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

[BlargKing]

This MacBook might be the biggest gap in the cost to performance ratio in the entire computing industry.

I cannot come up with another laptop that delivers so little for such a huge cost.

 

[Schwyz]

meh. HP's new laptop however is something to admire.

I fear Apple has lost it's hardware superiority over competitors.

 

[BlargKing]

Wait this is a joke right? People aren't actually spending 1900$ on a computer thats incapable of doing anything but basic daily tasks right?
[doublepost=1461098161][/doublepost]Why would anyone ever buy this over a MacBook Air??? The Air has better specs, costs less, and is just as portable.

 

[daabido]

Is this the smallest performance jump year over year we have ever seen in a mac lineup?

Back in the PowerPC days we would have killed for this kind of performance jump!

 

[tpham5919]

Since he's only promised to "maybe" buy one even if Apple adds a second port, it's probably not worth Apple's time.

What Apple should do is to propose ahead of time several different configurations and have people put down deposits for their favorite spec. Whichever one earns the most money will go into mass production. There will be no refund of deposits as it's your own fault for betting on the inferior versions in the first place. Instead, the money will go toward making the best machine even better (and you should feel good deep down for helping out Apple). Win-win. For most anway.

 

[Ironduke]

question now is will it throttle

 

[meboy]

meh. HP's new laptop however is something to admire.

I fear Apple has lost it's hardware superiority over competitors.

I like the Samsung Notebook 9 13.3".
1.85lbs, Skylake core i5, 8gb, 256gb, 13.3" glossy but low reflective (lower than apple), 100% srgb, .5 inch thick (same as macbook at it's thickest) barely an inch longer and wider with a fair bit more screen, 7.5 hour average battery.
Review from mobiletechreview (whom I trust) has nothing but good things to say.

 

[Aston441]

Max config with tax for me would be $1850.

Meh. I can afford it, easily, but seems stupid.

I guess I'll wait another year and see if they can make it faster.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Apple would need to re-write OSX and get developers to re-write all their apps. We would lose Windows 10 compatibility, as well.

Apple wouldn't need to rewrite OS X. It's written in C/C++/Obj-C and Swift, not assembly. They'll need to recompile - that's about all.

Developers who distribute via source won't need to do anything - their users will have to compile, same as always.

Developers who distribute compiled apps straight to customers will need to recompile.

Developers who distribute through the app store won't need to do anything. For the past few years, Apple has had developers submit their code in a non-final format. Apple then compiles that non-final format to whatever they want. They can compile existing apps to ARM as necessary.

Microsoft supports Windows 10 on ARM. The Surface and Surface 2 are both ARM based and run Windows 10 just fine. The app situation on Windows is the same as on OS X (except I think distributing source files is extremely uncommon on Windows... even on OS X isn't not particularly common... but it's a PITA to even get a compiler set up on Windows right now. Maybe when Microsoft adds Bash later this year they'll finally remedy that...)

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Well, I gave you a way in which it is possible: By reengineering the motherboard to fit an additional controller.

But that would require significant effort across more than just the board and this is a quiet refresh to update the internals to the most modern chipset and nothing more - that's what I was implying. Since the update to Skylake didn't bring that natively, Apple themselves would have to go out of their way to add it in - and why would they do that when the next iteration will have support native?

It wasn't included, but it wasn't missing. If Skylake supported it natively and Apple didn't make the appropriate move, then yes, it'd be missing.

For the $ Apple is asking that is not unreasonable for the top end model, but TB3 should have been part of the consideration when MB was initially being designed. An iteration of the TB3 protocol existed when the MB was also a prototype, and other lightweight laptops have TB3. Apple could have reserved space. But Apple never intended for MB to have TB3 first. The MBP will have that honor for the laptop line. But that is a marketing decision, not a legit excuse. If you think the top model is worth $1600, fair enough. I'm just expressing my opinion that it's a lot of money for what it offers a year after intro, a troubling theme in recent Apple releases.

 

[Naaaaak]

How does the performance of the 1.3GHz model compare?

 

[bjet767]

Bubble

The point of my post isn't which computer is "best" for videos, it's the fact the current 12" MB will do small video work quite adequately. Basically for small presentations a "pro" program like FCP works very well on last year's 12" and now should be even better on the updated version.

Of course if my profession was preparing videos on a regular basis a more "powerful" machine would be required. But the purpose of the 12" is for ultimate portability without sacrificing OS X (going to the iPad Pro). Right now at 7AM I'm in Sydney, AU at a coffee shop working on some code and next week I'll be back in the States. This is the beauty of this machine.

 

[dumastudetto]

Wait this is a joke right? People aren't actually spending 1900$ on a computer thats incapable of doing anything but basic daily tasks right?
[doublepost=1461098161][/doublepost]Why would anyone ever buy this over a MacBook Air??? The Air has better specs, costs less, and is just as portable.

The retina display alone would be enough for me to choose the 12" MB over the ageing Air. I can't go back to those old blurry screens anymore.

 

[toddzrx]

I'm also wondering how many of those they sell here in Europe, as the price is insane. The base model costs 1539€ here.

Don't forget: that price most likely includes tax, and most European countries require Apple to provide a standard warranty that's equivalent to AppleCare. The increased prices are not just due to exchange rate or "Apple Greed".

 

[Bubble99]

We are still still waiting for the reviews. Probably why no one gotten back to us yet.

How does the performance of the 1.3GHz model compare?

What is this USB-C port? Is it some kind of new USB port? For new external hard-drive that has USB-C?
[doublepost=1461096752][/doublepost]They say the new MacBook is 15% faster than last year MacBook!! How does this compared to the MacBook Air that has i5 processor? Would MacBook Air be faster? And if so how much faster?

 

[sir1963nz]

Apple is being quite stingy. Just add that extra usb port and I might buy it

Will it go into "Target Mode".

If not it will NOT be considered where I work nor for personal use.

 

[Bubble99]

The retina display alone would be enough for me to choose the 12" MB over the ageing Air. I can't go back to those old blurry screens anymore.

Over 95% of web sites are not design for retina display.

 

[shoubhik88]

Im confused about one thing. On the apple website its touting that the new laptops are wireless? Well duh all laptops are wireless. Is there something extra that I'm missing?

 

[colorfuel]

If you are going to cripple the availability of ports for thinness at least make it a convertible.

Or just give us an iPad with a CoreM and full OSX instead of the the crippled iOS.

I really dont understand Apple. Microsoft can do it, why can't they?

Now I need to hope for an updated MBA again.

Such innovation wow many Apple.

 

[KPOM]

Will it go into "Target Mode".

If not it will NOT be considered where I work nor for personal use.

Yes, but only if you plug it into another USB-C-compliant device (such as last year's MacBook) and use a USB 3.1-compliant cable (which the standard Apple charger cord is not). You can get cables for under $20.

 

[dumastudetto]

Over 95% of web sites are not design for retina display.

Sounds like a nonsense number to me considering almost all Android devices have better than retina displays, all of Apple's devices, etc. No way are more than 95% of the websites ignoring the vast majority of devices accessing them. *all* of the sites I visit have much cleaner looking text than when viewing on the non-retina displays. There is no way I could go back. Whether they are entirely optimised or not, they all look significantly better when reading text.

 

[KPOM]

If you are going to cripple the availability of ports for thinness at least make it a convertible.

Or just give us an iPad with a CoreM and full OSX instead of the the crippled iOS.

I really dont understand Apple. Microsoft can do it, why can't they?

Now I need to hope for an updated MBA again.

Such innovation wow many Apple.

Microsoft did it not because they wanted to, but because they had to, since no one bought Windows RT Surfaces (or other Windows RT devices, for that matter). If they put Core M into an iPad, it would get worse battery life than it does, and would not run iOS apps as well since it would be in emulation. Also, OS X would be worse than Windows 8 based on its current state. It is not optimized for Touch at all.

 

[colorfuel]

I dont care for iOS Apps, otherwise I would get an iPad Pro for my work. I want a tablet that runs OSX Apps with an iOS-like interface but that lets me transition to-from the interface if needed. I am certain that the interface alone would not be difficult to do.

 

[Mascots]

But Apple never intended for MB to have TB3 first.

Obviously, hence why it doesn't have it now.

But it's less a marketing decision than you're making it out to be. Apple could have engineering TB3 into it, but why would they put all of that effort into it significant changes to the board and internals when it will naturally come down the line (requiring significantly less reworking or backtracking), and when people are really ok without it right now? There is very little that can take advantage of TB3, the process is expensive (both time & money), and the MacBook in its current form sell itself. There is very little incentive to hack at the internals to allow out-of-logic leaps, not at Apple's scale. And not with what they're attempting to provide with the MacBook.

The lack of TB3 has very little to do with marketing and everything to do with the environment of the technology on the market. Working it into a MBP, where you're not delivering a new idea*, where insides are more freely arranged, and where a major internal update has been pending for months makes sense prior to Kaby, and had they refreshed the macbook 8 months from now or to greater fanfare, I'd be singing a different tune. But seriously, this update is not meant to be significant in any fashion for this computer.

Edit: I should add that marketing is the one who set the price though. In that regard, yeah, it's pretty freaking crazy.

 

[KPOM]

I dont care for iOS Apps, otherwise I would get an iPad Pro for my work. I want a tablet that runs OSX Apps with an iOS-like interface but that lets me transition to-from the interface if needed. I am certain that the interface alone would not be difficult to do.

It's not that easy. Otherwise Windows 8 would have been a resounding success. Windows 10 actually took a step back toward Windows 7. On top of that, applications designed for OS X, a mouse, a cursor, etc. with small dialog buttons would not work very well natively.