I'd just assumed that when Apple introduced that crazy-thin 12" MacBook a couple years ago, it was meant to replace both product lines. I don't understand why it's necessary to maintain a third discrete product line. Why not add a 13" variant to the standard MacBook line with i5 and i7 processor choices? That would be similar to what they do with the MacBook Pro line.
Is there some other difference that I'm overlooking?
Frankly, I think the three product lines should be shaped like this:
- Macbook: For price sensitive people. $800-900 to enter the Apple ecosystem.
- Macbook Air: Basically the current MBP with its fixation on power capped by form-factor. (Note: The new Air is heavier than the MBP!)
- Macbook Pro: A portable workstation that doesn't sacrifice everything for form factor. Apple doesn't have one of these right now. For example, prioritizes thermals so that it can sustain max performance instead of the bursty performance of the current MBPs.
1) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Looyat-Magnetic-Cable-Macbook-Black...
- Consumers have aptly demonstrated that they prefer low weight and thinness over expandability and replaceability. That's one of many reasonable explanations that do not assume bad faith.
- While repairs have gotten more difficult, reliability has increased at an even faster pace. Notebook components have failure rate far lower than a decade ago. The largest single change was the transition from mechanical, failure-prone HDDs to SSDs. The second largest change were improvements to batteries: these have an expected useable lifetime of 5 years+, whereas in the past it was maybe two years, and only you took specific care such as regular draining.
- Material science and manufacturing have also improved, allowing tighter specification: If your washing machine survives two decades that is a major failure of engineering.
That's because over-provisioning is wasteful, and ecologically harmful. Even in cases grow fond of such old machines, it is actually better to have them fail at some point, because improvements in power consumption more than compensate for shorter lifecycles.
What I'm trying to say, is that people bitch about the Apple, but there many other horrible brands (models) out there. But there is not enough buyers to point that out as loud as in Apple case.
However the butterfly keyboard scares me a bit. They say it has been fixed, but personally don't have any feedback from Macbook Pro users and also this Air keyboard can be bit different.
I've upgraded its battery twice, last time this year, for 60 EUR each time, and its hitting > 9h of battery life right now.
What does seem compelling in the new Air to you?
I only see a similarly spec'ed system (Geekbench says its 40% faster): dual-core, ~same RAM, ~same HDD if I go for the 2000 EUR 512Gb SSD version, ... Retina display (this is huge), no macsafe, new keyboards (people have mixed feelings about these), ...
I find it hard to justify upgrading a system that's still working fine at such a high price tag (>2k EUR) just for a Retina display and ~30-40% faster CPU.
A modern quad/six core could deliver 4-6x speed-ups in some workflows, and discreet nvidia graphics could allow me to develop for CUDA, 1Tb SSD would be nice, etc. I could justify paying 2000 EUR for all these upgrades on top of a Retina display. But just for a retina display? I'd rather go skiing in the Alps for two weeks this winter for 1600 EUR and just buy an apple watch with the remaining 400 EUR =/
During the presentation they showed the inside as well, highlighting the locations of RAM and SSD and both seemed to be soldered. As they're nowadays soldered in every other mobile Mac, replaceable parts in the new MacBook Air would surprise surprise me (although it'd be a pleasant surprise).
Also I would like to know if the SSD can be upgraded later (unofficially of course). 2012 Air SSD can be replaced, using cheap reduction (from proprietary apple to standard M2). Not sure about the newer models.