4 ms·

This reads more like a bad review of the new Macbook than a great review of the new iPad Pro. Of course, this was already the case before, the new Macbook has a

This reads more like a bad review of the new Macbook than a great review of the new iPad Pro. Of course, this was already the case before, the new Macbook has always been kind of a head-scratcher: 1. Despite the amazing battery advancements it gets worse batter life than the Macbook Air (9 hrs web vs 12 hrs). 2. A worse graphics card than the Macbook Air yet MORE pixels. 3. A higher price point. Any time I bring this up, I'm told I don't get it and this isn't a computer for a "pro" like me. But that doesn't really mesh with the fact that its a super expensive computer. Who is this for? I guess it makes for a really great comparison to the new iPad Pro.

potatolicious 11y ago
> "But that doesn't really mesh with the fact that its a super expensive computer. Who is this for?" Early adopters and people who need absolute maximum portability and are not particularly price-sensitive. The MacBook is smaller, thinner, and lighter than the MBA, and has a higher quality screen. If you need a laptop that fits the above description and don't mind the cost, it's a good bet. More to the point though - it occupies a similar space as the MacBook Air when it originally came out (recall that the MBA was ~$1500-2000 when it first came out). I think it's fairly obvious that Apple's letting early adopters pay the premium, and once they can get production costs down enough it will simply take over as the lowest-tier Mac laptop entirely, probably at the same $900-1000 price point the MBA is at today. It is the exact same trajectory as the original MacBook Air - introduced as premium ultra-portable product, eventually replacing the plastic MacBooks as the base-level product.
- tolmasky 11y ago
  > The MacBook is smaller, thinner, and lighter than the MBA, and has a higher quality screen. I just find it hard to say that its a higher quality screen when you have a worse graphics card, and thus the stuff that will actually be on the screen will be worse (more dropped frames, worse effects, etc). What does it mean to want a higher quality screen? If it had 8x as many pixel but was black and white, is it higher quality? If you want a retina screen for awesome gaming, this isn't for you. If you want a retina screen for video editing, this isn't for you. If you want a retina screen for ... web browsing, as long as there are no CSS animations because they'll be horrible... then its for you? > it occupies a similar space as the MacBook Air when it originally came out Sure, I get that, but the difference is that when the Macbook Air came out the Macbook Air didn't already exist. Let's think about it another way, if next year they announce an EVEN thinner Macbook with even stranger performance tradeoffs, would we accept 3 computers in this space? Probably not. I suppose my fear is that the plan here is to replace Macbook Airs with this. What I wanted out of a Macbook Air was more RAM, that's about it. Instead this huge detour was taken on compromise features -- which again is fine, except if the plan is to turn this entire product category into a worse-than-iPad computer, which is definitely not where the Air sat before. The Air before seemed like good compromises, and perhaps the Macbook will get there too.
vbezhenar 11y ago
What about display? I guess, Macbook Air has terrible TN matrix with bad view angles and iPad Pro has good IPS matrix. That's an important difference for many users.
hindsightbias 11y ago
> Who is this for? HS and college kids who don't need a gaming station and stream everything. If mom & dad can't afford it, the grandparents can.
mrpippy 11y ago
It would be fascinating to see a MacBook powered by the A9X rather than Core-M. Based on the benchmarks, point 2 would be solved. Point 1 is an unknown but the iPad Pro battery is barely smaller than the MacBook's, it'll be interesting to compare battery life. And I'm sure Apple would have more leeway on point 3--it's just a question of profit margins.
- mcphage 11y ago
  Wait a year or two? Maybe a little less? Not the A9X specifically, but I think it's pretty clear that Apple will be sticking its ARM processors into its laptops soon enough.

potatolicious 11y ago

> "But that doesn't really mesh with the fact that its a super expensive computer. Who is this for?" Early adopters and people who need absolute maximum portability and are not particularly price-sensitive. The MacBook is smaller, thinner, and lighter than the MBA, and has a higher quality screen. If you need a laptop that fits the above description and don't mind the cost, it's a good bet. More to the point though - it occupies a similar space as the MacBook Air when it originally came out (recall that the MBA was ~$1500-2000 when it first came out). I think it's fairly obvious that Apple's letting early adopters pay the premium, and once they can get production costs down enough it will simply take over as the lowest-tier Mac laptop entirely, probably at the same $900-1000 price point the MBA is at today. It is the exact same trajectory as the original MacBook Air - introduced as premium ultra-portable product, eventually replacing the plastic MacBooks as the base-level product.

tolmasky 11y ago
> The MacBook is smaller, thinner, and lighter than the MBA, and has a higher quality screen. I just find it hard to say that its a higher quality screen when you have a worse graphics card, and thus the stuff that will actually be on the screen will be worse (more dropped frames, worse effects, etc). What does it mean to want a higher quality screen? If it had 8x as many pixel but was black and white, is it higher quality? If you want a retina screen for awesome gaming, this isn't for you. If you want a retina screen for video editing, this isn't for you. If you want a retina screen for ... web browsing, as long as there are no CSS animations because they'll be horrible... then its for you? > it occupies a similar space as the MacBook Air when it originally came out Sure, I get that, but the difference is that when the Macbook Air came out the Macbook Air didn't already exist. Let's think about it another way, if next year they announce an EVEN thinner Macbook with even stranger performance tradeoffs, would we accept 3 computers in this space? Probably not. I suppose my fear is that the plan here is to replace Macbook Airs with this. What I wanted out of a Macbook Air was more RAM, that's about it. Instead this huge detour was taken on compromise features -- which again is fine, except if the plan is to turn this entire product category into a worse-than-iPad computer, which is definitely not where the Air sat before. The Air before seemed like good compromises, and perhaps the Macbook will get there too.

vbezhenar 11y ago

What about display? I guess, Macbook Air has terrible TN matrix with bad view angles and iPad Pro has good IPS matrix. That's an important difference for many users.

hindsightbias 11y ago

> Who is this for? HS and college kids who don't need a gaming station and stream everything. If mom & dad can't afford it, the grandparents can.

mrpippy 11y ago

It would be fascinating to see a MacBook powered by the A9X rather than Core-M. Based on the benchmarks, point 2 would be solved. Point 1 is an unknown but the iPad Pro battery is barely smaller than the MacBook's, it'll be interesting to compare battery life. And I'm sure Apple would have more leeway on point 3--it's just a question of profit margins.

mcphage 11y ago
Wait a year or two? Maybe a little less? Not the A9X specifically, but I think it's pretty clear that Apple will be sticking its ARM processors into its laptops soon enough.