Quanta Said to Manufacture Apple's Upcoming 'Inexpensive Notebooks' in September Quarter

[RogerWilco]

you guys think one of these puppies would be sufficient for web development?

Only if you have an external monitor available. These tiny screens remind me of the early Acer netbooks. At my age I'd need a strong pair of reading glasses just to navigate the icons.
[doublepost=1534258634][/doublepost]

There is no excuse in 2018 for a 999+ laptop to ship with a sub 1080 panel that's not IPS.

I see a reason -- the Apple customer base still has enough people afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome to allow this kind of nonsense. The very same group who purchase Mac Minis with obsolete CPUs and cover the keyboards of their brand new $4K MBPs to keep out "dust" as though it's all quite normal. You have to give credit to Phil Schiller for pulling this off -- he's the master of using schmalz, inertia, and false innovation as marketing tools.

 

[Yvan256]

Let's remember how expensive we all thought the iPad would be before the actual launch. I think most people where saying 1000$ and then it was annouced at 500$ or something. Apple could still surprise us.

They also cannot price things in USD alone these days, given the exchange rates. This laptop will end up being a lot more expensive in Canada, the UK and the rest of Europe, Japan, China, etc. so Apple may end up with a weird USD price in order to satisfy the "inexpensive" qualifier in other countries. Macs are already a small part of the profits pie, how much of that percentage is U.S.A. sales vs the rest of the world?

For example, here are the prices for the entry-level MacBook Air, their currently lowest-priced laptop, in various countries:

• U.S.A. USD$999
• Canada CAD$1199
• UK £949
• France 1099 €
• Japan ￥98800
• Hong Kong HK$7,488
• China RMB 6,928

The real question is, what is Apple's definition of "inexpensive"? Are they targeting the Chromebooks that are so popular in the USA in the education sector?

Or maybe they're looking at their latest profits and realized that services already are a big part of it and will most likely be the part to grow the most in the future. And since they have Apple-only services (apart from iTunes on Windows), they need more people to buy Apple devices in order to be potential subscribers.

So if the future of profits is not in selling devices but in selling monthly and yearly services, then they really need to sell as many devices as they can. It could mean selling devices at/near cost or accepting lower profits per device in order to sell more subscriptions. The profits from services is also usually higher than profits on hardware so it would make financial sense and be an easy sell to shareholders/etc.

As usual, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[theluggage]

You are mistaken. Apple's 13" MBP with a 2560 x 1600 screen only provides the screen real estate of a 1280 x 800 screen.

...and you are changing your argument as you go along - you originally said:

Dell's "non-retina" 13" 1080p screen offers a higher native resolution and more screen real estate than Apple's 13" MBP.

The entry-level XPSs have a native resolution of 1920x1080 - its only the more expensive ones that have 4k screens which can effectively support scaling. That is less than 2560x1600 (Oh, and the default scale on the MBP is now 1440x900).

Meanwhile, if you want "screen real estate" the MBP can be set to 1680x1050 scaled and, doubtless, various higher resolutions up to full 2560x1600 if you option-click on the 'scaled' button or install something like SwitchResX.

In any case, the screen mode on a retina screen only affects the size of system text, icons, window furniture, dialogs etc. while the actual window content takes advantage of the full native resolution, so even in 1440x900 "scaled" mode on an MBP you'll be able to zoom out further without loosing detail than you can on a native 1080p screen - so, more text, more spreadsheet cells, more detail on smaller photos etc.
[doublepost=1534264163][/doublepost]

There is no excuse in 2018 for a 999+ laptop to ship with a sub 1080 panel that's not IPS.

Have you looked at a TN panel in the last 10 years? They're not rubbish. Meanwhile, most cheaper IPS screens have their own problems with light bleed.
Most people don't spend their lives squinting at the screen from odd angles and then comparing it with a more expensive one.

Some people here make it sound like you need to wear a neck brace to use a MacBook Air. Guess what - the screens may not be as good as the ones on computers costing 30%+ more (OH MY GOD!!!) but they're perfectly good for general use and millions of users are quite happy with them.

 

[LordVic]

Have you looked at a TN panel in the last 10 years? They're not rubbish. Meanwhile, most cheaper IPS screens have their own problems with light bleed.
Most people don't spend their lives squinting at the screen from odd angles and then comparing it with a more expensive one.

Some people here make it sound like you need to wear a neck brace to use a MacBook Air. Guess what - the screens may not be as good as the ones on computers costing 30%+ more (OH MY GOD!!!) but they're perfectly good for general use and millions of users are quite happy with them.

the screen on the MBA is worse than what you get on average from $600+ laptops accross the board right now. the last time it was updated was 2012. this is inexcusable. don't defend this.

 

[Yvan256]

Have you looked at a TN panel in the last 10 years? They're not rubbish.

Okay, so maybe some TN panels made in the last 10 years are good, but Apple sure isn't using those ones.

 

[Val-kyrie]

...and you are changing your argument as you go along....

The entry-level XPSs have a native resolution of 1920x1080 - its only the more expensive ones that have 4k screens which can effectively support scaling. That is less than 2560x1600 (Oh, and the default scale on the MBP is now 1440x900).

Meanwhile, if you want "screen real estate" the MBP can be set to 1680x1050 scaled and, doubtless, various higher resolutions up to full 2560x1600 if you option-click on the 'scaled' button or install something like SwitchResX.

In any case, the screen mode on a retina screen only affects the size of system text, icons, window furniture, dialogs etc. while the actual window content takes advantage of the full native resolution, so even in 1440x900 "scaled" mode on an MBP you'll be able to zoom out further without loosing detail than you can on a native 1080p screen - so, more text, more spreadsheet cells, more detail on smaller photos etc.

No, I am not changing my argument; you fail to understand because you quote only numbers and do not differentiate between usable screen space and increased sharpness. Dell's 13" 1080p screen offers more usable screen space (at native resolution of 1080p) than Apple's "native" 2560x1600 because Apple's 13" screen only offers a usable screen space of 1280x800. The doubling of the number (from 1280x800 to 2560x1600) only provides an increase in sharpness; it still only provides the same usable space as an equivalent 1280x800 screen which is less usable space than a 1080p screen.

I suppose if you want to argue Apple has a higher native resolution in terms of clarity, you are correct; however, I think of higher native resolution in terms of actual space displayed, in which case you are incorrect.

Apple's computers do offer scaling, but this taxes the GPU and lacks the sharpness of the native resolution. And don't Apple's 13" MBPs max out at 1050?

 

[WarHeadz]

Easy solution for Apple: take the iPad pro, add hinges, keyboard and trackpad... et voila.

Thank god you don't work for them...

 

[theluggage]

you quote only numbers and do not differentiate between usable screen space and increased sharpness

Yes, because "native resolution" is a number and (if you fix the screen size, 2560x1600 is sharper than 1920x1080 or quote the native resolution in pixels-per-inch) higher numbers do mean increased sharpness. (The FHD screen on the entry-level XPS13 is 166ppi, the 13" MacBook Pro is 227ppi - just use Pythagoras to work out the number of pixels along the diagonal and divide by 13.3")

I think of higher native resolution in terms of actual space displayed

Then you think of it wrong: that's simply not what "native resolution" means. Look it up. You're talking about "screen real estate" which is far trickier and more subjective to define, depending on the resolution, the physical screen size, your eyesight and even what software you're using.

I suppose if you want to argue Apple has a higher native resolution in terms of clarity, you are correct

...and that greater clarity means that you can zoom out further on your spreadsheet/text document/diagram/photo without losing any detail so you can fit more on the screen. The detail is there, and if your eyeballs aren't up to it then the only solution is a physically larger screen. The "looks like" resolution/pixel doubling mainly affects those UI elements that you can't zoom/shrink so whether sharpness or pixel scaling has the biggest effect on "real estate" depends on what you are trying to display. I guarantee that (all other things being equal) you'll fit more (say) legible spreadsheet rows in a full-screen window on a 13" MBP screen than a 13" FHD one. (All things aren't quite equal because, regardless of resolution, the PC screen is 16:9 ratio and the Mac is "squarer" 16:10).

And don't Apple's 13" MBPs max out at 1050?

(a) That 1050 pixels is actually rendered at 2100 pixels internally downsampled to 1600 pixels and can accurately render more (say) lines of text than either a "native" 1050p screen or a native 1080p screen. Not as good as 2100p but way better than 1080p.

(b) I don't have a 13" MBP at hand to test, but you can Option-click on the 'Scaled' button in the displays preferences to get a greater range of scaled resolutions. Or install software like SwitchResX. You can run at "full native" 2560x1600 if you like, but Apple disables it by default because everything would be far too small for most people (but perfectly formed) on a 13" screen.

 

[throAU]

You are mistaken. Apple's 13" MBP with a 2560 x 1600 screen only provides the screen real estate of a 1280 x 800 screen. Apple's "retina" screens take lower resolution screens and double the pixels to provide better clarity at the same 1280x800 resolution. Thus any 1080 screen will provide more screen real estate but offer less sharpness.

Personally, at 13", I prefer the additional screen space [provided by the 1080p panel].

Scaling works, i've run my 13" in (effective) 1680x1050 just fine. And i can't tell the difference in "quality" because the scaling works properly and the pixel count is high enough.

Yes, in theory you end up with non-integer pixels, but the scaling works and again, the pixel count is high enough at laptop viewing distance to represent the image without being blurry.

 

[Tozovac]

It's strange, isn't it. They sell a few devices with screens with the best color replication (instead of making a high refresh rate a thing across the board) and devices with screens with the worst color replication.

Don't give them sales on a device you don't want. Send them a message.

Great post here.

Maybe people don’t want those screen “features.” Nor the thinnest prettiest lightest laptop that pushes hard the future of USB C hard and heavy. Maybe we, I mean, people, just want a laptop with good, balanced design. And Apple is no longer offering that.

I’m calling it.

Apple Uber-minimalism has jumped the shark or is circling the parking lot. 2018.

 

[Naaaaak]

Great post here.

Maybe people don’t want those screen “features.” Nor the thinnest prettiest lightest laptop that pushes hard the future of USB C hard and heavy. Maybe we, I mean, people, just want a laptop with good, balanced design. And Apple is no longer offering that.

I’m calling it.

Apple Uber-minimalism has jumped the shark or is circling the parking lot. 2018.

That's the reason the MacBook Air remains popular despite not being updated in forever. It's not the fastest, nor the smallest, but it finds a good balance point and isn't too expensive. All they need to do is update the CPU, start the RAM at 16 GB, remove the thick bezels, add a USB-C port, and give it a Retina display. Instead they've gone full-retard on "design" and increased the trackpad size to comical levels (which no one asked for), invented a touchbar which requires you to look at your keys (which no one wanted), released a "thin" beta-keyboard which sucks to type on and gets ruined by dust (which no one needs), removed the magsafe port (which everyone loved), and jacked up the prices.

I wouldn't be surprised if the coming rumored "low-end macbook" removes the headphone port because "shaves $0.25 off production costs and lets us say courage", removes the fans because "saves $0.75 and allows us to market it as a daring, quiet design", and halves the battery capacity to make it "even more thin and lightweight".

 

[throAU]

I would buy a retina macbook air with the USB and TB ports replaced with USB C and a retina display and 16 GB in a heartbeat.

Even with the bezel. Even with the current CPU.

 

[Tozovac]

That's the reason the MacBook Air remains popular despite not being updated in forever. It's not the fastest, nor the smallest, but it finds a good balance point and isn't too expensive. All they need to do is update the CPU, start the RAM at 16 GB, remove the thick bezels, add a USB-C port, and give it a Retina display. Instead they've gone full-retard on "design" and increased the trackpad size to comical levels (which no one asked for), invented a touchbar which requires you to look at your keys (which no one wanted), released a "thin" beta-keyboard which sucks to type on and gets ruined by dust (which no one needs), removed the magsafe port (which everyone loved), and jacked up the prices.

I wouldn't be surprised if the coming rumored "low-end macbook" removes the headphone port because "shaves $0.25 off production costs and lets us say courage", removes the fans because "saves $0.75 and allows us to market it as a daring, quiet design", and halves the battery capacity to make it "even more thin and lightweight".

I almost agreed with you 100% until you got to the bezels and Retina display. I am assuming that adding a larger size retina display will eliminate 2 of the things that makes the MBA attractive: price and longer battery life. Remember, the MBA was the best option for many of us over the past five years because of a half dozen reasons that continue to make the MBA the best well-balanced MacBook design: battery life, price, keyboard, USB and other ports, headphone jack, MagSafe, etc.

I do agree with you 100% on apple’s asinine priorities. It’s almost like complete amateurs with an off-balanced singular focus on fashion and thinness first and foremost are running a formerly amazing tech company. They are making money and are blinded, rather than asking themselves could they be making even more money in a smarter and more impressive way.

I would buy a retina macbook air with the USB and TB ports replaced with USB C and a retina display and 16 GB in a heartbeat.

Even with the bezel. Even with the current CPU.

But then at that point, what’s the difference between an MBA and an MBP, other than keyboard and maybe price? What is it you really want, or, what is it you really don’t want? I assume you want a real keyboard and you don’t want to pay an exorbitant price. At the time I bought mine, I didn’t want to spend more than $1200 and I wanted the longest battery life. Back then, the MBP keyboards weren’t so much crap but they were more expensive and had worse battery life. The decision was easy for me.

 

[throAU]

But then at that point, what’s the difference between an MBA and an MBP, other than keyboard and maybe price? What is it you really want, or, what is it you really don’t want? I assume you want a real keyboard and you don’t want to pay an exorbitant price. At the time I bought mine, I didn’t want to spend more than $1200 and I wanted the longest battery life. Back then, the MBP keyboards weren’t so much crap but they were more expensive and had worse battery life. The decision was easy for me.

The keyboard and the price are precisely the reasons I'd buy that machine. As a current 2015 macbook pro user, it would be the closest i could get to my current machine with a warranty and USB-C/Thunderbolt 3.

 

[Tozovac]

The keyboard and the price are precisely the reasons I'd buy that machine. As a current 2015 macbook pro user, it would be the closest i could get to my current machine with a warranty and USB-C/Thunderbolt 3.

Actually, re-reading my post, the only difference might be keyboard at that point.

Hoping somebody at Apple wakes up and realizes people don’t always want the thinnest, fastest, most pixelest, etc. and also don’t always want to bear the burden of being required to stretch and be courageous by owning a laptop that requires you to significantly change how you interface with all of your legacy devices at home, office, workspace, basement, car, etc. Many of us came to Apple in the 2000s not because of fashion, but because we discovered that they offered some of the best all-around hardware but at a higher price. Now their hardware is full of questionable “features” and At prices higher than they should be for those features many of us don’t need or even don’t want to.

Jony, why don’t you focus your engineering group Tallent on figuring out why voice entry always capitalizes and adds an extra space to words when you start in the middle of a sentence, instead of trying to find ways to remove yet another button or port or function from your hardware?

 

[Val-kyrie]

Yes, because "native resolution" is a number and (if you fix the screen size, 2560x1600 is sharper than 1920x1080 or quote the native resolution in pixels-per-inch) higher numbers do mean increased sharpness. (The FHD screen on the entry-level XPS13 is 166ppi, the 13" MacBook Pro is 227ppi - just use Pythagoras to work out the number of pixels along the diagonal and divide by 13.3")



Then you think of it wrong: that's simply not what "native resolution" means. Look it up. You're talking about "screen real estate" which is far trickier and more subjective to define, depending on the resolution, the physical screen size, your eyesight and even what software you're using.



...and that greater clarity means that you can zoom out further on your spreadsheet/text document/diagram/photo without losing any detail so you can fit more on the screen. The detail is there, and if your eyeballs aren't up to it then the only solution is a physically larger screen. The "looks like" resolution/pixel doubling mainly affects those UI elements that you can't zoom/shrink so whether sharpness or pixel scaling has the biggest effect on "real estate" depends on what you are trying to display. I guarantee that (all other things being equal) you'll fit more (say) legible spreadsheet rows in a full-screen window on a 13" MBP screen than a 13" FHD one. (All things aren't quite equal because, regardless of resolution, the PC screen is 16:9 ratio and the Mac is "squarer" 16:10).



(a) That 1050 pixels is actually rendered at 2100 pixels internally downsampled to 1600 pixels and can accurately render more (say) lines of text than either a "native" 1050p screen or a native 1080p screen. Not as good as 2100p but way better than 1080p.

(b) I don't have a 13" MBP at hand to test, but you can Option-click on the 'Scaled' button in the displays preferences to get a greater range of scaled resolutions. Or install software like SwitchResX. You can run at "full native" 2560x1600 if you like, but Apple disables it by default because everything would be far too small for most people (but perfectly formed) on a 13" screen.

Scaling works, i've run my 13" in (effective) 1680x1050 just fine. And i can't tell the difference in "quality" because the scaling works properly and the pixel count is high enough.

Yes, in theory you end up with non-integer pixels, but the scaling works and again, the pixel count is high enough at laptop viewing distance to represent the image without being blurry.

When a MBP image is scaled with non-integer pixels, it does lose clarity compared to the screen's native resolution. That is a fact and is easily visible.

Look, I think Apple's screens are gorgeous, especially compared to most PCs, but what many others, including myself, would like to see is an increase in screen real estate that matches a resolution of 1080p on a 13" screen. Regardless of the ability to scale Apple's screens, displaying 1050 pixels vertically is always less than 1080 pixels vertically, no matter the screen ratio and no matter how many pixels the screen possesses. The extra pixels simply enable the scaling.

 

[Yvan256]

Keep USB-A ports.
Keep current keyboard.
Keep headphone port.
Keep SD card slot (or at least replace with microSD).
Update CPU.
Upgrade display to 1680×1050 and increase display size by decreasing bezel size. I could be a 13" display in the 11" MacBook Air frame.
Replace thunderbolt with USB-C.
8GB RAM standard, 16GB RAM option.
That is all.

Edit: changed display resolution to something that is 16:10 instead of 16:9.

 

[eVolcre]

11”’ inch MBA air chassis. Edge to edge retina for a 13.3 screen. Same MBA keyboard and ports. Update the processor. My dream laptop. Loved the footprint of my MBA 11.

Enough of a differentiator from the MBP13 (physical size wise). Definitely different from the MacBook. Can’t stand that keyboard.

Will they do this? It’s Apple. So not. Not sure why they Canned the 11 and kept the 13. Should have been the other way around.

 

[theluggage]

Regardless of the ability to scale Apple's screens, displaying 1050 pixels vertically is always less than 1080 pixels vertically, n

There is no "1050 pixels"! What you see in "looks like 1680x1050" scaled mode is actually 3360x2100 pixels in an internal buffer downsampled to the native 2560x1600 pixels of the MBP display. The only time 1050 actual pixels come into it is if you're running legacy software that doesn't understand "HiDPI" mode and/or only has low res bitmap assets. Otherwise "looks like 1680x1050" is just a way of describing the physical on-screen size of (say) a 12pt font.

The "non-integer scaling" here is 2100 -> 1600 and, no, it's not quite as sharp as stuff originally optimised for a multiple of 1600 pixels, but its still using 1600 physical pixels and is better than something originally rendered at 1080 physical pixels.

(And for anybody joining this late we're talking about MBP retina screens versus the lower-end Dell XPSs iwith 1080p screens, not "retina" vs. 4k).

 

[Mainsail]

Keep USB-A ports.
Keep current keyboard.
Keep headphone port.
Keep SD card slot (or at least replace with microSD).
Update CPU.
Upgrade display to 1080p and increase display size by decreasing bezel size.
Replace thunderbolt with USB-C.
8GB RAM standard, 16GB RAM option.
That is all.

Also, Keep MagSafe

 

[theluggage]

Upgrade display to 1080p and increase display size by decreasing bezel size.

1080p might not be the best fit for MacOS.
First, 1080p is 16:9 standard and the MacBook range use 16:10 ratio screens (so: squarer). My vote is that 16:10 is better for everything except watching 16:9 TV.
The equivalent 16:10 resolutions would be 1680x1050 or 1920x1200.
Then you have a problem that MacOS doesn't have a fully scaleable UI* - you have a choice of regular "low res" or 200% "HiDPI" mode plus, on retina models, the option of "scaled mode" which takes a very high res HiDPI virtual screen and downsamples it to native resolution. However, you need a retina display to pull off that sort of non-integer scaling.

1680x1050 "low res" would probably be OK (its a supported mode on the 13" MBP) but with icons & menus a bit small for some... 1920x1200 is what you used to get on a 17" MacBook Pro (or a 15" when they had a high res option) but even on the 17" the icons & menus were noticeably smaller than on other macs - I don't see it being usable on a 13.3" screen and its probably not quite high enough to support "retina" features.

(*Windows does have a fully-scaleable UI in theory - in practice, some apps get confused especially if you have a mixture of low- and high- resolution screens...)

 

[pmore]

Sure, for a Mac. There are alternatives, like the $299-399/year subscription model for cheap plastic Windows laptops.

This isn't 2007 anymore.

 

[PickUrPoison]

This isn't 2007 anymore.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Niece’s $225 Chromebook lasted 4.5 months

PS 7 years on a MacBook Air

 

[coral05]

All Apple had to do was slap a retina screen on the MacBook Air and updated the processor for it to retain the “greatest laptop ever made” title.

Apple are such stubborn fools sometimes.

totally agree. I want an updated MacBook Air 11"--best computer I've ever owned, and I've owned MANY. I mourn the passing of the MagSafe cords and the nondongle ports. Not buying the new MacBook Pro for that very reason.

 

[LordVic]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Niece’s $225 Chromebook lasted 4.5 months

PS 7 years on a MacBook Air

well, Comparing a $1000+ laptop to a $300 laptop for quality is just silly. you'd expect there to be significant quality difference. Compare them to competition at the same price point.