New Slim 12" MacBook and MacBook Air Updates Soon

[mdelvecchio]

What will be the big difference between a 12" and a 13" MBP? A quarter-pound? This is stupid.

can you say...rumor? this isnt an apple press release, it's a series of rumors. what apple ultimately releases will make sense, because theyre better at this than you are.

----------

This is getting silly. Apple is fishing for innovation. Try a new lure, maybe new bait to catch more consumers?

what on earth are you talking about?

me, i dont mistake rumors for apple press releases. lets chat after they release their product line updates.

----------

However, I think Apple has firmly gone into the consumer electronics business and the sales of "wow factor" super slim and light laptops easily compensates for any lost sales to the scientific, engineering and software development users who might want a more powerful portable computer.

software development is great on a macbook. mac and windows dev, thanks to the great virtualized tools today.

 

[Val-kyrie]

to all those monkeys here that do not understand the needs of others. Just cause you don't need 17" screen as you can use your 13" with external monitor doesn't mean that we all have the same option! For crying out loud if I could always connect the external screen then why would I even bother with a laptop? I could get mac pro and get all the power I need and have all the screen space I want with as many screens as I need!
To me, 13" is ridiculous computer. Too small to do anything yet I don't come here bashing everyone around just cause your model sells more! There is a lot of people asking for 17" and those people ask for a reason. They don't invent their desire and they do have needs for it so why do you keep coming and bashing them for it? I want and need 17" for the screen estate. I have 15" and its just damn small. No, I can't plug in external screen everywhere I go! If I was like everyone of you then I would be coming here and saying that I hope they will discontinue 13" and 15" so you can all use fricking 11" MBA! Now lets see how you would like that when your NEED is different!!!

For crying out loud, leave the people alone. There are people that actually need 17" for a valid reason so stop attacking them! Be understanding that there is a group of people that have different needs than you! Yes, 13" is fine for facebook but those that need 17" are in a different software group. In fact, try to do anything in Maya on 15" for extensive period of time and let me know how that goes. Having just graph editor, hypershade, outliner and perspective view + shot view open. Then come here and boast how great the 13 or 15" is great for anyone!

Are you complaining about the screen size or resolution? Aren't the 15" rMBPs able to scale the resolution up to 1920x1200? Wasn't that the resolution of the last 17" MBP? If so, is this not a satisfactory option? Or do the rMBP screens sacrifice too much clarity/sharpness for you while scaling? Or are the icons, etc., too small for you on a 15" at 1920x1200?

Our family has a 2013 13" MBA which has the same screen resolution (1440x900) as the 15" cMBPs and it does not bother my eyes despite the fact that I am middle-aged. In fact, my complaint about Apple's marketing with the rMBPs is that they do not offer any more usable screen real estate at native settings (2880x1800), they are simply sharper (a doubling of the 1440x900). I want more usable screen space, not just a sharper image. For this reason, I still like the high(er)-res AG cMBPs.

PS--I am not trying to put down your needs, only trying to understand you.

 

[Yaboze]

Since everyone is guessing, I'll take a stab at it.

I'm going with a 12" Air, non-retina and 13" & 15" rMBP's as the MacBook lineup.

It doesn't make sense to make a 11", 12", 13" Air, so Apple drops the 11" and 13" and has one model, the 12". The 12" will be small like the 11" but with a smaller bezel for bigger screen, or some kind of change similar to that.

 

[jger77]

I wager that:

The macbook lineup for either Xmas 2014 or back-to-shcool 2015 will look something like this:

The $900 student special
essentially the current 13 in mbp, call it MacBook classic

Retinas all around in:

air
M ~12 in (fanless) $1250
L the fabled 15 in MBa(also fanless) $1500

and;

Pro
L the current MBPr (w GPU and fan) $1900
XL ~18in (GPU and fan) $2300

That entry level machine is a very important one in the lineup. It much like the iPhone indoctrinates youthful consumers into the world of mac.

 

[gnomeisland]

So let me get this straight. You believe that not only will OS X be ported to ARM and run decently, but it will also be able to emulate an Intel processor at a workable speed.



I think you must have some secret knowledge of major breakthroughs in ARM processors in the past year.

This is almost word for word what people said (myself included) before the x86 transition.

Yes, ARM is powerful enough to run a full OS X. That isn't secret. ARM server clusters are gaining in popularity. ARM processors geared for performance over ultra low wattage are very robust. The real metric is power per watt these days and ARM arguably leads.

It is entirely within Apple's already demonstrated capabilities to customize/optimize ARM cores to run at higher wattages for more power. The dual core A7 already matches or exceeds a Core Duo ruining at twice the speed (in GHZ) and using over 10x the power.

With a die shrink and 3-5x more wattage Apple's ARM core could give Intel's current ULV chips a run for their money while saving Apple money and freeing them from Intel's control.

Regarding emulation speed, I think the emulator would work about as well as Rosetta did on the original Intel Macs. Research the x86 transition. I think you'll see the blue print works here too.

Start with the least powerful, low-end machines and work your way up the line as users and developers make the switch.

I could be wrong but I'm not crazy.

----------

As much as I do not like the idea of ARM processors, and while it may yet be too early for a transition, it is very possible that Apple AND Microsoft could transition from Intel to ARM platforms together; however, I would not expect one to transition without the other. So long as MS supports Windows RT, there is the possibility for a platform change for Apple.













While I am enthusiastic about the power savings in the NVidia 8xxx series of dGPUs, I think Apple will undoubtedly reserve dGPUs for only the highest spec'd and priced MBP model.

Interesting thought, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think Apple is nearly as wedded to Microsoft as you think. Apple used several different varieties of chip platforms before coming to x86. The transition to x86 had much more to do with future scalability and power in laptop computing then with compatibility with Microsoft.

If anything I think a split from Microsoft, differentiation from them, would be seen as beneficial to Apple. They have to make their computers seem less like commodity items (Windows computers) in order to justify continuing to charge the prices and margins that they do.

 

[melendezest]

can you say...rumor? this isnt an apple press release, it's a series of rumors. what apple ultimately releases will make sense, because theyre better at this than you are.

A. I know it's a rumor. We're commenting on speculation, so we're speculating too. I thought this was obvious. Perhaps not to everybody.

B. Spoken like a true-blue-pro-Apple cheerleader. Put the pom-poms down, son, you're not fooling anyone.

 

[EwanMcTeagle]

I'm pretty sure the classic 13 MBP will stay in one way or another - available for schools, students, teachers etc.
Another way would be to brand it as Macbook make it the cheapest Macbook in the lineup.

As for the MBA, I would say they have to upgrade the display on this thing (it's not bad, but come on...), but then again MBA's keep selling and Apple's known for not doing upgrades if they have to - like the classic MBP's screen, which has the same resolution as 2006's Macbook, with better backlight though, but still...).

And I'm almost 100% certain they won't make 15" MBA.
Doesn't make sense from the lineup point of view.
It would be too expensive (taking that they keep their standard margins) and it would cannibalize Retina MBP. It would have to be cheaper than rMBP, while Retina can't get more expensive as there's no believable reason for it.
The Mac lineup as it is now (with or without the 13 cMBP) is pretty straightforward and clean - you see Air and Retinas and then it's a rather quick decision. You either want one or the other. The lineup mess they have to adress is with the iPad's in my opinion. Too many models without logical naming... Why didn't use the iPhone terminology (iPad 1, 2, 3...) for iPads is beyond me.

 

[VTPete]

Are you complaining about the screen size or resolution? Aren't the 15" rMBPs able to scale the resolution up to 1920x1200? Wasn't that the resolution of the last 17" MBP? If so, is this not a satisfactory option? Or do the rMBP screens sacrifice too much clarity/sharpness for you while scaling? Or are the icons, etc., too small for you on a 15" at 1920x1200?

Our family has a 2013 13" MBA which has the same screen resolution (1440x900) as the 15" cMBPs and it does not bother my eyes despite the fact that I am middle-aged. In fact, my complaint about Apple's marketing with the rMBPs is that they do not offer any more usable screen real estate at native settings (2880x1800), they are simply sharper (a doubling of the 1440x900). I want more usable screen space, not just a sharper image. For this reason, I still like the high(er)-res AG cMBPs.

PS--I am not trying to put down your needs, only trying to understand you.

Here's my take on the subject; keeping in mind my 49 year old eyes aren't what they used to be.

First, I love my 11" Air. I bought it in 2009 and I'm on a business trip with it right now typing this. It's my "go to" laptop for everything except gaming. It is, without doubt, my all-time favorite computer. I'd love to see the bezel shrunk and have a 12" screen slipped in there instead. Retina would be nice, but not if it comes with reduced performance or increased glare.

Next, I love my 17" Macbook Pro with anti-glare screen. I just upgraded the hard drive to an SSD so that I can hopefully get another year or more out of it. I'm a software developer and if you've ever used XCode you know that real-estate is everything. And, as I pretty much need to wear my reading glasses these days, bigger (size) is better as well. I have a 15" Macbook Pro for work and the extra size of the 17" makes a huge difference.

Regarding the resolution of the retina, I've played with the 15" at various resolutions. Apple does a very good job of using those retina pixels to give you more pixel real-estate; but let's be honest here, you're sacrificing your retina display to interpolation when you do that. Simulating 1920x1200 works, and if I had a 15" retina, I would use it. But, side by side, I still prefer my "old fashioned" 17". Honestly, I haven't considered the retina Macs seriously because of their horrible glare. (Yes, they're improved... but IMHO still outlandish for any serious work.)

I want either small enough to fit on an airplane tray-table (YAY, 11"!) or big enough to carry onto my porch at home to program. (YAY, 17"!)

So, in summary, bring on the new Airs and hopefully ditch the massive bezel. But, please, please Apple, don't make it glossy!

 

[Val-kyrie]

Interesting thought, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think Apple is nearly as wedded to Microsoft as you think. Apple used several different varieties of chip platforms before coming to x86. The transition to x86 had much more to do with future scalability and power in laptop computing then with compatibility with Microsoft.

I agree completely with the words I emboldened.

If anything I think a split from Microsoft, differentiation from them, would be seen as beneficial to Apple. They have to make their computers seem less like commodity items (Windows computers) in order to justify continuing to charge the prices and margins that they do.

I would not say Apple is wedded to MS, but I wonder how willing Apple is to relinquish BootCamp. I do not know how important BootCamp is to Apple's customer base outside of the more technically savvy or even how large a percentage that base comprises, but I would think that a move to ARM by Apple would consider how important BootCamp is to Apple's user base. If BootCamp is important to Apple's user base, I would think that Apple would be working with MS to provide an ARM-based MS OS. A transition to ARM by MS was rumored just prior to the release of Win 8, so I have long wondered if MS and Apple were collaborating to at least some extent on the possibility of transitioning all their software to ARM. This would make their transition look like a more general technological trend, which I believe would be mutually beneficiary to the companies.

Here's my take on the subject; keeping in mind my 49 year old eyes aren't what they used to be.

First, I love my 11" Air. I bought it in 2009 and I'm on a business trip with it right now typing this. It's my "go to" laptop for everything except gaming. It is, without doubt, my all-time favorite computer. I'd love to see the bezel shrunk and have a 12" screen slipped in there instead. Retina would be nice, but not if it comes with reduced performance or increased glare.

Next, I love my 17" Macbook Pro with anti-glare screen. I just upgraded the hard drive to an SSD so that I can hopefully get another year or more out of it. I'm a software developer and if you've ever used XCode you know that real-estate is everything. And, as I pretty much need to wear my reading glasses these days, bigger (size) is better as well. I have a 15" Macbook Pro for work and the extra size of the 17" makes a huge difference.

Regarding the resolution of the retina, I've played with the 15" at various resolutions. Apple does a very good job of using those retina pixels to give you more pixel real-estate; but let's be honest here, you're sacrificing your retina display to interpolation when you do that. Simulating 1920x1200 works, and if I had a 15" retina, I would use it. But, side by side, I still prefer my "old fashioned" 17". Honestly, I haven't considered the retina Macs seriously because of their horrible glare. (Yes, they're improved... but IMHO still outlandish for any serious work.)

I want either small enough to fit on an airplane tray-table (YAY, 11"!) or big enough to carry onto my porch at home to program. (YAY, 17"!)

So, in summary, bring on the new Airs and hopefully ditch the massive bezel. But, please, please Apple, don't make it glossy!

I agree with you on the glossy. That is the biggest drawback for me with the rMBPs. I really liked Apple's AG cMBP because of the lack of glare--too bad it lacked an IPS screen.

 

[Mattsasa]

Possible lineup?
12" screen in 11" footprint - MBA with IGP or Iris gfx
14" screen in 13" footprint - MBP with Iris or Iris Pro gfx
16" screen in 15" footprint - MBP with Iris Pro or dGPU

While I am enthusiastic about the power savings in the NVidia 8xxx series of dGPUs, I think Apple will undoubtedly reserve dGPUs for only the highest spec'd and priced MBP model.

Sounds Possible to me

I wager that:

The macbook lineup for either Xmas 2014 or back-to-shcool 2015 will look something like this:

The $900 student special
essentially the current 13 in mbp, call it MacBook classic

Retinas all around in:

air
M ~12 in (fanless) $1250
L the fabled 15 in MBa(also fanless) $1500

and;

Pro
L the current MBPr (w GPU and fan) $1900
XL ~18in (GPU and fan) $2300

That entry level machine is a very important one in the lineup. It much like the iPhone indoctrinates youthful consumers into the world of mac.

I'll take that wager haha. I respectfully think that lineup is ridiculous, are you actually suggesting apple is going to make an 18" notebook now?

This is almost word for word what people said (myself included) before the x86 transition.

Yes, ARM is powerful enough to run a full OS X. That isn't secret. ARM server clusters are gaining in popularity. ARM processors geared for performance over ultra low wattage are very robust. The real metric is power per watt these days and ARM arguably leads.

It is entirely within Apple's already demonstrated capabilities to customize/optimize ARM cores to run at higher wattages for more power. The dual core A7 already matches or exceeds a Core Duo ruining at twice the speed (in GHZ) and using over 10x the power.

With a die shrink and 3-5x more wattage Apple's ARM core could give Intel's current ULV chips a run for their money while saving Apple money and freeing them from Intel's control.

Regarding emulation speed, I think the emulator would work about as well as Rosetta did on the original Intel Macs. Research the x86 transition. I think you'll see the blue print works here too.

Start with the least powerful, low-end machines and work your way up the line as users and developers make the switch.

I could be wrong but I'm not crazy.

----------




Interesting thought, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think Apple is nearly as wedded to Microsoft as you think. Apple used several different varieties of chip platforms before coming to x86. The transition to x86 had much more to do with future scalability and power in laptop computing then with compatibility with Microsoft.

If anything I think a split from Microsoft, differentiation from them, would be seen as beneficial to Apple. They have to make their computers seem less like commodity items (Windows computers) in order to justify continuing to charge the prices and margins that they do.

I have no doubt that ARM is powerful enough to run Mac OS, and Powerful enough for laptop and desktop computers. But the problem is not power.

The problem is emulation, it won't be as easy as the PowerPC - Intel transition. an ARM chip running Mac OS and and apps on ARM, and simultaneously emulating an x86 to run older apps is not going to work out well. Emulation is tricky it will be very inefficient and use up a lot of power and RAM, I don't see apple wanting to make this kind of user experience on a rMBA. I do agree that apple almost definitely has Mac OS running on an ARM computer in testing and I bet it works great. But I can't imagine apple making this transition any time soon, and we would have seen more leaks/ rumors of apple rewriting MacOS and all of their first-party apps. If someone creates a great x86 emulator that will run on Mac OS on ARM, it might be able to emulate some simple Mac OS applications, but wouldn't have a chance running anything major like Adobe PhotoShop, other productivity Suites, and especially not steam games, or Blizzard Games, other Mac OS Games.

 

[jger77]

And I'm almost 100% certain they won't make 15" MBA.
Doesn't make sense from the lineup point of view.
It would be too expensive (taking that they keep their standard margins) and it would cannibalize Retina MBP. It would have to be cheaper than rMBP, while Retina can't get more expensive as there's no believable reason for it.

I wholly concur with respect to the iPad lineup and the silliness that is the spec and price game there.
But

Consider that currently the 15 mbp comes in 2 flavours

A: no graphics card $2k
B: graphics card $2600

I speak econ, not business school, so I don't really know what standard margin means.
But,
I do know that the supply (cost) side of the 2 expensive pieces of tech (flash storage & ultra hi-res screens) in new MBs is only going in one direction and it isn't up.
And
The demand(willingness top pay) side, on the other hand, is staying relatively constant or increasing for better performance.

So methinks that there is room in the lineup for a 14-15 in air and a 15-16 in ProRetina.

 

[Freida]

Are you complaining about the screen size or resolution? Aren't the 15" rMBPs able to scale the resolution up to 1920x1200? Wasn't that the resolution of the last 17" MBP? If so, is this not a satisfactory option? Or do the rMBP screens sacrifice too much clarity/sharpness for you while scaling? Or are the icons, etc., too small for you on a 15" at 1920x1200?

Our family has a 2013 13" MBA which has the same screen resolution (1440x900) as the 15" cMBPs and it does not bother my eyes despite the fact that I am middle-aged. In fact, my complaint about Apple's marketing with the rMBPs is that they do not offer any more usable screen real estate at native settings (2880x1800), they are simply sharper (a doubling of the 1440x900). I want more usable screen space, not just a sharper image. For this reason, I still like the high(er)-res AG cMBPs.

PS--I am not trying to put down your needs, only trying to understand you.

It's the physical size of the screen. Yes, I can use 1920x1200 and sometimes I do but things get small and I already got glasses from my optician for computer work. When I had 17" cMBP things were just way more comfortable on the eyes etc. At work I have 2 screens so that is very comfortable but on the go, this 15rMBP is just not so useful as the 17" would have been.
Hope it will get justified with an option for those of us that need this.

 

[gnomeisland]

I have no doubt that ARM is powerful enough to run Mac OS, and Powerful enough for laptop and desktop computers. But the problem is not power.

The problem is emulation, it won't be as easy as the PowerPC - Intel transition. an ARM chip running Mac OS and and apps on ARM, and simultaneously emulating an x86 to run older apps is not going to work out well. Emulation is tricky it will be very inefficient and use up a lot of power and RAM, I don't see apple wanting to make this kind of user experience on a rMBA. I do agree that apple almost definitely has Mac OS running on an ARM computer in testing and I bet it works great. But I can't imagine apple making this transition any time soon, and we would have seen more leaks/ rumors of apple rewriting MacOS and all of their first-party apps. If someone creates a great x86 emulator that will run on Mac OS on ARM, it might be able to emulate some simple Mac OS applications, but wouldn't have a chance running anything major like Adobe PhotoShop, other productivity Suites, and especially not steam games, or Blizzard Games, other Mac OS Games.

Why not? First off, RAM is cheaper and more plentiful than it was during the X86 transition. As is threading and multicore technology so I see no evidence that it will work WORSE than it did then. But I do see evidence that it will be as good or better. Plus MS has a vested interest in x86 emulation on ARM. There are teams out there working on it even if Apple never moves on it.

That said it wasn't perfect but somehow we all survived and once we saw the benefits the world switched.

Apple sold and supported both processor families for years. And for a long while high-end PPC computers held their value very well just because Adobe had trouble making the switch.

If this happens it won't be quick and it won't be easy but expect this new laptop to have an amazing value proposition and a lust worthy design. People will have to want to switch badly enough to put up with the inconvenience. Apple knows this and they are good at it.

 

[ctyrider]

Regarding emulation speed, I think the emulator would work about as well as Rosetta did on the original Intel Macs. Research the x86 transition. I think you'll see the blue print works here too.

This just made me laugh.. You seriously think one will be able to run Premier Pro or Photoshop or FileMaker Pro in an ARM-based x86 emulator with acceptable user experience?

And btw, this would work nothing like Rosetta emulation on x86 for variety of reasons. Important one being that Intel Core Duo (the first Intel CPU used in PPC-Intel transition) was already significantly more powerful than PPC G4 systems that Rosetta had to emulate. By attempting to do this with ARM, Apple would be going backwards in terms of processing performance, while only (possibly) gaining a minor battery life improvement.

x86-to-ARM transition is an absurd idea on too many levels.

 

[gnomeisland]

This just made me laugh.. You seriously think one will be able to run Premier Pro or Photoshop or FileMaker Pro in an ARM-based x86 emulator with acceptable user experience?



And btw, this would work nothing like Rosetta emulation on x86 for variety of reasons. Important one being that Intel Core Duo (the first Intel CPU used in PPC-Intel transition) was already significantly more powerful than PPC G4 systems that Rosetta had to emulate. By attempting to do this with ARM, Apple would be going backwards in terms of performance and possibly gaining a minor battery life improvement.



x86-to-ARM transition is an absurd idea on too many levels.

No. That's why Apple didn't start with the pro line with the x86 transition and if this is the ARM transition it would make sense to start with the Air. Why is there this assumption that ARM's instruction set is inherently inferior? It is just most often used in configurations optimized for ultra low power draws.

How many people run Premier or Photoshop on a Bay Trail system and expect "acceptable" performance?

How much better would a 5W x86 chip do at any of those tasks? Yes, an ARM processor would do them worse under emulation but because ARM has a higher performance per watt it would do everything else faster.

Make it sexy, sleek, and affordable people will buy it despite the limitations and developers will quickly transition. Adobe would love it as it would force people into CC.

AGAIN, maybe I'm wrong but you're aren't proving me that the idea is absurd. Unless you having compelling evidence that x86 is a better platform at the rumored wattage? Remember Apple software will work from day one and all the consumer stuff is now free. iPad apps would likely run at native speed with some kind of UI emulation. There will be apps. Lots of Apps. Maybe not high end Adobe ones but Apple won't be targeting them with a laptop with these specs regardless is the chipset used.

 

[flux73]

It's the physical size of the screen. Yes, I can use 1920x1200 and sometimes I do but things get small and I already got glasses from my optician for computer work. When I had 17" cMBP things were just way more comfortable on the eyes etc. At work I have 2 screens so that is very comfortable but on the go, this 15rMBP is just not so useful as the 17" would have been.
Hope it will get justified with an option for those of us that need this.

If Apple doesn't make a 17" screen, there is only one very simple reason. There isn't enough demand. Yes, I understand that you really want one. But there aren't enough of you for Apple to justify running a production line to make one. Or to make one at a cost that all of you who want one, would actually pay for.

 

[iRun26.2]

No. That's why Apple didn't start with the pro line with the x86 transition and if this is the ARM transition it would make sense to start with the Air. Why is there this assumption that ARM's instruction set is inherently inferior? It is just most often used in configurations optimized for ultra low power draws.

How many people run Premier or Photoshop on a Bay Trail system and expect "acceptable" performance?

How much better would a 5W x86 chip do at any of those tasks? Yes, an ARM processor would do them worse under emulation but because ARM has a higher performance per watt it would do everything else faster.

Make it sexy, sleek, and affordable people will buy it despite the limitations and developers will quickly transition. Adobe would love it as it would force people into CC.

AGAIN, maybe I'm wrong but you're aren't proving me that the idea is absurd. Unless you having compelling evidence that x86 is a better platform at the rumored wattage? Remember Apple software will work from day one and all the consumer stuff is now free. iPad apps would likely run at native speed with some kind of UI emulation. There will be apps. Lots of Apps. Maybe not high end Adobe ones but Apple won't be targeting them with a laptop with these specs regardless is the chipset used.

To me, hearing you say that there will be 'lots of apps' immediately makes it sound like you are trying to sell me an iPad. I run professional software on my MBA, not 'apps '. The tasks I use my MBA for are not trivial and I can't imagine the applications being rewritten for ARM even within two years.

Are there really that many people who would be satisfied buying a new ARM based MBA? I often think that the people who believe an ARM based MBA will sell are counting on OTHER people buying it. Would you buy one?

I would have no use for it as I have no use for an iPad. Isn't the 'iPad with a keyboard' market already covered by the iPad and the many vendor who already sell keyboard accessories?

 

[Mattsasa]

Why not? First off, RAM is cheaper and more plentiful than it was during the X86 transition. As is threading and multicore technology so I see no evidence that it will work WORSE than it did then. But I do see evidence that it will be as good or better. Plus MS has a vested interest in x86 emulation on ARM. There are teams out there working on it even if Apple never moves on it.

That said it wasn't perfect but somehow we all survived and once we saw the benefits the world switched.

Apple sold and supported both processor families for years. And for a long while high-end PPC computers held their value very well just because Adobe had trouble making the switch.

If this happens it won't be quick and it won't be easy but expect this new laptop to have an amazing value proposition and a lust worthy design. People will have to want to switch badly enough to put up with the inconvenience. Apple knows this and they are good at it.

No. That's why Apple didn't start with the pro line with the x86 transition and if this is the ARM transition it would make sense to start with the Air. Why is there this assumption that ARM's instruction set is inherently inferior? It is just most often used in configurations optimized for ultra low power draws.

How many people run Premier or Photoshop on a Bay Trail system and expect "acceptable" performance?

How much better would a 5W x86 chip do at any of those tasks? Yes, an ARM processor would do them worse under emulation but because ARM has a higher performance per watt it would do everything else faster.

Make it sexy, sleek, and affordable people will buy it despite the limitations and developers will quickly transition. Adobe would love it as it would force people into CC.

AGAIN, maybe I'm wrong but you're aren't proving me that the idea is absurd. Unless you having compelling evidence that x86 is a better platform at the rumored wattage? Remember Apple software will work from day one and all the consumer stuff is now free. iPad apps would likely run at native speed with some kind of UI emulation. There will be apps. Lots of Apps. Maybe not high end Adobe ones but Apple won't be targeting them with a laptop with these specs regardless is the chipset used.

So overall, You make a lot of very good points, and I do agree with you actually.

Apple is the kind of company that can make a sleek and sexy desirable product that will draw lots of people, even though there will be poor compatibility with earlier applications. As most people would buy such device, and have absolutely no idea what ARM or x86 or emulation means at all. and most applications running on said ultra-thin notebook would be stock apps, safari, mail, itunes, etc. and then 3rd party applications would be simple ones like word processing ones. So I think such a product could be successful, I don't think it will be this year though.

A couple things I just want to throw out.

the PPC---x86 transition, was going from a weaker CPU to a more powerful and more advanced CPU.

the x86--ARM transition is going from a great CPU- to a slightly weaker and a lot more power efficient processor.

that said I am personally very optimistic about the performance to come from ARM processors. .... I am also very optimistic about the power efficiency and graphics performance of future Intel processors.

Also, Rosetta was cool, and it worked ok, but had issues with lots of complex software and games.
And I am not 100% about this next sentence so correct me if I am wrong.... But I understand that Rosetta wasn't exactly an emulator but rather a translator for only the G3 processor and the G4. So if apple were to create something like Rosetta for this transition I feel it would be a lot more complicated as there is a whole range of x86 Processors that Mac OS is running on.

In conclusion, you have definitely sparked interest for me, and now I am thinking about getting an ARM based ultrabook and playing with it and some x86 emulators and see what is like. Personally, as I am a power user and gamer, I am hoping for broadwell/skylake in future MacBook Airs

 

[driftless]

Make it sexy, sleek, and affordable people will buy it despite the limitations and developers will quickly transition. Adobe would love it as it would force people into CC.

Why would it force people to CC? The apps are still downloaded and not run on Adobe's servers. If it is retina and has a 16GB RAM option, Photoshop will run just fine on it for a mobile device. Will it compete with an iMac or nMP? No. Nor will it be a good machine for video. I am excited to see what this new 12" MB will be. I haven't had a laptop in a while (iMac & iPad), love the form factor of the MBA but not the guts nor the screen. This rumored machine might be it for me.

 

[Menneisyys2]

If Apple doesn't make a 17" screen, there is only one very simple reason. There isn't enough demand. Yes, I understand that you really want one. But there aren't enough of you for Apple to justify running a production line to make one. Or to make one at a cost that all of you who want one, would actually pay for.

They could consider licensing OS X to manufacturers willing to produce some high-end OS X models for 17+" fans (with very strict licensing conditions, of course - nothing similar to DOS or Windows).

This way, Apple could avoid our switching (back) to Windows (and losing us as customers of OS X apps), which I really don't want to do but, given that I find 15" rMBP's having just too small screen estate, will be inevitable, as no non-Apple notebooks / portable workstations run OS X officially.

 

[imjoee]

sell or to not sell my macbook air 2013 hmmm

 

[iRun26.2]

They could consider licensing OS X to manufacturers willing to produce some high-end OS X models for 17+" fans (with very strict licensing conditions, of course - nothing similar to DOS or Windows).

This way, Apple could avoid our switching (back) to Windows (and losing us as customers of OS X apps), which I really don't want to do but, given that I find 15" rMBP's having just too small screen estate, will be inevitable, as no non-Apple notebooks / portable workstations run OS X officially.

The issue for Apple would be similar but more extreme: That's a big policy change for just a few people. If the numbers were high enough, they would just make a 17" for you in the first place.

 

[gnomeisland]

To me, hearing you say that there will be 'lots of apps' immediately makes it sound like you are trying to sell me an iPad. I run professional software on my MBA, not 'apps '. The tasks I use my MBA for are not trivial and I can't imagine the applications being rewritten for ARM even within two years.



Are there really that many people who would be satisfied buying a new ARM based MBA? I often think that the people who believe an ARM based MBA will sell are counting on OTHER people buying it. Would you buy one?



I would have no use for it as I have no use for an iPad. Isn't the 'iPad with a keyboard' market already covered by the iPad and the many vendor who already sell keyboard accessories?

It sounds like such a machine, at launch, would not right for you just as the first x86 macs were not right for many users. An ARM laptop would compliment instead of replace existing options. Apple does this often.

Yes, I would be interested in such a laptop eventually but at the moment I don't need ANY laptop so pointing to me is probably not a good way of making a point about broader appeal. My needs are very particular. I am not making these predictions on what I want. I am using observation, critical reasoning, and logic.

You sound a bit defensive about what you do and how you perceive the importance of how YOU use a computer (vs. others). I get this to a degree since I spend almost all my time using mid/high end media apps. However a fanless laptop running a 5W processor is not going to be geared towards my/your needs in 2014. That doesn't mean it won't work with native apps (excuse me for using that abbreviation APPLICATIONS) just that you might not be the target user regardless of wether my prediction is correct.

All current evidence suggests that ARM processors are as good or better when wattage and die size are taken into account. Apple designs some of the best ARM processors and their foundry partners about to bring facilities online that will rival Intel's capabilities.

The iPad is wildly popular. I'm sorry you don't like it and you feel slighted by its popularity. But it seems reasonable and logical that compatibility with an iPad would be selling point for a lot of people who would be happy with the form factor and performance of a ultra light notebook.

 

[tongxinshe]

Sounds like yet another too damn small appliance from Apple.

What the hell, they'll have an 11", 12", 13", and 15", but no 17"???

What will be the big difference between a 12" and a 13" MBP? A quarter-pound? This is stupid.

A 2" gap between models makes more sense.

Apple is still ignoring the desktop replacement category. It is niche (OK, very niche), but still compelling. I'd be happy as hell with a 5-7 pound 17" MBP. Screw thinner-and lighter (than the 17" MBP already was).

I want screen real-estate and power in portable form. A REAL desktop replacement, from Apple. GIVE IT TO US, APPLE. DANG IT!!!

Apple emphasize on profit margin a lot, which translates to their practice of ignoring minority customers. The demand of 17" laptops are not big enough for Apple to maintain their expected profit margin.

 

[gnomeisland]

Why would it force people to CC? The apps are still downloaded and not run on Adobe's servers. If it is retina and has a 16GB RAM option, Photoshop will run just fine on it for a mobile device. Will it compete with an iMac or nMP? No. Nor will it be a good machine for video. I am excited to see what this new 12" MB will be. I haven't had a laptop in a while (iMac & iPad), love the form factor of the MBA but not the guts nor the screen. This rumored machine might be it for me.

If it uses an ARM processor with x86 emulation and only a fanless 5w thermal envelope you will want an updated set of applications that will run natively. AFAIK Adobe is only offering such major updates through CC. If the computer uses a x86 proc then yes, pre CC will work.