Articles like this should be informed enough to know not to compare clock rates of different processor ranges and generations. Comparing the clock rate of a Core M to that of a Core i5 is just plain dumb.
If a lot of people buy the MacBook, making the sacrifice of speed for portability, then that will give Apple confidence that they are but one or two generations away from using their A-series chips in these 'air' style laptops.
This is the first break to test the waters. For what it's worth, I think there is ample room for such a beast in Apple's product matrix. Might be a year or two down the road, but the convergence is titillating.
There'd be new sacrifices that we don't know right now but also new features and bonuses such as being able to run iOS Apps.
Beat me to it, my thoughts exactly! From a market research standpoint, the success of this new MacBook will affect many long-term strategies for Apple, including the viability of A Series chips in ultra thin notebooks.
Depends on WHO the customers are... Is anybody using it as their only computer, or are the customers people who already have an iMac and MacBook Pro at home?
And there still is a performance delta here, where Intel has the advantage.
Sure, but sales-numbers alone seem a poor way of determining whether a computer is successful. And using that measure exclusively Apple is merely a mediocre computer company in an industry ruled by giants like Acer and Asus.
One doesn't need to be a graphics designer or gamer to very quickly run into the apparent limitations of the new MacBook/CoreM. Though there's no doubt that if you only use it for the stuff you'd usually do on an iPad, it's perfectly adequate, though two to three times as expensive.
You're overestimating how much of an impact a 1440*900 (for example) screen would have on the performance. And you'd be left with a slightly lower res screen than the existing MacBook Air, having close to the same weight and a battery life that may be two-three hours longer. I doubt many existing MacBook Air owners would find that a tempting alternative.
Bottom line is: there's no way of putting a retina screen in the MacBook Air without sacrifices somewhere. You'll either have to make it thicker/bigger/heavier, or sacrifice some of the batterylife and/or some of the performance. That might change come Skylake, but it's by no means a certainty.
The biggest problem that everyone seems to ignore when it comes to power usage and performance is HOW LONG the CoreM in the new MacBook is able to run at full throttle.
It is able to run at speeds close to the performance of of the CPU in the 14/15 MacBook Air, but not for very long at a time. After a few minutes at full speed, the fanless CPU gets too hot, and needs to throttle down either the CPU or the GPU or most likely: Both. That leads to constant slowdowns for the user, and a computer that is never able to perform at full speed for any extended period of time, even when the battery isn't a problem and it's hooked up to an outlet. For anybody who intends to multitask on their computer, or intends to use it for anything more than basic web surfing, a MacBook Air is a much better choice if you can/want to have only one computer.
Heck, if you use a MacBook Air as your only computer, even your existing 2012/2013 MacBook Air is a better choice than the MacBook. Or get the 2015 MacBook Air AND an iPad or iPad Mini. It'll cost you the same, and deliver a much better experience in every measure except for design/look.
The MacBook Air CPU has three times the headroom. 15w vs. 5w. That's a huuuge difference. And unlike the passively cooled new MacBook, the fan in the MacBook air means that if you plug into an outlet, it's able to run at full speed on both cores: 1.6 Ghz (and occasional burst of more than 2ghz) all day long if it has to.
The new MacBook however? It'll run at a 1.2 ghz top speed for a few minutes, before the lack of cooling and low headroom means that it needs to shut down a core, throttle down graphics, and/or throttle both cores down to 8-900 MHz in order to stay within its 5 W power budget. And that's where it'll stay the rest of the day, aside from occasional 1.2 ghz bursts of speed by one of the cores, regardless of its plugged in or not.
I'm switching over from a 11" MBA (2010) to the new 12" rMB. The screen is the overriding factor in my decision. I think I can live with the performance difference. I'm willing to trade for the very compact design and fantastic display. All of your negativity does not convince me I'm choosing the wrong computer as my only computer.
But it does compare unfavorably with the Air in everything but esthetics and screen resolution. At least if you're using it for more than a few minutes at a time.
"display is almost solely up to the graphics chip, so that has little to do with the CPU other"
Ehm, the GPU is located on the CPU. And that is the big problem here... They both share the same tiny 5W power envelope, and the same heat envelope. any time the GPU needs a little extra power, it can only come from the CPU. And any time the CPU needs extra power, it can only come from the GPU or from shutting off one of the cores.
The MacBook Air CPU has a 15 W TDP. And if both GPU and CPU needs extra power at the same time, that's not a problem. Power to both of them gets cranked up, and the MacBook Air can always compensate for the extra heat by turning the fan on for a few minutes. Or running it as long as necessary.
The new MacBook is passively cooled. So the only way to regulate how much heat is generated, is to shut down a core or throttle down both CPU and GPU.
What you are describing as "esthetics", others, such as myself see as mobility. Disregard the gold color option, the thin-and-lightness has very real practical value to very many users that has nothing to do with esthetics. Very many people made huge trade-offs buying into iPad not because of OS simplicity or esthetics, but for far, far better mobility.
Like the Apple Watch, this shows the new trend of Apple post-Jobs that is more willing to put its 'No' products in front of the public as well as its 'Yes' products. It's a similar strategy to Google, and certainly helps to keep the street talking, if not exactly buzzing, in the absence of the mega hits to which Apple has become accustomed. The danger, of course, is implosion Google Glass-style.
I can remember when the 'thin is cool' fad began with Motorola's Razr phone in 2004. It was silly then. It's even sillier to see that fad linger on over a decade later. Year after year, the mantra continues: "Thin is the new thin, thin is the new thin...."
Thin in mobile and portable devices is as pointless as those tail fins on early 1960s cars. Once a device is too big for a shirt or coat pocket, we need to carry it around in a bag. And when that's true, being 0.5" thick or 1.5" matters not. What matters is what it can do.
All this hype over thinness distracts from what really matters in a laptop. But then maybe that's the point. Unable or (more likely) unwilling to improve their products in substantial ways, Apple must toot its horn about the new model being 0.05" thiner than the previous one, as if that matters.
Why not include a cellular data option like iPads? Why not add GPS? Why not offer an Extended Life model with a larger battery? Why not include more ports%u2014particularly USB%u2014so we don't have to carry about additional clutter?
And most glaring of all, why not replace that chunky white brick power supply with something far lighter, with something like the tiny and light-weight Dart:
Apple seems to think its typical customer is a vain little peacock obsessed with thin or color and not with functionality. You see that when you look at Apple's line of laptops. Apple used to ship products with more features than their competitors. Now it ships them with less. Even getting more that an inadequate 4 GB of memory has become an extra-cost option.
The world is increasingly busier, more crowded, more urban, and more mobile. Fewer people are plunking down heavy laptops in the front seats of their sedan. They are on subways, buses, trains, or trams, bicycles, scooters or motorcycles, and even walking. They're going across town to grab a bite to eat and have a glass of wine or beer with friends before heading home at 8, 9, or 10pm.
Apple knows this; so thinner and lighter are as important for many people than power. It is a valid criterion for a notebook computer. This new MB will improve my life far more than speed and power.
I will agree that the power adapter is far too large in notebooks, however the new MacBook does ship with a much smaller adapter. If it shipped with the same size adapter as the MBA or MBP you might have a more valid point.
Apple only offers 2 variations of the same type of machine, in this case MacBook and MacBook Air, when the new variation is an amazing concept but not a realistic solution. Like Final Cut X, they left Final Cut 7 until they added the required features, or the old MacBook Air, they waited for specs to increase. With this new MacBook, there aren't enough USB-C solutions and the power to the chip will be a struggle for large photoshop files and multitasking. As soon as the speed and power consumption improve, and accessories increase in number, they'll get rid of the Air. Apple is pushing adoption of a new type of machine. There will be a subset of people that only need the basics and have the money to burn on a fashionably slower laptop, and be the first to go out with a thin, new, gold MacBook. I work in Photoshop, and Final Cut, so I'm aiming for the MacBook Pro.
Like the Apple Watch, this shows the new trend of Apple post-Jobs that is more willing to put its 'No' products in front of the public as well as its 'Yes' products. It's a similar strategy to Google, and certainly helps to keep the street talking, if not exactly buzzing, in the absence of the mega hits to which Apple has become accustomed. The danger, of course, is implosion Google Glass-style.
It'll be interesting to see the reviews.
As noted above, the MBA was Jobs' baby. This new MB ships with 8GB of RAM and 256 GB SSD standard. That is 4X the RAM and 4X the SSD storage of the original 2008 MBA (with a Retina screen!) at almost a third of the price. This is clearly in line with Jobs' prior product development strategy.
Apple only offers 2 variations of the same type of machine, in this case MacBook and MacBook Air, when the new variation is an amazing concept but not a realistic solution. Like Final Cut X, they left Final Cut 7 until they added the required features, or the old MacBook Air, they waited for specs to increase. With this new MacBook, there aren't enough USB-C solutions and the power to the chip will be a struggle for large photoshop files and multitasking. As soon as the speed and power consumption improve, they'll get rid of the Air. There will be a subset of people that only need the basics and have the money to burn on a fashionably slow laptop, and be the first to go out with a thin, new, gold MacBook.
The fact is, many people have extremely overpowered rMBPs that overserve their needs; they'll never use that power on an ECON 101 paper or an iMessage to Granny.
I can remember when the 'thin is cool' fad began with Motorola's Razr phone in 2004. It was silly then. It's even sillier to see that fad linger on over a decade later. Year after year, the mantra continues: "Thin is the new thin, thin is the new thin...."
Thin in mobile and portable devices is as pointless as those tail fins on early 1960s cars. Once a device is too big for a shirt or coat pocket, we need to carry it around in a bag. And when that's true, being 0.5" thick or 1.5" matters not. What matters is what it can do.
All this hype over thinness distracts from what really matters in a laptop. But then maybe that's the point. Unable or (more likely) unwilling to improve their products in substantial ways, Apple must toot its horn about the new model being 0.05" thiner than the previous one, as if that matters.
Why not include a cellular data option like iPads? Why not add GPS? Why not offer an Extended Life model with a larger battery? Why not include more ports%u2014particularly USB%u2014so we don't have to carry about additional clutter?
And most glaring of all, why not replace that chunky white brick power supply with something far lighter, with something like the tiny and light-weight Dart:
Apple seems to think its typical customer is a vain little peacock obsessed with thin or color and not with functionality. You see that when you look at Apple's line of laptops. Apple used to ship products with more features than their competitors. Now it ships them with less. Even getting more that an inadequate 4 GB of memory has become an extra-cost option.
The main reason I'm buying this product as soon as it is released is because of how thin and lite they have made it with a retina display.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way... and Apple knows that.
As noted above, the MBA was Jobs' baby. This new MB ships with 8GB of RAM and 256 GB SSD standard. That is 4X the RAM and 4X the SSD storage of the original 2008 MBA (with a Retina screen!) at almost a third of the price. This is clearly in line with Jobs' prior product development strategy.
Don't forget the SSD was not standard on the original Air. The 64GB SSD was a $999 option, for a $1799 computer.
Personally I expect performance to be adequate. 8GB RAM was a smart move on these, and I still feel OS X's GPU centric model will prove to be an advantage over running Windows on the same hardware.
The no.1 issue I notice among tech-savvy people is they tend to linger on the past/present. People have got to realize that this new MacBook is a forward-thinker: it is not about what it does now; it's about its potential for the future of mainstream computing.
Current evolutionary drawbacks open the gates for revolutionary opportunities.
The puck is the new MacBook, just wait and see.
People complain about the low-res FaceTime camera, the processing power, the USB-C port... Damn it, the first iPad had no cameras and had the processing power of a phone. Didn't stop it from being a revolution. Same with the first iMac and USB ports; same with the MacBook Pros with no optical drive. Connect the dots looking backward and you'll easily see that the MacBook is safely exploring the boundaries of modern computing.
This MacBook's thinness is not just "for looks", nor should the weight reduction be seen as trivial. I currently have 2011 13" MBA that is still humming along, especially after I upgraded the SSD to a 256 Transcend Jet Drive, however my bag is heavy. I'm schlepping a briefcase full of documents and a notebook computer around on subways, crowded streets and in and out of taxis six days a week.
The dramatic difference in thinness and shaving about a pound of weight is extremely compelling, especially as I would be getting ForceTouch and Retina, along with double the RAM and storage while only sacrificing an inch diagonal in screen real estate. This is my dream machine-not everyone's, so I'm pretty psyched.
This is a very compelling machine, especially for professionals like myself that are working primarily with documents, not pixels. Think college students, lawyers, accountants, journalists, professors, executives, doctors of all sorts, real estate agents, etc.
I completely agree with you - and in fact did the same thing with my 2011 13" Air and the 256gb Jet drive. But I switched to traveling with my iPad Air and a keyboard a little more than a year ago, just to save a few pounds in my bag. That being said, the iPad Air is not ideal for size, for my aging eyes, so moving up to a MacBook 12" will help considerably. Of course, if Apple would figure out how to slim down the 15" rMBP, which is what I'm currently running for work (early 2013, 2.7, 16, 500) , I would love the extra size.
You have to realize that speed comparisons happen each year, even though the low end processors of today beat high end processors of two years ago. 4 years ago I was running Lightroom and Photoshop quite happily on a processor slower than this Core M. It's certainly fast enough for the average user'so needs.
I completely agree with you - and in fact did the same thing with my 2011 13" Air and the 256gb Jet drive. But I switched to traveling with my iPad Air and a keyboard a little more than a year ago, just to save a few pounds in my bag. That being said, the iPad Air is not ideal for size, for my aging eyes, so moving up to a MacBook 12" will help considerably. Of course, if Apple would figure out how to slim down the 15" rMBP, which is what I'm currently running for work (early 2013, 2.7, 16, 500) , I would love the extra size.
Personally I expect a MBP refresh within the next year. We'll definitely see an update at WWDC, but it might just be a spec bump. But you can bet the MBP will be going thinner and lighter soon. You might lose the dedicated GPU option however, due to cooling concerns.
Thinner and lighter are a priority in today's market.
Not sure how this isn't obvious. It's only been a major factor in consumer purchasing decisions since even before the iPhone.
Those who don't think it's a factor need only pay attention to iPhone (increasingly thinner and lighter models thereof) sales numbers and consumer satisfaction ratings for several years now... and the rest of the industry that wouldn't know what to do if it weren't for Apple's insistence on pushing thinner and lighter to begin with. The competition has followed suit.
And yes, folks ARE willing to sacrifice some power in the name of thinner and lighter.
I am really getting tired or writers comparing the price of the new MacBook to the entry level Air. I know the processor on the Air is better, but if you spec the Air out the same as the MacBook (8GB RAM, 256GB SSD), the price is then only $100 less for the 11" and the same price for the 13". Throw in the size and the Retina display and the preference will only come down to those features against processor power - at the same price point. So, don't compare a $1,299 to a $899 price tag.
The new MacBook is an iPad with a keyboard, trackpad, and a multi-tasking OS. What's not to love?
A lot of people have iPads but are frustrated when they can't do the work on them that they want to do. The MacBook is perfect for those people. Perfect for people on the move, students, people who mainly use their machines for emailing, writing, facetiming, messaging, and surfing.
Also see this as a gateway product for Apple to move to its own processors in the years ahead. People who mainly use iPads/iPhones now have no need for Intel. When the A series processors can run OS X, or when iOS can allow multiple windows to be open, Apple will be able to sell a lot of Macs running A chips.
Fewer and fewer people need Windows (in Boot Camp or a VM). Fewer and fewer people need or want Office: they're moving on to modern professional apps.
If Apple could offer a choice of similar speed MacBooks tomorrow running either Apple's own chips or Intel's, I'd snap up the Apple-chipped product in a heartbeat.
Maybe in some alternate reality where Microsoft's science fair projects are somehow relevant (or "successful.")
I thought the same thing when I read that. Exactly what metric they're using to suggest the Surface Pro is successful is the real question. Perhaps selling more than 1 unit, makes it successful?
Comments
If a lot of people buy the MacBook, making the sacrifice of speed for portability, then that will give Apple confidence that they are but one or two generations away from using their A-series chips in these 'air' style laptops.
This is the first break to test the waters. For what it's worth, I think there is ample room for such a beast in Apple's product matrix. Might be a year or two down the road, but the convergence is titillating.
There'd be new sacrifices that we don't know right now but also new features and bonuses such as being able to run iOS Apps.
Beat me to it, my thoughts exactly! From a market research standpoint, the success of this new MacBook will affect many long-term strategies for Apple, including the viability of A Series chips in ultra thin notebooks.
I'm switching over from a 11" MBA (2010) to the new 12" rMB. The screen is the overriding factor in my decision. I think I can live with the performance difference. I'm willing to trade for the very compact design and fantastic display. All of your negativity does not convince me I'm choosing the wrong computer as my only computer.
But it does compare unfavorably with the Air in everything but esthetics and screen resolution. At least if you're using it for more than a few minutes at a time.
"display is almost solely up to the graphics chip, so that has little to do with the CPU other"
Ehm, the GPU is located on the CPU. And that is the big problem here... They both share the same tiny 5W power envelope, and the same heat envelope. any time the GPU needs a little extra power, it can only come from the CPU. And any time the CPU needs extra power, it can only come from the GPU or from shutting off one of the cores.
The MacBook Air CPU has a 15 W TDP. And if both GPU and CPU needs extra power at the same time, that's not a problem. Power to both of them gets cranked up, and the MacBook Air can always compensate for the extra heat by turning the fan on for a few minutes. Or running it as long as necessary.
The new MacBook is passively cooled. So the only way to regulate how much heat is generated, is to shut down a core or throttle down both CPU and GPU.
What you are describing as "esthetics", others, such as myself see as mobility. Disregard the gold color option, the thin-and-lightness has very real practical value to very many users that has nothing to do with esthetics. Very many people made huge trade-offs buying into iPad not because of OS simplicity or esthetics, but for far, far better mobility.
Jobs oversaw the air
I can remember when the 'thin is cool' fad began with Motorola's Razr phone in 2004. It was silly then. It's even sillier to see that fad linger on over a decade later. Year after year, the mantra continues: "Thin is the new thin, thin is the new thin...."
Thin in mobile and portable devices is as pointless as those tail fins on early 1960s cars. Once a device is too big for a shirt or coat pocket, we need to carry it around in a bag. And when that's true, being 0.5" thick or 1.5" matters not. What matters is what it can do.
All this hype over thinness distracts from what really matters in a laptop. But then maybe that's the point. Unable or (more likely) unwilling to improve their products in substantial ways, Apple must toot its horn about the new model being 0.05" thiner than the previous one, as if that matters.
Why not include a cellular data option like iPads? Why not add GPS? Why not offer an Extended Life model with a larger battery? Why not include more ports%u2014particularly USB%u2014so we don't have to carry about additional clutter?
And most glaring of all, why not replace that chunky white brick power supply with something far lighter, with something like the tiny and light-weight Dart:
http://finsix.com/dart/
Apple seems to think its typical customer is a vain little peacock obsessed with thin or color and not with functionality. You see that when you look at Apple's line of laptops. Apple used to ship products with more features than their competitors. Now it ships them with less. Even getting more that an inadequate 4 GB of memory has become an extra-cost option.
The world is increasingly busier, more crowded, more urban, and more mobile. Fewer people are plunking down heavy laptops in the front seats of their sedan. They are on subways, buses, trains, or trams, bicycles, scooters or motorcycles, and even walking. They're going across town to grab a bite to eat and have a glass of wine or beer with friends before heading home at 8, 9, or 10pm.
Apple knows this; so thinner and lighter are as important for many people than power. It is a valid criterion for a notebook computer. This new MB will improve my life far more than speed and power.
I will agree that the power adapter is far too large in notebooks, however the new MacBook does ship with a much smaller adapter. If it shipped with the same size adapter as the MBA or MBP you might have a more valid point.
This laptop appears to be a proof of concept.
Like the Apple Watch, this shows the new trend of Apple post-Jobs that is more willing to put its 'No' products in front of the public as well as its 'Yes' products. It's a similar strategy to Google, and certainly helps to keep the street talking, if not exactly buzzing, in the absence of the mega hits to which Apple has become accustomed. The danger, of course, is implosion Google Glass-style.
It'll be interesting to see the reviews.
As noted above, the MBA was Jobs' baby. This new MB ships with 8GB of RAM and 256 GB SSD standard. That is 4X the RAM and 4X the SSD storage of the original 2008 MBA (with a Retina screen!) at almost a third of the price. This is clearly in line with Jobs' prior product development strategy.
Apple only offers 2 variations of the same type of machine, in this case MacBook and MacBook Air, when the new variation is an amazing concept but not a realistic solution. Like Final Cut X, they left Final Cut 7 until they added the required features, or the old MacBook Air, they waited for specs to increase. With this new MacBook, there aren't enough USB-C solutions and the power to the chip will be a struggle for large photoshop files and multitasking. As soon as the speed and power consumption improve, they'll get rid of the Air. There will be a subset of people that only need the basics and have the money to burn on a fashionably slow laptop, and be the first to go out with a thin, new, gold MacBook.
The fact is, many people have extremely overpowered rMBPs that overserve their needs; they'll never use that power on an ECON 101 paper or an iMessage to Granny.
The main reason I'm buying this product as soon as it is released is because of how thin and lite they have made it with a retina display.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way... and Apple knows that.
Don't forget the SSD was not standard on the original Air. The 64GB SSD was a $999 option, for a $1799 computer.
Personally I expect performance to be adequate. 8GB RAM was a smart move on these, and I still feel OS X's GPU centric model will prove to be an advantage over running Windows on the same hardware.
The no.1 issue I notice among tech-savvy people is they tend to linger on the past/present. People have got to realize that this new MacBook is a forward-thinker: it is not about what it does now; it's about its potential for the future of mainstream computing.
Current evolutionary drawbacks open the gates for revolutionary opportunities.
The puck is the new MacBook, just wait and see.
People complain about the low-res FaceTime camera, the processing power, the USB-C port... Damn it, the first iPad had no cameras and had the processing power of a phone. Didn't stop it from being a revolution. Same with the first iMac and USB ports; same with the MacBook Pros with no optical drive. Connect the dots looking backward and you'll easily see that the MacBook is safely exploring the boundaries of modern computing.
This MacBook's thinness is not just "for looks", nor should the weight reduction be seen as trivial. I currently have 2011 13" MBA that is still humming along, especially after I upgraded the SSD to a 256 Transcend Jet Drive, however my bag is heavy. I'm schlepping a briefcase full of documents and a notebook computer around on subways, crowded streets and in and out of taxis six days a week.
The dramatic difference in thinness and shaving about a pound of weight is extremely compelling, especially as I would be getting ForceTouch and Retina, along with double the RAM and storage while only sacrificing an inch diagonal in screen real estate. This is my dream machine-not everyone's, so I'm pretty psyched.
This is a very compelling machine, especially for professionals like myself that are working primarily with documents, not pixels. Think college students, lawyers, accountants, journalists, professors, executives, doctors of all sorts, real estate agents, etc.
I completely agree with you - and in fact did the same thing with my 2011 13" Air and the 256gb Jet drive. But I switched to traveling with my iPad Air and a keyboard a little more than a year ago, just to save a few pounds in my bag. That being said, the iPad Air is not ideal for size, for my aging eyes, so moving up to a MacBook 12" will help considerably. Of course, if Apple would figure out how to slim down the 15" rMBP, which is what I'm currently running for work (early 2013, 2.7, 16, 500) , I would love the extra size.
Personally I expect a MBP refresh within the next year. We'll definitely see an update at WWDC, but it might just be a spec bump. But you can bet the MBP will be going thinner and lighter soon. You might lose the dedicated GPU option however, due to cooling concerns.
The *what* Microsoft Surface?
Maybe in some alternate reality where Microsoft's science fair projects are somehow relevant (or "successful.")
Not sure how this isn't obvious. It's only been a major factor in consumer purchasing decisions since even before the iPhone.
Those who don't think it's a factor need only pay attention to iPhone (increasingly thinner and lighter models thereof) sales numbers and consumer satisfaction ratings for several years now... and the rest of the industry that wouldn't know what to do if it weren't for Apple's insistence on pushing thinner and lighter to begin with. The competition has followed suit.
And yes, folks ARE willing to sacrifice some power in the name of thinner and lighter.
Time to get with reality, folks.
So, don't compare a $1,299 to a $899 price tag.
The new MacBook is an iPad with a keyboard, trackpad, and a multi-tasking OS. What's not to love?
A lot of people have iPads but are frustrated when they can't do the work on them that they want to do. The MacBook is perfect for those people. Perfect for people on the move, students, people who mainly use their machines for emailing, writing, facetiming, messaging, and surfing.
Also see this as a gateway product for Apple to move to its own processors in the years ahead. People who mainly use iPads/iPhones now have no need for Intel. When the A series processors can run OS X, or when iOS can allow multiple windows to be open, Apple will be able to sell a lot of Macs running A chips.
Fewer and fewer people need Windows (in Boot Camp or a VM). Fewer and fewer people need or want Office: they're moving on to modern professional apps.
If Apple could offer a choice of similar speed MacBooks tomorrow running either Apple's own chips or Intel's, I'd snap up the Apple-chipped product in a heartbeat.
The *what* Microsoft Surface?
Maybe in some alternate reality where Microsoft's science fair projects are somehow relevant (or "successful.")
I thought the same thing when I read that. Exactly what metric they're using to suggest the Surface Pro is successful is the real question. Perhaps selling more than 1 unit, makes it successful?