Last Active
  • Everything we know about the redesigned MacBook Air with M2 processor

    Xed said:
    amarkap said:
    charlesn said:
    I would be interested in what Apple feels is the current and future audience for the MBAirs.  Is it evolving?  
    A true heir to the Air's intention would be an M-series MacBook 12", with the same number of ports as the current M-Air. At a weight of just two pounds, and a slightly smaller form factor, I think it was the best general-use laptop that Apple ever created, and now it could finally have the horsepower and ports it was lacking. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, and what we'll get is a great general use laptop that carries on the magic and intention of the Air in name only. 
    I'm not sure what a good use case would be for the 12" laptop other than being cute and, of course, being able to slip into and out of a mailing envelop.  I don't think anyone misses the 12" but I suppose there are a few fans such as yourself.  I have the 2020 Macbook Air and it is quite honestly the most gorgeous piece of hardware I have ever owned.  It is the perfect size.  I'm not a fan of macOS because I'm a Windows guy...but still I can't stop using it and it is my daily "going-to-bed-with" driver (ha ha...I watch Netflix and Disney Plus on it mostly before going to sleep).  Again, not too big or too small...just perfect in size and weight. 

    Anyway, for you and other MacBook 12" fans I will hope Apple will add that form factor to their line up...who knows it may be saved for a future "Just One more Thing" reveal.
    I loved my 12" PowerBook Pro, but that was back when the 4:3 aspect ratio was in use. That was over 70 sq inches of display area. To move to 12.1" with a 16:10 display would be knocking 7% off the display area, which is significant.
    I think modern office automation apps, web browsers and multitasking workflows have made 12" laptops untenable. Eg, MS Outlook makes full use of my MBP15, and I wish it is bigger sometimes. Can't imagine what it would be like on a 12" display. There are niche users, like niche users for an iPhone mini, but a 12" display size can not serve as a mass market entrant in Apple's lineup.

    I had an iBook 12.1" dual USB. It was a great laptop. Played many many hours of Age of Empires on it, used web browsers of the day, but today, it just wouldn't work out. Just have a hard time thinking that it would make a good laptop for today's mass market software. If anything, Apple has to try to get to 14" display sizes for their low end entrant. Rumors are saying 13.6", likely with a notch, so that's good news imo.

    It's not the thinness, it's the lightness. Having it be 0.5" thick isn't as important as having it be 2 lbs. Having it thin is the number 1 way to keep the weight down, but if it was 0.6" thick and 2 lb with a 13.6" display, I think that is a big win.
  • Compared: Apple Studio Display versus Porsche Design AOC Agon Pro monitor

    netrox said:
    What are those things popping out on the sides of the Porsche monitor?
    Those a retractable or stowable hooks for gaming headphones. It's one of the more obvious features that tell people that this is a monitor for gamers and has very little if any overlap with buyers for the Apple Studio display.
  • New Mac mini reference spotted in Studio Display firmware

    tht said:
    A new Mini is, of course, a given. Hopefully it will put an end to those complaining the Pro is too much, and the Studio is too much, but the Mini is not enough.
    I'm in this camp. I would like to have 32 GB RAM and 4 TB storage. I don't need a lot of CPU cores or GPU cores. So a Mac mini with M1 Pro, 32 GB RAM, and 4 TB storage is right up my alley. It would replace my 2013 iMac 27 which has 24 GB RAM and 3 TB of storage.

    Would an M2 based Mac mini offer these features? Who knows. But it's going to be about another 6 months, or Fall of 2022, for it to arrive. Apple could have a shipped an M1 Pro Mac mini last November, and then update a Mac mini to M2 and M2 Pro models a year later. There isn't really any good reason to make people wait, and wait, and wait.
    Other than the fact Apple as a famously small team and they only work on a small number of things at a time. That may be a drag for the Veruca Salt crowd, but this is not new. They aren't making people wait for no "good reason", there is a reason...just not one that aligns with everyone's wishes.

    The usual come back is why don't they hire more people and build bigger teams, but this is a philosophical debate. While not a direct parallel, The Mythical Man Month argues that adding more manpower to engineering orgs doesn't solve problems linearly and can cause more. The agile/lean state of mind doesn't like large teams, and the larger they get the more at risk the carefully maintained, intimate culture becomes. Then you have an org like Dell or Samsung - cranking out tons of variations and SKUs, but completely lost in focus and singular design ethos. Apple has chosen a small product team, w/ limited launches. This strategy seems to be working as they are one of the oldest PC companies in history, make arguably the best PCs, and are financially the most successful. Seems like they know what they're doing.
    It's implicit in our armchair CEO complaints that we have a different product philosophy and different definitions of what constitutes success than Apple's executives. Ie, if we were sitting in a Mac product planning meeting with them, we'd be disagreeing.

    I've been saying for awhile that they really need to get to about 15% PC market share, with at least a strong foothold in another sub-market other than content creation, in order to establish a permanence in the market, similar to what the iPhone, iPad and Watch enjoy. When I say permanence, it means there is very little doubt for getting a Mac or no real barriers for getting a Mac. I don't think the the current product strategy gets them there. To get there, I think they need to expand the product lineup a little more. Not double the number of Macs, but fill in the holes, and there is a lot more software and platform stuff to do than adding a couple of machines.

    Alternatively, you can ask the question yourself, how does Apple get to 15% market share. That's about 10m to 15m Macs per quarter. Would the current product lineup get them there.
  • New Mac mini reference spotted in Studio Display firmware

    entropys said:
    Yes what apple charges for RAM is pretty outrageous.
    Yeah, the 16 GB to 32 GB RAM option in the MBP14/16 is rather huge at $400. The 32 GB to 64 GB RAM option is the same price at $400! You can just feel the upsell radiating from these prices.

    Also goes to show that Apple prices on demand, or value, and not component costs. They know enough people want 32 GB of RAM and not that many want 64 GB; and price accordingly. There is probably a LPDDR5 $/GB uptick due to 64 Gbit to 128 Gbit densities needed to go from 16 GB to 32 GB RAM, but $400 is definitely painful.
  • The Mac Studio isn't the xMac, but it's the closest we've ever been

    crowley said:
    tht said:
    cgWerks said:
    rundhvid said:
    What is going on here?
    • Weight (M1 Max): 5.9 pounds (2.7 kg)2
    • Weight (M1 Ultra): 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg)2
    Huh? I wonder if the Max has less power-supply/cooling/heatsink, etc. than they showed, as it doesn't need them? Interesting.
    The Mac Studio with a M1 Ultra uses a copper heatsink while the Mac Studio with the M1 Max uses an aluminum heatsink. That accounts for the vast majority of the weight difference.

    Kind of disappointing that they resorted to copper. There is still a bit of designing a product from the outside in. So, they choose a Mac mini footprint of 7.7 x 7.x7 inches and very purposefully choose 3.7 inch height before they knew how hot the Ultra was going to be. 3.7 inch is very deliberate because they wanted it to be able to sit underneath a Studio Display. And 7.7 x 7.7 footprint seems sacrosanct because of the Mac mini and the ecosystem developed around it?
    Why is it disappointing that they chose copper?  Copper is a very effective material for cooling.

    The weight of a desktop machine is not of great import.
    Using copper implies they don't have any headroom left in the Mac Studio to cool future, hotter SoCs. If the Mac Studio was longer (deeper), they could have managed with aluminum, leaving copper as solution for components that are hotter in the future. I suppose they still have the noisier higher RPM fans as an option still. As I was saying before, a square footprint is not optimal for a cooling design.