4 ms·

No one actually cared that a laptop needed a fan, though. Apple could have put a fan in this and no one would have seen it as a huge deficiency.

by CHY872 12y ago

IkmoIkmo 12y ago
Still it's massively useful. It means more space for the battery and it also indirectly means that if you need no fan, you probably generate very little heat, which means you have a crazy efficient CPU meaning even more battery. Which is how they can do the same amount of battery life as the 11', despite having a bigger screen and a retina display. And a big part of that equation is probably the fanless chip. But it's true it's not like users were complaining about e.g. the MBA lineup being so noisy.
- CHY872 12y ago
  Yes - and what they've achieved is a CPU that's much closer to the ARM state of the art, and has a much more ARM-like power profile, and would generally be easier to replace with ARM a couple of years down the line. This coincides with being fanless. Had Apple made this (say) the same thickness as the MacBook air, they'd have increased their volume by a measurable amount, they'd have been able to have a much more powerful processor, and no one would be able to say that ARM is a good proposition for them for the foreseeable future. Now they have a fairly weakly performing computer, with an ARM-sized logic board, which is going to be bought by people who don't care about bottom line performance. This is going to be the slowest Mac in a number of years - and if it's a success then making the next-slowest Mac be ARM wouldn't be such a jump.
  - IkmoIkmo 12y ago
    I agree it's a definite possibility. They did it before with the iPad lineup when everyone thought they'd bring a decent chip to the table, and went with low-end phone chips. Of course very good low-end chips, running highly optimized software, but still. I just don't really follow their path here. First they make the MB more expensive than the air, but run slower. They also make it lighter, smaller, thinner and quieter than the air (air having light-as-a-feather connotations). I mean, what's the deal in 2 years? If it's the lowest powered device, it'll probably be the thinnest and lightest etc, too. So what about the Air? Will they just throw that powerful brand name out of the window? Will they expect people to buy 12' and not the 13' MBA with a bigger screen, 3 hours more battery, more ports and a bunch more (20-30%) powerful yet equally less expensive? In short, it's a bit of a strange lineup. And while I agree with you that it obviously is, and may likely remain the slowest Macbook (slowest Mac period, the Mini notwithstanding), I don't necessarily see how that means ARM as opposed to continuing with refreshed Intel Ms, or hell even an updated Atom lineup. Is there any indication they want to move away from Intel again? I mean, weak performance is one thing, but this is OS X we're talking about, for a device that costs beyond $1k, which probably has good enough profit margins on an Intel M, would they really underpower it even more with a weaker chip? I'm not very familiar with CPUs though, would love some more of your thoughts on this. It's definitely true that it's now very feasible, and so it all comes down to who can deliver the best low-power CPU the next few years.

No one actually cared that a laptop needed a fan, though. Apple could have put a fan in this and no one would have seen it as a huge deficiency.

by CHY872 12y ago

No one actually cared that a laptop needed a fan, though. Apple could have put a fan in this and no one would have seen it as a huge deficiency.

IkmoIkmo 12y ago

Still it's massively useful. It means more space for the battery and it also indirectly means that if you need no fan, you probably generate very little heat, which means you have a crazy efficient CPU meaning even more battery. Which is how they can do the same amount of battery life as the 11', despite having a bigger screen and a retina display. And a big part of that equation is probably the fanless chip. But it's true it's not like users were complaining about e.g. the MBA lineup being so noisy.

CHY872 12y ago
Yes - and what they've achieved is a CPU that's much closer to the ARM state of the art, and has a much more ARM-like power profile, and would generally be easier to replace with ARM a couple of years down the line. This coincides with being fanless. Had Apple made this (say) the same thickness as the MacBook air, they'd have increased their volume by a measurable amount, they'd have been able to have a much more powerful processor, and no one would be able to say that ARM is a good proposition for them for the foreseeable future. Now they have a fairly weakly performing computer, with an ARM-sized logic board, which is going to be bought by people who don't care about bottom line performance. This is going to be the slowest Mac in a number of years - and if it's a success then making the next-slowest Mac be ARM wouldn't be such a jump.
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  I agree it's a definite possibility. They did it before with the iPad lineup when everyone thought they'd bring a decent chip to the table, and went with low-end phone chips. Of course very good low-end chips, running highly optimized software, but still. I just don't really follow their path here. First they make the MB more expensive than the air, but run slower. They also make it lighter, smaller, thinner and quieter than the air (air having light-as-a-feather connotations). I mean, what's the deal in 2 years? If it's the lowest powered device, it'll probably be the thinnest and lightest etc, too. So what about the Air? Will they just throw that powerful brand name out of the window? Will they expect people to buy 12' and not the 13' MBA with a bigger screen, 3 hours more battery, more ports and a bunch more (20-30%) powerful yet equally less expensive? In short, it's a bit of a strange lineup. And while I agree with you that it obviously is, and may likely remain the slowest Macbook (slowest Mac period, the Mini notwithstanding), I don't necessarily see how that means ARM as opposed to continuing with refreshed Intel Ms, or hell even an updated Atom lineup. Is there any indication they want to move away from Intel again? I mean, weak performance is one thing, but this is OS X we're talking about, for a device that costs beyond $1k, which probably has good enough profit margins on an Intel M, would they really underpower it even more with a weaker chip? I'm not very familiar with CPUs though, would love some more of your thoughts on this. It's definitely true that it's now very feasible, and so it all comes down to who can deliver the best low-power CPU the next few years.