4 ms·

The closest thing to that would be the 12" MacBook. I really think Apple needs to put the MacBook Air line out to pasture. They haven't updated it in a couple y

The closest thing to that would be the 12" MacBook. I really think Apple needs to put the MacBook Air line out to pasture. They haven't updated it in a couple years and it was honestly never that great to begin with. They should just focus on the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. With the new 13" MacBook Pros, the weight and footprint is getting ever closer to the MacBook Air, so that's also an option.

m_mueller 9y ago
Price, especially including dongles, says something else. Out of the box connectivity of anything but MBA is just awful. So are the keyboards.
chongli 9y ago
I really think Apple needs to put the MacBook Air line out to pasture. They haven't updated it in a couple years and it was honestly never that great to begin with. Is it not selling very well? It seems unlikely to me that Apple, as ruthlessly efficient and profitable as they are, would continue making an old product if it's not selling. More likely is that it is selling and selling really well in some segments of the market. I would even conjecture that it is one of the more profitable products in the Mac line-up due to the lower cost of old technology.
- extra88 9y ago
  The MacBook Air hasn't been updated since Early 2015, not as long as the mini's gone without an update but unlike the mini, I doubt they've make a new MacBook Air. The 13" MacBook Pro weighs the same as the MacBook Air (well, the MBP is .06 lbs heavier) and is thinner than the Air at its thickest point (0.59 in. vs. 0.11 to 0.68 in.) . Apple's battery life estimate is longer for the Air than the MBP but that would not be true if they added a Retina display to the Air. The MacBook Air is better at slicing cake than the 13"in MacBook Pro.
  - chongli 9y ago
    MacBook Air hasn't been updated since Early 2015 I get that. My point is that Apple's not going to discontinue a product that continues to sell well enough to make it highly profitable. Likewise, if sales are not tapering off then there is little reason to update it unless they can cut costs by doing so. This isn't the 90s anymore. A computer that's 6 years old is not 16x slower than a brand new one.
giobox 9y ago
That might well work one day in the future, but today, a MacBook Air with retina display would be a significantly better machine, given the TDP of the CPUs typically used in the Air vs the passively cooled 12" MacBook. This is the computer huge numbers of people want, but Apple force up the range to the entry level 13" MacBook Pro (which incidentally IIRC currently has the same TDP class CPUs as the existing Air...) to get a decent display. Really the entry level 13 inch MacBook Pro should start at $999, given it largely _is_ a MacBook Air but with Retina display and TB3. Heck the 13 inch Pro is technically thinner as well now, even if the wedge shape of the Air makes the Air seem smaller. They all but weigh the same now too. > it [The MacBook Air] was honestly never that great to begin with In absolute terms perhaps not, and definitely not at launch. Later models however offered a pretty compelling mix of price, size and performance for a long time. Especially the performance to battery life ratio, which at various times has been one of the best compromises in Apple's lineup. There's a reason sites like the Wirecutter and the Verge kept it their recommended machine "for most people" for such a long time. I still think later versions of the Air are some of the best machines Apple has made at their respective peaks, again "for most people".
- digikata 9y ago
  Yup, for me the current Apple lineup is a bit more than needed in the 13in Mac Pro, and a little low in the Macbook. And neither are giving real battery life/perf ratio that I'm looking for - so there's a gap. If not Apple then as an alternative I keep hoping that some linux shop will put in some power integration work to a quality PC-supply chain sourced laptop - because if I could get 10-12 hrs of light use battery life I think I'd switch.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

m_mueller 9y ago

Price, especially including dongles, says something else. Out of the box connectivity of anything but MBA is just awful. So are the keyboards.

chongli 9y ago

I really think Apple needs to put the MacBook Air line out to pasture. They haven't updated it in a couple years and it was honestly never that great to begin with. Is it not selling very well? It seems unlikely to me that Apple, as ruthlessly efficient and profitable as they are, would continue making an old product if it's not selling. More likely is that it is selling and selling really well in some segments of the market. I would even conjecture that it is one of the more profitable products in the Mac line-up due to the lower cost of old technology.

extra88 9y ago
The MacBook Air hasn't been updated since Early 2015, not as long as the mini's gone without an update but unlike the mini, I doubt they've make a new MacBook Air. The 13" MacBook Pro weighs the same as the MacBook Air (well, the MBP is .06 lbs heavier) and is thinner than the Air at its thickest point (0.59 in. vs. 0.11 to 0.68 in.) . Apple's battery life estimate is longer for the Air than the MBP but that would not be true if they added a Retina display to the Air. The MacBook Air is better at slicing cake than the 13"in MacBook Pro.
- chongli 9y ago
  MacBook Air hasn't been updated since Early 2015 I get that. My point is that Apple's not going to discontinue a product that continues to sell well enough to make it highly profitable. Likewise, if sales are not tapering off then there is little reason to update it unless they can cut costs by doing so. This isn't the 90s anymore. A computer that's 6 years old is not 16x slower than a brand new one.

giobox 9y ago

That might well work one day in the future, but today, a MacBook Air with retina display would be a significantly better machine, given the TDP of the CPUs typically used in the Air vs the passively cooled 12" MacBook. This is the computer huge numbers of people want, but Apple force up the range to the entry level 13" MacBook Pro (which incidentally IIRC currently has the same TDP class CPUs as the existing Air...) to get a decent display. Really the entry level 13 inch MacBook Pro should start at $999, given it largely _is_ a MacBook Air but with Retina display and TB3. Heck the 13 inch Pro is technically thinner as well now, even if the wedge shape of the Air makes the Air seem smaller. They all but weigh the same now too. > it [The MacBook Air] was honestly never that great to begin with In absolute terms perhaps not, and definitely not at launch. Later models however offered a pretty compelling mix of price, size and performance for a long time. Especially the performance to battery life ratio, which at various times has been one of the best compromises in Apple's lineup. There's a reason sites like the Wirecutter and the Verge kept it their recommended machine "for most people" for such a long time. I still think later versions of the Air are some of the best machines Apple has made at their respective peaks, again "for most people".

digikata 9y ago
Yup, for me the current Apple lineup is a bit more than needed in the 13in Mac Pro, and a little low in the Macbook. And neither are giving real battery life/perf ratio that I'm looking for - so there's a gap. If not Apple then as an alternative I keep hoping that some linux shop will put in some power integration work to a quality PC-supply chain sourced laptop - because if I could get 10-12 hrs of light use battery life I think I'd switch.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]