you suggest just sounds like the typical 'Step 1: Thow. Step 2: See if sticks to wall. Step 3: Repeat step 1." we see from nearly everyone else. It is that simple because we've seen Apple do 2x on the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, 15" MBP, and 13" MBP without once being "radical" as to negatively affect all developers and customers in more ways than they have to. Even with the MBPs the windowed OS environment means they didn't have to go exactly 2x to create a great high-density display but they did. Are you claiming Appel was boring because they didn't go 1.785304x for the MBP displays but instead thought about how this would work best as a business decision?
I hope you don't believe what you wrote!
If you don't think the iPad or things like the iMac weren't radical at their debut then you are simply out of touch with reality.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I hope you don't believe what you wrote!
If you don't think the iPad or things like the iMac weren't radical at their debut then you are simply out of touch with reality.
No, the business side of it was NOT radical. They did not use a RADICAL hexagonal display. They haven't used a curve display. They haven't used quad-core big.LITTLE processor design. They haven't used ANYTHING that would just marketing fluff that in itself would offer no real benefit to users and a hurt the user experience in many other ways as a result. Apple does not do RADICAL in that way!
They means Apple saying 264 PPI isn't good enough because their competitors use higher PPI displays so we're going increase the PPI regardless of how it affects 3rd-party apps, power consumption, or anything else that negatively affects the user experience. They do not that kind of RADICAL. Their RADICAL, if you want to call it that, is taking complexity and making work seamlessly for the end-user so that the user-experience is increased, NOT reduced.
Again, if they are so RADICAL that they would randomly increase the PPI on a 264 PPI iPad then why have they stuck to common thread for so long with the 2x, and even using the same resolution as the iPad 2 for the iPad mini*. If what you claim is accurate they would have made RADICAL changes without any rhyme or reason every time they changed it. THEY ARE NOT A CHEAP ANDROID OEM!!!
* It's also the same PPI as the iPhone 3GS. That is no coincidence. It's systematic.
I think it's pretty brave to say he's wrong given his track record (in the comments not the article).
Apple must be planning to replace the 11" and 13" Air will a single 12" model that is even more insanely thin.
I'd say this is on the money. The 11" and 13" inch models are pretty close in price now anyway. Combining the weight and portability of the 11" model with a (much) better display than the 13" model feels like an upgrade with a lot of upside. I used a 12" PowerBook back in the day. It was a wonderful machine.
i guess it stands for "oh my jesus" but i just really like the sound and i use it often in conversation. usually i say like "oh MY jayyyy" or just plain ol "oh-EM-jayyyy". it just has a nice sound to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, he’s talking about curves, but that doesn’t immediately mean his statement was hyperbolic. ????
Apple will simplify the line up. No more Macbook Air, Just Macbook, and Macbook Pro.
The Macbook Air has been waiting for a Redesign already. Even its internal has shown its age when Anand said there were lots of empty space and room for improvement on its circuit broad. So looks like it is waiting for a remake.
The 12" will merely be, as have already been said and requested a MBA with less Bezel. Doing the same on 13" MBA will results in 14" Macbook as well. My guess is that both Display will feature a PPI of 160+. But Not Retina.
May be Apple will cut the 13" Macbook Pro. With Pro only on 15.5" and Retina only.
All these refresh are coming in with Intel Broadwell, the 14nm shrink of Haswell with even better graphics then Haswell. Speed and Graphics performance will be the same in general. With Power usage being even further reduced.
For the people that would read and comment on a tech forum our primary device is likely a Mac, but for a great many users and a growing segment of computer users the iPad is their primary device. If they have some form of PC they probably don't use it much because they find the iPad a better choice all around which is why they may think a larger iPad would be even better.
They wouldn't be thinking that once they started using it. A 40-percent bigger hand-held device doesn't sound to me like something anyone would be happy with. Too cumbersome, too heavy. Even with technologies allowing for lighter devices, relative to size, you'd still be talking about a device weighing more than the current iPad by a significant amount. No matter what technology you use, a bigger device is a bigger device and can't help but feel less comfortable to hold for any significant length of time. Can't engineer around that.
Once you get to a certain size, might as well tack on a physical keyboard and make setting the device down a built-in feature. Come to think of it, Apple has done just that. It's called the MacBook Air.
The iPad is ideal for casual use. I'm on mine more than my desktop and, yes, I'm sure there are folks whose computing needs are satisfied by a device like the iPad. Yet, offering a compromised tablet that is too large to be used as a tablet comfortably, serves no purpose. If you're doing heavy lifting of any sort, a laptop or even better a desktop is the thing. If you're not doing heavy lifting, what's wrong with the 9.7-inch iPad? They're selling them by the millions and people love using them. If it ain't broke . . .
I think this thread is interesting not because Ming-Chi Kuo is right or wrong about any particular future Apple product that may be in development, but because it's important to consider what Apple does with its laptop line-up.
It makes perfect sense to merge the 11" and 13" MBAs into a single MacBook model. If it has a retina display, the difference between a standard MacBook and Pro model may be only be in name. Why not migrate to a single line-up all with retina screens but with a range of chip options?
If a new 12" MacBook becomes a new benchmark due to its form factor (even thinner design than current MBA and MBPr) then it would be only natural for Apple to extend the design format across other models. This could mean a single range of MacBooks with say 12", 14" and 16" screens. If the 16" models had more powerful chips, they could be priced like existing 'Pro' models. Or, if Apple wants to retain the standard versus pro distinction, maybe the top model in each screen size could be labelled 'Pro'?
I guess it all depends on what we get.
Apple has been working on haptic keyboards for a while. How about a clamshell design with two screen panels? One could be a standard screen; the other could be a haptic keyboard that is customisable according to different programs, languages, functions etc.
If the basic design gets any thinner, we may see the USB and Thunderbolt ports being dropped. Maybe Apple will introduce a new super-thin USB format?
What is certain is that the MacBook Air has been around for a while, is a bit tired and needs to evolve. Second, is that whatever Apple creates, it's going to be a desirable piece of hardware.
Comments
I'd think a 30-40% larger iPad with no other major changes outside of the larger display with increased resolution but with the same PPI, the larger casing in which to place it, and a larger battery to fill up the additional space as well as to account the additional power use for the display could start at $100-180 more which giving Apple their profit margin for what I assume will have a lower economics of scale associated with it. That makes it $599 to $679 to to start.
I do see what you're saying when you match a 128GB of NAND but I can't help but be reminded of the initial anti-iPad arguments that were comparing a $500 laptop with a 12-14" display, higher resolution, faster processor, more RAM, and a much larger storage capacity. Such a large tablet wouldn't be for me (I hardly using my 9.7" iPad 3 as it is) but I think it would be popular with many people, especially if it was there primary computing device and the total weight was at or under the current iPad 4 weight.
There are many factors at work here. One thing that can be agreed upon here is that Apples line up doesn't serve the entire potential customer base out there. Many people simply won't spend a grand on a laptop. Combine that with a bunch of technology converging in 2014 allowing Apple to do a decent machine at a much lower price I don't see a problem. They could do a machine with everything soldered on one board and still have a printed circuit board that is smaller than the one in the MBP.
A point of thought here, if you track the ARM based single board computer market you will see what high integration provides hardware developers. Credit card sized boards are often very impressive as is Apples "A" based solutions. Once Intel starts shipping SoCs with that sort of integration, you will see very powerful computers coming to a shop near you at very good prices.
You lost me at primary computing device.
When has Apple done something for the sake of doing it without having a clear goal in mind to amaze and profit? What you suggest doesn't have any of those aspects. What you suggest just sounds like the typical 'Step 1: Thow. Step 2: See if sticks to wall. Step 3: Repeat step 1." we see from nearly everyone else. It is that simple because we've seen Apple do 2x on the iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, 15" MBP, and 13" MBP without once being "radical" as to negatively affect all developers and customers in more ways than they have to. Even with the MBPs the windowed OS environment means they didn't have to go exactly 2x to create a great high-density display but they did. Are you claiming Appel was boring because they didn't go 1.785304x for the MBP displays but instead thought about how this would work best as a business decision?
For the people that would read and comment on a tech forum our primary device is likely a Mac, but for a great many users and a growing segment of computer users the iPad is their primary device. If they have some form of PC they probably don't use it much because they find the iPad a better choice all around which is why they may think a larger iPad would be even better.
I have fond memories of my sexy 12" Powerbook.
The 12" Air will most likely replace both the 11" and 13" Air.
It will certainly simplify Apple's 2014 product line up:
12" Macbook Air
15" Macbook Air ?
12" Macbook Pro
15" Macbook Pro
Interesting idea.. I see your post, and raise you this:
11" iBook (ARM-based, "unapologetically plastic," running iOS but able to run most general OSX apps)
12" Macbook Air
13" Macbook Pro
14" Macbook Air
15" Macbook Pro
I realize there's no obvious need to line up the screen sizes like that, but it feels right. Although there is no immediate benefit, I think it gives people a little peace of mind when things seem organized, and probably helps reduce the anxiety behind the "paradox of choice."
OSX is what iOS is under it's graphical front end. It's just the processor and the interface (touch versus Aqua) that's different. It still has the same unix-based underpinnings. From the command line, they both are the same.
Let me elaborate on the MacPad (as I have called it): I believe Apple is working on an iOS-based laptop, like a the Chromebook, but without a mouse. It would run all iOS apps as it would have the A7/A8 processor, and it could either also have a typical desktop filing system or further expand on the iOS system of tightly integrated apps that store their data in a manner consumers don't need to understand. It would be touch-based. It's something beyond what any of us have conceived. It will be more an iPad than a Mac.
However, Apple could really take the iOS system into the future if it could emulate an intel processor and run simple Mac apps. Apple has a great history of transitioning products through emulation from 680x0 to PPC and PPC to Intel via Rosetta. Today's processors are so damn fast that they can spin their wheels doing emulation and still run apps at what appears to be full-speed. The biggest problem with any app emulation is how to bridge a mouse and keyboard interface of an old app onto a touch device.
You'd need a touchpad. Wow. It's a laptop. It's an iPad. It's both. Or is it?
I don't know how they would handle the screen resolution differences from a Mac app to an iOS app, but Apple already has some screen fragmentation on their phones between the iPhone 4S and the 5s and 5ses (slightly taller). If they choose to go to anything on a future iPad that is not a 2x multiple of 1024x768, they will have to have to find a solution for non-integral display resolutions. This would open the door to ANY app resolution on the iPad (imagine 3840x2160 or 2160p) on a 9.7" iPad scaling to just about any resolution of a Mac app). I'd love to see Apple bring classic Mac OS apps to the iPad through emulation.
I think Apple is working on the "next big thing" and are about to re-redefine the home computing experience. PCs will eventually be dead to consumers. I see only graphics and other professionals, engineers, and scientists using true PCs in the future (5-10 years out). Consumers will use iOS devices for all their home-computing needs. They'll be so simple, ANYONE can use them without knowledge of the OS, file systems, etc. It's a concept Jobs had in the 80s that became reality with the iPad. It will lead to the death of the Macintosh platform for anyone other than those generating new content or writing software.
Eventually, programmers will write iPad apps on an iOS device. That device doesn't exist yet. But it will eventually.
Great points, I've had the same thoughts (minus the technical knowhow). It seems that for most users, the only benefits a "truck" mac provides are higher-performing or more "productive" apps, extra screen real estate for running the apps side by side, and the versatility (albeit confusing to many) of the hierarchical file storage system. Apple can solve all these issues (respectively) with a specially designed ARM SOC, notebook form factor, and integration of an iCloud file system that organizes cross platform files with tags (which is a new feature in Mavericks). For most users it's the best of both worlds, ease of use and familiarity of iOS, security of iOS, but able to run almost all the apps they used on their macs. Apple gets to lower the entry price of their notebook line, while increasing profit margins from the money they're saving on the CPU, GPU, RAM, and manufacturing. It also happens to be something that no other competitor can effectively compete against/copy. Hopefully we'll see this soon.
If you don't think the iPad or things like the iMac weren't radical at their debut then you are simply out of touch with reality.
No, the business side of it was NOT radical. They did not use a RADICAL hexagonal display. They haven't used a curve display. They haven't used quad-core big.LITTLE processor design. They haven't used ANYTHING that would just marketing fluff that in itself would offer no real benefit to users and a hurt the user experience in many other ways as a result. Apple does not do RADICAL in that way!
They means Apple saying 264 PPI isn't good enough because their competitors use higher PPI displays so we're going increase the PPI regardless of how it affects 3rd-party apps, power consumption, or anything else that negatively affects the user experience. They do not that kind of RADICAL. Their RADICAL, if you want to call it that, is taking complexity and making work seamlessly for the end-user so that the user-experience is increased, NOT reduced.
Again, if they are so RADICAL that they would randomly increase the PPI on a 264 PPI iPad then why have they stuck to common thread for so long with the 2x, and even using the same resolution as the iPad 2 for the iPad mini*. If what you claim is accurate they would have made RADICAL changes without any rhyme or reason every time they changed it. THEY ARE NOT A CHEAP ANDROID OEM!!!
* It's also the same PPI as the iPhone 3GS. That is no coincidence. It's systematic.
I think it's pretty brave to say he's wrong given his track record (in the comments not the article).
Apple must be planning to replace the 11" and 13" Air will a single 12" model that is even more insanely thin.
I'd say this is on the money. The 11" and 13" inch models are pretty close in price now anyway. Combining the weight and portability of the 11" model with a (much) better display than the 13" model feels like an upgrade with a lot of upside. I used a 12" PowerBook back in the day. It was a wonderful machine.
What does “omj” mean, anyway?
i guess it stands for "oh my jesus" but i just really like the sound and i use it often in conversation. usually i say like "oh MY jayyyy" or just plain ol "oh-EM-jayyyy". it just has a nice sound to it.
Yes, he’s talking about curves, but that doesn’t immediately mean his statement was hyperbolic. ????
lol that's actualy pretty funny
www.alerts4it.blogspot.com/2013/10/Microsoft-Office-for-iPad-is-coming-soon-Ballmer.html
Apple will simplify the line up. No more Macbook Air, Just Macbook, and Macbook Pro.
The Macbook Air has been waiting for a Redesign already. Even its internal has shown its age when Anand said there were lots of empty space and room for improvement on its circuit broad. So looks like it is waiting for a remake.
The 12" will merely be, as have already been said and requested a MBA with less Bezel. Doing the same on 13" MBA will results in 14" Macbook as well. My guess is that both Display will feature a PPI of 160+. But Not Retina.
May be Apple will cut the 13" Macbook Pro. With Pro only on 15.5" and Retina only.
All these refresh are coming in with Intel Broadwell, the 14nm shrink of Haswell with even better graphics then Haswell. Speed and Graphics performance will be the same in general. With Power usage being even further reduced.
I thought that the retina was as high as was visible to our eyes? Why go higher unless your in a specs war?
Right on; retina is as high a resolution we humans need.
What Apple needs ASAP is a retina display on the mini iPad.
They wouldn't be thinking that once they started using it. A 40-percent bigger hand-held device doesn't sound to me like something anyone would be happy with. Too cumbersome, too heavy. Even with technologies allowing for lighter devices, relative to size, you'd still be talking about a device weighing more than the current iPad by a significant amount. No matter what technology you use, a bigger device is a bigger device and can't help but feel less comfortable to hold for any significant length of time. Can't engineer around that.
Once you get to a certain size, might as well tack on a physical keyboard and make setting the device down a built-in feature. Come to think of it, Apple has done just that. It's called the MacBook Air.
The iPad is ideal for casual use. I'm on mine more than my desktop and, yes, I'm sure there are folks whose computing needs are satisfied by a device like the iPad. Yet, offering a compromised tablet that is too large to be used as a tablet comfortably, serves no purpose. If you're doing heavy lifting of any sort, a laptop or even better a desktop is the thing. If you're not doing heavy lifting, what's wrong with the 9.7-inch iPad? They're selling them by the millions and people love using them. If it ain't broke . . .
I feel the exact same way!
I think this thread is interesting not because Ming-Chi Kuo is right or wrong about any particular future Apple product that may be in development, but because it's important to consider what Apple does with its laptop line-up.
It makes perfect sense to merge the 11" and 13" MBAs into a single MacBook model. If it has a retina display, the difference between a standard MacBook and Pro model may be only be in name. Why not migrate to a single line-up all with retina screens but with a range of chip options?
If a new 12" MacBook becomes a new benchmark due to its form factor (even thinner design than current MBA and MBPr) then it would be only natural for Apple to extend the design format across other models. This could mean a single range of MacBooks with say 12", 14" and 16" screens. If the 16" models had more powerful chips, they could be priced like existing 'Pro' models. Or, if Apple wants to retain the standard versus pro distinction, maybe the top model in each screen size could be labelled 'Pro'?
I guess it all depends on what we get.
Apple has been working on haptic keyboards for a while. How about a clamshell design with two screen panels? One could be a standard screen; the other could be a haptic keyboard that is customisable according to different programs, languages, functions etc.
If the basic design gets any thinner, we may see the USB and Thunderbolt ports being dropped. Maybe Apple will introduce a new super-thin USB format?
What is certain is that the MacBook Air has been around for a while, is a bit tired and needs to evolve. Second, is that whatever Apple creates, it's going to be a desirable piece of hardware.