Warming-up for the all-new redesigned retina 2014 (2015?) MacBook Air

[motrek]

...
The MacBook Air was last revamped in late 2010, four years ago. That means that the current design is four years old, which is a lot of time in terms of laptop designs. Plus, Windows ultrabooks are getting thinner, lighter and better, so the Air has competitors which are getting stronger every day. And there are lots of rumors of a retina MacBook Air in the pipeline.

Of course it's inevitable that the MBA will be redesigned at some point and get a better screen. Apple won't be selling the current model MBA in 40 years. Duh. And every moment that passes gets us that much closer to the date when the new model will be released.

But beyond that, nobody has a clue. All the reasons why you think Apple will release a new model in 1H15 are exactly the same reasons why everybody expected a retina MBA in 1H14 too.

...
This Asus, and other laptops that may come in the following months, may be a compelling reason for Apple to update the Air. Given the very aggressive prices, I don't know if Apple will have much room to increase the price of the Air when it releases the revamped model.

Completely disagree. From my point of view, all these new laptops do is underscore how competitive the current Air is, both in terms of features and price. These new laptops have the same amount of storage (RAM and SSD) as the current Airs. Their prices are only marginally less (so much for an Apple tax). They have slower processors (Core M vs. 15W Haswells). We already know the new Yoga has a problem with heat and noise. I just read the article about this Asus ultrabook and they are claiming 6 hours battery life for web surfing vs. a minimum of 9 for the MBA.

Sure, some new laptops might be marginally thinner and marginally lighter. The MBA is the benchmark for thin and light and we have been hearing about new laptops beating the benchmark for the last few years. The MBAs weren't even the thinnest and lightest laptops when they were first released. There were Toshibas and Sonys that were thinner and lighter years before. Who cares?

Okay, maybe some of these new laptops have better screens. That's important and it'd be nice if the MBA had better screens too. But the MBA screens aren't the dealbreakers that a lot of posters here seem to think. Millions of people bought MBAs last year and are super satisfied with them.

All things being equal, if I had to choose between a MBA with its current screen running OS X vs. a MBA with a retina display running Windows, I would choose the former every time.

 

[chleuasme]

The MacBook Air was last revamped in late 2010, four years ago. That means that the current design is four years old, which is a lot of time in terms of laptop designs. Plus, Windows ultrabooks are getting thinner, lighter and better, so the Air has competitors which are getting stronger every day. And there are lots of rumors of a retina MacBook Air in the pipeline.

So, I would say it would be very surprising if Apple does not release a brand new MacBook Air in H1 2015.

I don't think you're having a good approach.

The MBA as we know it was designed to be built around 17W then used 15W TDP chips (10W for the very first low-end 11" model in 2010, as an exception). The use of lower power chips and better intel designs helped to gain in battery life for the last iterations, among other hardware or software improvements.
But the needle hasn't moved since the last time we had this discussion two months ago: The more likely reason Apple will be able to do better than the current Air is Broadwell. And apparently, Core M won't make it.
It is not meaningful to consider the design being four years old, it's intel improvements and roadmap that mainly only decides if it's old or still valuable. Apple has no interest to tweak its designs too often for obvious productions reasons to keep their high margins; they have to stick to a design meeting their criterions and amortize it along the years it still has value.

Apple has the same constraints as others, they are mainly dependent on intel for their hardware general design. The differences you can see are choices made by other brands, with different trade-offs/benefits balance; check one more check box or improve on one aspect/equipement but lose somewhere else in comparison with the MBA.
Do you really believe Apple could have built an MBA with better specs on some/every aspects than today, with no trade-off, for the same production cost and sale price (say, since over a year, or since you started to repeat this)?

But yes, a new Apple notebook release should happen short after intel release its ULW ~15W mobile chips, during H1'15. And likely it will be thin and will offer a retina screen.

This Asus, and other laptops that may come in the following months, may be a compelling reason for Apple to update the Air. Given the very aggressive prices, I don't know if Apple will have much room to increase the price of the Air when it releases the revamped model.

Apple is not really under any pressure. Again, they simply can't move until intel get its new chips out. Like everybody else.
And why are you considering Apple is projecting to increase price? You used to be saying the opposite, considering they could even lower it. What made you change your mind?

-----
Btw, I'm one to consider the MBA will disappear and not be upgraded with a retina screen. Or rather, we'll see a merge of the current lines of Macbook into only one unified Macbook line from 12" to 15".
I don't think the obvious future for Apple is to still have two different lines of OS X notebooks.

 

[skaertus]

Of course it's inevitable that the MBA will be redesigned at some point and get a better screen. Apple won't be selling the current model MBA in 40 years. Duh. And every moment that passes gets us that much closer to the date when the new model will be released.

But beyond that, nobody has a clue. All the reasons why you think Apple will release a new model in 1H15 are exactly the same reasons why everybody expected a retina MBA in 1H14 too.

Although this is true, the likelihood of Apple releasing a new rMBA gets stronger every day. The current design is 4 years old, and I don't see it getting to its 5th anniversary.

Completely disagree. From my point of view, all these new laptops do is underscore how competitive the current Air is, both in terms of features and price. These new laptops have the same amount of storage (RAM and SSD) as the current Airs. Their prices are only marginally less (so much for an Apple tax). They have slower processors (Core M vs. 15W Haswells). We already know the new Yoga has a problem with heat and noise. I just read the article about this Asus ultrabook and they are claiming 6 hours battery life for web surfing vs. a minimum of 9 for the MBA.

Sure, some new laptops might be marginally thinner and marginally lighter. The MBA is the benchmark for thin and light and we have been hearing about new laptops beating the benchmark for the last few years. The MBAs weren't even the thinnest and lightest laptops when they were first released. There were Toshibas and Sonys that were thinner and lighter years before. Who cares?

Okay, maybe some of these new laptops have better screens. That's important and it'd be nice if the MBA had better screens too. But the MBA screens aren't the dealbreakers that a lot of posters here seem to think. Millions of people bought MBAs last year and are super satisfied with them.

All things being equal, if I had to choose between a MBA with its current screen running OS X vs. a MBA with a retina display running Windows, I would choose the former every time.

I have to disagree. You seem to minimize the advantages of these new laptops, and emphasize the advantages of the Air. In an attempt to be fair, I will try to summarize the main elements of two laptops, the Air and the new UX305:

13-inch MacBook Air
Intel Core i5 1.4 GHz
Intel HD Graphics 5000
4 GB RAM
128 GB SSD
TN screen
1440x900 resolution
12-hour battery life
2x USB 3.0
0.11-0.68-in high
12.8-inch wide
8.94-inch deep
2.96 lbs
US$ 999.00

13-inch Asus Zenbook UX305
Intel Core M-5Y10a
Intel HD Graphics 5300
4 GB RAM
128 GB SSD
IPS screen
1920x1080 resolution
10-hour battery life
3x USB 3.0
0.48-inch high
12.7-inch wide
8.9-inch deep
2.65 lbs
600€ (US$ 750)

By this comparison, the Asus wins in most aspects. You can always say that the Air is a superior laptop, but it would be a guess since you have not even seen the Asus yet.

Anyway, we seem to have different perspectives. I bought my rMBP because of hardware, and not software. OS X is no compelling reason for me to choose a laptop. I would not buy a MBA as it is now; in fact, I am not even sure if I would buy a rMBP again, given that there are so many good alternatives running Windows these days.

 

[chleuasme]

By this comparison, the Asus wins in most aspects. You can always say that the Air is a superior laptop, but it would be a guess since you have not even seen the Asus yet.

So a Core M low-end and 0.3lbs shaved to lose 15% of battery life (as announced) and bad performances. What do you do with your 13" IPS screen at 1920x1080? You run it at 1366x768 or 1600x900 and scale up to fit?
Nothing impressive on paper, the MBA has nothing to blush for with his $250 more expensive price.

 

[Tough Guy]

So a Core M low-end and 0.3lbs shaved to lose 15% of battery life (as announced) and bad performances. What do you do with your 13" IPS screen at 1920x1080? You run it at 1366x768 or 1600x900 and scale up to fit?
Nothing impressive on paper, the MBA has nothing to blush for with his $250 more expensive price.

The display is 3200 x 1800 or 1920 x 1200 and IPS.

In other words, it blows the Air clean out of the water.

 

[chleuasme]

Yes.. skaertus was here talking about the low-end base model. The price change when you pick the 3200x1800 (touchscreen) version; you understand he was not going to point to the high-end model for his argument?

How is performing the Core M 5Y10a that allowed this ultra-thin and light design? What's the effective (and related) battery life on typical mobile usage under Windows? How's the finish of the plastic enclosure, and the keyboard and the trackpad?

 

[motrek]

... By this comparison, the Asus wins in most aspects. ...

Are we looking at the same list?

The Asus has:
- Slower processor (possibly MUCH slower depending on cooling)
- Same memory/storage (well, probably a slower SSD but whatever)
- Better screen
- Somewhat worse battery life
- An extra USB port (who cares?!)
- Thinner at some points, thicker at others
- Marginally (11%) lighter
- A rumored sale price that's only $250 less than Apple's list price ... the rumored list price ($871) is only a few dollars away from a typical sale price for the MBA

Based on these lists you wrote, I don't see the Asus being an obvious purchase at all.

And I know this is opening a can of worms because the MBA has its share of problems but I would personally not buy an Asus laptop due to quality concerns. I was asked to give a recommendation for a PC laptop to a friend a few months ago and did a lot of research, of the Zenbook in particular. I realize that this UX305 model is pretty new and possibly a lot of it has been redesigned and improved but earlier Zenbooks seem like kind of a quality disaster. There are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of reviews of Zenbooks on Amazon complaining about broken power connectors, spontaneous reboots and shutdowns, problems with the connection to the screen, and many other hardware problems. Asus's customer support is often a frequent subject of complaint too. In the end, I recommended to this friend that he buy a bigger, heavier Dell with worse specs, since I would feel terrible if he bought the Zenbook and was bitten by these sorts of problems.

----------

The display is 3200 x 1800 or 1920 x 1200 and IPS.

In other words, it blows the Air clean out of the water.

Does it really "blow [the Air] clean out of the water"? Do people have to squint and strain to read text on an Air while reading text on the Asus is like reading a book while sitting on a fluffy cloud in heaven while listening to harp music?

If we're going to go with exaggerated, stupidly-aggressive metaphors, the Air's processor delivers a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the Asus's junk.

 

[skaertus]

I don't think you're having a good approach.

The MBA as we know it was designed to be built around 17W then used 15W TDP chips (10W for the very first low-end 11" model in 2010, as an exception). The use of lower power chips and better intel designs helped to gain in battery life for the last iterations, among other hardware or software improvements.
But the needle hasn't moved since the last time we had this discussion two months ago: The more likely reason Apple will be able to do better than the current Air is Broadwell. And apparently, Core M won't make it.
It is not meaningful to consider the design being four years old, it's intel improvements and roadmap that mainly only decides if it's old or still valuable. Apple has no interest to tweak its designs too often for obvious productions reasons to keep their high margins; they have to stick to a design meeting their criterions and amortize it along the years it still has value.

Core M is indeed a weaker processor than the Broadwell equivalent of the current MBA.

As for Intel's improvement dictating the design, it's only partially true. The improvement in architecture and chip design allows laptops to become thinner and lighter. However, there are other elements in designing the chassis and other parts. Apple redesigned the MacBook Pro to feature a retina display without any significant improvement in Intel's processors.

Apple has the same constraints as others, they are mainly dependent on intel for their hardware general design. The differences you can see are choices made by other brands, with different trade-offs/benefits balance; check one more check box or improve on one aspect/equipement but lose somewhere else in comparison with the MBA.
Do you really believe Apple could have built an MBA with better specs on some/every aspects than today, with no trade-off, for the same production cost and sale price (say, since over a year, or since you started to repeat this)?

Apple could build better MBAs, and there would be some trade-offs. A thinner and lighter chassis could use less aluminum; a retina display would be more expensive and would drain more battery life; and prices would certainly increase. The fact is that Apple has managed to reduce production costs or margins of the MBA, given that the prices have been reduced since a year ago.

The fact is that Apple chose for some reason not to release the new MBA when Haswell came out. As a result, the battery life of the MBA was much improved, and many users are not willing to give up this additional amount of battery in exchange for a retina display.

But yes, a new Apple notebook release should happen short after intel release its ULW ~15W mobile chips, during H1'15. And likely it will be thin and will offer a retina screen.

We agree on this one.

Apple is not really under any pressure. Again, they simply can't move until intel get its new chips out. Like everybody else.
And why are you considering Apple is projecting to increase price? You used to be saying the opposite, considering they could even lower it. What made you change your mind?

I am not so sure about it. Sure, the MBA is probably selling very well, especially to people who can finally buy a Mac and do not care or do not even know what a retina display is.

Btw, I'm one to consider the MBA will disappear and not be upgraded with a retina screen. Or rather, we'll see a merge of the current lines of Macbook into only one unified Macbook line from 12" to 15".
I don't think the obvious future for Apple is to still have two different lines of OS X notebooks.

I don't think it will happen in this generation. I think a MBA is in the works. Perhaps in the future Apple will unify the lines, but not now. But then again, who knows? The main differences of the Pro and Air lines right now is the wedge design in the Air and the retina display in the Pro (besides, of course, the name). So, they are more similar than ever and unifying them should be more a matter of marketing than anything else.

----------

So a Core M low-end and 0.3lbs shaved to lose 15% of battery life (as announced) and bad performances. What do you do with your 13" IPS screen at 1920x1080? You run it at 1366x768 or 1600x900 and scale up to fit?
Nothing impressive on paper, the MBA has nothing to blush for with his $250 more expensive price.

I have not yet seen the Asus, but it's not such a weak competitor. It's thinner, lighter, cheaper and has a better screen; but it's slower and has worse battery life.

Each has its own strengths; the fact that you prefer the Air's strengths does not necessarily mean that the Air is a better computer than the Asus for everyone.

----------

Yes.. skaertus was here talking about the low-end base model. The price change when you pick the 3200x1800 (touchscreen) version; you understand he was not going to point to the high-end model for his argument?

Yes, I was talking about the low-end base model. I am not trying to make my argument stronger or hiding anything, and please do not make me sound like I was trying to do that. In fact, I was talking about the base model because it is the only one whose prices were announced so far. I have no idea of how much the 3200x1800 model will cost, nor the amount of RAM or storage it will have.

I also referred to the base 13" MBA for my comparisons. I didn't refer to the high-end one, or to a BTO configuration. Apples to apples.

How is performing the Core M 5Y10a that allowed this ultra-thin and light design? What's the effective (and related) battery life on typical mobile usage under Windows? How's the finish of the plastic enclosure, and the keyboard and the trackpad?

As nobody has seen the laptop yet, we cannot say. I cannot assume it is good, nor bad. It can be good or bad, and only people who are biased would say that the laptop is crap even before seeing it. But the keyboard and trackpad of the Air should be better, as it usually is.

----------

Are we looking at the same list?

The Asus has:
- Slower processor (possibly MUCH slower depending on cooling)
- Same memory/storage (well, probably a slower SSD but whatever)
- Better screen
- Somewhat worse battery life
- An extra USB port (who cares?!)
- Thinner at some points, thicker at others
- Marginally (11%) lighter
- A rumored sale price that's only $250 less than Apple's list price ... the rumored list price ($871) is only a few dollars away from a typical sale price for the MBA

Based on these lists you wrote, I don't see the Asus being an obvious purchase at all.

And I know this is opening a can of worms because the MBA has its share of problems but I would personally not buy an Asus laptop due to quality concerns. I was asked to give a recommendation for a PC laptop to a friend a few months ago and did a lot of research, of the Zenbook in particular. I realize that this UX305 model is pretty new and possibly a lot of it has been redesigned and improved but earlier Zenbooks seem like kind of a quality disaster. There are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of reviews of Zenbooks on Amazon complaining about broken power connectors, spontaneous reboots and shutdowns, problems with the connection to the screen, and many other hardware problems. Asus's customer support is often a frequent subject of complaint too. In the end, I recommended to this friend that he buy a bigger, heavier Dell with worse specs, since I would feel terrible if he bought the Zenbook and was bitten by these sorts of problems.

We are looking at the same list. Asus: better screen, thinner, lighter, cheaper, one more USB port. Air: faster processor and better battery life.

The Asus has more points in its favor. The weight you give to some point is a matter of personal preference. I may prefer a laptop which is marginally lighter, instead of one that has marginally more battery life. I may prefer a laptop that has a better screen than one that has a faster processor. It's a matter of personal preference.

I understand that you prefer the MBA. I haven't seen the Asus yet, and, given the reports on the poor performance of Core M, I don't think I would buy that. But I would not buy the Air either. The Zenbook UX301 seems to finally be a great laptop, better than all previous generations.

If I were in the market for a laptop today, I would either buy a 13" rMBP, or a Zenbook UX301, or a Samsung Ativ Book 9. And, given the road Apple is taking, I would probably buy a Windows laptop instead of a Mac. I would definitely not buy the Air.

 

[chleuasme]

Apple redesigned the MacBook Pro to feature a retina display without any significant improvement in Intel's processors.

Err.. Ivy Bridge?

I have not yet seen the Asus, but it's not such a weak competitor. It's thinner, lighter, cheaper and has a better screen; but it's slower and has worse battery life.

Each has its own strengths; the fact that you prefer the Air's strengths does not necessarily mean that the Air is a better computer than the Asus for everyone.

[...]

As nobody has seen the laptop yet, we cannot say. I cannot assume it is good, nor bad. It can be good or bad, and only people who are biased would say that the laptop is crap even before seeing it.

No bias in "the Asus wins in most aspects" sentence, after you presented your comparison lists?
So, can we talk about it (you bring it to the conversation), or can't we as it's not yet been released/tested/compared?

The Asus has more points in its favor.

Bias?

Asus is using a 4.5W TDP chip to only manage to offer a slightly lighter volume and shave off 0.3lbs, and to offer worse performances with less battery life. Yeah, what an achievement compared to a previous generation Macbook Air based on previous generation higher TDP intel processors.
That looks like quite a bad competitor to the Air (current) and the future Mac notebook that will replace it.
And 1920x1080 for a 13" screen, no thanks. I'd rather stick to 1600x900 (similar ppi as in the 8:5 13" Air) and surely would prefer the 3200x1800 panel at this size, but suddenly price increases too (I saw 1300€ on some web sites, but not giving more infos. Hard to give any credit) and then what about performances and battery life compared to the lower-end 1920x1080 model?

 

[skaertus]

Err.. Ivy Bridge?

Yes, it was Ivy Bridge. However, Ivy Bridge was a die shrink, and not a whole new architecture. Haswell brought more improvements in battery life, and was more suitable for thin laptops.

No bias in "the Asus wins in most aspects" sentence, after you presented your list?
So, can we talk about it (you bring it to the conversation), or can't we as its not yet released/tested/compared?

I have not seen the Asus yet, and I cannot say it is any better or worse than the Air. But there are many people in this forum that just affirm the superiority of the Air because it runs OS X, no matter how good the Windows laptop may be.

This Asus is just one laptop out of several other that are expected to come out in 2015, and many of them will feature better processors.

Bias?

Asus is using a 4.5W TDP chip to only manage to offer a slightly lighter volume and shave off 0.3lbs, and to offer worse performances with less battery life. Yeah, what an achievement compared to a previous generation Macbook Air based on previous generation higher TDP intel processors.
That looks like quite a bad competitor to the Air (current) and the future Mac notebook that will replace it.
And 1920x1080 for a 13" screen, no thanks. I'd rather stick to 1600x900 (similar ppi as in the 8:5 13" Air) and surely would prefer the 3200x1800 panel at this size, but suddenly price increases too (I saw 1300€ on some web sites, but not giving more infos. Hard to give any credit).

I don't know how the Asus will perform yet, but it will likely perform worse than the Air, given the 4.5W processor. I suppose there will be problems in performance, but it's too early to say that, given that there are no tests out. Should we consider the poor reviews of the Lenovo Yoga 3, perhaps?

The reduced weight is certainly an advantage, and one should take that into consideration.

Battery life is worse. But that should be expected. Windows consumes more battery than OS X. I don't know how the Asus would compare to the Air if both were running Windows.

I actually like the 1920x1080 resolution for the 13-inch screen. I would prefer a higher resolution, though. I've seen the 13-inch Samsung Ativ Book 9 Plus and the 3200x1800 screen is just great. The screens on the retina MacBook Pros are great. And the fact that the pixels are visible in lower resolution screens annoy me. I once had a 15-inch laptop with a 1920x1080 screen and I could still see the pixels.

As for pricing, 1300€ seems very expensive for this laptop, especially considering that the low-end version is selling for a much lower price.

 

[chleuasme]

Yes, it was Ivy Bridge. However, Ivy Bridge was a die shrink, and not a whole new architecture. Haswell brought more improvements in battery life, and was more suitable for thin laptops.

Tick. Tock.

This Asus is just one laptop out of several other that are expected to come out in 2015, and many of them will feature better processors.

Yeah, so let's compare them to a 2015 similar Mac laptop?

I don't know how the Asus will perform yet, but it will likely perform worse than the Air, given the 4.5W processor. I suppose there will be problems in performance, but it's too early to say that, given that there are no tests out. Should we consider the poor reviews of the Lenovo Yoga 3, perhaps?

The reduced weight is certainly an advantage, and one should take that into consideration.

A device is the sum of its trade-offs and benefits. If I was open to trade more performances and heat in a laptop against thinness and weight, I'd expect much better than that (115g is so noticeable on a device of that size, really?) when comparing to what Apple can sell me with previous generation tech in its current Air. 15W to 4.5W is a huge gap, that's really not impressive; but I expect intel to release ~10W Broadwell chips that could probably fit in this laptop and offer a better balance.

Battery life is worse. But that should be expected. Windows consumes more battery than OS X. I don't know how the Asus would compare to the Air if both were running Windows.

Given the MBA13 manages to get even better battery life than announced by Apple (~14h), and with Windows tests showing 8-10h battery life, not so well for a Core M laptop (and I won't believe Asus on its battery life numbers).
I indeed don't care about Windows, I don't buy Mac devices since over 20 years because it's shiny or nice. At best, when it is in my eyes, it's the cherry on the cake. The beauty is in the engineering.

I actually like the 1920x1080 resolution for the 13-inch screen. I would prefer a higher resolution, though. I've seen the 13-inch Samsung Ativ Book 9 Plus and the 3200x1800 screen is just great. The screens on the retina MacBook Pros are great. And the fact that the pixels are visible in lower resolution screens annoy me. I once had a 15-inch laptop with a 1920x1080 screen and I could still see the pixels.

I don't care to not see the pixels on a 13" 1920x1080 if I can't see what's on screen. Unless it's for watching only images/videos or play games full screen, a computer running a desktop OS + apps starts to be very unusable with such high ppi, and suppose you have UI adjustment with either non-integer retina factor or other technics as found on Windows (and a bunch of issues).
If you want a high pixel density screen, you want to be able to use a 2x retina factor and fit to the pixels for the best results, just as Apple decided to address the resolution independence problem. And the best result is when your screen resolution match your logic resolution @2x. We're on a Mac forum, talking about the future of a Mac laptop, I don't care how Windows handles high pixel density screens, and often poorly.

 

[motrek]

...
The Asus has more points in its favor. The weight you give to some point is a matter of personal preference. I may prefer a laptop which is marginally lighter, instead of one that has marginally more battery life. I may prefer a laptop that has a better screen than one that has a faster processor. It's a matter of personal preference. ...

That's exactly my point: the Asus is marginally better at this, the Mac is marginally better at that. Neither laptop is the obvious purchasing decision. So the Asus is not an existential threat to the current MBA that you make it out to be. It's not like Apple has to redesign the MBA right this minute or everybody will buy the clearly-superior (cough) Asus.

 

[skaertus]

That's exactly my point: the Asus is marginally better at this, the Mac is marginally better at that. Neither laptop is the obvious purchasing decision. So the Asus is not an existential threat to the current MBA that you make it out to be. It's not like Apple has to redesign the MBA right this minute or everybody will buy the clearly-superior (cough) Asus.

Although this is not the case, the Asus is much cheaper (at least the low-end version). People may think they can get something similar for less. Good enough, even if slower and with less battery life. And sales of laptops are very much driven by price, not quality. The fact that a thin-and-light laptop with SSD, a decent battery life and a high-resolution IPS screen is being sold for 600€ is mind-blowing. Competition is getting stiffer and I don't see the MacBook Air offering much to differentiate itself from the coming mass of cheap Windows ultrabooks. That is why Apple should release the retina version of the Air soon, with an updated design.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I don't care to not see the pixels on a 13" 1920x1080 if I can't see what's on screen. Unless it's for watching only images/videos or play games full screen, a computer running a desktop OS + apps starts to be very unusable with such high ppi, and suppose you have UI adjustment with either non-integer retina factor or other technics as found on Windows (and a bunch of issues).
If you want a high pixel density screen, you want to be able to use a 2x retina factor and fit to the pixels for the best results, just as Apple decided to address the resolution independence problem. And the best result is when your screen resolution match your logic resolution @2x. We're on a Mac forum, talking about the future of a Mac laptop, I don't care how Windows handles high pixel density screens, and often poorly.

Windows uses vector images I believe, and scaling works very well, and keeps text rendering crisp even at 300% scaling.

The only apps that have scaling problems are ones that haven't been updated in years, or that the developer doesn't care to update - just as non retina apps look like crap on a retina display.

I don't mean to jump into an argument I'm not a part if, but if you're going to make wild claims, at least make sure they're accurate.

 

[motrek]

Although this is not the case, the Asus is much cheaper (at least the low-end version). People may think they can get something similar for less. Good enough, even if slower and with less battery life. And sales of laptops are very much driven by price, not quality. The fact that a thin-and-light laptop with SSD, a decent battery life and a high-resolution IPS screen is being sold for 600€ is mind-blowing. Competition is getting stiffer and I don't see the MacBook Air offering much to differentiate itself from the coming mass of cheap Windows ultrabooks. That is why Apple should release the retina version of the Air soon, with an updated design.

You keep talking about 600 euros, which is some unconfirmed rumor price you had to find on some random Italian web site. Let's compare apples to apples here. The agreed-upon list price for this laptop is 700 euros, i.e., $874 vs. the MBA's list price of $999. That's not that big of a difference. It's definitely not blowing my mind.

I will concede that PC laptop manufacturers have gradually been improving their products and getting closer and closer to the MBA ideal, 4 years later. Good for them. Too bad that Apple is losing a lead they had for a while.

Let me remind you that this isn't an especially unique situation though. Apple sold the 13" MacBook for years for twice the price of many PC laptops that had almost exactly the same hardware and characteristics.

It's actually a fairly unique situation that the MBA has been SO much better than the competition for so long, and its prices have been SO competitive, that people like you now consider this situation the status quo and expect Apple to maintain it. So, kudos to Apple for raising the bar, I guess.

So I don't really know what you expect Apple to do in this situation. Certainly they could improve their screens. I hope that will happen soon too. Otherwise, who cares? Do you really care if a new MacBook weighs just 11% less? And I'm not sure these new PC laptops like the Asus are even thinner than the MBA--they are flat, so like I said, they're thinner in some places and thicker in others. I imagine Apple could fairly easily make a laptop that's a similar size to the Zenbook, but do they want a flat laptop or a wedge-shaped one? Personally I have gotten used to the wedge shape and would be sad to see it go, just so Apple can say one side of their laptops is now a couple millimeters thinner.

 

[skaertus]

You keep talking about 600 euros, which is some unconfirmed rumor price you had to find on some random Italian web site. Let's compare apples to apples here. The agreed-upon list price for this laptop is 700 euros, i.e., $874 vs. the MBA's list price of $999. That's not that big of a difference. It's definitely not blowing my mind.

Actually, Notebook Italia is a very reliable website and has provided first-hand news on a range of topics, even before many reliable American websites. It is definitely not a "random" Italian website, but, because it is not American, people from the US tend to ignore it.

If the list price in Europe is 699€, then the price in the U.S. is likely to be lower. In fact, if we want to compare apples to apples, the list price of 699€ is in France, where laptops are more expensive than in the U.S. The list price of a low-end 13-inch MacBook Air is 999€ (take a look at http://www.apple.com/fr/), which is about USD 1,245. So, the MacBook Air is about 300€ more expensive than the Asus Zenbook UX305 in France, which is not a negligible difference. I don't know how this will translate in the U.S., though, but the prices in France should be a clue.

I will concede that PC laptop manufacturers have gradually been improving their products and getting closer and closer to the MBA ideal, 4 years later. Good for them. Too bad that Apple is losing a lead they had for a while.

Let me remind you that this isn't an especially unique situation though. Apple sold the 13" MacBook for years for twice the price of many PC laptops that had almost exactly the same hardware and characteristics.

Yes, this is true. The 13-inch MacBook was sold for years for much more than similar PC laptops. However, Macs have been much more competitive as of late.

PC laptops were crappy and had little appeal back then. Now, in large part because of Apple's influence, ultrabooks are becoming very attractive. The Asus Zenbook UX301, for instance, is very good-looking.

Apple may still have the edge and may still charge more for its laptops. But I don't think it can keep such a premium on its laptops as it once had.

It's actually a fairly unique situation that the MBA has been SO much better than the competition for so long, and its prices have been SO competitive, that people like you now consider this situation the status quo and expect Apple to maintain it. So, kudos to Apple for raising the bar, I guess.

I guess it's the status quo that people expect Apple to keep. Apple has forced other manufacturers to raise the bar, and now there is competition for Apple laptops.

I don't think the mere fact that the MacBook Air runs OS X will keep selling it in the future. Apple is reducing the prices of the Air for a reason. Should sales remain the same, I guess the prices would have been kept.

So I don't really know what you expect Apple to do in this situation. Certainly they could improve their screens. I hope that will happen soon too. Otherwise, who cares? Do you really care if a new MacBook weighs just 11% less? And I'm not sure these new PC laptops like the Asus are even thinner than the MBA--they are flat, so like I said, they're thinner in some places and thicker in others. I imagine Apple could fairly easily make a laptop that's a similar size to the Zenbook, but do they want a flat laptop or a wedge-shaped one? Personally I have gotten used to the wedge shape and would be sad to see it go, just so Apple can say one side of their laptops is now a couple millimeters thinner.

I expect Apple to release a 12-inch laptop with a 16:10 screen ratio and a retina resolution. I expect the laptop to have approximately the same frame as the 11-inch MacBook Air, a smaller bezel, and about the same weight or even less. This is what I expect.

----------

Yeah, so let's compare them to a 2015 similar Mac laptop?

That is why I expect Apple to revamp the Air line in 2015. That is the whole point!

A device is the sum of its trade-offs and benefits. If I was open to trade more performances and heat in a laptop against thinness and weight, I'd expect much better than that (115g is so noticeable on a device of that size, really?) when comparing to what Apple can sell me with previous generation tech in its current Air. 15W to 4.5W is a huge gap, that's really not impressive; but I expect intel to release ~10W Broadwell chips that could probably fit in this laptop and offer a better balance.

The weight in the Asus is impressive considering that it has good battery life (for a Windows laptop, of course; it will not touch the battery life of a MacBook) and a high-resolution screen. It's definitely not bad.

More laptops will come, perhaps weighing the same, but they will have worse battery life or worse screens if they come with better processors.

Given the MBA13 manages to get even better battery life than announced by Apple (~14h), and with Windows tests showing 8-10h battery life, not so well for a Core M laptop (and I won't believe Asus on its battery life numbers).

Well, OS X consumes less battery than Windows. This is a fact, and you won't be able to squeeze as much battery life of a Windows laptop. The MacBook Air does not have a great battery life running Windows as well.

Core M is a Broadwell processor. It may be a die shrink, but it is still the same architecture as Haswell. The big improvements of Haswell in battery life were because of the changes in the architecture. I would not expect Broadwell to have the same level of improvement.

I indeed don't care about Windows, I don't buy Mac devices since over 20 years because it's shiny or nice. At best, when it is in my eyes, it's the cherry on the cake. The beauty is in the engineering.

Didn't understand this one.

I don't care to not see the pixels on a 13" 1920x1080 if I can't see what's on screen. Unless it's for watching only images/videos or play games full screen, a computer running a desktop OS + apps starts to be very unusable with such high ppi, and suppose you have UI adjustment with either non-integer retina factor or other technics as found on Windows (and a bunch of issues).
If you want a high pixel density screen, you want to be able to use a 2x retina factor and fit to the pixels for the best results, just as Apple decided to address the resolution independence problem. And the best result is when your screen resolution match your logic resolution @2x. We're on a Mac forum, talking about the future of a Mac laptop, I don't care how Windows handles high pixel density screens, and often poorly.

OS X handles high resolutions better than Windows, but there is a trade-off: the way it renders images on the screen, it needs a better video card. But I don't think Windows handles high pixel densities so poorly. I think it is OK, although the Mac does it better.

Said that, I care about Windows. I am not attached to the Mac ecosystem. I buy what I feel better buying.

 

[motrek]

...
I expect Apple to release a 12-inch laptop with a 16:10 screen ratio and a retina resolution. I expect the laptop to have approximately the same frame as the 11-inch MacBook Air, a smaller bezel, and about the same weight or even less. This is what I expect.

Okay. I expect largely the same. 11" Air but with a bigger, better screen. Fine. I doubt Apple would make it weigh less, because, why? I assume they would make it cost somewhat more since that's what they do with all their Retina computers initially.

That's not game changing stuff. If Apple does everything you expect, you could keep on writing posts about how you can get more or less equivalent PC laptops for cheaper. You're not making a compelling case about why Apple needs to do this redesign sooner rather than later.

 

[skaertus]

Okay. I expect largely the same. 11" Air but with a bigger, better screen. Fine. I doubt Apple would make it weigh less, because, why? I assume they would make it cost somewhat more since that's what they do with all their Retina computers initially.

That's not game changing stuff. If Apple does everything you expect, you could keep on writing posts about how you can get more or less equivalent PC laptops for cheaper. You're not making a compelling case about why Apple needs to do this redesign sooner rather than later.

I don't expect Apple to raise the price much even if the laptop gets a retina display. I expect the prices to be kept similar to the current ones. The main change will be the retina display, and that does not cost a lot these days.

Other manufacturers can come up with cheaper options. I don't complain about it a lot. The retina Pro is expensive but it is worth it.

What I may complain about Apple is the direction it is taking. This may be the reason why, even if the new Air is great, I may not consider buying it as my next laptop.

 

[chleuasme]

The only apps that have scaling problems are ones that haven't been updated in years, or that the developer doesn't care to update - just as non retina apps look like crap on a retina display.

I don't mean to jump into an argument I'm not a part if, but if you're going to make wild claims, at least make sure they're accurate.

I maintain and I’d argue the rigidity of Apple’s approach ensures a better end-user experience either forcing developers to adapt or not introducing flexibility allowing for example tweaks on fonts and elements size by the user, meaning a more complex support from developers and UIs issues.
Apple’s approach is simple but costly in hardware resources, but it’s not much of a head scratcher for devs and quite transparent for the end-user.

prices in France should be a clue.

French prices will usually include (at least) the 20% VAT compared to tax-free prices you see in the US, and the prices differences can also be accentuated with the fluctuations on euro/dollar exchange rate. Tax free prices aren’t that much different in general in the end.
Same for prices from other countries in the euro-zone I suppose.

This Asus is just one laptop out of several other that are expected to come out in 2015, and many of them will feature better processors.

Yeah, so let's compare them to a 2015 similar Mac laptop?

That is why I expect Apple to revamp the Air line in 2015. That is the whole point!

Whaaat?
I can’t follow your logic here.

The weight in the Asus is impressive considering that it has good battery life (for a Windows laptop, of course; it will not touch the battery life of a MacBook) and a high-resolution screen. It's definitely not bad.

Not bad thanks to Core M we can guess. But nothing impressive when you compare to the MBA and having to trade performances to afford the screen. That looks to me like a very unbalanced laptop on paper.

More laptops will come, perhaps weighing the same, but they will have worse battery life or worse screens if they come with better processors.

Yes, it's probable other PCs to come won't shine either, Asus is more than a random brand.
Let's wait and see what Apple will do there, having full control on hardware and software they should be able to keep an edge.

The MacBook Air does not have a great battery life running Windows as well.

Depending on the usage, it seems a MBA13 manage to get 8-10 hours of battery life with Win8. With its 15W Haswell chip.

Core M is a Broadwell processor. It may be a die shrink, but it is still the same architecture as Haswell. The big improvements of Haswell in battery life were because of the changes in the architecture. I would not expect Broadwell to have the same level of improvement.

It’s a 4.5W TDP chip. Don’t you understand it influences power consumption? You’re comparing this laptop with a 15W Haswell MBA.

 

[skaertus]

I maintain and I’d argue the rigidity of Apple’s approach ensures a better end-user experience either forcing developers to adapt or not introducing flexibility allowing for example tweaks on fonts and elements size by the user, meaning a more complex support from developers and UIs issues.
Apple’s approach is simple but costly in hardware resources, but it’s not much of a head scratcher for devs and quite transparent for the end-user.

The rigidity of Apple's approach really ensures a better user-end experience.

However, I am not convinced this is the best approach for the end user. Sometimes, Apple waits for years until the necessary technology is available for some feature to be implemented the right way. I am usually not willing to wait years for that to be achieved, as I want/need the feature now and a workaround would just do fine. Apple's purity may be the right way, but it is annoying when you can't get what you want.

French prices will usually include (at least) the 20% VAT compared to tax-free prices you see in the US, and the prices differences can also be accentuated with the fluctuations on euro/dollar exchange rate. Tax free prices aren’t that much different in general in the end.
Same for prices from other countries in the euro-zone I suppose.

There are some variations. Prices are different in some European countries, and the variation does not always follow the differences in VAT. There is transportation and other hidden costs that may affect the prices.

Whaaat?
I can’t follow your logic here.

Basically, what I am saying is that the current MacBook Air is getting less and less competitive. And that Apple will probably revamp the MacBook Air in 2015 to keep up with these new times. The MacBook Air, if kept as it is, will not be a strong contender in the ultrabook environment; at least for those who do not care having a Mac.

Not bad thanks to Core M we can guess. But nothing impressive when you compare to the MBA and having to trade performances to afford the screen. That looks to me like a very unbalanced laptop on paper.

Battery life is hardly impressive. There is no magic, no way to squeeze more battery life out of a laptop. You have the choices: increase the battery size, put a slower CPU, use a CPU with a better architecture, use a lower-resolution screen, or a screen with less brightness, and so on.

The MacBook Air looks somewhat unbalanced too these days. Battery life is great, but at the cost of a not-so-great screen. I would say it has a much better battery life than its counterparts, but a worse screen. The retina MacBook Pro seems to me much more balanced in this respect.

Yes, it's probable other PCs to come won't shine either, Asus is more than a random brand.
Let's wait and see what Apple will do there, having full control on hardware and software they should be able to keep an edge.

I don't know. The Asus UX305 is a low-end laptop, with a Core M processor, and it still managed to get a high-resolution screen at a very attractive price. Others will come, though, and some expensive ones.

The Asus Zenbook UX301 is a great laptop, and so is the Samsung Ativ Book 9 Plus. In my opinion, both are superior to the current MacBook Air, and they rival the retina MacBook Pro.

Asus and Samsung may release new and improved versions of these laptops in 2015, with better battery lives and perhaps better features (trackpad/keyboard/screen). Windows 10 will come, and it will probably bring better scaling and better trackpad support. So, Windows laptops will shine brighter in 2015 than in 2014.

I don't think Apple has the edge in respect to the MacBook Air. I think there are superior options in the PC world. But Apple may have an edge in 2015 depending on what it comes up with when it revamps the Air.

Depending on the usage, it seems a MBA13 manage to get 8-10 hours of battery life with Win8. With its 15W Haswell chip.

This is reasonable, and on par with Windows counterparts. The 1440x900 screen helps it getting a decent battery life.

It’s a 4.5W TDP chip. Don’t you understand it influences power consumption? You’re comparing this laptop with a 15W Haswell MBA.

Yes, it does. Broadwell is probably more energy-efficient than Haswell, and the 4.5W TDP chip sure consumes much less battery life. But a 15W Broadwell chip should not be much more power-efficient than a 15W Haswell (but I would expect some improvement). The battery size of the Asus, however, is probably smaller (hence the 0.3 lbs less), and the screen has a much higher resolution. In addition, Windows consumes more power than OS X.

 

[chleuasme]

Apple's purity may be the right way, but it is annoying when you can't get what you want.

I can understand your frustration (even more when Apple sometimes also retain some tech for marketing and segmentation of its lines reasons). But that's not what happened with retina screens in the last years.
Apple got the support first, in 2012, while Microsoft struggled with Windows many versions to stabilize and only recently looking like offering finally a quite solid support of high pixel density screens.
The quest of the support of resolution independance is old, and Apple's solution could have been introduced earlier (as it was possible on the iOS platform). The limitation was not only on software, they needed intel to release chips with decent CPU and iGPU performances at low power to be able to release thin and light notebooks (because they don't make expensive thick and heavy bricks to afford a spec; otherwise you'd have had retina screens on the MBP in 2010).
Now Apple also had to confine this feature to high-end devices, partly because higher prices of the devices could better absorb the higher-cost of high density panels. And is slowly moving down as intel is itself moving to improve each generations low-power chips. With Boradwell on a late-H1'14 - H2'14 schedule as initially expected you'd already have a retina 12" Mac notebook (and other brands offering competitive models).
This retina third smaller model is coming as fast as it can, in Apple's approach of minimizing concessions and releasing consistent hardware+software. They don't rush.

There are some variations. Prices are different in some European countries, and the variation does not always follow the differences in VAT. There is transportation and other hidden costs that may affect the prices.

I know, I'm french.

Basically, what I am saying is that the current MacBook Air is getting less and less competitive. And that Apple will probably revamp the MacBook Air in 2015 to keep up with these new times. The MacBook Air, if kept as it is, will not be a strong contender in the ultrabook environment; at least for those who do not care having a Mac.

Of course Apple is interested in improving its offer, and surely is willing to put retina screens everywhere.
But it's not under the pressure of the concurrent they'll be moving as you present it; they are still leading the pack, no matter how hard you try to distort the reality, they simply are waiting for the stuffs that fit inside what they want to build.

The MacBook Air looks somewhat unbalanced too these days. Battery life is great, but at the cost of a not-so-great screen. I would say it has a much better battery life than its counterparts, but a worse screen. The retina MacBook Pro seems to me much more balanced in this respect.

The MBA'14 is like the last MBP'12, it's the last representative of an old generation model, with a set of specs now looking old.
Now, 12+ hours of battery life is really nice to have, decent CPU+GPU performances too, and the size, weight and thinness are already quite not bad.
The jump to retina screens and to still be able to maintain good performances in a thin(ner) and light(er) body is directly tied to intel's ability to improve on each generation its lines of chips. Apple is not interested in making too many concessions and inundate the market with dozens of different models with each trade-offs: their approach is to produce one model with the right specs in their eyes for (a category of) consumers.

I don't know. The Asus UX305 is a low-end laptop, with a Core M processor, and it still managed to get a high-resolution screen at a very attractive price.

... and at the price of bad performances because of Core M Broadwell. Thx but no thx. That's be worth it maybe if at least it gave something like 15h+ of battery life.

Yes, it does. Broadwell is probably more energy-efficient than Haswell, and the 4.5W TDP chip sure consumes much less battery life. But a 15W Broadwell chip should not be much more power-efficient than a 15W Haswell (but I would expect some improvement). The battery size of the Asus, however, is probably smaller (hence the 0.3 lbs less), and the screen has a much higher resolution. In addition, Windows consumes more power than OS X.

Basing on the current MBA13 as a reference, my point was if Apple was fitting the same 4.5W Core M chip in the MBA, and the same higher pixel density screen, and shaved 15% of battery to gain weight and a thinner body, I'd guess they'd still manage to maintain well over 12h of announced battery life.
This Asus Core M laptop looks like a bad choice to try to find a good contender to both current Apple MBA and likely its 2015 replacement.

 

[skaertus]

I can understand your frustration (even more when Apple sometimes also retain some tech for marketing and segmentation of its lines reasons). But that's not what happened with retina screens in the last years.
Apple got the support first, in 2012, while Microsoft struggled with Windows many versions to stabilize and only recently looking like offering finally a quite solid support of high pixel density screens.
The quest of the support of resolution independance is old, and Apple's solution could have been introduced earlier (as it was possible on the iOS platform). The limitation was not only on software, they needed intel to release chips with decent CPU and iGPU performances at low power to be able to release thin and light notebooks (because they don't make expensive thick and heavy bricks to afford a spec; otherwise you'd have had retina screens on the MBP in 2010).
Now Apple also had to confine this feature to high-end devices, partly because higher prices of the devices could better absorb the higher-cost of high density panels. And is slowly moving down as intel is itself moving to improve each generations low-power chips. With Boradwell on a late-H1'14 - H2'14 schedule as initially expected you'd already have a retina 12" Mac notebook.
This retina third smaller model is coming as fast as it can, in Apple's approach of minimizing concessions and releasing consistent hardware+software. They don't rush.

Yes, I can see that. And this is partially what happened with retina displays. Apple kept the 13" and the 15" models of the MacBook Pro with screen resolutions of 1280x800 and 1440x900, respectively, for years, while Windows laptops had much higher resolutions (even 1920x1080 on 13" laptops). It was very frustrating that a MacBook Pro sold in the first half of 2012 still carried such a low resolution. Then Apple suddenly updated the screens when it released the new version. It was a sudden and big update, which was not done gradually. In the end, Apple's support of very high resolutions is a better solution than the one found by Microsoft, but this does not help the user that bought a low-resolution laptop in 2011. This is what annoys me.

The MacBook Air is the last device in Apple's line to receive a retina display. All of the others already have it, including the iMac.

I know, I'm french.

Oh, are you? Your English is very good, I hadn't noticed you were not from the English-speaking world.

Of course Apple is interested in improving its offer, and surely is willing to put retina screens everywhere.
But it's not under the pressure of the concurrent they'll be moving as you present it; they are still leading the pack, no matter how hard you try to distort the reality, they simply are waiting for the stuffs that fit inside what they want to build.

I am not trying to distort the reality. I understand that the MacBook Air is highly regarded among ultrabooks, even with its 4-year old design. People still buy it, following all the Apple hype. Some people still think the MacBook Air is the best ultrabook around.

However, it is becoming less and less competitive. Ultrabooks have evolved a lot. Ultrabooks in 2013 were far better than in 2012, and in 2014 they were even better. Apple cannot keep its design forever. Should Apple have kept the prices of the MacBook Air as they were in 2012 or 2013, they would have faced much more competition from other products. High-end ultrabooks are expensive, and the MacBook Air is cheaper than they are. That probably helps the sales of the MacBook Air. But then the sales of the MacBook Air are not driven by its superb quality and difference from the others. Apple is competing on several fields, including price. And Apple hardly competes on price.

The MBA'14 is like the last MBP'12, it's the last representative of an old generation model, with a set of specs now looking old.
Now, 12+ hours of battery life is really nice to have, decent CPU+GPU performances too, and the size, weight and thinness are already quite not bad.
The jump to retina screens and to still be able to maintain good performances in a thin(ner) and light(er) body is directly tied to intel's ability to improve on each generation its lines of chips. Apple is not interested in making too many concessions and inundate the market with dozens of different models with each trade-offs: their approach is to produce one model with the right specs in their eyes for (a category of) consumers.

Yes, this is Apple's approach. I think the 12+ hours of battery life is great, of course, but it is somewhat of a distortion as well. I understand Apple wants to launch the right product, with well-balanced specs, but I think it is taking too long. Perhaps Apple could have done it when Haswell was launched, but perhaps something was still lacking. I don't know. I just think there are fine Windows laptops out there with decent battery lives and great screens; although those battery lives don't touch the one in the MacBook Air, I also think a Mac would have a better battery life because OS X is more energy-efficient than Windows.

... and at the price of bad performances because of Core M Broadwell. Thx but no thx. That's be worth it maybe if at least it gave something like 15h+ of battery life.

I don't know how bad the performance really is. As for the battery life, a 15h+ could be achieved with a 1366x768 resolution, for instance.

Basing on the current MBA13 as a reference, my point was if Apple was fitting the same 4.5W Core M chip in the MBA, and the same higher pixel density screen, and shaved 15% of battery to gain weight and a thinner body, I'd guess they'd still manage to maintain well over 12h of announced battery life.
This Asus Core M laptop looks like a bad choice to try to find a good contender to both current Apple MBA and likely its 2015 replacement.

Apple would be able to get more battery life because of OS X. I don't think it would manage to get so much battery life out of Windows.

The Asus Core M is the only one we get so far, apart from the Yoga 3. I think there are already superior alternatives to the current MacBook Air in the market, available today, and I already mentioned some of them. Of course it is a matter of personal opinion, but the choice of a MacBook Air over these alternatives would be as well, since there is no objective criteria to justify the superiority of the Air. As for the 2015 replacement, I don't know what Apple will unveil, nor what others will.

 

[chleuasme]

but this does not help the user that bought a low-resolution laptop in 2011. This is what annoys me.

Balance. The 2012 rMBP15 was barely there, in 2011 it would have been worse. The MBP11 was not making concessions.

The MacBook Air is the last device in Apple's line to receive a retina display. All of the others already have it, including the iMac.

It's easier to incorporate a retina screen in larger devices when they can integrate more battery cells and powerful CPUs/GPUs. The iMac was facing other limitations.
2012 allowed the rMBP15, 2013 was for the rMBP13, and we'd have had a retina 12" Macbook in 2014 if intel had been on schedule.

I understand that the MacBook Air is highly regarded among ultrabooks, even with its 4-year old design. People still buy it, following all the Apple hype. Some people still think the MacBook Air is the best ultrabook around.

However, it is becoming less and less competitive.

The MBA'14 is really a MBA'13, itself being an iteration of a design defined in 2010, itself a refinement of a 2008 design.
You're comparing an aging 2013 model with models built around techs of 2014-15 with Broadwell. Yes the MBA13 starts to look old on many aspects.
I'll compare these new Windows laptops with the new 12" retina Mac when it's out.

I think the 12+ hours of battery life is great, of course, but it is somewhat of a distortion as well.

Yes, in reality it's closer to 14h. Don't talk to me about Windows

I don't know how bad the performance really is. As for the battery life, a 15h+ could be achieved with a 1366x768 resolution, for instance.

Screwed screen and bad performances, no thanks again: battery life isn't everything.

Apple would be able to get more battery life because of OS X. I don't think it would manage to get so much battery life out of Windows.

To continue on the same hypothesis (but I'd agree that's not really meaningful to discuss out of the reality too much), I'd guess basing on the current Air that it would reach 10h on Windows.

Of course it is a matter of personal opinion, but the choice of a MacBook Air over these alternatives would be as well, since there is no objective criteria to justify the superiority of the Air.

Of course there is, like build quality for example. Or (but you are not one to be interested) of course OS X, and its ecosystem of apps and services. That's nothing to consider as marginal.

 

[skaertus]

Balance. The 2012 rMBP15 was barely there, in 2011 it would have been worse. The MBP11 was not making concessions.

It is true that in 2011 we couldn't have retina displays on the MacBook Pro. However, we could have a 15" MacBook Pro with a 1920x1200 resolution or a 13" with a 1440x900 or 1680x1050 resolution. Apple, however, adopted an all-or-nothing approach and stick with the low resolutions until it was able to release a laptop with very high resolutions. No middle terms. For those who bought the retina version in 2012 or 2013, it was great. But for those who bought the non-retina version in 2011, it was underwhelming.

It's easier to incorporate a retina screen in larger devices when they can integrate more battery cells and powerful CPUs/GPUs. The iMac was facing other limitations.
2012 allowed the rMBP15, 2013 was for the rMBP13, and we'd have had a retina 12" Macbook in 2014 if intel had been on schedule.

I guess the retina MacBook Air should have come with Haswell, but it probably didn't because of reasons other than the processor. Just a guess, though.

The MBA'14 is really a MBA'13, itself being an iteration of a design defined in 2010, itself a refinement of a 2008 design.
You're comparing an aging 2013 model with models built around techs of 2014-15 with Broadwell. Yes the MBA13 starts to look old on many aspects.
I'll compare these new Windows laptops with the new 12" retina Mac when it's out.

The MacBook Air already started to look old before the Broadwell models were released. It looks old compared to the design of the retina MacBook Pro, and also to the design of other models. To be fair, for a 4-year old design, it should look even older than it does now.

Yes, in reality it's closer to 14h. Don't talk to me about Windows

Don't like Windows, huh?

Screwed screen and bad performances, no thanks again: battery life isn't everything.

It's a trade-off. The MacBook Air has just the screwed screen... it's not bad as a 1366x768 screen, but it is starting to look dated.

To continue on the same hypothesis (but I'd agree that's not really meaningful to discuss out of the reality too much), I'd guess basing on the current Air that it would reach 10h on Windows.

According to this review (http://www.digitalversus.com/laptop/apple-13-macbook-air-2013-running-windows-8-p16624/test.html), the 2013 MacBook Air (Haswell) does not even reach 8 hours running Windows.

Of course there is, like build quality for example. Or (but you are not one to be interested) of course OS X, and its ecosystem of apps and services. That's nothing to consider as marginal.

Build quality is definitely a factor to consider. The build quality of the Macs is great. But some high-end Windows laptops now have good build quality as well. I was impressed by the build quality of the Asus UX301, for instance. The Samsung Ativ Book 9 Plus looked premium as well. Only a few Windows laptops get this kind of build quality, but that should be considered.

As for OS X, it is a matter of preference. OS X has its advantages, such as better battery life. Apple's ecosystem is nice to use, and the trackpad works very well under OS X. However, there are disadvantages of the Mac ecosystem as well. There are many more software available for Windows. I, for instance, am a heavy user of Microsoft Office, which I use for work, and Office for Windows is miles ahead of Office for Mac in every aspect, and iWork pales in comparison to Office in terms of features. So, the preference between Windows and OS X is largely a matter of personal preference and needs, and I wouldn't say that one is objectively better than the other. The fact that the MacBook Air runs OS X instead of Windows is clearly an advantage for some users, and some of them consider a Windows laptop a deal-breaker just because it cannot run OS X. But this is a very subjective perspective, and does not apply to everyone, not even to the majority of users.

 

[motrek]

...
The MacBook Air already started to look old before the Broadwell models were released. It looks old compared to the design of the retina MacBook Pro, and also to the design of other models. To be fair, for a 4-year old design, it should look even older than it does now. ...

It's worth asking yourself why computers look old. Certainly I can identify old Dell laptops because they have cheap accent pieces that were added by designers to make them look more interesting. A silver plastic ring around the keyboard, that sort of thing.

With the MBA, there are no superfluous design elements. Which makes the design timeless IMO. It would not bother me if I used a laptop that looks like my current 11" MBA for the next 20 years. Certainly it hasn't bothered me for the last 4.