New 12-Inch MacBook Tidbits: 15% Faster, 41.4-Watt-Hour Battery, Refurb Price Drop, and More

[igorsky]

iPhone 4 is also more than adequate for what it's intended to do, though.

I don't even know if the iPhone 4 can run the latest version of iOS. 480p is still capable of projecting a decent image of your face onto another person's screen.

480p Facetime camera is the Macbook's version of the iPhone's camera bump...that is, something very few people actually care about.

 

[navaira]

I don't even know if the iPhone 4 can run the latest version of iOS. 480p is still capable of projecting a decent image of your face onto another person's screen.

You never mentioned running the latest version of iOS though. It's more than adequate for what's intended to do, i.e. run iOS 8 very slowly.

As for people complaining about the camera, there's a simple solution:
http://thumbs.ebaystatic.com/images/g/QNQAAOSw9r1V93cO/s-l225.jpg

Add a dongle so you can actually connect it – profit!

 

[AVEGA]

If this was priced $799.99 I think most of the complaints would vanish.

 

[Yaboze]

It's too expensive for what you get.

 

[jerwin]

It's such an interesting point of time at the moment that an iPad has stronger benchmark scores than a MacBook!

is sha1 really that important?

 

[hans1972]

I wonder if this computer is powerful enough for watching HD movies or using google earth 3D view? You need fast CPU and GPU for watching HD movies or using google earth 3D view?

No, you do not need powerful CPU/GPUs to watch video as long as the video is in an Apple-friendly format. There is hardware acceleration built into the CPU which handles video.

You can easily edit 4K video with the old Macbook,

[doublepost=1461175090][/doublepost]

Tell me how will this laptop change your usage habits or improve them in comparison to the previous 12 inch macbook. It will only slightly improve them so it's not much of an upgrade.

It is not supposed to be something you have to get when you have the previous version. It is just an upgrade. Apple assumes that Mac owners keeps their Macs for an average of 4 years. This should be a good computer for a lot of Mac-users which have Macs from 2013 and earlier and who have or want to adapt to a mobile, wireless computing lifestyle.

Those who bought the Macbook in 2015 should probably keep that until 2017 at least.

MacBooks is released like this:
Initial release -> iteration -> ... -> iteration -> (semi)huge revision -> iteration -> ... -> iteration repeat until end-of-service
[doublepost=1461175151][/doublepost]

I have never understood why one would buy this over a MacBook Air.

I have never understood why someone would buy the Air modells after having experienced retina displays.
[doublepost=1461175868][/doublepost]

Yeah? Other machines? So where's their sub-$1000 notebook with 2016 parts...??

If you want a good notebook Mac for less than a $1000, Apple does not offer that. I always said that if you want to be a happy Apple notebook customer, you should be willing to spend a minimum of $1000 and usually in the $1200-$1600 range.

 

[nick42983]

If you want a good notebook Mac for less than a $1000, Apple does not offer that. I always said that if you want to be a happy Apple notebook customer, you should be willing to spend a minimum of $1000 and usually in the $1200-$1600 range.[/QUOTE]

The 11" Air starts at $899 and it's a great computer. It may be a bit small, but it's plenty "good". There are some good deals on refurbs under $1000 as well. I agree in general though that most people will be most satisfied with a $1200+ machine. I'm still very happy with my 2013 13" Air with max RAM and processor. I wasn't sold on the 12" Macbook before, but with price drops it may be my next computer in a year.

 

[Bubble99]

I hate this dynamic battery thing that Apple does...

Its not precise...... but based on what u are using at the time...

least the M processors run cooler.

Not sure what you mean? What is wrong with battery? It should say if you battery life at by your clock and volume control.

As I'm typing this now my battery is at 70% but than I'm using Macbook Pro.

Why would the Macbook be different?

 

[Vanilla35]

So if you totally agree that some of the hate is a little crazy then you must agree that calling a 480p Facetime camera, on a low-spec laptop, "a slap in the face" and "pathetic" just as crazy, no? Seems like 480p is more than adequate for what it's intended to do.

Over the top? Sure. Crazy? Not really. It's an absurdly low spec for this day and age. Worse than 16GB iPhones imo. 480p is better than nothing, but it's literally worse than everything else. The ONLY reason they put a 480p camera in there is because apple thinks of the end product when they introduce something. They will likely end with a 1080p camera, therefore the mid game is 720p, and because they don't want it having the same camera as the pro models, they had to lower it even further, dropping it to 2007 vid camera quality. If it were a good 480p camera I wouldn't be talking badly about it, but it's literally what you would find in a $500 laptop of 2007 or so. Gen 2 will likely have the up to an HD camera.

It may not seem bad just looking at a number, but go to youtube right now and watch a video in 480p. You bet your ass you'd be pissed if that was your max resolution for facetime calls. Might as well use your phone, unless audio is all you care about.

 

[Bubble99]

Apple need to fix the bloated OS X and Safari since there's nothing wrong with even the old hardware. Edge browser on Windows 10 is fast and smooth even on a $400 Surface non-Pro 3 while Safari is laggy on a high end $2700 rMBP.

What is wrong with OS X and Safari? Is OS X and Safari broken?

 

[bjet767]

Now it's nice to always have more, but I'm guessing most users of the 12" MB don't use their camera for more than simple video calls or conferencing. So does a camera greater than 480 make those calls and events better?

Also I have never seen anyone holding their laptop up to take pictures and videos like they do phones and iPads.

But more is better in a machine designed to be thin and light, I get it!

 

[AliMacs]

If this was priced $799.99 I think most of the complaints would vanish.

If it was priced at $799.99, there would not be this product to actually even complain about. So it's not priced this way and hence all the complaints to go with that.

 

[Mal67]

1. The screen is WAY nicer than the Macbook Air.
2. Its smaller, thinner and lighter which all combine to make it more portable.
3. Decent RAM and SSD sizes in the base model.

Unfortunately those things come at the expense of processing power, port count and cost.

Apple will have to do something about the price of the Macbook soon. Here in Australia the base model is $1999.

Thats pretty steep for entry into Mac Computers.

No, you do not need powerful CPU/GPUs to watch video as long as the video is in an Apple-friendly format. There is hardware acceleration built into the CPU which handles video.

You can easily edit 4K video with the old Macbook,

[doublepost=1461175090][/doublepost]

It is not supposed to be something you have to get when you have the previous version. It is just an upgrade. Apple assumes that Mac owners keeps their Macs for an average of 4 years. This should be a good computer for a lot of Mac-users which have Macs from 2013 and earlier and who have or want to adapt to a mobile, wireless computing lifestyle.

Those who bought the Macbook in 2015 should probably keep that until 2017 at least.

MacBooks is released like this:
Initial release -> iteration -> ... -> iteration -> (semi)huge revision -> iteration -> ... -> iteration repeat until end-of-service
[doublepost=1461175151][/doublepost]

I have never understood why someone would buy the Air modells after having experienced retina displays.
[doublepost=1461175868][/doublepost]

If you want a good notebook Mac for less than a $1000, Apple does not offer that. I always said that if you want to be a happy Apple notebook customer, you should be willing to spend a minimum of $1000 and usually in the $1200-$1600 range.

Given the current prices down here in Aust the Mb and the rmbp are pretty much available at $2000 each while the Air is considerably cheaper. In terms of affordability the Air wins out especially now that the 13" gets 8 gig as standard. Just my 2 cents

 

[lowkey]

^Yeah prices are pretty weird now..
11" Macbook Air 1.6 8/256 $1859 vs the 13" Macbook Air 1.6 8/256 for $1849.
So the bigger screen is now cheaper than the small one

 

[organic bond]

Only that once you've looked at a Retina screen you have a hard time returning to that crappy lo-res screen in the MBA. The Air had its prime, but it is outdated by now. For me, buying an Air today would be a waste of money.

Speak for yourself, *you* have a hard time returning to the MBA screen, no me. That's what I did and couldn't be happier not to have to deal with a beautiful but for me useless rMB. The MBA is *not* outdated at all. For me, buying an rMB today would be a waste of money.

 

[bjet767]

useless rMB

Really? Useless in what way?

If you are comparing the "power"/ CPU of the 13" then yes the 13" MBA is more powerful, but the 11" is basically the same performance with the 12" MB (I had one). What does one get with the 11" over the 12"? More ports, a smaller screen, no Retina display, and a lower price.

This thread, and others like it, seem to be a place where those who just want to complain about a good product come to.

Personally I find all of the Apple products are high quality, work very well, have the best support in the industry and yes are priced at a premium. You want cheap (low prices) get a Dell.

 

[nick42983]

Speak for yourself, *you* have a hard time returning to the MBA screen, no me. That's what I did and couldn't be happier not to have to deal with a beautiful but for me useless rMB. The MBA is *not* outdated at all. For me, buying an rMB today would be a waste of money.

I agree. The MBA screen is the difference that makes the Air's the longest-lasting laptop battery in Apple's entire lineup, even with 3-year-old hardware. My 2013 Haswell gets 10+ hours on a charge, even 12 sometimes. I think the 12" Macbook is pretty cool, but I won't consider it or any other replacement until it gets 12+ hours on a charge. I hope the rumored thin Macbooks (14" and 16" fingers crossed) will finally combine a retina screen with the best battery life in the lineup.

 

[flight505]

(chill) - most of us agre that given the price of 2000$ in Sweden a 480p cam is a bit surprising - but how often do must of us use the cam on then a laptop personally i use my iPhone. i hope must of macrumors members dont moonlight as cam girls - but i guess we all feel the need to complaint in fear of who will actually buy pink rose and lowres "privat recordings"...

but is this all we care about? what about low light capability - has this improved? (reasons, see above paragraph)

But seriously - is there any benchmarks out on the m7 processor? https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks only have m5 processor.

 

[bjet767]

The MBA screen is the difference that makes the Air's the longest-lasting laptop battery in Apple's entire lineup,

I'll bet the real reason why the MBA lasts longer is the bigger battery. You might look at the specs for the 11" MBA and you'll find the battery life is less than the 2016 12" MB and about the same as the 2015 12" MB.

Battery specs:
13" Air

• Built-in 54‑watt‑hour lithium‑polymer battery

11" Air

• Built‑in 38‑watt‑hour lithium‑polymer battery

12" MB (2016)

• Built-in 41.4-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery

12" MB (2015)

• Built-in 39.7-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery

13" MBA (2011)

Apple only advertises a 7 hour battery life and doesn't give a watt-hour number. EveryMac.com says it has a 50 watt-hour size and in real life gets around 4 hours of use on a charge.

So let's be honest, a smaller and thinner form has less battery capability, that is until battery technology improves. It would seem from the comparisons (provided by Apple) the display is not (or is not the main reason) the battery life issue. It is a combination of the whole package, CPU, GPU, Lighting, keyboard etc with the battery size the main deciding factor.

Also let's face the fact the complainers just don't like the device and are trumping up everything possible to let the rest of the world hear their opinion.

It's a good device.

 

[rekhyt]

It's time Apple ditches Intel and swaps to ARM.

iPad Pro got scores of 3224 and 5466 - beating the new MacBook on single core by over 10% and falling behind on multicore by less than 7%.

The A9X used in the iPad Pro costs $37.30. The Intel chips in this new computer start at $281.

So Apple could save themselves $240 and get a 10% speed boost on single core, with only a slight hit to multicore.

Obviously on the top end it makes sense to stick with Intel (for now) but really, it seems to me ARM is beating the crap out of Intel on the low end.

Because Windows RT was such a success.

 

[69650]

So if you totally agree that some of the hate is a little crazy then you must agree that calling a 480p Facetime camera, on a low-spec laptop, "a slap in the face" and "pathetic" just as crazy, no? Seems like 480p is more than adequate for what it's intended to do.

Low spec but not low price. For the price it should have a better camera as standard.
[doublepost=1461435070][/doublepost]

If that's all you do, you should get an iPad (or a Chromebook).

The Chromebook is killing MB sales in the US education sector.

 

[boast]

We should get a rMB with a camera bump for 720p

 

[nick42983]

I'll bet the real reason why the MBA lasts longer is the bigger battery. You might look at the specs for the 11" MBA and you'll find the battery life is less than the 2016 12" MB and about the same as the 2015 12" MB.

Battery specs:
13" Air

• Built-in 54‑watt‑hour lithium‑polymer battery

11" Air

• Built‑in 38‑watt‑hour lithium‑polymer battery

12" MB (2016)

• Built-in 41.4-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery

12" MB (2015)

• Built-in 39.7-watt-hour lithium-polymer battery

13" MBA (2011)

Apple only advertises a 7 hour battery life and doesn't give a watt-hour number. EveryMac.com says it has a 50 watt-hour size and in real life gets around 4 hours of use on a charge.

So let's be honest, a smaller and thinner form has less battery capability, that is until battery technology improves. It would seem from the comparisons (provided by Apple) the display is not (or is not the main reason) the battery life issue. It is a combination of the whole package, CPU, GPU, Lighting, keyboard etc with the battery size the main deciding factor.

Also let's face the fact the complainers just don't like the device and are trumping up everything possible to let the rest of the world hear their opinion.

It's a good device.

I seem to recall discussion of a Retina screen being too power hungry to fit into an Air a few years back. If it mainly comes down to battery size then it's a disappointment that Apple didn't fit a retina screen into the current Airs by now. I assume the larger MacBooks (or thinner MacBook Pros) we're expecting will be like what we've wanted the Air to be for a while now.

 

[navaira]

I assume the larger MacBooks (or thinner MacBook Pros) we're expecting will be like what we've wanted the Air to be for a while now.

Except for the price, yes.

 

[nick42983]

Except for the price, yes.

There's the rub I wonder if they'll even bother with a 13" and just jump to 14" (since the 12" is so close in size). Whatever the next step up will be I expect a $100 increase over the 12" base.