Sure, there's still the old Macbook Air around, but it wasn't updated and is based on a decade old model with a CPU/GPU that's a 3 years old (5th gen i5 from 2015), and a 128 PPI screen, that's a bit ridiculous.
If you want a modern machine you're looking at $1200 for the cheapest model.
That isn't even too bad but when you go abroad, all bets are off. I still don't get this.
USD/EUR rate has been as high as 1.4 and as low as 1.05 in the past 5 years, averaging about 1.2 USD/EUR. So a $1200 Macbook Air should be €1000, typically. It's not. Instead it's more, €1350.
Or in dollar terms, that's about $1620 at the 5y average exchange rates.
That's what EU students have to pay for a modern but entry-level Macbook in the new Air. The regular Macbook or Macbook Pro are of course even more expensive.
Okay so part of this is silly exchange rates and pricing, some of it related to high EU VAT by the way, not just Apple's pricing. But part of it is also a pretty damn expensive lineup, with this new Macbook Air coming in at 20% higher prices than the previous model.
Yes prices tend to move up, inflation is a thing... but technology is supposed to be the exception, where you can get better specs after a few years without moving the price point. They just bumped it up 20%, that's pretty ridiculous.
I got downvoted for posting this as a top-level comment, but it's insane to me how Apple's hardware specs have stagnated while maintaining the same price.
In 2014 I bought an entry-level Macbook Pro with retina display, 2.6 GHz i5 processor, 8 GB of RAM, and 128 GB SSD for $1300.
In 2018 I can buy the entry-level Macbook Pro with retina display, 2.3 GHz i5 processor, 8 GB of RAM, and 128 GB SSD, still for $1300.
In 2018 I can also now buy an entry-level Macbook Air with retina display, 1.6 GHz i5 processor, 8 GB of RAM, and 128 GB SSD for $1200.
I'm in the market for a new laptop and I'm seriously considering making the jump to Linux rather than paying the same price for the same specs that were available 4.5 years ago.
But since you asked, some additional background information comparing the 2014 $1300 Mac to today's $1300 Mac (which isn't a 2018 model, but rather the 2017 model and prices.)
Geekbench 4 single/multicore scores are 30% and 42% faster respectively.
The latter can do 4k resolution output.
It's almost half a pound lighter, 0.2 inches thinner and about 0.3 inches less wide and less tall. Volume is more than 20% lower.
You get an hour extra battery life.
They're definitely not major, but it did get a bit better and with minor nominal salary increases the past few years (bit of inflation), it's effectively slightly cheaper, too.
Not the sort of progress you'd hope for. But to say they're the same specs as 4.5 years ago isn't completely true, either. It's the 2017 model, 3 years after the 2014 model, a bit faster, smaller, lighter, better battery life at slightly cheaper dollars. It's underwhelming for sure, the moment we see a serious step up from that you see the price increase by $500.
(The actual 2018 model is incomparably more expensive, but then the multicore score is 2.5x as fast as the 2014 model, twice as much SSD, 5k output resolution etc, but then it's $1800)
To your points: I'd rather have the old form factor and weight, multiple hours extra battery life, and a usable set of ports.
I compared the three entry-level laptops because I thought it was the most fair comparison, and because I knew the price of the 2014 equivalent. I'm actually looking for a model with 16 GB RAM and 256 or 512 GB SSD, and like you noted, that comes with a massive price gouge. I'd hope that at least the storage could have been upgraded on the base model over the last 4-5 years.
And if you don't want to make that sacrifice, then there's probably something different about the device that Apple is assuming is worth ponying up for the upgrade for you.
(For starters, despite the similar clock speed and processor names, the processors are not the same speed.)
of course not, it's at least 4 years older.
I mean that would not be fair to compare them.
I have a Late 2013 Mbp 15" it was priced at ~2.200€ it was the "entry" model of the mbp 15" however if you look now the price is going to the roof. 2.799,00 € is the new price, of course the processor is now faster, there are 4 years in between (well clock speed is lower, but more cores).
What else has changed? Of couse It lost it's sd slot, and also lost 256gb of ssd storage (if you want the same storage than the 2013 model you need to pay an increase of 240 €!) what did also change? the graphics card, it now is a radeon (and of course more clock speed, it's 4 years older.
So how did the price changed:
* Late 2013 15" MBP: ~2.200,00 € (cheapest)
* Curr 2018 15" MBP: 2.799,00 € (cheapest)
* 2018 15" MBP: 3.039,00 € (same storage space)
that is totally unreasonable. The processor does not cost 600 € more (btw the i7-4850HQ costed roughly ~400€ hard to say since prices of that processor aren't well known, however the current mbp uses the i7-8750H which is actually priced officaly at 400 $, so should be less euro, but keep it 1:1 it would mean no increase)
of course memory prices gone through the roof, but since that's the cheapest component that would justify a maximum of 100 €.
Late 2013 to Current with newer hardware for the same price means a increase of 839 € or 599 € (you can even remove 100€ and it wouldn't be ok) if you can take the storage hit. and all you get is a touchbar, which you probably might need or not.
Why buy a new model at all? I have a fully-spec'ed macbook mid 2012 which costed 1600 EUR and has 512Gb HDD thanks to a 256Gb SD Card. Benchmark-wise, the macbook air 2018 is not 2x faster in any benchmark. Still a dual core, still 8Gb RAM, 128Gb without SD Card slot, etc. For a model with equivalent HDD I have to pay >2k EUR for the 16Gb RAM and 512 SSD.
It's pretty impossible to justify upgrading from this 2012 model. That's 2000 EUR for a Retina display, and that's pretty much it. Throw in a 1 Tb SSD, 32 Gb RAM and a quad or six core, and upgrading might be worth it. But that would mean a macbook pro 2018 in the ~3k EUR range, which is a different price range and probably not worth paying given that these come without nvidia discreet graphics.
With this product line, it makes much more sense for me to upgrade to a Dell than to another macbook.
I finally took the dive on a PixelBook to try out, figured that at least the basics (battery, wireless, sound, video, command-line) should be less-likely to be an annoyance. However, at $1649 (16GB, i7 quad-core 1.3G, 512 SSD), it's not much of a savings over a reasonably-similar Mac config ($1799-1899).
In 2018 I would have to pay 2000 EUR for 512Gb SSD, still a dual core, 16Gb of RAM that is only slightly more powerful than my mid 2012 machine (I haven't found benchmarks yet that manage to get a 2x difference) to the point where it is just not worth upgrading.
If I were to upgrade it, I would throw 1500 EUR at Dell for a quad core, 32Gb RAM, and a 1TB SSD, maybe with nvidia discreet graphics. A similarly spec'ed macbook pro sets you at 3-4k EUR...
The only people I can imagine buying macbooks in 2018 are those not paying for them themselves (company laptop) because for an individual they just don't make financial sense - one can get similarly spec'ed laptops for almost half the price.
Mojave still works fine in a `2012` macbook air, which still does have >9h battery life (a new battery costs 60 EUR).
The touchpad is great, and it has an SD Card reader that can be used to bump its 256Gb SSD with slow extra storage for cheap.
So here I am, trying to find any reason that would justify upgrading a 2012 macbook air to a 2018 macbook air and the only thing that's worth it is the new display - sadly that's not worth > 2000 EUR.
There's VAT in many states and cities in the United States, although typically at rates much lower than in the EU. Buying a MacBook Air in New York City for instance will be at least $1,300 (combined VAT rate of 8.875%).
[EDIT] Granted, the exchange rate is not great, but it's definitely not as bad as you make it sounds. In the EU sticker price is the final price, in the US the sticker price is a baseline on top of which any ridiculous fee and unexpected tax can (and will) be added. Unlike in the EU you really don't know how much you will pay until you get the final bill...
My main point was that it makes little sense to compare prices US prices without sales tax to EU prices with the VAT included. The second -more subtle- point that I wanted to get into but was really only skimming, is that the very meaning of the price on a sticker is vastly different in the EU and in US.
In the EU if you write 1,350 EUR on a sticker, anyone can walk in your store and buy that product at that price without paying a eurocent more. No handling fees, service fees, sales tax or any other obscure hidden tax. This is the law. Sticker price is final price. If it's not on the sticker the merchant has to pay for it. It's quite a shock when you first walk in a store in New York City while visiting from France and the price asked at checkout is not the one written on the sticker.
The law is the same for online sales, though shipping costs don't have to be included. Ridiculous $30 dollars "handling fees" or "service fees" on $50 tickets that you print at home, added at the very end of the lengthy checkout process, are to my knowledge completely forbidden. I'll be happy (in fact I'll be sad) to be corrected if I am wrong about that.
But average sales tax in the US is about $100. It's still a $350 difference.
Though you could argue that if Apple was paying its fair share of taxes (for your own favorite definition of fair share of taxes), maybe VAT could be lowered. Again, that's a political issue, not an exchange rate issue.
I've got no complaints about the sales tax.
US: 1,199 USD vs France: 1,124.17 EUR. 1,124.17 EUR translates to 1,275.31 USD according to Google, at the time of this writing. That's a difference of about 75 USD. Not great, but where do you get a 350 USD gap?
[EDIT] That $75 difference could actually be explained by the extra year of warranty for the EU version. Not the greatest bargain maybe, but Apple is hardly ripping off EU customers there. At least not more than the US ones...
You can get 2 extra years of warranty for $250 through an AppleCare product. I'd assume the third year is most expensive, so the first year would be less than $125, perhaps $100.
And I'd assume they make a bit of profit on this insurance product, meaning the true cost of the warranty is less than $100, say it's $90 (assuming unusually low profit margins for Apple).
Further this product offers discounted service fees for accidental damage too, which isn't part of a regular warranty. As such, the cost of the warranty itself is likely to be even less than $90.
All of these are assumptions pulled out of my ass but I think it's probably safe to say the extra first year of the warranty to cost Apple less than $100.
The VAT in the US averages $100. That still leaves a $250 gap with EU prices. Definitely not as big as it seemed to me originally. Still I'd hope that gap may narrow a little bit in future!
As for the specific keyboard issue, I believe the warranty on that (and some other big Apple issues) is extended by a few years everywhere, so shouldn't explain regional differences in pricing.
Isn't keyboard replacement free worldwide for 4 years?
It is nice to use Apple Pay from my Mac -- the twice I've done so. I could always have opened the page on my phone and use its sensor instead.
Other than that, moving my hand up to the corner isn't much faster, if at all, then simply typing my Mac password which is pretty well wired into my fingers anyway. In fact I had made a small config mod to use the touch sensor to authorise sudo, and in the end I undid it because typing was faster. And my watch unlocks my Mac most of the time. So a nice to have, sure, but not as revolutionary as it was on the phone.
Yeah you can do that...on an OS that isn't locked to one hardware vendor i.e. Windows and Linux.
Apple has been selling roughly ~19M Mac per year since 2012, and its new user to Mac has also been steady at ~50%. Apple has had 60M Mac user in 2012 announced in WWDC, and they has been nearing 100M since early 2017. I assume that actual number is larger than 90M at the time, so after nearly 20 Months, ~20M New Mac Users on board, it manage to add a total ~10M Active Install Base.
That is surprising for me, as I was expecting ~110M+ Mac User already, others analysts like Benedict Evans and Asymco put those number past ~120M. So for every 2 new Mac Users, there is one leaving.
I hardly call that good news by Apple Standard. And this high churn rate happens after early 2017. From 2012 to 2016-17, there is 4 / 5 New users for every 1 leaving the Mac Ecosystem.
The timing actually align with their sudden Interviews with Apple journalist on Mac, Mac Pro, and the release of iMac Pro.
And judging from these numbers, I would bet the release of MacBook Pro, iMac Pro and MacBook didn't restore the faith of its Mac users.
Apple didn't care about its Mac lineup, this new MacBook Air as well as Mac mini were likely reaction to this churn, much like the iMac Pro.
Or may be, the timing has something to do with their New Keyboard Design, which they introduce to MacBook in 2015 and Pro in 2016, and they managed to fit that in this New MacBook Air.
Now here we are 12 years and a couple of Macs later. The current MBP is a bit more beautiful than the first one I got, it's noticeably thinner, the trackpad is bigger, but that's pretty much it. The rest is just technological advancements that have happened to the whole industry line-up of laptops (faster CPU, more RAM, SSDs, USB3, USB-C, Thunderbolt). And for that I now have to pay nearly double the price of my first MBP.
I think the sales people have taken control over Apple again. It just feels natural to look for an alternative at this point.
The really sad part is that Apple software, which is vastly superior to all competitors from my perspective, is no longer accessible for certain people due to the price hikes. I had hoped that Apple would take another path this time. They seem to have forgotten their decline during the 90s.
In the past two days I've had to reboot my mac twice because the headhone jack stopped working. At my previous job, the terminal program segfaulted at least once a week. Bluetooth is notoriously flaky and requires frequent reboots to fix. My entire OS locks up about twice a month and requires a full reboot. At one point, my OSX got in a state where whenever I would play a video full-screen it would lock within minutes and require a reboot.
When it comes to pure software quality, windows is hands-down the best platform. I worked in a .NET shop for 3 years and had zero problems with the actual OS. Linux is unfortunately the least stable of the three, but I prefer it and currently use it at work over OSX.
- Visual Studio (2017) crashes at least once a week without any kind of error reporting. It just closes. Gone.
- PowerShell is absolutely terrible and all terminal emulators are terrible. They are slow, clunky, and never feel 'native' to the OS.
- About a month ago I was in the middle of a problem, walked over to a colleague to discuss, and come back to a forced updating PC. This took upwards of an hour before I could work again.
- I regularly have files or folders that are apparently 'locked' in another process (which one?!), and to do anything with them I have to sign out and sign back in.
- Allowing any application to steal focus is just... The worst UI design decision that was ever made.
I could go on. There's so many annoyances, big to small. This is on a ~2 month old machine with equally fresh install of Windows 10 Pro and Visual Studio Professional. I really like C# and .NET, but Windows is driving me away.
I haven't used Mac OS seriously for about a year or two, so I won't comment on that. My Linux machine is the complete opposite, however. It never does anything that I didn't expect or put there. I always know exactly what is running, what it is doing, and what is isn't doing. I haven't had emacs crash on me yet. I update whenever I feel I have the time, but it's never as intrusive -- even big updates are done in a few minutes. Updates don't require restarts. Again, I could go on.
It's interesting how our experiences can be polar opposite, yet both be valid.
what about introducing .net core to your team? so you can actually write more code in mac/linux
Sadly, older and bigger projects aren't as easily ported over, and do still require new features etc.
But these are just my preferences, and clearly many disagree.
Your reboot problem on the Mac was hardware, not software, by the way. Macs have had hardware reliability problems, and they usually mean the whole thing is junk, minus the case or screen. I wish Apple software on third party hardware was a viable option, personally.
Like Windows 10 actually suggests some web / app store results first, and after about a second, it will remember that I have a local folder called 'Downloads', so instead of using 'Win+D.o.w.+Enter' as a shortcut, I have to wait for the computer to suggest Downloads as a suggestion.
This is on a top of the line Surface Book.
Besides that I spent hours trying to get colors working in a terminal emulator so I could use vim and tmux with syntax highlighting. I gave up and bought what I figured would be the last Macbook Air with USB-A and a decent keyboard.
I didn't intend to start a platform flame war here. I just wanted to say, it's sad that people lose access to that quality software (in my opinion) platform because of being priced out. If it were for today's prices, I doubt I would have been able to buy a Mac as a student in 2006.
If you enjoy Windows, then I am absolutely happy with that. For me personally, I have trouble getting past the forced Windows Update screen each time I boot it.
Not that I don't have a litany of complaints about macOS software quality, but it's mostly UI bugs (why the hell does it take a minute to drag a photo out of Photos.app?!), not stability issues.
I don't consider myself an Apple fanboy (I'd certainly not buy an iphone). But as far as laptops go, I don't see any viable alternative. I'd get a MBP for Mac OS alone, but the hardware is great too.
A commercial Linux alternative focussed at desktops with appropriate support for commercial software and an easy transition path for users coming from the Mac would be great.
Speaking of hardware: I recently got a Lenovo for Linux testing. Multi-touch trackpad frequently stops working after standby. Boot time and wake-up time is a lot worse than on my MacBooks. Sometimes it doesn't wake up and needs a cold reboot when I open up the lid. I never experienced any of those issues on my Macs. Not even in 2006.
But yeah, if you decided that you will never in your life ever use anything but Apple operating system, then you just don't have a choice in the market. You'll have to buy what they serve you.
Most of the developer stuff is pretty much cross platform these days. What's the big deal if you're typing into bash on Linux, macOS or Windows?
If all you need is a text editor and a web browser, you pretty much could have been using all three systems for 20 years already.
Dunno the state now, but that experience makes me reluctant to look at higher end laptops with windows. Otherwise its just generally clunkier and weaker integration of the terminal, but those don't hurt nearly as much as the inconsistent rendering for using a daily driver
It's refusal to tell me what file/program is stopping me from safely removing my hdd is also absolutely infuriating
The vast majority of this fluctuation could be down to Macs in the education and business leasing programs, rather than individual user-owners.
Specifically, schools are switching from Macs (in computer labs) and iOS devices (for students), to Chromebooks;
and some very large companies like IBM, who assign their employees Macs, are downsizing, and so returning/selling off those Macs.
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.
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.
- 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).
Still, really disappointing that for the new Air they do not allow you to go to 1TB SSD, but they won't allow you upgrade from a dual-core i5. Feels like a political decision more than a technical one.
My guess is that they want to have a clear differentiation between MacBook Air (= Dual-Core) and 13" MacBook Pro (= Quad-Core).
That sounds especially plausible as Apple claims that the MacBook Air has a ~20% longer battery life than the 13" MacBook Pro, albeit having a ~8% smaller battery.
Its CPU and GPU aren't as fast as the new 13" MBP but as a rival to the MacBook Air it's very competitive.
I have a Developer Edition for evaluation and keep it in an old MacBook Air 11" case.
With Windows laptop vendors making Snapdragon-based laptop designs, it's almost a certainty that the market will shift here. Those windows laptops are intended to keep executing code, stay connected to networks when you shut the lid (like your phone does). That must be some enormous battery-life gains.
I've long been convinced the intention is to kill off the MacBook lineup.
The new Mac mini seems decent but still expensive for the package.
Smells like a battery life compromise to me.
hey not a huge technocrat when it comes to pc parts, but could u explain that part to me?
what is the writing on the wall?
what is arm exactly?
and what makes u think its better than whats being offered currently and that it will be in a macbook soon?
In other words, seeing the writing on the wall means that you have failed and will lose what you have.
ARM, in this context, means the processors that power Android phones, iPhones and tablets of all kinds. ARM is the designing company; many other companies license the design.
There is a lot of speculation that Apple will quit buying Intel CPUs and move to ARM CPUs, because Apple makes ARM CPUs.
There would be advantages (power savings) and disadvantages (most existing MacOS software wouldn't work until recompiled at a minimum)
Back when they switched from the PowerPC chips to x86, it was revealed that they had been building experimental x86 Macs in-house for years. That's just good planning.
Not the person you're replying to, but: 1) Apple hates being dependent on Intel's ability (or lack thereof) to execute on their processor roadmap, and 2) Apple will be able to use processors better suited to their needs.
The move to Intel chips allowed dual boot Macs which I believe brought a whole new set of customers. Developers loved the ability to run Windows, Mac and Linux on the same hardware.
Microsoft has ARM versions of Windows produced for the Surface RT. If Apple switched to ARM to build their own chips, they have the ability to innovate quickly. But, they also have the risk of falling behind Intel again down the road.
I think Apple’s got this one.
* Starting price of $1,199
* 13" display with trimmed bezels
* 2.75 lbs
* Higher resolution screen ("Over 4M pixels")
* HD front facing camera
* No Touch Bar (Yay!)
* No USB ports (Boo!)
Assuming it doesn't have any odd dust or logic board issues cropping up in the next couple months, I can see myself getting one of these.
No USB-A ports. There are still 2 USB ports, but they are Thunderbolt 3/USB-C ports.
The cords I've begun to accumulate to work with a USB C computer have varying capabilities, to the point where I can't safely interchange them for fear of blowing past their tolerances accidentally.
I'm not so keen on this change.
The new “spare charger” is a 10kmAh battery pack which will have USB-C and some double as a way to jump start your car (assuming you still drive ICE). It’s also a worthwhile upgrade and much more useful than something that has you hunting for outlets at the airport, or god forbid, under your seat on a plane!
But a C D Reader? What is that? Is that like the radio that truckers used to use to talk to each other in the road?
Yes, like that in terms of: expect decades for complete migration as all benificial use cases for them have not yet been superceeded by technology sucessors.
On the device end (for hard drives and hubs) you'd generally have a type-B connector (don't think I've ever seen one with USB-A, but I haven't had that many external drives). Type-B got got a bulkier version for superspeed, it looks silly but for something that lives at your desk, who cares?
If you get a new computer with USB-C, you can replace a single cable with USB-C to USB-B to keep using the same hub and the same USB-A devices plugged into it at the same speed as before:
As I understand it, USB-C-to-USB-C (with USB 3.2) is the only connector combination supporting Gen 2×2, 20Gb/s mode (since it leverages the pins included to support flipping the connector; it's also the only combination to support Gen 1×2, but that's the same speed as Gen 2×1, so it's unclear why you'd do that.)
USB A (w/USB 3.1+) can support Gen 2×1 (SuperSpeed+) at 10Gb/s. USB B (w/USB 3.0+), AFAIK, only supports Gen 1 (SuperSpeed) (5Gb/s).
I have a USB-C drive enclosure, but looking at the specs it's only USB 3.1. Newegg doesn't even have 3.2 as an option when searching by external interface in their hard drive enclosures section. The day when you're actually losing anything by not having USB-C devices seems a ways off still.
USB-A had these problems back in 1998. It's early days for USB-C, but I think a few more hardware iterations and hopefully things will start settling down.
Right now USB-C controllers are too complex and expensive to fit in low-end devices (think $49 TV dongles).
this is not how USB-C works. you might end up with a cable that doesn't support high voltage, but it simply won't upgrade to a higher voltage and your device will charge slower or not at all.
I agree that it's frustrating that all USB-C cables aren't interchangeable, but to imply they're potentially unsafe is wrong. There was a bunch of out-of-spec cables on the market shortly after USB-C came into use with the nexus phones and the macbook pro, but that problem has almost entirely been solved, and is still a much smaller problem than cheap aftermarket USB-A charging bricks sold by the same sketchy vendors.
While driving a long distance, I noticed that I had failed to bring any way to charge my phone in the car, so I bought a USB-A to USB-C cable at a rest stop convenience store.
It served its immediate purpose of not leaving me lost with a dead battery. But it doesn't charge many other devices, and it only works when plugged in with the USB logo facing down.
I don't consider the problem of fake USB-C cables solved.
(I have no idea what brand it is, and the convenience store themselves probably bought whatever the cheapest counterfeit thing on Amazon was)
You do understand that you can have BOTH ports on the laptop right - see for example how Lenovo Thinkpad Carbon engineers manage to stuff usable ports on the same chasis size.
Because they're not just Type C ports, they're TB3 ports, Intel's stinginess with respect to PCIe lanes & TB3 controller integration means it's hard to put many of those in a machine especially on low-end CPUs, and I guess Apple prefers uniformising capabilities to an extent (even if performances can differ see e.g. the 13" MBP) to having multiple ports with the exact same connector but completely divergent capabilities.
AT > PS/2 > usb A > usb C
If I were you, I'd stick all that crap inside the massive schoolbus sized AT keyboard where you can't see it. There is probably plenty of room.
Hell, go ahead an integrate a USB hub too, then you can use the keyboard itself to adapt other legacy devices to usb C.
Given that the new iPad has type C I assume that's the future for iPhones as well.
or you can connect wirelessly.
You don't need a cable at all, because they connect over AirDrop.
Speaking for normal people, though, how often do they turn over their devices and peripherals?
When I bought my laptop over a year ago, I made sure it had USB-C/TB3 from a future-proofing perspective, but I have yet to actually buy any device that connects to it via USB-C, and I don't foresee myself buying many either. On the other hand, I still have a ton of older devices that are USB-A that I still use.
Even when it comes to USB keys, I still prefer USB-A, because it's more than likely that I'll need to connect it to a device that doesn't have USB-C.
I do have some mobile devices that charge by USB-C like my phone, but I still charge them off of USB-A power sources.
At least one USB-A port should be the minimum though.
Between no USB-A with Apple notebooks and no USB-C on the Surface Laptop I don't know whats worse...
No, USB-C ports are not 'USB' ports. Not as 'USB' ports have been for at least a decade and a half. Almost two.
USB 1.0 and USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 managed to all use the same connector, and not charge us out the ass for adapters to use the same hardware.
If you're not pissed about USB-C, or you somehow think that having a port you can no longer plug any of your previous devices into without a costly and non-bundled adapter is equivalent to having an actual, standard USB port, you probably simply haven't had to deal with dongle life.
We have an inside joke at my work where we literally call these ports 'not-USB'.
The fact that Apple's flagship phone and flagship computer can't connect out of the box without paying for an additional cable indicates blatantly how horrible this situation is. That they had the audacity to release phones only a month ago that were still incompatible after all this time almost makes me feel that they are intentionally messing with us.
No, they didn't.
USB 1.0 used A and B connectors
USB 2.0 added Mini A and Mini B
USB 2.0 Revised added the Micro A and Micro B connectors
USB 3.0 modified the A and B connectors, and the Micro A and Micro B connectors, and deprecated the Mini A and Mini B connectors.
USB 3.1 added the C connector.
USB 3.2 didn't mess with connectors, for once.
(And it's even a little more complicated if you talk about sockets, because then you need to talk about the Mini and Micro AB sockets, as well as sockets corresponding directly to each of the connectors.)
While it’s mildly inconvenient that none are bundled, USB-C ports are passively compatible with USB-A - I can purchase a 3-pack of adaptors on Amazon for £3.59.
In practice I’ve rarely found it an inconvenience. More often the problem is having to plug into a display in a conference room or whatever, which sometimes makes me miss the HDMI port that was built in to the older MacBook Pro.
As to "costly", a USB -> USBC hub can be had for around the same price as a regular hub on Amazon, starting around $4.99 and going up from there.
It's literally going to be the same CPU as in the current 12" Macbooks with a slightly relaxed power envelope which now begs the question why is the Macbook Air even a separate product? at this point it brings nothing to the table other than being slightly larger and slightly cheaper version of the Macbook.
This new MBA is the entry-level system. The 12" MB is an upgrade option if you value thin/light/battery life -- the new "executive laptop". The MBP is an upgrade option if you need power or screen space.
Is it? I was under the impression that these were different chips.
Macbook 12" 2017 = i7-7Y75 (top spec, cheaper ones are lower clocked i3/i5 Y)
Macbook Air 2018 = i7-8510Y (617 graphics supposedly faster)
Like it wouldn't surprise me if the whole i7-8510Y thing is literally Apple going to Intel and saying please increase the SKU of the same CPU you gave Google for the Slate so it would appear as like ours is faster on paper.
The results are so close that they are both within the margin of error of each other and within the normal thermal/power constraints you have between two different mobile systems.
The challenge with mobile parts is that 25-30% performance delta's are not unheard of between two systems with identical parts on paper but very different thermal and power delivery solutions.
It’s still the same Amber Lake dies which are the same as KBLY.
Both are Dual Core, 4 Threads, 4MB Cache same Intel GT2 Graphics, there is literally not a single difference between them besides the SKU numbers.
But no, they'd rather try and sell people $20,000 Xeon Mac Pros with half the cores of an AMD Threadripper and like 4x the price.
While Ryzen has good power efficiency as far as power gating goes and power management it's still behind Intel considerably which we can see in actual usability batter tests it will take probably 2 more generations until AMD has the same power management capabilities as Intel does not only for the CPU but for the entire system since Intel has been developing the centralized power management since the Centrino platform.
It amazes me that notebook makers still advertise a 720p camera as being a feature. Are we never going to get anything more than 720p for webcams? Am I the only one who wants 4k video conferencing?
I'm still limping along on a 2012 Air. This could finally be the upgrade.
Keys don't stop working because of dust anymore..?
They mean the entire keys descends evenly even if you press the key near the edge, see: https://youtu.be/afNHG3jyPU4?t=265
The keyboard on my old 2016 MBP stopped functioning after 3 months: repeated characters, missing characters.
Who cares about stability!? Those keyboards don't work as keyboards!
The new keyboards cease functioning with dust particles.
 - https://www.amazon.com/Griffin-BreakSafe-Magnetic-Breakaway-...
(I have killed three macbooks)
Not only that I've seen a magsafe connector on fire.
But other than that, it's supposed to be a breakaway, right? So if my laptop is sitting on the table and I trip on the cord, the cord unplugs. But that's never happened to me. If you pull the cable straight out (like if it's wrapped around your leg and you pull your leg away), the cord will stay connected and will easily pull the laptop off the table. I don't know if it was designed for heavier laptops or what, but Magsafe has never broken away for me when the cable is pulled straight out.
The only time it works as intended is if I step on the cable and it pulls the cable down, or if my leg hits the connector and it pushes straight up.
The main problem I see with the removal of MagSafe is that you will run out of ports while charging. Sure, I could buy the umpteen dock/hub/whatever, I guess...
It was always pretty clear to me that the 12 inch MacBook replaced the 11 inch air, and the 13 inch MacBook Pro without TouchBar replaced the 13 inch air.
There’s barely any difference between the Pro without TouchBar and the new Air. The extra hundred dollars for the Pro gets you a slightly older but faster process at the expense of an additional quarter pound of weight.
"The most specced-out Mac mini can feature 64 GB RAM, 4.6GHz 6-core Core i7 CPUs, a 2 TB SDD and 10 Gigabit ethernet."
What's neat is that the Mini now runs a full desktop CPU (60W TDP?). So while the default configs of the Mac Mini are roughly equivalent to a NUC , the Mini has higher max upgrade headroom and a fully-tricked-out Mini will significantly surpass a NUC in speed/memory/networking.
I just wish they release a 14” MacBook. That would have made more sense.
And it has a different name. Before this new Air came out, I figured they were just going to kill the Air line and release a 13" Macbook at a cheaper price. (Which is essentially what this is)
I guess the MacBook Air brand is just much more popular at this point. Being the "first utrabook" and considering you see many more Airs in the wild than New MacBooks, they probably just decided it'd be better for marketing.
Think of it as an entry-level, but fully capable Mac. For people who use their phone almost exclusively, but need a computer once or twice a month for work.
That's exactly how my wife uses hers.
WSL got me used to using bash in my daily work flow, but having a Darwin system with unix in its bones is heaven to me.
Funny how tastes can change :)
https://twitter.com/tum_apisak/status/1034639298174148608 it's a custom chip made for Apple. Look at the other Amber Lake Y chips: https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/186968/Amber-Lake-Y they have lower base but higher Turbo and UHD 615 not UHD 617.
I'm expecting these to be slower, but have no concept of what an apples to apples comparison looks like there since clock speed can be so misleading between generations. Ditto the UHD 617 vs. Iris 6100, for that matter.
I am sorry but no. They haven't been misleading for a long, long time. IPC grew from Sandy Bridge to Kaby Lake only by 20% https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_v... and since then nothing because Intel is barely doing more than tweaking the Turbo profiles because 10nm is not happening. All these years the progress was more in power consumption than anything else. Note how ThinkPads (and the world) moved from 35W dual core to 15W dual core chips. So if you compare them clock to clock you won't be far. But you don't know what clock of the chip actually will be because the problem with Y CPUs the problem always was: how good is the cooling, how long are they are able to maintain their top Turbo before throttling. Noone can say as there are no Amber Lake laptops yet and much less an Apple. What we can say with surety is even if it has exceptional great cooling it can only keep up with the 5557U in single core, in multi core performance it'll be half at best.
The UHD 617 is not officially launched but https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-615-Mobile-Ka... the Iris Pro is a different class to the HD 615. I do not expect anything groundbreaking between the HD 615 and the 617. Check the difference between 610 and 615: https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel--HD-610-Desktop-...
My takeaway here is that my 2015 MBP13 will still blow away a new MBA then, so no reason to upgrade.
Edit: the GPU comparison may be off, though. MBP13 used an Iris 6100, not an Iris Pro. Problem is I can't find official reference anywhere to an Iris Pro 6100, so have no idea what's reporting for this benchmark. What I do know is the Iris 6100 benched worse than the Iris Pro 5200, whereas this IP6100 in the link benches better.
I'm sure there will be a design that will be better than the 2015 model (Which I recently bought, second hand, after using the 2016 one for a bit over a year.) But we haven't seen it yet. Similarily, I'd rather use the modern Windows 10 rather than Windows 7. But Windows 8 or Windows 10 at its inception? Heck no.