What's The Problem? (difference between MB and MBA)

[Serban]

Maybe. But I say not anytime soon because right now the MacBook Air is Apple's "cheapest" or I should say least expensive laptop.

Yea but in 2years when the macbook will drop 200$?
I think too that macbook air will last 2 more years
Maybe after 2 years will still offer the 13" MBA at 700$ just to be there for users that don't want the best just a nice laptop and thats it
This broadwell upgrade i think its the last update for the MBA

 

[maflynn]

Really, what's "a lot"? It seems to me it's some processing power and ports which can be added with an adaptor. I do realise that if people want to run heavy software it could be a problem

You're paying a lot of money, for a computer with a slow[er] CPU, lower end GPU and less ports. Yes, you can carry a dongle around, but that doesn't seem to elegant, i.e., un-apple like.

Didn't they do essentially the same thing with the retina MacBook Pros?

They kept the name basically the same (prefixing "Retina" to the existing model names), but both the 13"/15" retina MacBook Pros were essentially new computer lines that were very close to the existing lines, no? Smaller in size, fewer ports, ... they just didn't switch the processor quite as drastically.
If Apple hadn't have created a new computer line for the Air, it seems that adding a retina display to the existing Air would result in a noticeable decrease in battery life. For people that need the battery life, the Air line of computers might no longer be suitable for them. To me, that'd be Apple erring.

I'd say apple upgraded the existing MBP line to retina, not creating a new computer line. Similarly, apple added a retina screen to the MBA model, but instead they decided to call it a MacBook and not a MacBook Air.

 

[Serban]

You are paying for a glimpse of the future, like MBA was in the past and now its standard

 

[ByteTheBooty]

Why do people want this to be a serious work machine?

Because it looks so amazing that pro users wish the Pro was as nice

 

[mtneer]

Why do people want this to be a serious work machine?

Because not everybody's profession includes graphics intensive work? If your job is a novel writer or a journalist posting stories - why would you need anything else?

 

[puma1552]

You're giving up a lot in the MB just for the screen. I think apple erred in making a third computer line that is all but identical to the MBA line. The only difference worth mentioning is that the MB has a retina screen.

I think Apple is keeping the Air around for now because they know the rMB is not a suitable replacement in its current incarnation. However, 2-3 revisions down the road, it may very well be; MBA exit stage left, please.

The MBA is on its way to irrelevancy, especially with the junk screen from 2005.

 

[capathy21]

especially with the junk screen from 2005.

Little bit of an exaggeration there huh? Sure when it's compared to retina it isn't that good but it isn't near as bad as the snobs on MR would like to believe. In fact, I gave up a retina pro to go back to the Air. When you show me a retina notebook that gets 14 hour battery life I'll gladly give up my "junk screen."

 

[MisterPunchy]

The Macbook is probably not intended for pro users, it's for coffee shops, students and light users. Why do people want this to be a serious work machine?

Why are "Pro users" assumed to be the ones who need powerful computers? Why can't people who use a less powerful machine be doing "serious work"?

Is "serious work" only graphically and CPU intensive work? Is journalism or writing or the work of professors, lawyers, doctors, CEOs etc... not serious work? JK Rowling became the wealthiest novelist in history on a 1st Gen MacBook Air with less power than the 2015 rMB. I think LOTS of people (who aren't graphic designers, gamers, or programmers) can do plenty of "serious work" on a machine with lesser CPU/GPU overhead. After all, Tim Cook himself has said he does 85% of his "serious work" on an iPad.

Stop being so myopic and condescending. Not everyone does the same work as you.

----------

Because not everybody's profession includes graphics intensive work? If your job is a novel writer or a journalist posting stories - why would you need anything else?

Yes. This.

 

[puma1552]

Little bit of an exaggeration there huh?

Not really. The screen on the air is terrible, and it hasn't even had a smidgen of an upgrade in years. Apple should be ashamed of themselves selling a computer with that screen, there's zero reason for that not to have been retina for the last 2-3 years.

 

[Mcdevidr]

The screen on the air is not terrible. It's not great. But it beats the heck out of 1366x768 on a 15 inch screen. If this is their low end model why can it not have a low res screen? Plenty of windows machines do. Granted it's 8-9 hundred but you get a housing that you can not find on many windows machines at that price.

 

[lchlch]

Not a significant function. Laptops are thin and light enough. I can't remember the last time I heard a real person complain that their Mac laptop was too heavy and too thick.

It's time to stop this quest to turn the computers into low power super thin pieces of paped.

Weight is also a useful function. It makes something easier to keep in place. Easier to hold onto. And enables it to have sufficient mass to be durable.

We have hit a point where needless size reduction causes more sacrifice than benefit.

One should also consider that this miniature quest Apple is stuck on is more about decreasing production costs and creatively marketing these less expensive productions to charge us more money by brainwashing people into thinking they need less functional super thin devices at a higher price tag.

Nobody asks for them to be super thin. Everybody asks for more powerful tools. What we get from Apple is a continuing backwards movement in capabilities, and a higher price for less functional stripped down devices that take up millimeters of less space.

Would you consider an iPad as something thats hard to keep in place, hard to hold in place and flimsy? It should be according to your logic. Because its lighter than the macbook.

And I'm getting kinda sick of people underestimating the core m. It is a decent processor for consumer workloads. Yea it may be slow on medium to long length workloads i.e. rendering, physics simulations, etc but for burst type workloads i.e. opening a web browser, saving a file, editing a document, switching between windows etc its perfectly adequate.

and lastly a quote:

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
~ Henry Ford