Rumour: Apple preps Air 'netbook'
Apple's MacBook Air is already slim - but rumours state an even smaller 11.6" version is on the cards.
Industry rumour-broker DigiTimes has gone on record as stating that Apple will be launching a new edition of its MacBook Air ultraportable laptop featuring a 11.6in screen and an even smaller form factor - the closest thing to an official Apple netbook that you'll ever see.
While the form factor of the device is netbook-like, the specifications are anything but: DigiTimes analyst Mingchi Kuo believes that the 11.6" MacBook Air will feature the same processor and memory setup as the current model, meaning full-scale performance from an extremely small-scale device. Sadly, if the specifications are duplicated exactly, it also means frustrations like a single USB port - an awkward limitation for a device which has no on-board wired networking capabilities.
The other distinguishing factor is, of course, the price: with the current MacBook Air starting at a whopping £1,174, a smaller and lighter edition is likely to cost even more - despite the smaller screen size. With netbooks commonly costing below £300 - and sometimes even below £200 - that's a tall order.
DigiTimes also claims that Apple will be releasing a new iPod Touch towards the end of the year, which will use the same A4 processor found in the iPad and feature a 3 megapixel camera on the rear.
Would you be interested in a smaller MacBook Air as your portable computer of choice, or should Apple just bite the bullet and release a true, low-cost netbook? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Previous Article
25 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyApple's arrogance with pricing is what annoys me mostly over £1000 for a netbook is outrageous, even an aluminium core 2 duo one, if it had something like an i5 in i'd understand but it just doesn't have the hardware to justify such a price. Soon sony and asus will be making laptops and desktops that look as good as macs, cost half the price and have better hardware and are running windows 7, then apple will be in trouble although it's got it's macfans to keep buying things of it. Linux if faster and cleaner than mac OSX and windows 7 is more accessible and in my opinion looks about as good and has the programs you want. if you ask me apple is in trouble over the next few years.
Come to think of it, with 802.11n, I hardly ever bother to connect my MacBook Pro via Ethernet - the speeds are sufficient for everything I need and any bottlenecks are in my ADSL line, so gigabit gives me no discernable advantage.
The single USB port isn't a massive issue in my opinion. If needs be, you can connect a USB hub. Anyway, nobody buys an Air for practicality - if you want to be sensible, why not get a marginally thicker MacBook Pro with better connectivity, better battery life, better performance, integrated optical drive and a 30% lower price tag? I'm sure the same logic will apply to the 11.6 incher - a beautiful piece of technology to show off in Starbucks, with the all important Apple logo on the lid. That's if it ever comes to fruition (no pun intended).
Well because apple laptops are famously frugal with battery drain in sleep mode, I never shut my mac down when out and about. A wake from sleep is instant, and even a day asleep will only knock a few percent off the battery.
So who needs an instant boot if the alternative works perfectly... like who cares how long their mobile takes to boot from a cold start. I mean like really cares.
+1
They can use OSX as a selling point - as much as I love linux, OSX has far better 3rd party off-the-shelf software support, it looks good and is the full OS, not the deliberately restricted £100 service pack for Vista that Windows 7 is.
Most netbooks I've seen with Windows 7 are running Home Basic for crying out loud.
Considering the crud the likes of PC World are now selling, they're not actually that bad on the desktop. Sure it's nowhere near what we could build for the same money, but the number of high-powered machines available to consumers off the shelf is pitiful. The 27" iMac with an i5 or i7 is a nice bit of kit.
Yes, you are better off staying away from the iPhone. I have one and now I wouldn't want to use anything else. It limits your options somewhat.
However, they are excellent pieces of kit - no doubts. OSX is great to use and the ease of working on them....it's good.
I'm not a fan of the iMac. You push it hard and it quickly gets quite hot and loud. I don't like the new refresh of the Mac Mini either, it's just too expensive now. I like the old Mac Mini, I'm typing this on one now and I've got one under the TV (best HTPC eva!). I don't like the iP* because of the whole artificial ecosystem Apple have built up around it with their usage restrictions.
I must admit, I do love the Mac Pro. Hands down the most incredible case internals ever seen. Shame it's a workstation, it's just *soo* expensive. Apple really need to do a Mac Semi-Pro or something ;)
I guess I should have said ergonomics rather than build quality, you're right. I can understand why Apple went with Displayport, it does give you lots of flexible video out options (if you have the right adapters, you can just hear the accountants chuckle when I say that) but my Powerbook G4 has a full size DVI port on it for crying out loud. What was wrong with that? Can't say I really agree on the USB ports issue though, but I suspect we use our Macs for different things.
First thing I did was install Windows 7 on a partition and start using that. Now that I have gotten used to OSX I have not even loaded up Windows at home for the past month and a bit.
Quality all round hardware that does the job, buy the hardware for the wrong reasons and like any bit of kit it will perform poorly.
13" Macbook Pro is without a doubt the best high performance long battery life laptop available. Find me something that can give me 10 hours real world battery life working with a rugged chassis and good quality screen. You can't as I looked at all the ULV laptops available at the time.
Saying that I wouldnt touch a Mac Mini now due to the price, or any of the other desktops thinking of it. Macbook Air is a designer item and gets beaten by the Macbook Pro.
If I wasnt using my machine out and about so much I would have just gotten the normal Macbook as this is a superior value option to the Pro depending on your use.
Can see a point in most of the products Apple make, but their desktop/laptop range are a premium product and priced accordingly. You are paying for the design more than the components in them... yet the chosen components work better than on any other laptop.
Each to their own, but having sat on the "specs are rubbish" camp for a decade when I finally did not care about the pure specs and took the plunge I am kicking myself for using such shoddy laptops in the past.
Why oh why did I buy a Clevo barebones before this.... :(
USB is the biggest thing putting me off a new MBP. 2 USB ports is just piddly really. Even on a 17" you only get 3. My MBP is pretty much a desktop replacement.
Ergonomics are good. Nice. Yes. Lovely in fact.
I use mine with my monitor which has 4x USB ports, just plug in the Display Port + one USB cable and I have my laptop working on my desktop with Printer, Mouse, KB.
If Apple says you only need one USB port then by golly you only need one usb port.
besides a slimmer design Apples laptops don't really offer any thing that suggest a $2000 price tag versus Windows 7 laptops
The menus of most Linux distros are an utter mess, rather than a 'control panel' or 'system preferences' window, you have a great long list of options. The applications are poorly organised into groups and the reliance on terminal to achieve most 'advanced' things is just a pain in the arse after about the 10th time. While having to use the terminal has helped me with a lot of things, mostly learning the syntax so i can use it for other uses, who really wants to bother with all that crap?
Sorry, but that's a rather sweeping generalisation. It applies to a default Gnome installation but not KDE, which has a settings window rather like the one in OSX. Also, Mint which uses Gnome has been customised to include a control panel.
The main thing with either is that you can do whatever the hell you want with it quite easily.
You don't actually need the command line that much anymore. My mother uses Ubuntu and has never seen the command line. I use it out of choice though.
Now that's funny.
Firstly you have either the dot files in your home dir or /etc/ for config, no need for a control panel. \Secondly the terminal is a must, way better than forms (try designing them..) give me text files anyday!
But you only use one distro, not all of them at the same time! Many have specific purposes, but the mainstream distros could easily be likened to OS X - improving with each release.
Ubuntu 10.04 easily looks as good, in my opinion. Actually, I'd say it looks better. It's also really really easy to use out of the box - my mother uses it.
There is a control panel option, but the "list of options" is just the control panel items in an easily-accessible menu - you don't have to open a window to get to something.
That depends on what you call advanced. If you exclude all the stuff you can't do on windows or OS X, there's not a lot that you have to use the terminal for if you don't want to. Installations can be done through the software centre or with .deb files in ubuntu, and stuff like adding repositories can be done via the "software sources" section of the system menu. It's faster to use the terminal in a lot of cases, if you know what you're doing, but it's not actually necessary. If you actually are someone who needs to use it, you presumably understand computers and won't find it difficult.
As for the badly organised menus, I don't find them too bad at all, and you can reorganise them. Of course, there's no point, because it's much quicker to use gnome-do and/or put your commonly used apps on one of the many docks available for ubuntu.
Obviously I've only talked about the OS I'm familiar with here, but I think one decent OS X contender is enough to be getting on with.
Oh, and it shuts down it 4 seconds, on my mum's 3 year old celeron-powered Acer laptop. So yes, it's fast. I'd love to see this thing running on an i7 with an SSD... <drools>
Haha, linux mums FTW! But yes, exactly, my mother has no idea how to use a terminal (or even how to open one) but doesn't need to either.