That will never happen. The Mac Book is way to expensive for the market Apple should be targeting with the Mac Book Air.
Then reality sits in as you deacribe below
All you just did was describe a modern updated MBA.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacBook Air With USB-C Again Rumored, Launch Timeframe Unclear
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All you just did was describe a modern updated MBA.
???
The MacBook Air is the low end laptop. It only exists today to serve a price point. The MacBook is where all the innovation and upgrade has occurred. Unless you missed that somehow?
Yes I'm sure you want all of those upgrades in the cheapest package for your cheap self, but thats not how the world works, and thats not "stagnation".
[doublepost=1469640255][/doublepost]
You must have missed the introduction of the MacBook then. That's the product you're looking for.
The MacBook Air gets called stale by anyone who wants a MacBook but is too cheap to pay for it.
Given the fact that Apple uses laptop components in both the Mini and iMac, and that they demand $3K for a computer with 100% desktop components, I think the distinction between laptop and desktop is already rather blurred.
And 32GB isn't all that much RAM nowadays. Open Lightroom, Photoshop, and a couple dozen Safari Tabs, and 32GB will enable noticably faster task switching than 24GB. Add a few more RAM intensive pro apps and even more RAM is useful. Maybe not necessary, but certainly faster.
I think if Apple released a 17" retina MBP w/Skylake CPU and top end GPU they would be surprised at the demand. My mom pines for a new 17" MacBook just for Mail and Safari, as do a few other neighbors and relatives I've set up with 17" MBP. They don't even need the high end GPU/CPU. All they want is a bigass laptop to use around the house and patio as a portable desktop. Imagine all the pros who would use the full power of such a machine!
Did... did I read that correctly?
£1,049 for a laptop with less I/O and screen estate than the budget option - itself £899 - is insane.
In case you have been completely out of touch (your post indicates such), Intel has said "tick-tock" is dead. They will basically be stretching out real hardware updates to 3 plus year intervals. The era of 3 year replacement plans are over as there is no real advantage of doing so. More so expect that computers will be treated like other capital equipment with longer refresh cycles and some of the tax benefits gone.
As for Apples current product line up, I really see it as a mixed reality. Some of the line up is stagnant or suffers from poor product configurations (the mini especially) but other hardware Apple is between a rock and a hard place. The problem isn't Apple but rather Intel and the GPU manufactures. Some of Apples hardware could really use 14nm class mobile GPUs but those are slow in coming. Likewise Intel's COU lineup has been stagnant with many chips delayed waiting for working steppings. In a nut shell we can't past all the blame on Apple. Yes they have issues, one being a lack of vision when it comes to the Mac lineup, but it isn't all Apples fault. Another big problem Apple has is that they seem to think that every model of computer they sell must be a block buster, this keeps them from offering hardware that appeals to a wider audience.
1) They use chips that are both small enough for their needs, and powerful enough for what macOS needs.
2) 32 GB of RAM is a lot. I have 24 GB in my iMac and unless I'm running multiple virtual machines, which have RAM allocated to them, I couldn't even come close to using 24 GB. It's simply false that a few Safari tabs and Pro Apps would claim it all.
3) The market had not changed since the 17" was discontinued. It's not coming back. If it did, it wouldn't sell, and then you'd be complaining that it was not updated yearly.
Just about time tht Apple releases devices with all latest ports (Thunderbolt 3, USB 3.1 Type-C, reversible, generation 2 and SDXC with extra pins to support maximum read/write speed (300 MB/s). All these delays are blocking third-party manufacturers of external SSD hard disks, for instance.
You say that as if those are things people care about.
And willfully ignore the value of a 12" Retina Display, a Force Touch trackpad, Backlit butterfly keyboard, a single port to rule them all, and ultra portability.
It's crazy to me when Apple does things, greats things, things that no one else does...and people like you don't think you should pay for them.
You update your Macs every two years?
The average lifespan is a good 4 years. Mac Pros even longer. The 'need' to update constantly is in the people's heads. So is the hunger for always having the latest and newest hardware. The current Macs - though they COULD use an update - are more than fine for 99% of potential buyers and would STILL serve them perfectly for many years.This is complete nonsense. There is no profit in stuff that doesn't sell well. As for USB3 Apple adopted it as soon as Intel had solutions integrated into their chip sets. This was around the same time third party solutions started to ship chip revisions that where mostly compliant and bug free.
Of course it is cheaper if the chip set includes USB3! That should surprise nobody. What is more important is that Intel will be rolling TB into new chip sets.
Well in some cases! I don't see a lot of third party suppliers rolling in the dough. Port expanding or maybe more exactly docking hubs make a lot of sense for mobile users. The only real question is how many ports should a mobile computer have.
Apple, along with many other companies where heavily involved in the USB-C standard. This heavy involvement along with a lot of hardware being released recently pretty much foretells a future where USB-C will be very wide spread. It won't be anymore universal than any other port though, simply because it is just one technology on an ever evolving playing field.
If that were true then the Mac Tube would feature Broadwell-EP Xeons and a choice of the latest Nvidia or AMD silicon. The iMac would feature a top end desktop consumer GPU since it's, like, a top-end consumer desktop computer. The Mini would feature a quad-core Skylake CPU option, and for optimal value would feature desktop components since it too is, like, a desktop computer. The MacBook lines would all be on Skylakes and up for Kaby Lake refreshes soon.
You're right, someone does seem to be out of touch here.
Apple is targeting the Mac line up and this is getting the Mac community upset.
I suggest we creat a movement. #macintoshmatters
Greats things? No one else does? (High-res screens, USB-C...) Buddy, it's a computer. You get things done on it, you put it away.
I will gladly pay for products, but value is subjective. This is Apple Tax at is finest, and you're clearly blinded by it.
Talking of value, let's clarify; smaller screen estate, less I/O, no MagSafe, little-to-no heat dissipation. A Retina screen (as good as a standard in 2016), Force Touch trackpad (standard, save for MBA), 'butterfly' keyboard (We've managed fine up to this point), "single port to rule them all" (Indeed, plus extra wear because it's a single port), and ultra portability (Was the MBA not portable enough?) could have implemented into the MBA with the same pricing, but Apple chose not to. Why? To squeeze as much cash out of consumers as possible.
After slapping on this premium, they then have the audacity to offer a tacky gold options in a bid to make the device look more fashionable than it is. Their marketing strategy suggests as much - images of gold Apple Watch wearers and young 'hip' people using the device.
So true! This is a mentality hung over from an age when Intel and AMD offered significantly faster processors every year, that age is gone and isn't coming back. Intel has already stated that Tick-Tock is gone so anybody with any sense would realize that major yearly Mac updates are a thing of the past. The technology world has hit such a steep wall that we will likely need completely new technology for computer chips in less than a decade. Otherwise Mac updates might be spread to 5 years or more.You update your Macs every two years?
Not really. I don't want a Macbook. The Macbook is a smaller machine with less power. The MBA is thin but comes in 13" and still packs power to do more than basic web surfing and emailing.
What's really scary is that with Apple's current management, if everyone just stopped buying Macs I fear it would fuel a vicious cycle in which they slash R&D further and update the lines even less to maximize their ROI. Eventually they'll use low sales as an excuse to kill lines altogether. It wouldn't surprise me if by 2020 the Mac lineup is only the iMac and MacBook, both comprised of generation old components.
Apple desperately need a leader who is passionate about technology and personally invested in the products. Someone who prides him/herself in making the best products on the market. Without such a long-term outlook Apple are destined to sink into mediocrity.
I really like Cook and respect his masterful reign as Apple's COO, but it's become obvious he is not the right person to lead the company.
[doublepost=1469643140][/doublepost]
Activity Monitor shows 24GB of memory used on my Mac without any "pro" apps open.
Open apps:
Safari
Chrome
Bean
Skim
Seasonality
Activity Monitor
They can add on USB-C. Please don't replace any regular USB ports with USB-C. Nothing ****ing uses USB-C. Thanks.
[doublepost=1469643387][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1469643387][/doublepost]
Well there is your problem.
AMEN! So glad I didn't fall for buying overpriced Thunderbolt hubs. They barely made it off the ground before this USB-C thing came along.
Any other laptop with decent ports is just as portable. USB-C isn't one port to rule them all. It's one port you wish were something else. And also, the keyboard on that thing sucks because they tried to make it too thin. The rMBP is a much better computer in every way.
The issue isn't update frequency, it's that Apple use generation-old tech in many of their products. This is actually more of an issue for those who go longer between hardware updates.
I normally keep a Mac about 5 years. There is no freakin' way I would buy a computer stuffed with last generation components if I plan to use it so long. And at Apple prices I don't think it's wrong to expect their products to feature current generation silicon. Do you?
Exactly. Apple makes some new connector every few years that's better than others but ends up being overpriced and underused, then they abandon it.