Apple to Reportedly Launch Thinner MacBook by End of 2015

[madhukar.das]

Was there a mistake in the title?

Everywhere in this article it says the MacBook Air 12" will be coming out by the the end of this year or by the beginning of 2015. Why does the title of this article say, "Apple to Reportedly Launch Thinner MacBook by End of 2015".

I'm without a laptop and have been patiently waiting for the new MacBook Air thinking that it would come out by the Q3 of 2014. If it is really coming out at the end of 2015 and not the beginning of 2015 then I cannot wait.

Can someone please clarify this for me?

 

[a.roden]

4-5 lbs is a chore to pick up? Maybe you should trying hitting the gym once in a while.

Thinner is not better, IMO. Thinner for Apple usually means more locked down and less user upgradeable

I think you'd be surprised how often I hit the gym. I am using the term chore as a relative term; The MBA compared to the RMBP.

 

[Naimfan]

1.5 lbs. makes a big difference in a bag (and your shoulder) when you're already carrying around lots of other stuff. Every ounce of weight, and mm of device dimensions make a difference for portability. It's not a macho thing man.

Flimsy? That's a joke, right? The 13" MBA is consistently rated as the best laptop on the market. See Laptop Magazine as a prime example, a magazine who spends 95% of their time reviewing PCs, yet consistently ranks Apple as the best laptop maker in the world.

First world problem if you're worried about the 8 ounce weight difference from a 13" rMBP to the 13" rMBA.

And the MBA does feel flimsy relative to the MBP. Many here have commented on how it flexes and how it feels like your fingers could punch through the keyboard. You pay attention to reviews? Sorry.

 

[theluggage]

I do not understand Apple continuos obsession with thinner and smaller, isn't it better to have a cooler and a decent GPU for the Pro lines at least?

If you want power, get a brick-thick desktop-replacement PC laptop or a mini-tower PC filled with your choice of generic components. Of course, if you say no to the extended warranty, the finance deal, adware bundle and the $50 Monster HDMI cable, the maker of that PC will take a loss, so don't expect them to develop their own operating system or application suite... Microsoft can survive because they get paid a bit for every Windows PC, plus every Mac user who uses Office or needs Boot Camp/Parallels.

Apple have been relying on "thinner, smaller and stylishly designed" to shift systems at a price they can actually turn a profit on since the launch of the iMac.

Meanwhile, all the interesting CPU development has been focussed on reducing power consumption while increasing performance on laptop-class processors. For serious number-crunching, cloud/grid computing and GPU-based computing are where its at (hence the Mac Pro).

Meanwhile, last I heard, the Mac was selling fairly well considering the way the PC market is tanking, so I guess Apple are doing something right.

I hear Macbook Pro just got on par with PS3 graphics which is sad since PS3 is 2006 technology

...which would be a problem if people bought MacBook Pros for playing first-person shooter games.

Hint: they don't... and 2006 technology is perfectly capable of editing HD video (hell, a Raspberry Pi can play 1080p video) doing 2D graphics, or previewing wireframe 3D models.

 

[Freida]

Sure, it would be nice, but I would settle with a 15" one.

I have 15" and its just too small. Can't get used to it

 

[dmylrea]

all i want is 17" retina MBP.

To go with that 5.5" iPhablet? Big is the new small, right?

 

[Freida]

To go with that 5.5" iPhablet? Big is the new small, right?

no, not at all. I hate the phones getting bigger and bigger. its crazy. To me 4" is the best size ( i still have iphone 4). 4.7 is just big but i might swallow it but 5.5 is insane.

 

[neilford]

I am with you!

no, not at all. I hate the phones getting bigger and bigger. its crazy. To me 4" is the best size ( i still have iphone 4). 4.7 is just big but i might swallow it but 5.5 is insane.

 

[melendezest]

The Macbook Air is configurable to 512GB of flash storage and the Macbook Pro is configurable to 1TB. If you need more than that from a portable you might want to look into some cloud services.

I have my 17 set up with 2 750GB drives in RAID 0. I could have up to 4 TB in it now, if I wanted to.

I have a full backup of my 27in iMac, with room to spare for the rest of the family's photos, videos, etc.

Screw the cloud.

 

[melendezest]

If you want power, get a brick-thick desktop-replacement PC laptop or a mini-tower PC filled with your choice of generic components. Of course, if you say no to the extended warranty, the finance deal, adware bundle and the $50 Monster HDMI cable, the maker of that PC will take a loss, so don't expect them to develop their own operating system or application suite... Microsoft can survive because they get paid a bit for every Windows PC, plus every Mac user who uses Office or needs Boot Camp/Parallels.

Apple have been relying on "thinner, smaller and stylishly designed" to shift systems at a price they can actually turn a profit on since the launch of the iMac.

Meanwhile, all the interesting CPU development has been focussed on reducing power consumption while increasing performance on laptop-class processors. For serious number-crunching, cloud/grid computing and GPU-based computing are where its at (hence the Mac Pro).

Meanwhile, last I heard, the Mac was selling fairly well considering the way the PC market is tanking, so I guess Apple are doing something right.




...which would be a problem if people bought MacBook Pros for playing first-person shooter games.

Hint: they don't... and 2006 technology is perfectly capable of editing HD video (hell, a Raspberry Pi can play 1080p video) doing 2D graphics, or previewing wireframe 3D models.

For what they do, Apple is best. There is really no substitute for OS X. Apple's build quality and attention to detail is second-to-none. That's the real source of their popularity. But the competition is catching up (somewhat).

The problem is that they remove useful lines. I simply cannot replace my 17 with anything that Apple currently has in their lineup. I really can't. They turned every laptop they offer into an ultrabook, even their so-called "pro" line.

We want an Apple product that is still a computer, not an Apple-iance. But alas, I don't see them going back to the way things were, so yes, we have to let it go.

As it is, my 17's got legs, even if it's a 2011. I'll fix it if it breaks, and replace it if it dies (if i can find one). I used a G5 for 7 years, so looks like this'll be the same...

 

[Weerez935]

A thinner air - really? Wow, its both impressive and sad at the same time. Impressive technically wise but sad since they seem to be so obsessed with thinness. I think a better display, i.e., retina would go a long way instead of slimming the laptop down any further.

Now without USB, thunderbolt, or charging ports. You can use remote charge from your friends macbook though.

I love my air but I honestly think that 13 rMBP is small enough for me now.

 

[Cole Slaw]

Apple, enough with the "thinner" crap already.

 

[imageWIS]

Yes, I can see it: Introducing the new Macbook Hair!

Macbook Hair will replace the MBP and the Macbook Receding Hair will replace the MBA.

 

[Gudi]

I begin to understand, why Apple notebooks are so much longer in use than Windows notebooks.
By End of 2015 my MBP will be 5½ years old.

 

[s2mikey]

Apple, enough with the "thinner" crap already.

I have to agree here. My current rMBP is a perfect blend of portability when needed but has the right options, features, and power. Thin, thin, thin....you'd think the super model industry was in charge of the laptop industry. The MacBook Air is the super svelt system in the lineup. Why do they have to go messing with the rMBP too now? Bleh.

 

[MacBH928]

...which would be a problem if people bought MacBook Pros for playing first-person shooter games.

Hint: they don't... and 2006 technology is perfectly capable of editing HD video (hell, a Raspberry Pi can play 1080p video) doing 2D graphics, or previewing wireframe 3D models.

I do not know what your definition of Personal Computer is but as far as I can tell, a computer should be able to run all applications including games. You seem to be making the impression that it does everything except games.

Any way, I am not looking for my macbook pro to run 4K, 3 screen games. When I got my macbook pro in 2008 it was having difficulties running Left 4 Dead on medium settings (not to mention the absolutely crazy heat coming out of the laptop). Don't you think its embarrassing that a $1600 machine will not be able to run a game released in the same year?

What is the difference between the macbook pro and macbook air then if both will be doing browsing and writing emails?

Last I checked Macbook Air can run FCX and Photoshop just fine. If you need more power than that, then as you said get a "brick-thick desktop-replacement PC laptop or a mini-tower PC filled with your choice of generic components."

 

[theluggage]

The problem is that they remove useful lines. I simply cannot replace my 17 with anything that Apple currently has in their lineup. I really can't.

Thing is, if Apple drop a product line that usually means that they weren't selling enough to justify the R&D and tooling-up costs of keeping it up-to-date. PC makers can serve niche markets by bolting together generic components on demand - Apple doesn't make products that way.

As for the beloved 17" - I also have a 17" and its a great machine (and I have no particular need to change it). However, the top-end rMBP seems like a perfectly good replacement/upgrade: I've tried it, and the "scaled" mode (which is still pin-sharp, unlike scaled mode on a non-retina) offers comparable screen "real estate" to the 17" - without the size and weight of the 17". For everything else: USB3 and Thunderbolt are game-changers - there's no longer any need to put anything inside the laptop that you don't always need to carry with you. Yes - I need an Ethernet port (although 802.11ac might change that) but, no, I don't need it on the road - and having it as part of a dock would be perfect. Optical drive? Already gone from my MBP.

3TB of storage in your MBP? Why? Does it make sense to have that much data in fixed drives inside your laptop (Eggs, baskets etc.) when you can have a bunch of 2TB external drives the size of cigarette packets with an interface that supports the full speed of the drive? (not a possibility when you bought your MBP).

 

[Gudi]

I have to agree here. My current rMBP is a perfect blend of portability when needed but has the right options, features, and power. Thin, thin, thin....you'd think the super model industry was in charge of the laptop industry. The MacBook Air is the super svelt system in the lineup. Why do they have to go messing with the rMBP too now? Bleh.

No one is messing with the rMBP. The rMBP is the fat sister of the healthy weight MBA. Because of Retina currently the fat sister is more beautiful than its thinner sibling. What man want is a rMBA – thin and beautiful.

Remind you, these are all just rumors. Apple won't go any thinner unless progress in technology does allow it.

 

[eezacque]

I begin to understand, why Apple notebooks are so much longer in use than Windows notebooks.
By End of 2015 my MBP will be 5½ years old.

And by the end of 2100 it will be 90½ years old? Wow! That is pretty impressive!

My MBP lasted about 4 years, and a replacement logic board lasted less than 1½ year. The Compaq I am using right now must be about 8 years old.

You're extremely lucky if your MBP lasts longer than the Applecare you hopefully bought. It is one lump of glue and solder which cannot be repaired, and slowly burns up because it cannot dissipate its heat...

 

[output555]

End of 2015?

"Apple will launch a thinner MacBook near the end of this year or sometime next year, according to a new report from Digitimes. Citing supply chain sources in Taiwan, the report notes that component production has already begun in small volumes. Apple will also reportedly cease production of the 13-inch non-Retina MacBook Pro by the end of 2014."


Umm, wake up MacRumor Editor, I think you mean by the end of 2014. Major difference here.

 

[theluggage]

What is the difference between the macbook pro and macbook air then if both will be doing browsing and writing emails?

Last I checked Macbook Air can run FCX and Photoshop just fine.

What's your point? If you're only browsing and writing emails then absolutely: you only need an entry-level Air, and yes, it will probably be fine for getting rid of redeye in your iPhone snapshots or preparing your humorous cat videos for YouTube. If you're doing more serious image or video editing, however, then you will appreciate the difference that a quad-core i7 and a better GPU make. Plus, the Pro has a second Thunderbolt/video out & HDMI.

Thing is, a few years ago, an Air-sized laptop would have been struggling with a complicated web page, and if you wanted your cat videos in 720p you'd have been looking for a pro laptop. More and more people are finding that an ultrabook is adequate for their needs.

When I got my macbook pro in 2008 it was having difficulties running Left 4 Dead on medium settings (not to mention the absolutely crazy heat coming out of the laptop). Don't you think its embarrassing that a $1600 machine will not be able to run a game released in the same year?

Why would you expect to run a newly-released 3D game at medium settings on a non-gaming laptop? Those game cater for high-end PC gaming rigs with cooling systems that outweigh your entire laptop. Do you think you'd have more luck with a comparable PC laptop? No - but because the PC market is large enough, and based on generic components, you have the choice of a "gaming" laptop that can accommodate a desktop class CPU & GPU (but don't actually try and run one of those on your lap unless you've got asbestos pants).

My 2011 MBP doesn't break a sweat at Portal 2 or Minecraft - and a modern rMBP would do even better - so its not that the rMBP can't play games per se it's just not wonderful for a particular class of GPU-heavy PC "Gamer's games" (which probably don't run on MacOS anyhow).

 

[MacSince1990]

I'm guessing you either had kids, got married, became the president, or did some combination of the three.

Lol none of the above, just absurdly high T levels and the wrong gene. Although a receding hairline in your mid-20s isn't really very unusual.

Perhaps they'll combine the rMBP 13' with the MBA. They're quite similar in the bottom models, especially considering that the 13' MBP doesn't have a GPU.

I guess, yeah. I've kind of wondered what the hell the point of the 13" MBP is. It's still dual-core and its turbo speeds are barely above the Air meaning it probably doesn't perform much better.

----------

Don't you think its embarrassing that a $1600 machine will not be able to run a game released in the same year?

No. Laptops have never had the GPU power to run current games.

All right, by "never", I mean within the last twelve years or so since GPUs went from relatively low-power chips requiring not much if any more power than normal CPUs, to requiring absurd amounts of power (300W+ being common).

Since the early '00s no mobile graphics card, save ridiculous rigs in super thick desktop replacements, have been capable of running the latest game on high, and in some cases even medium settings. This is simply because of the power and heat constraints that laptops have.

 

[melendezest]

Thing is, if Apple drop a product line that usually means that they weren't selling enough to justify the R&D and tooling-up costs of keeping it up-to-date. PC makers can serve niche markets by bolting together generic components on demand - Apple doesn't make products that way.

As for the beloved 17" - I also have a 17" and its a great machine (and I have no particular need to change it). However, the top-end rMBP seems like a perfectly good replacement/upgrade: I've tried it, and the "scaled" mode (which is still pin-sharp, unlike scaled mode on a non-retina) offers comparable screen "real estate" to the 17" - without the size and weight of the 17". For everything else: USB3 and Thunderbolt are game-changers - there's no longer any need to put anything inside the laptop that you don't always need to carry with you. Yes - I need an Ethernet port (although 802.11ac might change that) but, no, I don't need it on the road - and having it as part of a dock would be perfect. Optical drive? Already gone from my MBP.

3TB of storage in your MBP? Why? Does it make sense to have that much data in fixed drives inside your laptop (Eggs, baskets etc.) when you can have a bunch of 2TB external drives the size of cigarette packets with an interface that supports the full speed of the drive? (not a possibility when you bought your MBP).

Well, there shouldn't be too much R&D an tooling to keep the 17 updated. All it really needed was USB 3, and the typical speed bumps they get. However, I can see how it may have made sense if sales weren't there. I don't really know the numbers, so I can only speculate. But they sold it for 10 years. I have a hard time believed it declined that much.

That said, the 17 is what I consider to be Apple's best. It has it all, power, portability, expandability, and flexibility. There is still nothing like it on the market. It really is unique, which is probably why used ones can fetch up to $3,000 out there.

Now, as to why the 17 vs the new, well, everything:

1. The screen. I'm sorry, but a smaller yet sharp screen is not a substitute. The difference is obvious and apparent. My last visit to the Apple Store for repair confirmed it. EVERYONE that walked past my 17 when sitting next to the other MBPs was like: "Whoa!" or "Wow!" or "That screen is huge!"

2. Massive storage. Why 3TB inside? For the same reason they sell drives that big and put them in other models like the iMac. And the same reason why a 16GB iPhone is ridiculous. Some people need the space. I for one backup an iMac with my MBP. 15 Years of apps, photos, videos, music, and documents for a family of 6 take up A LOT of space. I simply cannot replace my 17 with, well, anything out there.

3. Expandability & flexibility. The Expresscard slot gives me access to devices and ports that the others can't, and it's built in. I don't have to carry dongles of any kind. Grab and go and I have everything I could possibly need. The ability to swap drives at will gives my computer longevity, as I can select different RAID modes based on my preferences (and available capacity).

So, to me it seems like Apple is lately targeting the young, single, self-centered hipster professional that has not accumulated enough "life experience", to whom everything is disposable, and trends matter more than substance.

A MBAir or MBP are very much single-user devices, like the iPad is. The 17 is a desktop replacement. Not for everybody, but irreplaceable for those who appreciate it attributes. Like me.

 

[kingtj]

Used to own a 17" myself ....

And for a while, I thought just like you. But as someone else on here commented, I finally gave the latest 15" retina MBP a good look and realized it really was a usable replacement.

Just because the machine is physically larger doesn't mean it's actually better as a desktop replacement. Since Apple hasn't upgraded it in a while, it's simply inferior in video GPU and CPU power to the Retinas.

The type of RAM used in a new Retina MBP is faster than what the 17" MBP took, too. So it's not just USB 3 that's missing.

I really liked the idea of having 17" of screen space, but the sharpness of the 15" Retina really does make up for it better than I had expected. Is it nice having everything drawn across the screen a bit larger at a given resolution? Sure -- but the 2" of space lost with the new models also makes for a more portable machine you can slip into a more reasonably sized laptop carrying bag. It didn't take me long to adjust to the change in screen space and realize the 15" Retina was still VERY viewable while still fitting what I needed on one screen.

I don't think you can judge the 17" superior simply by the amazed reactions of random people in the Apple store seeing it next to the models they're used to seeing? As much as anything, that may just be people thinking, "Wow... that Macbook Pro sure is a lot bigger than anything else here. I bet that's a *really* powerful system to be that size?!" They might be a lot less impressed if they could compare all of the specs.

Well, there shouldn't be too much R&D an tooling to keep the 17 updated. All it really needed was USB 3, and the typical speed bumps they get. However, I can see how it may have made sense if sales weren't there. I don't really know the numbers, so I can only speculate. But they sold it for 10 years. I have a hard time believed it declined that much.

That said, the 17 is what I consider to be Apple's best. It has it all, power, portability, expandability, and flexibility. There is still nothing like it on the market. It really is unique, which is probably why used ones can fetch up to $3,000 out there.

Now, as to why the 17 vs the new, well, everything:

1. The screen. I'm sorry, but a smaller yet sharp screen is not a substitute. The difference is obvious and apparent. My last visit to the Apple Store for repair confirmed it. EVERYONE that walked past my 17 when sitting next to the other MBPs was like: "Whoa!" or "Wow!" or "That screen is huge!"

2. Massive storage. Why 3TB inside? For the same reason they sell drives that big and put them in other models like the iMac. And the same reason why a 16GB iPhone is ridiculous. Some people need the space. I for one backup an iMac with my MBP. 15 Years of apps, photos, videos, music, and documents for a family of 6 take up A LOT of space. I simply cannot replace my 17 with, well, anything out there.

3. Expandability & flexibility. The Expresscard slot gives me access to devices and ports that the others can't, and it's built in. I don't have to carry dongles of any kind. Grab and go and I have everything I could possibly need. The ability to swap drives at will gives my computer longevity, as I can select different RAID modes based on my preferences (and available capacity).

So, to me it seems like Apple is lately targeting the young, single, self-centered hipster professional that has not accumulated enough "life experience", to whom everything is disposable, and trends matter more than substance.

A MBAir or MBP are very much single-user devices, like the iPad is. The 17 is a desktop replacement. Not for everybody, but irreplaceable for those who appreciate it attributes. Like me.

 

[melendezest]

And for a while, I thought just like you. But as someone else on here commented, I finally gave the latest 15" retina MBP a good look and realized it really was a usable replacement.

Just because the machine is physically larger doesn't mean it's actually better as a desktop replacement. Since Apple hasn't upgraded it in a while, it's simply inferior in video GPU and CPU power to the Retinas.

The type of RAM used in a new Retina MBP is faster than what the 17" MBP took, too. So it's not just USB 3 that's missing.

I really liked the idea of having 17" of screen space, but the sharpness of the 15" Retina really does make up for it better than I had expected. Is it nice having everything drawn across the screen a bit larger at a given resolution? Sure -- but the 2" of space lost with the new models also makes for a more portable machine you can slip into a more reasonably sized laptop carrying bag. It didn't take me long to adjust to the change in screen space and realize the 15" Retina was still VERY viewable while still fitting what I needed on one screen.

I don't think you can judge the 17" superior simply by the amazed reactions of random people in the Apple store seeing it next to the models they're used to seeing? As much as anything, that may just be people thinking, "Wow... that Macbook Pro sure is a lot bigger than anything else here. I bet that's a *really* powerful system to be that size?!" They might be a lot less impressed if they could compare all of the specs.

Well, the Retinas are not a viable replacement for me, based on the list I posted previously. I A/B'd the machines, side by side. For me, there's still no comparison. The Retina takes stuff away from the 17 that I still use. Until the criteria I prefer is offered by the Retinas, I'm hanging with the larger.

And I guess you had to be there in the Apple Store with me. A lot of people were impressed with the 17's screen, particularly since I had it next to a 15" Retina. That says something.

Now, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd like to see someone A/B a maxed out Retina 15 and a top-of-the-line 17" with 2 SSDs in RAID 0. Until then, I can't really know how much faster a Retina is, and everything is pure conjecture.

Portability is not a concern for me; 1-inch thick (thin?) and 6.6lbs is both light and sexy in my book still for such a large screened device.

So, this debate is moot, really. It's like trying to convince a Note 3 lover to downsize to an iPhone 4s, or vice-versa. For some, bigger is better. For others, not so much.

Apple has sided with the latter, unfortunately, instead of catering to both, like they used to.

Oh well. Can't support a company that doesn't build stuff I want...