The new Cube?

Barry Wainwright wrote:
> Is the Air the new Cube?
My sentiments exactly. The MBAir sure looks fantastic, but it's
effectively an stripped down MB at a $700 price premium. For most
people, spending $700 to shave 1/4 inch in thickness and 2lbs (not to
mention a whole lot of functionality) is probably not a good value
proposition. Along with the price, the non-swappable battery (with a
relatively short battery life) is a deal breaker for me.

It's unfortunate that the design seems to be focused on probably the one
dimension of a laptop that most people care about the
least---thickness. But the other dimensions---the footprint as well as
3 lb weight---makes the MBAir pretty chunky for an ultralight.

Steve Jobs compared the MBAir to the Sony TZ, but the really relevant
bench mark might be something like the Toshiba SSRX. (Toshiba, IMHO, has
always made much better ultra-lights than Sony---remember the
Libretto). The core hardware specs are similar to the MacBook
Air---Core 2 Duo (though slower), 2GB/80GB, 12 inch widescreen. But the
Toshiba SSRX comes in at 2.4lbs (less than 2.2 lbs for the SSD version),
and that weight includes a 11 hour high capacity battery, a built in
super-drive, as well as a full complement of ports and card slots.
Sure, it's an inch thick, but the 1/4 inch thickness is a trade-off I'm
willing to make.

I agree with all the followup posts that there is indeed a market for an
ultra-light Mac, but I don't think the MBAir---with its
thin-at-all-costs design---is it. Give me a compact, and (more
importantly) light weight MacBook, that runs a full work day on a single
battery, and I would be willing to pay the price premium. If Toshiba
could produce such a machine 6 months ago, surely Apple can do better.

Tn

At 4:08 AM -0800 1/19/08, Mark H. Anbinder wrote:
>Jesse says...
>
>> I'm not sure if Apple will sale too many solid-state drives. The cost
>> (~$1000 USD) will be prohibitive.
>
>Yes, the $999 "upgrade" cost to go from 80GB traditional (but tiny)
>hard drive to 64GB solid-state storage is a big impediment for those
>who'd casually go that route, but it won't be that way for long. As
>both Dell and Apple (and no doubt other vendors) actively make these
>devices available for those who really need the increased reliability
>of eliminating a big point of hardware failure, capacity will go up
>and price will come down.

One of the pieces that caught my attention at MWSF'08 was a
ruggedized Mac mini in which (among other things) the standard hard
drive had been removed and replaced by a solid state hard drive. The
machine was modified for vehicles that go into extremely demanding
environments, and a spinning hard drive with flying heads is one of
the most vulnerable parts of the computer in that situation. This
machine certainly isn't for everybody (and probably only for a few)
but for those who need an SSD - whether in a ruggedized Mac mini or
an Air - it's probably the difference between a will/won't buy
decision.

HTH,

DOD

On Jan 19, 2008, at 4:08 AM, Alfred von Campe wrote:

>> I'm not sure if Apple will sale too many solid-state drives. The
>> cost
>> (~$1000 USD) will be prohibitive.
>
> I remember paying $1,000 for my first (external) hard disk for my Mac
> Plus back in 1986. I had a whopping capacity of 20 MB (yes, you read
> that right, twenty megabytes)! At the time I thought I would never
> be able to fill all that :-). Oh how far we've come...

My most expensive hard drive purchase was my 5 meg Apple Profile.
That's in dollars (and, clearly, dollars per byte).

   -- John (who does mean meg)

On 1/17/08 4:47 PM, "Barry Wainwright" <barrywmac.com> wrote:

> Is the Air the new Cube?

No.

> But, who will buy it for a work machine?

It obviously depends on your work.

> For only a little more money you can buy a full-featured macbook pro.

True, and you get a full weight laptop. What if you don't all the power of a
MBP? I know lots of people who think the Air is going to be a great machine
for them.

> That's a much better value buy.

Sounds like it is for *you*. For others, it isn't.

> The style and looks of the Air come
> with hefty price tag.

And the form factor of an MBP simply comes with the heft. :)

> I suspect that sales will be poor. Just like the cube.

I suspect they will be great - unlike the Cube.

--
Shawn King

"lewisGmail" wrote:
> On 18-Jan-08 11:40, "Jesse Swensen" <alaskamac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 18, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Chris Reed, BBR wrote:
>>
>>
>>> --- it's the first Apple computer to use a solid-state drive rather
>>> than a regular hard drive.
>>>
>> I'm not sure if Apple will sale too many solid-state drives. The cost
>> (~$1000 USD) will be prohibitive.
>>
>
> Yes, but I bet the SSD drive is 3 or 4 times faster than the 4400rpm hard
> drive. Someone will buy it. I want to know what the SSD does to the
> battery life, myself.
>
And to put it in perspective, a comparable 32GB SSD drive can be found
on the market for $900. So $1000 for a 64GB SSD in an Air is indeed a
good deal.

The real win with the SSD *ought* to be battery life though. It should
add at least an hour to life of the battery I imagine.

--Chris

>I suspect that sales will be poor. Just like
>the cube.

Interesting take. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I suspect that it will sell more than you think, but less than Apple
would like.

The MBA is a courageous move for Apple, very much like the original
iMac. Remember how much flack they caught for dropping the floppy?
Abandoning sacred ports? In hindsight it was genius, at the time it
looked foolish. The Air is very similar in that it forces people to
think differently about how they use the machine.

The lack of optical drive has already been solved with an external.
The lack of (wired) ethernet is solved with a USB adapter.
The lack of FireWire is troubling, but also solved somewhat with Time Capsule.

Being a well-known ex-2400c user, just about everyone I met over the
Expo week asked me if I was buying a MacBook Air. My answer to that
question: "Likely, but NOT YET." I strongly suspect that rev B and
beyond will see improvements on the things that matter for me, the
most important of which is drive capacity.

I don't think the price issue is analogous to the Cube. If they had
priced the Air above the Pro, then yes, it would have failed just
like the Cube. The Cube would have been a huge success if it was
priced between an iMac and a G4 tower, but it wasn't. I imagine Apple
was very cognizant of this fact while creating the Air.

I look forward to seeing them in the wild.


--

Chuck Goolsbee

I do a lot of contracting work in New York. I walk to the train every
day -- about a mile from my house. I take it into New York, and then
walk another mile or so to my work.

One job actually gave me a Dell notebook. A very nice little notebook.
Full feature and all. And, it sat unused in my closet for the entire
contract. The entire package (notebook, keyboard, adopter, mouse,
power supply, etc.) Tipped the scales at over 20 pounds. Even after I
removed all of the extra dross, it still was an extra 10 pounds of
weight to carry around.

I had a desktop computer at work and another at home. I really saw no
great need to tote around all that extra weight. It would have been
very convenient at times -- finishing something on the train instead
of coming home late. But, the extra pounds simply didn't make it worth
while. Things would have been way different if my notebook was a
MacBook Air.

Here's where the MacBook Air shines. Unlike most laptops, it isn't a
desktop replacement. It's an extension of your current commuters. When
you take a trip from New York to Los Angeles, a MacBook Air would be
an excellent companion. You can give your little PowerPoint.. I mean
Keynote presentation, take notes, crunch some numbers in a
spreadsheet, and all for about 4 pounds (including charging cord).

And, compared to many sub-notebooks, the price is extremely
reasonable. Compare the price to a Dell XPS or a Sony Vaio, not to the
basic Dell business notebooks, and you'll see it's a strong offering.

--
David Weintraub
qazwartgmail.com

At 10:09 AM -0800 1/20/08, Christopher Smith wrote:
>The real win with the SSD *ought* to be battery life though. It should
>add at least an hour to life of the battery I imagine.

Compared to what?

Don't the 1.8" drives use a lot less power than a 2.5" drive? And
it's only 4200rpm, right? So, the 80GB hard drive option is about as
low power as a hard drive can be.

I look forward to real testing to determine the power and speed
advantage of the SSD.


--
=Alex Hoffman
Leadership, Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

On 01/17/08 4:47 PM, "Barry Wainwright" <barrywmac.com> deftly typed :

> Is the Air the new Cube?
>
> I've been looking long and hard at it. It's certainly a beautiful
> machine (so was the cube). It's also expensive for what you get (so
> was the cube). It seems to be lacking in a lot of the bits and pieces
> I take for granted in my macs nowadays (so was the cube). I can see it
> selling (and quickly) to the Apple enthusiasts, to those who would buy
> a brick if it came in silver and had a white logo, to those who must
> have the latest, coolest gadget (so did the cube). But, who will buy
> it for a work machine? It's beautifully light, not particularly gifted
> in the hard disk department (like the cube?). No ethernet, no
> firewire, no audio input, only one usb port, integrated graphics. I
> just don't see anyone buying it for their primary machine. It's just
> an expensive toy!

But is a great device for Lawyers on the go & news reporters.

On 19-Jan-2008, at 05:08, Alexander Hoffman wrote:
>> Is the Air the new Cube?
>
> I'm sure that a lot of people have considered this. I know that I
> have.
>
> I don't think that the MBA is the new Cube, for a few reasons.
>
> First, the MBA DOES provide a concrete advantage over other Apple
> laptops, in that that it is far lighter and significantly smaller.
> This is a real advantage for travelers. The Cube did not have any
> real concrete advantages.

Yes it did. It was small and dead-quiet.

> Second, the Cube's aesthetic advantage was limited, as so many people
> keep their computers under their desks. Why does it matter how ugly a
> computer is if no one can see it?

People tended to keep cubes where they could be seen. Aesthetics were
a definite consideration.

> Third, the MBA is much more the kind of accessory that can show
> status and style than the Cube, as it is portable. When travelling
> across the country, across town or simply to the conference room, the
> MacBook Air is easily shown off. Others need to visit your office to
> see your Cube.

Well, laptops are king now, so yeah.

> Fourth, there is an established market for this kind of of machine,

That's the biggest difference and why I agree the MBA is not a Cube.

On Jan 20, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Christopher Smith wrote:

> And to put it in perspective, a comparable 32GB SSD drive can be found
> on the market for $900. So $1000 for a 64GB SSD in an Air is indeed a
> good deal.
>
> The real win with the SSD *ought* to be battery life though. It should
> add at least an hour to life of the battery I imagine.
>
> --Chris

Actually, a 32GB SSD in an 1.8 inch form factor (from Samsung, for
example) can be had in the $350-$400 range retail, $600 if the
packaging is in a ZIF form factor (I don't know which 1.8 inch form
factor Apple is using). So the $1000 for a 64GB SSD in the MBAir
isn't a bad price (since very few PC manufacturers are even offering
an 64GB SSD option), but it isn't a particularly good deal either.

In fact, I wish Apple had offered an 32GB SSD option for, say, $2100.
(On the PC side, going from an 80GB HD to an 32GB SSD usually involves
about a $250 to $300 price premium, so $2100 sounds about right.)
Since the MBAir is going to be a stripped down secondary machine,
anyway, 32GB isn't a terribly small for that purpose. 5GB for a
standard OSX install plus another 2GB for the standard apps plus
iWork, with plenty of space left over.

Tn

On 1/17/08 at 6:47 PM, barrywmac.com (Barry Wainwright) wrote:

>For only a little more money you can buy a full-featured macbook pro.
>That's a much better value buy. The style and looks of the Air come
>with hefty price tag.

And this is where I think many of the Air detractors are missing
the point.

The Air is aimed at the subnotebook market, as others have said.
For a laptop, size and weight are not 'style accessories', as
some people have derogatorily called them; they are practical,
useful, and important qualities. Some laptop buyers will trade
off size and weight for more features - vs. the 17" MBP, to name
one - but I can't imagine anyone reasonably claiming that they
don't matter at all, or even that they're not very important.
And in the subnotebook market, they are the overriding design
qualities - the continuing existence of the sub market
demonstrates that at least some buyers are willing to pay a
premium price and sacrifice performance and features in order to
get the smallest, lightest laptop. Comparing a subnotebook to a
standard laptop and claiming that it's more expensive, or a poor
value, or missing features, or runs slower, is pretty silly -
all subnotebooks are that way. And the continuing introduction
of subnotebooks suggests that yes, there's enough of a market
there to keep the category alive.

Since we know that size and weight are important, and that there
is already a viable market of people willing to sacrifice price,
performance and features to minimize them, I think implying the
market doesn't exist is pretty silly. A more valid question is
'Are there enough people in this market to make the Air a
success?' Also closely related, 'Does the Air appeal enough to
these people to sell to them?' 'Is the Air an attractive enough
computer to expand this market?' and 'Did Apple make the right
trade-offs in designing the Air to fit this market?'

There have been people clamoring for an Apple subnotebook for
years; even before the demise of the 12" PB G4, there were
people wanting something smaller and lighter, and after it was
discontinued the people wanting one have only gotten louder. I
have been, and remain, somewhat skeptical that the market was
big enough to support an Apple subnotebook; the ones Apple's
introduced in the past (the Duos, the 2400c, arguably the PB
100) were relatively unsuccessful until the 12" iBook and 12" PB
G4, and the fact that the 12" PB wasn't carried forward into the
MacBook Pro line suggests that it wasn't all that hot-selling
either. We'll see if this newer version does any better; at
least I have to admit subnotebooks are more prevalent now, and
that the Air fits the category better than the 12" PB did.

Looking at the Air in comparison to other subnotebooks, and at
the compromises Apple chose to make, I have mixed feelings. By
going with a full-size keyboard, they answered one of the main
complaints I've seen about subnotebooks (keyboard hard to type
on), but they also stepped outside of the typical subnotebook
footprint. (Likewise, the 13" screen answers the two biggest
screen complaints I've seen for a subnotebook - either not
enough pixels to be really usable, or else pixel density too
high to read easily - but with the same liability in size.) I
admit, for myself I'd prefer a smaller footprint.

Build quality... well, let's just say that while I've seen some
subnotebooks that seemed well built, I've also seen a lot that
felt pretty fragile. I've heard one or two people compare the
Air to the new Apple aluminum keyboards; those things are as
solid as a rock, so if the Air really is that sturdy, I'd have
no worries. I'm disappointed in the 1.8" drive (and the
single-platter 1.8" drive at that, leaving the 160 GB out), both
for performance reasons and potential reliability; I know many
years ago Apple recommended against using an iPod as a regular
boot drive because the 1.8" drives at the time weren't designed
for that kind of sustained usage, and I can only hope that's
changed since then. I do use two USB ports fairly often, so I'm
disappointed they only put one in the Air (and made it hard to
get to at that).

Everything else, yeah, I can see Apple's point on. I think I've
used Ethernet once in the last six months; wireless is just too
convenient for everything else. (And yes, I travel with an
Airport Express for hotels with wired broadband.) I use the
optical drive more often than that, but it's been probably 3-4
weeks since the last time I did, and then it was just to rip a
CD into iTunes. For that kind of usage, I could probably get by
with either the external optical drive or the networked disc access.

All that said, I don't see myself getting an Air any time soon.
My laptop is my primary computer, and I'd already decided - both
in picking the 15" PB G4 over the 12", and again in picking the
15" MPB over the MB - that the extra screen area was worth the
extra size and weight. In addition, while I could probably get
by without the Ethernet and optical drive, I'd still prefer to
have them to be ready for those unexpected situations where they
would be useful. And while the extra-thin design is nice when
you're carrying by hand, in practice I always travel with a
laptop bag *anyway*, to hold all the rest of my toolkit -
cables, bag of thumb drives and other adapter plugs, a couple of
pocket HD's, iPod, phone, digicam, etc. etc. - so the 0.8"
savings doesn't really help me much. I'd still like to have
something smaller and lighter than the 15" for the occasions
when I don't need the full kit, but in that case I'd want
something *enough* smaller and lighter to make a big difference;
I'd be willing to put up with a small-scale keyboard and a
1024x768 screen to get something in the 11" range. However, I
also admit I'm not the average user, or even the average
subnotebook user, by any stretch; I'm a technogeek who needs a
full-fledged laptop, and a lightweight secondary laptop would
thus need to be well to the 'sub' extreme to be significantly
useful to me. That is not going to be the case for a lot of the
people in the market for a small, light laptop.

On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:26 AM, Travis Butler wrote:

> On 1/17/08 at 6:47 PM, barrywmac.com (Barry Wainwright) wrote:
>
>> For only a little more money you can buy a full-featured macbook pro.
>> That's a much better value buy. The style and looks of the Air come
>> with hefty price tag.
>
> And this is where I think many of the Air detractors are missing
> the point.

Agreed.

We know that the Air isn't for everyone (nice as it is, it isn't for
me unless my life changes drastically). And people say that therefore
it will be a failure. When my MacBook fails, will I replace it with
Air? Perhaps. Or perhaps I won't want a laptop then, or something
else will please me more.

We know that the high-end towers aren't for everyone. But we see no
one saying those won't sell.

I suspect the market for the latter is smaller than for the former
(and Apple won't tell us how the sales break down, so we'll have to
rely on tea leaf readers (oops, "analysts")).

One thing I do know is that if the Air's screen were much smaller, I
would have zero interest rather than some.

   --John

On Jan 23, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Travis Butler wrote:

> On 1/17/08 at 6:47 PM, barrywmac.com (Barry Wainwright) wrote:
>
>> For only a little more money you can buy a full-featured macbook pro.
>> That's a much better value buy. The style and looks of the Air come
>> with hefty price tag.
>
> And this is where I think many of the Air detractors are missing
> the point.
>
> The Air is aimed at the subnotebook market, as others have said.
> For a laptop, size and weight are not 'style accessories', as
> some people have derogatorily called them; they are practical,
> useful, and important qualities.

While I agree that size and weight are important qualities in an
subnotebook, I guess where I have the most difficulty understanding
the MBAir is that it's not that small. Sure it's thin, but its other
two dimensions are ever so slightly larger then the MB (which isn't
surprising since they use the same size screen). So, basically, we
are talking about a $700 price premium to save 2 lbs. Even though I
do a fair amount of airport terminal sprinting, and commute to work by
train, I find it hard to justify that, especially since the MBAir will
clearly have to be a second machine.

MacWorld has an interesting comparison between the MBAir and the Sony
Vaio (that Jobs referenced in his keynote).

http://www.macworld.com/article/131768/2008/01/mbavssony.html

To sum up their conclusions, the MBAir was designed to be thin and
light. The Sony was designed to be compact, light and fully
functional. Given the choice between these two design goals, I'm not
sure that a lot of people would care about *thin* so much.

(By using a slightly thicker case, the Sony has an optical drive and a
full complement of ports. By using a 12 inch screen, the foot print
is reduced by 25% while retaining a full size keyboard. All this at a
weight *less* than the MBAir. An equally stark comparison can be made
with the just released---is it a coincidence?---Toshiba R500 without
Sony's price premium.)

Of course, if you want an ultra light subnotebook Mac, your only
choice is the MBAir, so perhaps it will sell well. That doesn't mean
that it wouldn't have sold better if Apple had made other design
choices.

Tn

On Jan 23, 2008, at 1:52 PM, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> We know that the Air isn't for everyone (nice as it is, it isn't for
> me unless my life changes drastically). And people say that therefore
> it will be a failure.

You are right. It is probably too hasty to conclude that the MBAir
will do poorly because of the design choices that Apple has made does
not fit the work styles of a lot of people. In the absence of any
other alternative light weight subnotebook in the Mac lineup, many
people who want the light weight will probably end up buying the
MBAir, even if it doesn't fully suit their requirements. And for
some, the MBAir may in fact be just the right notebook.

I think the reason why the MBAir has gotten such a mixed reception is
that it really highlights two things: First, the fact that design
tradeoffs and compromises are necessary in putting a subnotebook
together, and whether a particular compromise "works" for you or not
depends largely on your work style and intended use. And the smaller
the machine gets, usually the harder the tradeoffs. This wouldn't be
such an issue were it not for point number two, which is the complete
lack of choice in the Mac market.

Simply put, if you want an ultra-light Mac, you have the MBAir. You
will be happy if your intended use fits (or can be made to fit) the
design objectives of the MBAir, but SOL if it does not. (And at this
point, I must admit that I am a bit flummoxed by Apple's design
objectives which seems to be "thin at all costs". The MBAir isn't
small. It isn't particularly light for a subnotebook. The MBAir is
just thin.)

Someone wrote in response to my earlier post about the MBAir, "then
don't buy one." Which is, I must admit, exactly the right response.
But on the other side of the fence, it would have been, "don't buy
one, buy something else."

A particular design tradeoff will not suit everyone. So, the logical
response would be to offer different models embodying different design
(and intended use) objectives. Other PC manufacturers recognize this.
Fujitsu, for example, offers 6 models of subnotebooks alone (ranging
from 1.5 lbs 6 inch screen models to 3 lb 12 inchers.) Toshiba offers
4. Similarly for Sony. With Apple, we get 1. Now it probably isn't
fair to compare Apple's engineering resources to those of these giant
conglomerates (though I'm not sure that the PC division of these
companies are that much larger than Apple), but surely Apple can do
better.

So, here's to hoping that the MBAir is just the start of a line of
ultra-light Macs, that give us a range of choices representing
different size/weight/functionality tradeoffs.

Tn

"Tomoharu Nishino" wrote:
> Does anyone really care about "thickness" of their laptops? When the laptop
> is sitting on a desk, most people really don't care about saving 1/4 inch of
> thickness. And when toting the thing around, even if the laptop is 3/4 inch
> thick my briefcase is still 3 inches thick.

At least for me, the same argument could be made about the footprint: once I
get down to the size of a MacBook, I don't really care if it's an inch or
two smaller in width or depth; every bag or case I have can easily
accommodate it. (The one exception is if I'm sitting in a very tight coach
seat on a plane, but that's relatively rare for me, and the size would have
to be considerably smaller to make much of a difference.)


> While I agree that size and weight are important qualities in an
> subnotebook, I guess where I have the most difficulty understanding
> the MBAir is that it's not that small. Sure it's thin, but its other
> two dimensions are ever so slightly larger then the MB (which isn't
> surprising since they use the same size screen).

Speaking only for myself, this is actually what I like *best* about the
MacBook Air. I appreciated the overall size of my 12" PowerBook G4, but I
hated the screen -- it was too small for the work I needed to do. (And
simply increasing the resolution wouldn't cut it for me; I've seen the
super-high-resolution screens on Windows subnotebooks.) At the same time, my
15" is too heavy and a bit too bulky (footprint-wise).

Numerous times over the past year, I've almost purchased a MacBook, which
offers a decent compromise in terms of screen real estate and overall size,
but the weight savings wasn't enough to give up some of my favorite Pro
features, such as the backlit keys and ambient light sensor.

In other words, what I've been wanting is something with the screen size of
a MacBook but considerably lighter. In that respect, the MacBook Air is very
appealing -- I can get a three-pound laptop with a large screen and features
that in many ways straddle the MacBook and MacBook Pro. There are definitely
things about the MacBook Air that I'd like to tweak, but footprint isn't one
of them. Again, personally.


> MacWorld has an interesting comparison between the MBAir and the Sony
> Vaio (that Jobs referenced in his keynote).
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/131768/2008/01/mbavssony.html
>
> To sum up their conclusions, the MBAir was designed to be thin and
> light. The Sony was designed to be compact, light and fully
> functional. Given the choice between these two design goals, I'm not
> sure that a lot of people would care about *thin* so much.

No, the conclusion was that the MacBook Air was designed to be a "very thin,
very light notebook with a full-size screen and keyboard, and with a focus
on performance." That's very different than just being thin and light. To
me, a full-size screen, full-size keyboard, and good performance are
important. Important enough that I'm willing to give up a few other
features.

That may not be the best tradeoff for everyone, but it's certainly not the
horrible design decision many people are making it out to be.


> I must admit that I am a bit flummoxed by Apple's design
> objectives which seems to be "thin at all costs".

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Apple's design
objectives. Rather, I think the overarching goal was "make it light, but
keep a full-size screen and keyboard." (Apple has said as much.) Given
*that* goal, you can only go so far in reducing the width and depth; beyond
that, the only way to significantly reduce weight is to remove components
and reduce the thickness of the computer.

At 2:17 AM -0800 2008/01/24, Dan Frakes wrote:
>"Tomoharu Nishino" wrote:

> > I must admit that I am a bit flummoxed by Apple's design
>> objectives which seems to be "thin at all costs".
>
>I don't think that's an accurate characterization of Apple's design
>objectives. Rather, I think the overarching goal was "make it light, but
>keep a full-size screen and keyboard." (Apple has said as much.) Given
>*that* goal, you can only go so far in reducing the width and depth; beyond
>that, the only way to significantly reduce weight is to remove components
>and reduce the thickness of the computer.

        Absolutely. Apple certainly knows that lots of people hate
their laptop screens and keyboards, but still demand subnotebooks.
Let's do a thought experiment.

        Your name is Jonathan Ive. Steve has just told you that we
need a new laptop.

JI: Let's make something that goes in your pocket!
SJ: Okay. We'll call it iPhone.

        Next year, Steve's back.

SJ: We need something small, but more capable than an iPhone.
JI: Can we do without the keyboard?
SJ: No; I hate tablets.
JI: Can the keyboard be shrunk?
SJ: No, to uncomfortable.
JI: I'm still sick of hearing people can't touch-type on their
iPhones. Let's make it cool, somehow.
JI: Can we make it backlit and photosensitive like a MBP?
SJ: Okay, that's small & light, and says "Pro" in our design language.

JI: Can we use a 1024*768 screen?
SJ: No, that's too compromised.
JI: Can we crank the resolution up?
SJ: No, resolution independence isn't ready, and you lose working
space if you just use larger objects with higher resolution.
JI: So what's our video baseline?
SJ: Let's start with the MacBook's 1280*800 -- that's pretty
good, and we won't have to explain why this is less laptop than our
low-end model.

JI: So it sounds like we have a MacBook -- how do you want to
distinguish it?
SJ: People are always complaining about how heavy these things
are, and the MB isn't significantly lighter than the MBP.
JI: Okay, we can cut the weight. If we can't reduce the height &
width much, it can also get thin.
SJ: Cool! Thin is in. How thin can we go?
JI: If we strip components, that will reduce cost (relatively)
and weight. What are our hard requirements?
SJ: Absolute minimum? CPU, LCD, keyboard, RAM, hard drive, battery.
JI: Can we really wedge a custom-shaped battery in?
SJ: Um, okay. I'm sick of complaints about the iPod & iPhone's
non-user-replacable batteries, but I we could throw in replacement
service at an Apple Store in the battery price?
JI: Sounds very fair.
SJ: I'll still hear tons of whining about it, though.
JI: Can we offer a flash drive? I hear those are cool.
SJ: Sure. It may not really be any better than an iPod drive for
now, but people will love the idea, and eventually SSDs will be
better.
JI: I'd love to dump the optical drive, but you need one to install from.
SJ: Hmm. I'll tell them to lift some of the net booting
technology from Mac OS X Server -- our current firmware already
supports that. You can always pull your own music over the network,
and perhaps we'll see more iTunes Store purchases if people don't
have CD drives handy.
JI: Do we need FireWire?
SJ: Well, new video cameras are USB, as are most external hard
drives. I guess not, if the net booting works okay. We need a catchy
name, though, and no references to Mac OS X Server in the slides.
JI: Call it Remote Disk, and make it work on a Windows PC?
SJ: Great idea! People will be so shocked we took advantage of
those dumb ubiquitous Windows PCs, they'll get completely distracted
from the fact that you can no longer reinstall the OS or
shrink-wrapped software without another computer.

JI: Can we throw in cellular data access?
SJ: That would be cool, but I don't know if we're ready to wire
that in, and the iPhone is still evolving, without 3G data speeds --
let's do it in the next revision.

SJ: And can you make it 'green' (not actually green)?
JI: Sure. Aluminum is recyclable. We can even dispose of the
batteries properly when we swap them at the Apple Store, although
nobody will thank us for it.

        Hmm. Maybe I should register less-fake-steve-jobs.blogspot.com.


                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
                              <http://www.extrapepperoni.com/>
The Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

A few years ago, a consultant came to do some work for our company. He
brought in a Sony Vaio with him. He said he bought it because lugging
a full sized laptop around airports was a big pain. He loved the
lightness and the small size. Not as powerful as a full size laptop,
but he felt it did what he needed.

A few months later, the same consultant came back to our office. This
time, he was lugging a standard Dell laptop. What happened to the
Vaio? He told me that the weight and size was nice, but when he got to
our office the last time, he found the small screen and keyboard a big
pain. It was like typing on his Blackberry, he told me. He also
complained that the screen wasn't big enough for some of the windows
he pulled up.

These sub-notebooks will include compromises. Apparently, Apple felt
that a full size keyboard and screen are too important to give up.
Thus, other sacrifices had to be made. The Cube failed because there
really wasn't too much going for it except for its looks which really
didn't add anything to the computer experience. For the MBA, the small
size and weight is the important part.

Actual footprint is probably not as important as overall width. A 3"
MBA can slip into a briefcase and still allow enough room for papers,
etc. Making the width and length smaller doesn't save anything --
except weight, and Apple already took care of that.

I haven't seen an MBA, and I am not sure I want one -- even though I
am looking fo a Mac notebook, and the MBA would be a second computer.
Besides, my main computer is a MacMini with a G5 processor and a
80Gigabyte drive. The MBA doesn't look crippled in comparison to that.

--
David Weintraub
qazwartgmail.com

I liked (no, loved and still do) the Cube because it looked great, had a small footprint and was extremely silent (especially compared to the Power Macs of that time). It had all the features I needed at that moment (I did replace the hard drive for a bigger one a few years later), so I bought one despite the somewhat higher price. A decision I never regretted.

The MacBook Air is not for me. I like the small size and the aluminum enclosure and it looks great (from the pictures, haven't seen one in the wild yet), but it has too many compromises for me to be useful.

My current laptop is a PowerBook G4 12" with a 250GB hard drive (and the 95GB used space is growing fast with 12MB RAW photo's) so anything with less than 160GB of storage is not an option. I also want a fast ethernet port to quickly sync the files on my desktop and laptop (and who wouldn't, considering the specs the Air can hardly make it your main Mac). Two USB ports would prevent the need to carry a USB-hub (what is the point of a subnotebook if you have to carry extra peripherals, likewise the USB-ethernet adapter is not a good solution either). Finally, I don't like the glossy screens.

For some the MacBook Air could be their dream-machine. For me, I'll wait for the 13" MacBook Pro. If Apple won't make one before my 12" PowerBook dies, I'll probably settle for the 15" even though that one is just a bit on the large size for me, but at least it doesn't have an annoying glossy screen like the 13" MacBooks.

While the MBA is not for me (I've just ordered a new 17" MBP) I know
of at least three people who have been waiting and hoping for one of
these. So there is a market. The question really is - is there enough
of a market?

Apple and Jobs were stung by the reception the Cube received. I would
assume (with 100% certainty) that they have done their market
research and a) know who their target market is, b) how to target
that market, and c) have hit the price point and performance specs
that market will tolerate.

Besides, there are far more choices for people now than there were in
the days of the Cube. Yes, the MBA is in a niche, but the argument
could be made that the smallest MacBook could be a competitor in that
niche. I don't recall there was really any machine of performance
that compared to the Cube, or had a similar role (desktop but not
workstation). And even if Apple's market predictions are wrong and
this machine doesn't succeed as expected, Apple is doing far better
in the marketplace than it was when the Cube was introduced, so they
can absorb a disappointment.