I wonder why Apple chose a headphone port instead of a 2nd USB

[zhenya]

Curious - what issue(s) do you see with wireless headphones? After using Bluebuds X over the last year or so - I couldn't imagine going back to using wired earbuds. Just dealing with tangled cords and wires running between my ears and the phone in my pocket.. seems so 2008-ish to me now. Not to mention Bluebuds X reproduce sound considerably better than Apple's stock earbuds.

I am fairly certain that wireless headphones is where Apple sees things ending up, all the debates about quality and external DACs notwithstanding. It's only a matter of "when", not "if".

Similar to above - sound quality, the fact that there are very few options available especially at the high end, and that it's another thing with batteries that needs charging, and eventually, replacement at a cost. I'm not terribly convinced that wireless is where Apple will go with headphones. It's possible but given the simplicity of the current jack - high end sound and virtually no power overhead, I'm not surprised they are sticking with it for the meantime. The only negative is that it's now the largest jack on some devices.

 

[recoil80]

I think most everyone needs headphones to hear anything on a plane over the engine noise ... and you are required to turn OFF your wireless interfaces for the duration of the flight ... so no bluetooth headphones on plane flights?

Some companies offer wi-fi on board of the plane so I guess it is no longer a problem to use devices during the flight. As far as I know they ask you to switch them off during take off and landing

 

[Mac 128]

in the present, there are about a million more options with wired headphones and earbuds. and the audio quality is still superior with wired 'phones. so, for example, someone who wants the best possible quality will still go with a wired set. personally, i like the simplicity of my earbuds...nothing to charge, lightweight. simple.

fwiw, i see a lot of people with speakers plugged into the headphone port; not everyone's wireless that way yet either...

but 'when', definitely. just not for a while yet...

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that as zhenya keeps pointing out, most people are using free Apple earbuds that came with their iPhones -- NOT the best possible quality headphones. Doing a simple Google search for "Apple earbuds review" turns up numerous articles with very low ratings. This Gizmodo particular article puts it into perspective.

http://gizmodo.com/5943222/apple-earpods-review-less-terrible-still-garbage

Therefore, if it were truly about sound quality, I would agree with you hands down. But it's not. If Apple started giving away Lightning connector headphones with their iPhones that would be a step up in quality. An inexpensive set of wireless headphones absolutely trumps the quality of the Apple earbuds. So why not make the switch? Anybody who truly wants high end audio can get much closer to it with an outboard DAC than with Apple's built-in audio, whether that's built into their expensive wired headphones, or via an expensive dongle.

The fact is, the average person can tell the difference between the built-in audio output from a MacBook and the superior sound from an inexpensive compact outboard DA, one that costs well under $100, much less $1000. Apple's own iPhone Lightning Dock is not only priced at $39, and is about the size of a credit card, but has equal if not better sound quality than that from the iPhone itself.

Considering that the 1/8" port is the biggest port on the rMB and iPhone 6 (both of which just barely have room for it), I would suggest the 1/8" audio port's time is coming to an end given Apple's endless quest for thinness. I would also suggest it hasn't happened yet because Apple was too busy launching the Watch (which is wireless audio only), to take on the default mobile audio standard. Moreover, as many in this thread have said, take away the port and people will find an alternative they may actually like better, leave it and they'll just keep doing what they always have. At the end of the day, nobody is going to not buy an Apple product over the 1/8" audio jack.

 

[tbirdparis]

Similar to above - sound quality, the fact that there are very few options available especially at the high end, and that it's another thing with batteries that needs charging, and eventually, replacement at a cost. I'm not terribly convinced that wireless is where Apple will go with headphones. It's possible but given the simplicity of the current jack - high end sound and virtually no power overhead, I'm not surprised they are sticking with it for the meantime. The only negative is that it's now the largest jack on some devices.

I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that as zhenya keeps pointing out, most people are using free Apple earbuds that came with their iPhones -- NOT the best possible quality headphones. Doing a simple Google search for "Apple earbuds review" turns up numerous articles with very low ratings. This Gizmodo particular article puts it into perspective.

http://gizmodo.com/5943222/apple-earpods-review-less-terrible-still-garbage

Therefore, if it were truly about sound quality, I would agree with you hands down. But it's not. If Apple started giving away Lightning connector headphones with their iPhones that would be a step up in quality. An inexpensive set of wireless headphones absolutely trumps the quality of the Apple earbuds. So why not make the switch? Anybody who truly wants high end audio can get much closer to it with an outboard DAC than with Apple's built-in audio, whether that's built into their expensive wired headphones, or via an expensive dongle.

The fact is, the average person can tell the difference between the built-in audio output from a MacBook and the superior sound from an inexpensive compact outboard DA, one that costs well under $100, much less $1000. Apple's own iPhone Lightning Dock is not only priced at $39, and is about the size of a credit card, but has equal if not better sound quality than that from the iPhone itself.

Considering that the 1/8" port is the biggest port on the rMB and iPhone 6 (both of which just barely have room for it), I would suggest the 1/8" audio port's time is coming to an end given Apple's endless quest for thinness. I would also suggest it hasn't happened yet because Apple was too busy launching the Watch (which is wireless audio only), to take on the default mobile audio standard. Moreover, as many in this thread have said, take away the port and people will find an alternative they may actually like better, leave it and they'll just keep doing what they always have. At the end of the day, nobody is going to not buy an Apple product over the 1/8" audio jack.

The only thing no ports on the watch proves is that it's a really stupid idea to put any kind of physical port on a smart watch. Not one that you would like to sell and not be ridiculed for that is. Any questions?

 

[ctyrider]

Similar to above - sound quality, the fact that there are very few options available especially at the high end, and that it's another thing with batteries that needs charging, and eventually, replacement at a cost

The notion that you take a sound quality hit when going Bluetooth is one of those "audiophile myths", on par with gold plated speaker cords, etc. The quality differences are always due to the cans design, not due to "wireless vs wired". I challenge anyone to do blind audio quality test between high quality BT buds and Apple stock headset - my Bluebuds are better any day.

I do agree that the battery charging is the biggest downside of wireless, but to me - advantages still outweigh having to connect my buds to the charger once a week.

 

[tbirdparis]

The notion that you take a sound quality hit when going Bluetooth is one of those "audiophile myths", on par with gold plated speaker cords, etc. The quality differences are always due to the cans design, not due to "wireless vs wired". I challenge anyone to do blind audio quality test between high quality BT buds and Apple stock headset - my Bluebuds are better any day.

I do agree that the battery charging is the biggest downside of wireless, but to me - advantages still outweigh having to connect my buds to the charger once a week.

Yep, the audio quality discussion is the least relevant issue here. Convenience and realism about the blend of technologies in the marketplace that people still want to use are probably the most decisive factors.

 

[zhenya]

The notion that you take a sound quality hit when going Bluetooth is one of those "audiophile myths", on par with gold plated speaker cords, etc. The quality differences are always due to the cans design, not due to "wireless vs wired". I challenge anyone to do blind audio quality test between high quality BT buds and Apple stock headset - my Bluebuds are better any day.

I do agree that the battery charging is the biggest downside of wireless, but to me - advantages still outweigh having to connect my buds to the charger once a week.

All bluetooth audio codecs are lossy, so there is undoubtedly some quality loss. Depending on the codec used, it ranges from abysmal to quite good. Still, I prefer a signal with no loss and no possible source of interference or interruption. Wired headphones work perfectly, require no batteries or maintenance, and aren't much of an inconvenience. This isn't really a comparison between your $120 bluetooth headphones which are probably quite good, and the free Apple earbuds, I'm talking at the higher end of the scale. For best quality, who wants something transcoding their music into another lossy format? And for the price, there will always be better sounding wired headphones than the bluetooth ones of the same price, because no money has to go into the bluetooth chips or batteries.

 

[0x100]

There is a difference between the standard audio jack and things like scsi, diskettes and CDs.the difference is that this standard has been around for over 50 years. The 3,5 mm jack is not something like spinning media that has become obsolete, instead, the connector still is the best standard for transferring audio. The connector is not fragile, it delivers great quality audiosignals, it has other uses like optical out if you want it to have it (the macs have it), it just works great and nothing in the consumer space has surpassed it. yet. Bluetooth doesnt come close.

 

[fisherking]

The notion that you take a sound quality hit when going Bluetooth is one of those "audiophile myths", on par with gold plated speaker cords, etc. The quality differences are always due to the cans design, not due to "wireless vs wired". I challenge anyone to do blind audio quality test between high quality BT buds and Apple stock headset - my Bluebuds are better any day.

I do agree that the battery charging is the biggest downside of wireless, but to me - advantages still outweigh having to connect my buds to the charger once a week.

you're saying this doesn't make it fact. bluetooth headphones are not on par with the best wired headphones/earbuds.

i agree in general that most people use cheap earbuds with their macs, but...not everyone. and some people plug in speakers....

that headphone jack (in 2015 still) seems essential. for everything else, there's usb-C...

 

[tbirdparis]

There is a difference between the standard audio jack and things like scsi, diskettes and CDs.the difference is that this standard has been around for over 50 years. The 3,5 mm jack is not something like spinning media that has become obsolete, instead, the connector still is the best standard for transferring audio. The connector is not fragile, it delivers great quality audiosignals, it has other uses like optical out if you want it to have it (the macs have it), it just works great and nothing in the consumer space has surpassed it. yet. Bluetooth doesnt come close.

Indeed. It's also such a simple practical utility that it's hard to see why you'd intentionally retire it...unless there were a compelling superior alternative that practically everyone is on board with, or it just doesn't make any sense to be included on a product in the first place, such as on a smart watch. I like the convenience idea of Bluetooth cans for situations like walking or jogging - phone in the pocket, no cable - life is all roses. But I can imagine loads of situations where that scenario could let me down. Settling in to a long haul flight and realising my Bluetooth headphone batteries are dead would not work for me. Turning up at a cafe with just my laptop and wanting a friend to listen to something but alas they only have wired headphones. I think it's been obvious for a while that the market has settled on a two-solution situation, because the use-cases where wireless and wired make sense to people aren't mutually exclusive. So manufacturers have long ago reacted to this by simply and without question offering full support for both options with no artificial hurdles in the way on every relevant device you can buy. This seems to best serve what the reality of the market is for now. One day maybe someone like Apple will draw a line in the sand and do what we all know they do to nudge people towards wireless, but I don't see it coming for a long time if it ever does.

 

[Mac 128]

The only thing no ports on the watch proves is that it's a really stupid idea to put any kind of physical port on a smart watch. Not one that you would like to sell and not be ridiculed for that is. Any questions?

What happened to your opinion on this is well documented and in no need of being repeated?

As usual you missed my point entirely. The fact that a major new product from Apple forces the user to use wireless headphones means that as the product is more widely adopted and people use it for listening to audio, more and more wireless headphones will be common among Apple product users and therefore make the need for a dedicated wired audio port on devices which have less and less room for it more likely to drop it.

But you have your own agenda as evidenced by the subsequent posts restating your previously well outlined position.

 

[zhenya]

I'm not convinced any significant number of people are listening to music through their watches, at least for the first couple of generations. I suspect there is some small subset of people who will use bluetooth headphones with the watch exclusively while running or working out, but I think it will be a tiny minority - most will still have their phones with them and just listen through that.

 

[Mac 128]

This isn't really a comparison between your $120 bluetooth headphones which are probably quite good, and the free Apple earbuds, I'm talking at the higher end of the scale.

And you are talking about Apple's niche customers. And Apple doesn't cater to niche customers. If Apple is servicing the average consumer, then those people are listening to lossy mp3s on cheap earbuds they got free from Apple with their iPhones, by your own observation. If the niche crowd who wants high end sound, require better equipment, then they will buy it, and as has already been established will get better quality audio from an outboard DAC, easily provided by an inexpensive dongle. Apple's own $39 iPhone Lightning Dock provides equal if not superior sound via it's 1/8" audio jack in a credit card sized package.

 

[tbirdparis]

What happened to your opinion on this is well documented and in no need of being repeated?

As usual you missed my point entirely. The fact that a major new product from Apple forces the user to use wireless headphones means that as the product is more widely adopted and people use it for listening to audio, more and more wireless headphones will be common among Apple product users and therefore make the need for a dedicated wired audio port on devices which have less and less room for it more likely to drop it.

But you have your own agenda as evidenced by the subsequent posts restating your previously well outlined position.

Nope, I just have a point of view and am making a case for it. A pretty good one too! Your point of view is great too, but the case you're making for it, not so much. Care to go over that definition of obsolete again?

 

[Mac 128]

One day maybe someone like Apple will draw a line in the sand and do what we all know they do to nudge people towards wireless, but I don't see it coming for a long time if it ever does.

While I obviously disagree with your opinion, neither of us has any proof of why we think Apple is choosing to do what it is doing with the 1/8" audio port, much less the USB-C port on the rMB.

Which brings me back to the topic of this thread: "I wonder why Apple chose a headphone port instead of a 2nd USB".

As far as I know, no one has advocated for a wireless only solution as you seem to be asserting here. But the more ridiculous implication of your statement is that Apple will maintain the 1/8" audio jack forever, never "nudging" people to wireless, or worse yet allow someone else to do it.

However, the question is why would Apple limit the versatility of the rMB for a wider gamut of users, forcing them to expand their product line, and maintain and cannibalize two additional products like the MBA, which should have been EOLed, in order to keep a 100 year old technology like the analogue audio jack?

Here's what we do know -- Apple is promoting the rMB as a completely wireless device. They're promoting it as having a single versatile port because they've maximized every square mm of space. We know that the 1/8" audio jack was included, though overlooked when describing the Mac's single port, and; being one of the largest ports left, it barely fits within the slim profile of the case. We also know that late last year Apple opened up to third party developers the ability to create lightning audio interfaces, for headphones and the like. So from that alone, it appears that the 1/8" audio port is not going to be around on Apple products much longer, let alone never going away as you suggest. Just look at the attached pictures. Any slimmer and the port is gone on the iPhone 6, and iPad Air 2. The MacBook maybe has 1mm to work with and that's pushing it. Perhaps Apple will just declare they've made their products 'thin enough' in order to keep the 1/8" audio jack forever and fulfill your prediction.

At a minimum, I would expect to see Apple switch to a cheap set of Lightning earbuds for the iPhone 7, if not 6S. If they are going to give them away for free, why would Apple care if they are compatible with other non-Apple products. But they will need to work with the rest of the Apple products, all of which currently have lightning connectors except the Shuffle, and the Macs. The Mac's can all use lightning with a simple adapter. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that the Shuffle may just get a lightning connector, perhaps even bluetooth wireless, and just maybe lightning earbuds, along with more storage to justify the higher price. Whether or not it does in its impending refresh, in the end, getting rid of the 1/8" audio jack only allows Apple greater design flexibility as they continue to slim down their consumer devices to a single port, while making them as versatile as possible. If the rMB had a Lightning port instead of a 2nd USB-C, I'd still be just as happy since it would accomplish essentially the same thing -- a redundant versatile port. And if I needed to plug in an antiquated 1/8" audio accessory, I'd whip out my inexpensive, high quality, lightning to 1/8" dongle adapter.

Apple's design future is thin. The future of audio is digital. It's inevitable the 1/8" audio jack will eventually be history.

 

[fisherking]

it's gonna be some time before the audio jack disappears. there are millions of phones, ipods, laptops, etc in the wild, all using that audio jack.

am sure we'll see other options, such as bluetooth, and wifi, explored more over the next several years.

anyway, when apple decides to kill that port, they'll kill it. until then, you can do all sorts of things with usb-C... that's the state-of-the art for 2015. enjoy it!

 

[tbirdparis]

OK so now it's about some overarching view of the future? Doesn't take a genius to know that given enough time, anything that's pervasive in today's technology will eventually be archaic, gone and forgotten. Some things do last a surprisingly long time though, I mean, who would have thought that the QWERTY keyboard would still be relevant after all this time?

The question that started this thread was "I wonder why Apple chose a headphone port instead of a second USB C port". I made my case pretty clearly for why I think there's an audio jack on the rMB now, today. Pretty decent analysis of the reality of the market and of the decision I think Apple very carefully made in response to today's landscape. I also don't see any particularly strong signs that they're making any moves to intentionally bring about a shift in this area any time soon. Made my reasoning for that pretty clear too. Do I expect everyone to agree with me? Of course not.

 

[Mac 128]

I can imagine loads of situations where that scenario could let me down. Settling in to a long haul flight and realising my Bluetooth headphone batteries are dead would not work for me. Turning up at a cafe with just my laptop and wanting a friend to listen to something but alas they only have wired headphones.

We can all throw roadblocks in front of any progressive technology you can imagine. Your first "horror story" about the bluetooth headphones dying during a long flight could happen to any device you own just when you need it. You might have forgotten to charger your MacBook, or iPad, or iPhone, or whatever you were going to listen to your music on. This was one of the biggest "faults" assigned to the Watch after the battery life was announced, in that it might run out of power during the day, or what if you forgot to charge it overnight. The reality is for doomsday scenarios like these is that people who use such devices make sure they are ready to be used. It's highly unlikely that in preparing for your "long haul" flight that you will forget to charge your wireless headphones before you leave. And let's not forget most airlines are equipping their planes with USB charging ports, especially the long haul ones. So now you have to forget your charger for your particular scenario to have relevance. Fortunately you're probably carrying another charger in your bag for something else that will charge your headphones.

As for the scenario where you can't play something for your friend because they don't have the right kind of headphones, well that's as likely as a friend walking up with a USB-A thumb drive wanting to give you 128GB of music or movies, but you don't have a USB-A port on your rMB. In your doomsday scenario, you are in a location where you can't play the music for your friend over the built-in speakers. And, you also don't have a set of headphones for your friend to listen through, nor do you have your bag with you that contains an 1/8" audio dongle, for all the times this situation comes up when you're out and about. It's an improbable scenario, that unlikely to happen very often. But here's a very similar situation that I see routinely and it's solved by a dongle. A friend shows up to a coffee shop and you want to share you music. But even though he has the right kind of headphones, only one of you can listen at a time. Without a Y adapter/splitter, you're also out of luck, unless of course one of you happens to have wireless headphones. It's the same thing.

I'm really not sure how these examples help your case that technology which is essentially unchanged since 1878 won't likely ever be replaced because it does the job well enough, and is so widespread people won't accept change to something else, even if there's a demonstrable improvement in both quality and convenience.

The reality is, there's no technology on any Apple products that has remained the same since they started making computers. Despite the widespread use of serial ports, USB-A, Firewire, VGA, 30-pin dock connectors, Ethernet, et al, Apple has steadily eliminated each one from their products. Their functions are still accessible however, with dongles. And now Apple is essentially pushing to eliminate ports altogether. The idea that a 137 year old technology isn't teetering on the brink of also being replaced soon, much less never being replaced, to make way for higher quality audio as part of a wireless world just doesn't fit with everything else we've seen in the evolution of all other related technologies.

 

[tbirdparis]

What's so progressive about fixing something that ain't broke? The way things are right now, people can happily and easily use whichever solution they prefer, I think looking at it as a one is better than the other dichotomy is fundamentally flawed. The convenience/choice equation is a pretty nicely balanced one as it is and I think that's what Apple confirmed by sticking with the good old jack on the rMB. And look, I managed to say all of that with no mockery or hyperbole!

 

[Dark Void]

What's so progressive about fixing something that ain't broke? The way things are right now, people can happily and easily use whichever solution they prefer, I think looking at it as a one is better than the other dichotomy is fundamentally flawed. The convenience/choice equation is a pretty nicely balanced one as it is and I think that's what Apple confirmed by sticking with the good old jack on the rMB. And look, I managed to say all of that with no mockery or hyperbole!

This is what I was trying to say earlier in this thread, but with the idea in mind that if you're fighting for more ports to exist on the rMB - perhaps you're looking for a MBA or other computer. One port provides just enough versatility for those that would be using this laptop in the first place in my opinion - those who seldom need physical connectivity beyond charging it.

 

[tbirdparis]

This is what I was trying to say earlier in this thread, but with the idea in mind that if you're fighting for more ports to exist on the rMB - perhaps you're looking for a MBA or other computer. One port provides just enough versatility for those that would be using this laptop in the first place in my opinion - those who seldom need physical connectivity beyond charging it.

Yep totally. I think they put a really interesting proposition on the table by being quite ballsy with just one multi-purpose port. It made me think about what I'd want a machine like this for in a way that I wouldn't have had to if they'd lost their nerve and stuck in a second one. Also the versatility of USB C is so interesting that if there were ever a format to take such a bold punt with, this was a pretty good one to try. For me I found that I can pretty happily make it work as a nice satellite machine to my real workstations. I don't think I'll ever directly connect an external drive to it, because my old MBP is essentially a home server now. So when using it at home I'll just pull down any big files I need from the local network. The same would apply at my places of work, and in most other circumstances, we already use Dropbox in a big way so I can get stuff when I need it. Still, I ordered the 512 storage model because I figured that I'll want the luxury of having a lot of regular things I need on hand most of the time, and that also feels like it will be manageable.

In some ways I think if they'd not stuck to their guns on the one and only one USB C thing, it might have just annoyed people who love the MacBook Air even more. Instead of giving them the retina screen they've wanted for ages, they'd have just put out a pretty similar profile machine, but with a processor Air users would consider an insult - and for many of them, an unjustifiable step backwards. The only really distinctive claim it would have to being something other than just a slower Air with, ironically, a way better display, would have been the interesting twist of being fanless. Who knows, it could even have been read as a message that the Air was over and done with, and this category was being replaced with something dumbed down for no good reason.

 

[Dark Void]

Yep totally. I think they put a really interesting proposition on the table by being quite ballsy with just one multi-purpose port. It made me think about what I'd want a machine like this for in a way that I wouldn't have had to if they'd lost their nerve and stuck in a second one. Also the versatility of USB C is so interesting that if there were ever a format to take such a bold punt with, this was a pretty good one to try. For me I found that I can pretty happily make it work as a nice satellite machine to my real workstations. I don't think I'll ever directly connect an external drive to it, because my old MBP is essentially a home server now. So when using it at home I'll just pull down any big files I need from the local network. The same would apply at my places of work, and in most other circumstances, we already use Dropbox in a big way so I can get stuff when I need it. Still, I ordered the 512 storage model because I figured that I'll want the luxury of having a lot of regular things I need on hand most of the time, and that also feels like it will be manageable.

In some ways I think if they'd not stuck to their guns on the one and only one USB C thing, it might have just annoyed people who love the MacBook Air even more. Instead of giving them the retina screen they've wanted for ages, they'd have just put out a pretty similar profile machine, but with a processor Air users would consider an insult - and for many of them, an unjustifiable step backwards. The only really distinctive claim it would have to being something other than just a slower Air with, ironically, a way better display, would have been the interesting twist of being fanless. Who knows, it could even have been read as a message that the Air was over and done with, and this category was being replaced with something dumbed down for no good reason.

Good points. I'll be honest, I'm not an ultrabook type but I can definitely see why people are enjoying their rMB. If I ever were to consider such a notebook, I would get an 11'' Air because of it's more traditional notebook hardware (namely CPU) and physical connectivity options.

I think it would be wonderful to own a fully maxed out 11'' machine (if anything I do appreciate small footprint compared to any other portability factors like weight or thickness) that can handle quite a bit intensively - but spending $1200-$1400 on less computer makes me feel like I am not getting my money's worth, and that is what has prevented me from doing it. I could care less about the screen res - of course Retina is preferable to most but I would be coming from 1280 x 800 so virtually anything is an upgrade. I'm not spoiled in this sense and would be satisfied with HD or HD+ on a laptop screen, my current desktop monitor is only FHD without IPS as well.

I may sound like a broken record on this forum regarding portability, but I feel that it is definitely relative as opposed to fact on paper. The one thing that I appreciate is footprint though, and that is why I currently own a 13'' in the first place. I often find myself in situations with very limited desk or counter space and while it doesn't matter to me how thick the laptop is or how much effort it takes to move it within reason, I am more interested in how it fits onto a surface.

I just can't bring myself to pay such a large price for what is going to be a similar experience to my current notebook though, even with the footprint difference. I guess that's the effect that third party SSDs and upgradability can have though - making it less and less noticeable when looking to upgrade to a new machine. If I had been coming off of the aging, stock 5400 RPM drive and 4 GB RAM then a maxed out Air would seem worth the money.

Speaking of, I admire that you went with the 512 GB model. Internal storage is so preferable in my opinion. I'm a physical media guy and don't care for the Cloud, and while I am definitely off on a couple of tangents here, reading your post inspires me to speak of personal experience. I've been thinking of using my internal SuperDrive to rip as many DVDs and burn as many CD collections as possible before uninstalling it out and storing all of the ripped files on a second hard drive with an optical bay kit. The one thing I do miss is all of the expandability.

If there was an 11'' Air with upgradable hardware I'd be set!

 

[tbirdparis]

Good points. I'll be honest, I'm not an ultrabook type but I can definitely see why people are enjoying their rMB. If I ever were to consider such a notebook, I would get an 11'' Air because of it's more traditional notebook hardware (namely CPU) and physical connectivity options.

I think it would be wonderful to own a fully maxed out 11'' machine (if anything I do appreciate small footprint compared to any other portability factors like weight or thickness) that can handle quite a bit intensively - but spending $1200-$1400 on less computer makes me feel like I am not getting my money's worth, and that is what has prevented me from doing it. I could care less about the screen res - of course Retina is preferable to most but I would be coming from 1280 x 800 so virtually anything is an upgrade. I'm not spoiled in this sense and would be satisfied with HD or HD+ on a laptop screen, my current desktop monitor is only FHD without IPS as well.

I may sound like a broken record on this forum regarding portability, but I feel that it is definitely relative as opposed to fact on paper. The one thing that I appreciate is footprint though, and that is why I currently own a 13'' in the first place. I often find myself in situations with very limited desk or counter space and while it doesn't matter to me how thick the laptop is or how much effort it takes to move it within reason, I am more interested in how it fits onto a surface.

I just can't bring myself to pay such a large price for what is going to be a similar experience to my current notebook though, even with the footprint difference. I guess that's the effect that third party SSDs and upgradability can have though - making it less and less noticeable when looking to upgrade to a new machine. If I had been coming off of the aging, stock 5400 RPM drive and 4 GB RAM then a maxed out Air would seem worth the money.

Speaking of, I admire that you went with the 512 GB model. Internal storage is so preferable in my opinion. I'm a physical media guy and don't care for the Cloud, and while I am definitely off on a couple of tangents here, reading your post inspires me to speak of personal experience. I've been thinking of using my internal SuperDrive to rip as many DVDs and burn as many CD collections as possible before uninstalling it out and storing all of the ripped files on a second hard drive with an optical bay kit. The one thing I do miss is all of the expandability.

If there was an 11'' Air with upgradable hardware I'd be set!

Yeah 256 was just too boxed in for me, I really hate being tight on local storage space. There's not a hope in hell that any of my actual work projects would ever fit into even 512 either.. But that's irrelevant for me for the rMB because it also doesn't have a hope in hell of running any of my actual work projects from a CPU perspective either! I just like the idea of having a decent sized onboard data lunch box, so there's enough room to take some media around with me. I manage my own portfolio site for my work, so this machine should be great for that, especially with some storage space to burn. If they offered a 1 TB model I might even have ordered that unless it was off the scale more expensive.

OK this all all OT, but re the optical bay kit thing: being able to do that is one of my favourite things about the older MBPs.. I got rid of the SuperDrive immediately on my 2010 i7 MBP and put in the biggest capacity SATA I could get at the time. It's pretty nice having that much storage on a laptop, although mine's a 17 incher so it was never much of a shining example of svelte portability. Still, no regrets there, it has kept my old MBP much more useful than it would have been by now.

Last OT side note: I hear you re the idea of $$ spent vs how much actual computer you get for your buck. Having ordered a 512 1.3 rMB, it's fairly far towards one end of that spectrum... but I'm happy to own that. I see it as a premium price for a really sweet machine of ultimate convenience that can go anywhere with me without bugging me in the slightest. When it comes to workstations though, my cost benefit equation flips 180 and it's all about bang for the buck.

 

[Mac 128]

What's so progressive about fixing something that ain't broke?

This is exactly the issue surrounding the change from 30-pin dock connector and Lightning. Did Apple move to lightning because it was actually better? Or did they move to Lightning because it fit within their design parameters? This is the least reasonable defense for keeping the 1/8" audio jack. The 30-pin dock connector wasn't broken, in fact, the Lightning connector seems to have broken more than it fixed, and to date I don't believe has shown any benefit over the 30-pin connector it replaced, other than saving Apple space. In the process it upended an entire third party business and forced customers to buy all manner of adapters to continue using their old 30-pin products, many of which aren't fully compatible, as well as completely replace products to be compatible with their new Lightning products.

 

[ctyrider]

This is exactly the issue surrounding the change from 30-pin dock connector and Lightning. Did Apple move to lightning because it was actually better? Or did they move to Lightning because it fit within their design parameters?

Fitting within Apple design parameters is exactly what makes Lightning connector "better". Reversible, smart chipset, more functionality, and takes a fraction of real estate of 30-pin connector. If that doesn't make it better - I don't know what does.