[fisherKing]

Originally Posted by analogika 

as someone who had a 12" PowerBook and is now using a 13" MacBook (with a 15" PowerBook in between), the thought of not upgrading because of *screen quality* is so beyond laughable.

The MacBook's screen is *so* much brighter and more useful that the ONE SINGLE TIME where I've had a problem with glare in the past 13 months (which was on a train and required slight adjusting of the screen) really just seems absurd to complain about - especially when I remember just how something as common as "direct lighting" (oooo...) would make the 12" screen IMPOSSIBLE to read...

and yet, for SOME of us, a matte screen is preferable (many photo/graphics pros, for instance).

either way, i've learned that apple gives us what they give us, then we bitch & moan, and either buy what there is or wait.

i WILL go see this thing, and decide after a little hands-on time...

[freudling]

Originally Posted by aehaas 

The MacBookAir needs a faster processor, upgradeable RAM slots to at least 4 Gig, another USB port, a Firewire port, a BluRay/DVD/CD burner, analog+optical audio output and input, a replaceable larger battery, better and larger speakers, at least a 320 MB hard drive and a much cheaper option for 2 - 3 x more SSD memory, a video card with at least 256 and possibly 512 of RAM, a larger screen with much higher resolution, it weighs way too much and is too thick already. What a waste. Do not buy one. It is not even worth talking about, a shame, a scam.

aehaas

Exactly. If you want all the power, go with a MacBook Pro. All people can do is whine because it does not fit THEIR needs, but that does not mean it doesn't fit OTHER people's needs. You are just not in the market for a subnotebook.

mfbernstein:

My god man, yes, sony has all that, and their laptops - every computer makers laptops - look ridiculously antiquated next to Apple's, particularly the MacBook Air. Go ahead, buy a subby with pink and orange ports sticking out everywhere, ugly bezel styling, and all the rest. I am changing with the times, and the future, which is now, is wireless.

[Goldfinger]

It looks as if a lot of people aren't getting the point of subnotebooks and really want these machines to be MBPs in a really small package.

I'm loving this thing and will be getting one when SSD prices come down. I'm not interested in the 1.8" HHD after hearing the horror stories of people with X40 ThinkPads (I've got an X23 for my portable needs right now, which I got because Apple didn't offer a smaller notebook at the time). I use it as a secondary computer anyway.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally Posted by freudling 

You are just not in the market for a subnotebook.

I would *love* to know what exactly is the market tbh...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by fisherKing 

and yet, for SOME of us, a matte screen is preferable (many photo/graphics pros, for instance).

Oh, absolutely no question!

But you're talking about the matte screen on a 12" PowerBook!

...no. Really. Not comparable to what the 15" PowerBooks offered graphics pros, and certainly no more useful in its dim and fuzzy glory than a calibrated 13" MacBook.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by The Placid Casual 

On occasions yep indeed, I very often have 2+ OS's running at the same time for work QA testing, as well as loads of apps open in each OS (and add in large PS files, DV rendering). 2 Gig is a just workable minimum for me for a 'working' machine.

This is clearly not the machine for you. It's not meant to be a pro workhorse. That said, it's only been very recently (like within a year or so) that Apple portables have supported more than 2GB of RAM and yet people somehow managed to use them for pro work.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by icruise 

How much do you get? My Powerbook actually gets pretty decent battery life still, but 4 hours still doesn't cut it for me.

Four hours on real work is about right.

I've also had it sit idle for an entire work day, with lunch-break surfing and the occasional e-mail or whatever, with *still* juice left at the end of the day!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by icruise 

2GB RAM standard? Wow.

Kind of expected, kind of unfortunate since it can't be upgraded. With the current glut in the DRAM market, another 2GB would only cost them about $20 and other OEMs will be releasing 4GB laptops in the same price range this quarter. Also note the CPU is the current 65nm chip in a new package, not the 45nm small package chips that Intel announced yesterday for release in May.

I still bought one (1.8/SSD), with all the dongles and a 23" ACD.

Now I need to find a sleeve, new laptop bag, BT mouse, and an external hard drive...

[fisherKing]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Oh, absolutely no question!

But you're talking about the matte screen on a 12" PowerBook!

...no. Really. Not comparable to what the 15" PowerBooks offered graphics pros, and certainly no more useful in its dim and fuzzy glory than a calibrated 13" MacBook.

huh? no, i'm talking about a state-of-the-art laptop screen in 2008, not comparing to the mediocre screen on my 12" powerbook...

you & i have had these same discussions on the imac forum; if glossy works for you, great. i prefer a matte screen (and am not the only one, just, alas, in a minority...)

truce.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by The Placid Casual 

I would *love* to know what exactly is the market tbh...

Anyone whose PRIMARY criterion is portability.

These people have been doing quite well catering to that market segment:
Vaio : TZ Series : United Kingdom
Maybe you should compare to *them*, rather than to your own expectations, to assess the marketability of this thing.

So this thing doesn't do what you need/want. Whoop-de-doo! Who cares? Don't buy one.

For me, it's *perfect* except for the 1.8" 4200 RPM drive (forget audio production on that) and the lack of Firewire (since serious A/D/A will remain either Firewire- or ExpressCard-based for a long while yet).
Deal-breakers.


If the MacBook Air were designed to REPLACE a current product, why would they continue offering both legacy laptop lines unchanged?
Clue No. 1 that comparing to what they've done to date is a stupid exercise, since they're obviously entering a NEW (for Apple) market segment.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by fisherKing 

huh? no, i'm talking about a state-of-the-art laptop screen in 2008, not comparing to the mediocre screen on my 12" powerbook...

you & i have had these same discussions on the imac forum; if glossy works for you, great. i prefer a matte screen (and am not the only one, just, alas, in a minority...)

truce.

Ah.

I read you as saying that the MacBook is not a replacement for your PowerBook because the screen is inferior to what you've got in the 12" PB.

Which, from personal experience, is untrue in every possible way.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Now I need to find a sleeve

Padded Envelopes - World of Envelopes

[The Placid Casual]

Originally Posted by icruise 

This is clearly not the machine for you. It's not meant to be a pro workhorse. That said, it's only been very recently (like within a year or so) that Apple portables have supported more than 2GB of RAM and yet people somehow managed to use them for pro work.

Hehe I used to have a desk full of notebooks, and a much fuller test lab!

On a normal working day, I had an OS X mac, with 2+ 10.4 installs, a dedicated Win 2000 and XP LAaptop, and up to recently a Vista one too, as well as 2 Distros of Linux on another Thinkpad. On top of that I needed to test 10.5 on another box, so ended up lugging a huge hard drive with me too. I ften had to do this on the road!

All in all, to be most productive, I'd daily usually have to use 3 machines on my desk running test scripts and cases to cover all bases.

Since the Intel Macs, I can triple boot my MBP with OS X, Vista and Linux, and with a few slipstream CD's, a small USB HDD and bootable disks, I have very nearly eliminated the need for more than my Mac (and rarely a trusty Thinkpad that goes with me)

I managed before 2+gig RAM, but I didn't enjoy it...

[fisherKing]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Ah.

I read you as saying that the MacBook is not a replacement for your PowerBook because the screen is inferior to what you've got in the 12" PB.

Which, from personal experience, is untrue in every possible way.

ah, my 12" powerbook screen was much worse than my GF's 15" powerbook screen, same generation; a disappointment.

ANYTHING is better (except my earlier pismo's screen...but thats for another thread )

[The Placid Casual]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Anyone whose PRIMARY criterion is portability.

These people have been doing quite well catering to that market segment:
Vaio : TZ Series : United Kingdom
Maybe you should compare to *them*, rather than to your own expectations, to assess the marketability of this thing.

So this thing doesn't do what you need/want. Whoop-de-doo! Who cares? Don't buy one.

For me, it's *perfect* except for the 1.8" 4200 RPM drive (forget audio production on that) and the lack of Firewire (since serious A/D/A will remain either Firewire- or ExpressCard-based for a long while yet).
Deal-breakers.


If the MacBook Air were designed to REPLACE a current product, why would they continue offering both legacy laptop lines unchanged?
Clue No. 1 that comparing to what they've done to date is a stupid exercise, since they're obviously entering a NEW (for Apple) market segment.

When you take out the hyperbole and personal snipes in your reply, I don't think you answered my question to any great degree. I am well aware of the Sony offerings.

'Someone who's primary criterion is portability'...

Care to expand? And care to explain how much more usability the 'Air' will give you over a Macbook because of the it's even smaller form factor?

I am not trying to be confrontational here. Just trying to understand how the MBA is so revolutionary, and in what fields and circumstances.

[serranot]

Originally Posted by The Placid Casual 

When you take out the hyperbole and personal snipes in your reply, I don't think you answered my question to any great degree. I am well aware of the Sony offerings.

'Someone who's primary criterion is portability'...

Care to expand? And care to explain how much more usability the 'Air' will give you over a Macbook because of the it's even smaller form factor?

I am not trying to be confrontational here. Just trying to understand how the MBA is so revolutionary, and in what fields and circumstances.

When I travel, I want to carry something in a tiny, light bag. I need to plug in a CAC reader and do work in both Windows and Mac OS. I need word processing, Powerpoint, and a web browser. And it needs to be light. And, I want it to be light. The biggest requirement is that it's light. If I want it to do the other crap, I'll use my MBP or sell the MBP and get an iMac. But when I travel, it needs to be barely noticeable when I'm carrying it.

It may not be revolutionary, but it's the smallest, lightest thing that will do what I need when I travel and that runs the Mac OS.

Regards,
Tom

[analogika]

I'm pretty sure that the "air" part of the name is not coincidentally also part of "air travel".

In short: Business travellers.

Travel often, travel light, need a full-fledged laptop with the ability to connect to any presentation beamer, and couldn't give a **** about optical media since the advent of the USB stick?

This 'Book's for you.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Clue No. 1 that comparing to what they've done to date is a stupid exercise, since they're obviously entering a NEW (for Apple) market segment.

Yes, a market segment of people who don't care that they can get a better product for less money if they're willing to accept another 0.3" on their laptop.

Originally Posted by analogika 

I'm pretty sure that the "air" part of the name is not coincidentally also part of "air travel".

In short: Business travellers.

Travel often, travel light, need a full-fledged laptop with the ability to connect to any presentation beamer, and couldn't give a **** about optical media since the advent of the USB stick?

This 'Book's for you.

As are the MacBook Pro and the MacBook, both of which are just as easy to carry around!

[analogika]

Right, and an AlienWare will smack a MacBook Pro in Half-Life FPS, so it's better, and anybody buying the MacBook is an idiot with more money than sense.



(we get that you don't like or need this product. Arrogantly elitist, much?)

[The Placid Casual]

Thanks for the replies guys, the examples are much appreciated.

I take on board the points about the lightness being the 'trick', and travel weekly with work myself (laptop always to hand), but I guess my point is this...

Dimensions of MBA:

0.4 to 1.94 x 32.5 x 22.7 cm

Dimensions of MacBook:

2.75 x 32.5 x 22.7 cm

What gets me is this... At the less thin end of the MBA, the difference is only .75 of a centimeter, while the footprint is identical!!

You in reality save maybe '1cm' in terms of depth, maybe even less when you take in to account a case, maybe an optical drive that you need to carry with you with the Air. Also, we do now yet know how the aluminium stands up to flexing and ding you usually see in traveling.

Weight is:

Air - 1.37kg
MacBook - 2.27kg

So we are taking about 900g difference... Yes a difference, but really, is it that great?

If you were to pick up a top of the range model of each machine, you would pay *double* for the MacBook Air ($1499 compared to $3098)! For the lower model you would still pay $800 more!

Bear in mind that the Macbook is better in terms of performance spec in every way... CPU, HDD, RAM, removable battery, internal optical drive, I/O, Firewire, USB, you name it.

I guess it is just me, but even as a worker and traveller, I struggle to see a situation where the 900g and 1cm~ you same in terms of width overweights the things you lose...

I mean. How many hotels have wireless compared to how many have ethernet. How many times have I been to a R&D lab that won't use a wireless connection for security reasons meaning I'd have to carry a USB->ethernet dongle... How many times have you been given documentation on a CD? I just think some of the things left out on the Air defeat the purpose of the project.

If the Air had more than 1 USB port, a removable battery, a slightly larger/quicker upgradeable HDD, expandable RAM, (or maybe a docking station for when I was at home like the Duo used to), and build in HSDPA or internet capability, all in the current form factor... definitely maybe... But I am very nearly describing a Macbook!

Ah well. I guess I just don't get it, to me it seems a very small niche. Maybe it is just me.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Is a tertiary machine really worth an extra $3,000 when any other Apple laptop (with perhaps the exception of the 17" MPB) is equally capable of doing all this stuff?

Where does yours cost $3000? Mine costs $1800. And yes, that's a price I would be prepared to pay if it would meet my needs. Right now we've got an iMac and an MBP for the heavy lifting and a MacBook as a laptop around the house, so we're all set. But otherwise, yeah, I'd grab one.

[analogika]

The SSD is $1000.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by The Placid Casual 

Weight is:

Air - 1.37kg
MacBook - 2.27kg

So we are taking about 900g difference... Yes a difference, but really, is it that great?

Nearly a full kilo? You're joking!?

You don't carry your machine around, much, do you?

That's a *huge* difference over an entire day of carrying the thing. Seriously.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Right, and an AlienWare will smack a MacBook Pro in Half-Life FPS, so it's better, and anybody buying the MacBook is an idiot with more money than sense.



(we get that you don't like or need this product. Arrogantly elitist, much?)

You're not understanding me. I'm not saying it's a bad buy because it's worse in any particular facet — I'm saying it's a bad buy because it's worse in every way except one, space, on which it is roughly equal. The footprint is the same size, and there's less than one centimeter's difference in height between the MacBook Air and the plain old MacBook. Is 1 cm worth $800 to you?

Basically, we're not talking about going from a powerful but clunky system to a slightly less powerful and much less clunky system. We're talking about going from a powerful and portable system to a less powerful system that's more expensive and still portable. That's what I don't get.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by The Placid Casual 

I just think some of the things left out on the Air defeat the purpose of the project.

If the Air had more than 1 USB port, a removable battery, a slightly larger/quicker upgradeable HDD, expandable RAM, (or maybe a docking station for when I was at home like the Duo used to), and build in HSDPA or internet capability, all in the current form factor... definitely maybe... But I am very nearly describing a Macbook!

Ah well. I guess I just don't get it, to me it seems a very small niche. Maybe it is just me.

Hey,

I think you points are right on the mark. I've been lusting for a MacBook Light for over two years. Now that it's finally here I miss some essential stuff to allow me to make this my main machine. I need a bigger HDD, I want an elegant solution for UMTS/HSDPA (and NOT a modem USB-dongle!).

In the beginning of 2007 I wrote on the forum about a new Toshiba with these specs:
- 1,09 kg (the MacBook weighs 2,31 kg!)
- a 7mm optical drive
- 12.1-inch 1280 x 800
- 0.77-inches thick
- Core 2 duo U7600 1.2GHz processor
- Intel GMA 950 graphics (mmm)
- up to 2GB of RAM (woehaa)
- 120GB HDD
- PCMCIA slot
- VGA out
- battery life seems to be great, but no hard numbers

With 300 grams more weight, the MacBook Air has a much smaller HD, no optical (which I can do without, no problem), no PCMCIA or Express slot.

It looks great, but they left out a few pieces of the puzzle that would have made the Air a truly great laptop. The money is not my issue, but the product is just not complete enough. To be honest: it hurts to see so much beauty in a product that is not going to be as successful as it could have been.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're not understanding me. I'm not saying it's a bad buy because it's worse in any particular facet — I'm saying it's a bad buy because it's worse in every way except one, space, on which it is roughly equal. The footprint is the same size, and there's less than one centimeter's difference in height between the MacBook Air and the plain old MacBook. Is 1 cm worth $800 to you?

Basically, we're not talking about going from a powerful but clunky system to a slightly less powerful and much less clunky system. We're talking about going from a powerful and portable system to a less powerful system that's more expensive and still portable. That's what I don't get.

Ah, I see - but then, this thing's for a market where portability is the first priority.

1 cm less in this case is the difference between having to allow for bulk when packing and simply wedging it between two folders in your bag.

And not to forget that it's 40% lighter.

If I had a job where I had to travel daily, and didn't need to frequently burn CDs or DVDs on-the-fly, and didn't happen to absolutely *need* a Firewire port, the added portability would definitely be worth a dollar a day over a projected turnover of two and a half years...minus the higher resale value...

[The Placid Casual]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Nearly a full kilo? You're joking!?

You don't carry your machine around, much, do you?

That's a *huge* difference over an entire day of carrying the thing. Seriously.

Well, either a MBP or Macbook and charger goes everywhere with me. Usually in a Crumpler messenger bag, Booq case or sometimes in a sleeve. This last week I have covered 2500miles (trains, planes and cars), around Europe with a DSLR camera, lenses, laptop, mobiles, cables chargers for all etc

I can't say that I notice that my arm is going to fall off if I carry 900g more one day than the next between the MB or MBP...

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Frans 

I want an elegant solution for UMTS/HSDPA (and NOT a modem USB-dongle!).

Isn't this what Bluetooth is for?

at least, that's what *I* use it for...never even need to pull my mobile out of my pocket to get online...

Is there something I'm missing? is network speed noticeably better via USB modem or something?

[The Placid Casual]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Isn't this what Bluetooth is for?

at least, that's what *I* use it for...never even need to pull my mobile out of my pocket to get online...

Is there something I'm missing? is network speed noticeably better via USB modem or something?

Not sure what you get with Bluetooth, but with an Expresscard 34 (Macbook pro), or USB modem (macbook) with Vodafone in Europe, I normally get 3-3.6Mbps on average (you can now firmware upgrade it to 7.2Mbps max too, but not got around to it yet).

[analogika]

Well, I'm on O2, which doesn't have the same infrastructure as Vodafone, via Bluetooth-tethered k800i.

I don't think I've seen more than about 0.8 Mbit/s, but then I usually use mobile phone access when I'm out of town, and UMTS does not/will never exist outside of urban areas - so I'm happy with 7Kbit/s, I guess (no EDGE on o2 Germany).

[mfbernstein]

---

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

Good for you. I'm glad the lost functionality doesn't affect you. It does, however, affect many other people. The fact that it was done, not because of size or other engineering constraints, but in order to make a stylistic point, is precisely my point. With Apple, you didn't used to have to choose between good-looking and functional. Times are changing, I suppose.

What are you talking about?

[harbinger75]

Exactly. If you want all the power, go with a MacBook Pro. All people can do is whine because it does not fit THEIR needs, but that does not mean it doesn't fit OTHER people's needs. You are just not in the market for a subnotebook.

We'll see how many of these sell in the next six months. I'm just not seeing an advantage over the Macbook on this one. It has a couple of *almost* whiz-bang features, but what's the advantage here? I'm just not seeing it.

[seivad]

its kinda like the Touch compared to the iPhone...its just in that middle section

i like the colour of the air, making it closer to a mini macbook pro
the form factor is great, plus i dont use my dvd drive very often, everythings on external HDD drives now

-i think its cool, but almost rushed for macworld.

as for the middle of this thread, my macbook has gotten me out of having 3 machines, so to me thats 3 times more effective and that out weighs any price associated with that. (2.16ghz, 1gb, 160gb hdd). The new macbook air interests me because its going to lead the way of where laptop computers are going. 1 more year and flash drives will have doubled and dropped in price...then it will be a competitive laptop.

[packet of krisps]

Originally Posted by icruise 

You need more than 2GB?

In 2 years he might.

[pyrite]

Not for me I'm afraid. I've been hanging for an ultra-portable for use with Pro Tools LE, but this hot little beast has no FW400

That and the slow speed of the standard HDD are a dealbreaker for me. Looks like I'll be waiting for some fresh refurb 15" MBPs to hit the AU Apple Store!!

[NightEyes]

If I were on the road a lot I'd jump all over this! I only fly on average three or four times a year or so and as such my mb works just fine, but the air seems sweet in every way for the target market and shores up a hole in apple's lineup. If they come out with a dock for the thing I might get nostalgic pb 230 and grab one! Apple's gonna sell a bazillion of these; just wait.

[mduell]

I've been pondering a new laptop for a while and despite my desire for portability I was leaning toward the 15" MBP. As much as I'd like the pixels, the 17" is just too big to move around (the room, the office, the city, the country, the world) with. The 13" MBP improves portability a tiny bit (half pound), but not enough to justify the compromises. The Eee PC from Asus was another option I considered, but the screen is just too small; I was waiting for the 10" version to reconsider. My preferred choice was a 12" Asus weighing in at about 4lb with dedicated graphics and a DVD burner; the battery life was marginal (~2 hours) for my needs, but it had a removable battery so I wasn't too concerned. The MacBook Air produces largely the same limitations (X3100, 1280x800) as the MacBook, while shedding significant weight and leaving me with a lot of nice features (OS X, lit keyboard, SSD) that other options lacked.

It's not the right laptop for a lot of you, but it's the right laptop for me.

[Snow-i]

The sub notebook market is NOT...i repeat...NOT for anyone doing any heavy lifting.

Its use is as a secondary machine meant for internet, word processing, instant messaging, emails, etc etc.

For those of you who need something it doesn't have, its not for you. To say its not good for the market its intended for is a major stretch. Some of you wish it'd be that portable with all the features of a Macbook Pro. I'd estimate that laptop would cost many thousands more then the current offering.

For someone travelling, or for someone who's got or will buy a primary 'heavy lifting' machine, this could do quite nicely.

Another thing to point out. An iphone? With the monthly fee, costs a total of 1,834 dollars for two years. Compare to a Macbook air which 1) has a full keyboard, 2) a screen 4-5x bigger, 3) is many times over faster, does word processing, etc etc.

It fills a market for many, unfortunately not as a primary or even secondary machine for people doing heavy lifting all the time. For someone who needs quick and easy basic computing on the go...its a match made in heaven.

[thunderous_funker]

The subnotebook market is dominated by style junkies who will gleefully fork over the ducats for an MBA. They are also users who will not feel the pinch of any of its limitations you have listed here.

Apple will sell a tons of these things. I prefer my 15" MBP, personally, but the MBA is very lust-worthy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Another thing to point out. An iphone? With the monthly fee, costs a total of 1,834 dollars for two years. Compare to a Macbook air which 1) has a full keyboard, 2) a screen 4-5x bigger, 3) is many times over faster, does word processing, etc etc.

On the other hand, the iPhone actually does stuff that a MacBook doesn't and costs less than the MacBook, whereas the MacBook Air is less functional and costs more than a MacBook. It's not a question of price, it's a question of value. With the iPhone, I gain something. With the MacBook Air, all I gain over a MacBook is more air in my wallet.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It fills a market for many, unfortunately not as a primary or even secondary machine for people doing heavy lifting all the time. For someone who needs quick and easy basic computing on the go...its a match made in heaven.

The MacBook fulfills those same needs for less money, doesn't it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

On the other hand, the iPhone actually does stuff that a MacBook doesn't and costs less than the MacBook, whereas the MacBook Air is less functional and costs more than a MacBook.

I think that you missed the part where he told you the iPhone costs more than the Air, if you sum over 2 years (not accounting for inflation or opportunity costs of paying up front).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

On the other hand, the iPhone actually does stuff that a MacBook doesn't and costs less than the MacBook, whereas the MacBook Air is less functional and costs more than a MacBook. It's not a question of price, it's a question of value. With the iPhone, I gain something. With the MacBook Air, all I gain over a MacBook is more air in my wallet.

you gain with the MBA over the iphone...quite a bit. And no, it costs more over time.

The MacBook fulfills those same needs for less money, doesn't it?

Sure and even more if you're not as mobile with it. The point of a sub-notebook is its portability. 30% thinner, 40% lighter....i'd say thats pretty significant

Perhaps the size and weight is not a feature to you, but thats why its not intended for your needs. That doesn't make it a bad product it just has emphasis on other factors than speed and price.

There are many factors to consider when purchasing a notebook. The three most significant. Price, portability, and what you can do with it (speed, software, etc etc).

The macbook caters to those where price is significant. The MBP where what you can do with it is most important, and now the air where portability is the most important.

[shafj]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

On the other hand, the iPhone actually does stuff that a MacBook doesn't and costs less than the MacBook, whereas the MacBook Air is less functional and costs more than a MacBook. It's not a question of price, it's a question of value. With the iPhone, I gain something. With the MacBook Air, all I gain over a MacBook is more air in my wallet.


The MacBook fulfills those same needs for less money, doesn't it?

Value is subjective. Different people have different perceptions of value.

Some people value features such as a expandability, slightly faster processor, optical drive, etc. While others value size and weight. The size difference between the MacBook and the MBA might not seem much but the lighter weight and thinness (albeit not by much) is considerable to those who travel light.

To someone used to lugging around lots of equipment (DSLRs, batteries, books, etc) 0.9kg doesn’t amount to much. But to a business executive carrying a slim briefcase than the 0.9kg difference is significant.

Let face it if you don’t see the value in the MBA than maybe it’s not for you. Thats not to say that it might be right for others.

[icruise]

I think the comparison between the iPhone and MacBook Air is kind of silly, since they're completely different products that fulfill different needs. But I will say that the whole "iPhone costs more than the MacBook Air" argument doesn't really make sense, because for most people a cell phone is a necessity. If they didn't have an iPhone, they'd be paying monthly fees for a different phone. True, the data component of the iPhone's monthly fee is an additional expense compared to a mobile phone that's used only for voice communications, but it's a comparatively smaller cost.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think that you missed the part where he told you the iPhone costs more than the Air, if you sum over 2 years (not accounting for inflation or opportunity costs of paying up front).

Actually, he told us that the iPhone and phone service for two years together cost slightly more than the MacBook Air. But if we want to play the "Let's factor in related goods and services to the cost of the item" game, I could certainly calculate how much a MacBook Air "actually" costs once you include a Time Capsule, the external Superdrive and two years of high-speed Internet service. I think it'll turn out higher than the number given for the iPhone. Personally, I think giving numbers like that is a little bit deceptive. (Not to say Snow-i's trying to pull a fast one, but you can cook up numbers like that to support any preconceived notion you like, so they're not that useful to judge things by.)

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Sure and even more if you're not as mobile with it. The point of a sub-notebook is its portability. 30% thinner, 40% lighter....i'd say thats pretty significant

OK, seriously: Do you really feel that the MacBook is overly cumbersome? As I see it, they're both extremely small and extremely light. One is slightly smaller and lighter, but neither is remotely difficult to carry around. If I'm carrying an orange in a bag and you come along and eat two slices, I'm not going to be like, "Whew, I'm sure glad you ate two slices of that. This little fruit was really whipping me!"

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps the size and weight is not a feature to you, but thats why its not intended for your needs. That doesn't make it a bad product it just has emphasis on other factors than speed and price.

Size and weight are important to me, but 0.8 versus 1.1 is not a significant difference — it's practically a rounding error. I also wouldn't pay an extra $1000 to add 37 more megahertz to the processor at the cost of making the machine weigh 20 lbs.

I'm really trying to wrap my head around this, but it's hard for me to imagine somebody looking at Apple's current laptop offerings and going, "Carry that gigantic thing around? Are you crazy?" Thus I don't see why making something slightly smaller in one dimension actually makes it more useful. If it were just about having extra money to burn and wanting something that looks cool, I could understand that. But I'm having trouble with the idea that it's actually more portable than the other MacBooks.

[mfbernstein]

---

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

Nope. But the folks who were asking for a worthy 12" AlBook successor weren't asking for a subnotebook, they were asking for an ultraportable. Clearly Apple created a subnotebook instead.

The irony is that Apple created a perfectly good solution to this distinction back in 1992 - the duo dock.

I think apple is really addressing a completely different market to that which existed in the day of the Duo and even the 12in PB. Back in the day the Mac market share was at it's tiniest and each Mac needed to address the widest possible audience of mac users. Hey, you never heard about switchers in those days. This audience was firmly based in the creative arts camp, so any 12in PB user was most likely going to have to run some heavy duty production apps on their machine at least some of the time, as well as need to connect to a whole host of peripherals and stuff back at base. Remember the Duo was touted as a portable Quadra and the dock made this almost true.

Now, today, the market for these Air's is pretty much any one who wants to look cool, and flash the latest and greatest in industrial design as well as surf on Apples current wave of cool. So the Air will be bough by the truck load by CEO's, tech bosses, media types, wealthy businessmen and just wealthy people AS WELL as those Apple fans who don't need the features of either the MBP or the MB.

Because the Air can run windows it will find itself in all sorts of snazzy corporate environments where style very much takes precedence over function.

These Airs will find themselves doing light e-mail, some word processing and other light office duty but I'd guess that for a huge proportion of users they will spend most of their time advertising just how damn cool the owner is. Just like the iPod did in the year before everyone had one and just as the iPhone is doing now.

The Air isn't really a Mac it's a style statement that runs OS X. Apple knows it's marketing.

[shafj]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, he told us that the iPhone and phone service for two years together cost slightly more than the MacBook Air. But if we want to play the "Let's factor in related goods and services to the cost of the item" game, I could certainly calculate how much a MacBook Air "actually" costs once you include a Time Capsule, the external Superdrive and two years of high-speed Internet service. I think it'll turn out higher than the number given for the iPhone. Personally, I think giving numbers like that is a little bit deceptive. (Not to say Snow-i's trying to pull a fast one, but you can cook up numbers like that to support any preconceived notion you like, so they're not that useful to judge things by.)


OK, seriously: Do you really feel that the MacBook is overly cumbersome? As I see it, they're both extremely small and extremely light. One is slightly smaller and lighter, but neither is remotely difficult to carry around. If I'm carrying an orange in a bag and you come along and eat two slices, I'm not going to be like, "Whew, I'm sure glad you ate two slices of that. This little fruit was really whipping me!"


Size and weight are important to me, but 0.8 versus 1.1 is not a significant difference — it's practically a rounding error. I also wouldn't pay an extra $1000 to add 37 more megahertz to the processor at the cost of making the machine weigh 20 lbs.

I'm really trying to wrap my head around this, but it's hard for me to imagine somebody looking at Apple's current laptop offerings and going, "Carry that gigantic thing around? Are you crazy?" Thus I don't see why making something slightly smaller in one dimension actually makes it more useful. If it were just about having extra money to burn and wanting something that looks cool, I could understand that. But I'm having trouble with the idea that it's actually more portable than the other MacBooks.

The MBA is tapered (0.16-0.76 vs 1.1 inches). You're comparing the thickest part of the MBA with the MB. The difference is between 85% (thinnest part) to 30% (thickest part). So the difference in thickness IS significant. If you're using a small briefcase, the difference between slotting in an MB and MBA would be considerable.

Similarly a 0.9 kg difference is significant as well in this market segment.

It’s all a matter of perspectives. To you the differences in size and weight are not significant enough to pay a premium of $700. That's perfectly fine. On the other hand to some people the size and weight of the MBA are exactly what they’re looking for and they are willing to pay the difference in cost over an MB. The question is therefore: are there enough customers who share this view? I suspect there is and I wouldn’t be surprised if the MBA is a huge seller.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

Nope. But the folks who were asking for a worthy 12" AlBook successor weren't asking for a subnotebook, they were asking for an ultraportable.

Apple created a more-than-worthy 12" AlBook successor back in May 2006.

I know; I had (and loved) a 12" AlBook and am even happier with my BlackBook.