SiTime

I very much miss my MacBook Air 11-inch. For the time, it was a great machine in a tiny form factor. I wish I didn’t sell it all those years ago. Obviously that device is far outclassed in terms… basically everything… nowadays, but I do miss having such a tiny MacBook that I could toss in a similarly-tiny bag and bring with me everywhere. Not that the current 13-inch MacBooks are unwieldy behemoths (13-inch is, of course, fine for portability). But 11-inch is a fantastic size for portability while still being completely-useable.

I wonder… how much would it cost me to buy a good or excellent condition MacBook Air 11-inch (the final model that Apple made)? Wikipedia indicates that the last one was in March 2015. Seems it officially supports up to Monterey and seemingly it is still getting security patches (If I understand correctly the chart on the Wikipedia MacBook Air article page). 

In my above comment, the pricing part of my reply was in response to another user (not Netrox). But that reply was deleted. And… deleted for good reason, I think.

entropys said:

I am not convinced. Apart from being really cool technology, how many people will buy it especially at Apple prices?

For decades people have been paying Apple-like prices for eyewear. That’s nothing new. A tiny bit of metal/plastic and some glass? No way that should actually cost hundreds of dollars.

Luxottica (now EssilorLuxottica after a merger a few years ago) has a near-monopoly over the eyewear market and has near-monopoly pricing power because of it.

Luxottica rant aside… people are already used to paying WAY (!!!) too much for glasses. Paying way too much is all most of us glasses-wearers have ever known. Apple will be fine in that regard, lol. 

Appleish said:

Siri, Show me an iPhone you couldn't pay me to own.

Isn’t that every iPhone? You said previously that you and your family wouldn’t purchase anything more expensive than groceries during the four years of the Trump administration. 

netrox said:

Are they really out of their minds? I cannot fathom how they could in good conscience sell such an inferior USB 2.0 data speed with 60W. I've ordered colorful USB4 cables with full 240W/80GB from Amazon. 

This is simply not acceptable. 

I mean… most iPhone models (everything that is not an iPhone Pro/Pro Max) are limited to USB 2.0 data transfer speeds. And even the iPhone 16 Pro/Pro Max that does support USB 3.0 for data transfer is limited to (if I recall correctly) 30 watts for wired charging. And if you are specifically buying Beats cables to use with Beats products, there are no Beats products that need anything more than USB 2.0/60w. 

You can certainly use USB-C 4.0 cables that support 240 watts for use with your iPhone. You can use a Thunderbolt 5 cable capable of 120GB/s and 240w. But for most iPhone users, USB 2.0 for data and 60 watts is enough (can’t make use of anything more than that).

Don’t get me wrong: I would certainly like a non-Pro iPhone capable of at least USB 3.0 data transfer speed (and charging a little faster as well would be nice). Maybe in September Apple will go with USB 3.0 throughout the entirety of the iPhone 17 lineup. I haven’t heard any such rumors, but let’s all hope.

And in terms of price, these Beats branded cables are actually longer than the Apple branded cables at the same MSRP ($18.99 for a 1.5 meter Beats cable vs. $19.000 for a 1 meter Apple cable). Or $17.50 per 1.5 meter Beats cable if you go for the 2-pack. In terms of Apple Tax accessories, the Beats cables are the better value.