[Rumour] Apple to get rid of 11" MacBook Air in favor of a 15" variant

[Djole123]

So, Apple wants to get rid of their netbook, the 11" MacBook Air. 

Apple will announce the 13" MacBook with 8G of RAM for the same price, but the 11" model won't receive any major upgrades.

 

Why? Well, Apple was rumored to make a 15" MacBook Air because its flagship tablet (the original iPad Pro) is bigger than the smaller MacBook Pro, so they had to do something.

So, goodbye 11" MacBook Air, hello 15" MacBook Air!

Netbooks are officialy dead if Apple decides that 11" MacBooks should no longer be on the market, but still, this is one heavily overpriced netbook.

 

I'm actually curious how thin will it be compared to other 15" laptops. What do you think? Is this a smart move?

 

Source:

http://wccftech.com/apple-rid-11inch-macbook-air-family-larger-notebook/

Edited June 10, 2016 by Blade of Grass
Added rumour to title

[Taswell]

well that doesnt fuck up their models names anymore than the iPad: Thinest air in the atmosphere 34 33" screen varient with USB type D

[dtaflorida]

Air used to be a premium model, now it's the entry/mid tier model so yeah they had to do something with some of the old products to move them to their new segment.

iPad Pro<MBA<MB<MBP

[Prysin]

Maybe they now will have space for a extra USB-C/TB3??

[Sauron]

It's probably because it was cannibalizing the (much worse) macbook's sales. As for the new format, I wouldn't buy an ultraslim 15" laptop - it doesn't make too much sense to me, 13" seems just right for portability, which is all these laptops are about. I suppose people with worse eyesight may prefer the larger screen, but then again 15" isn't that big either.

[suicidalfranco]

they should bring back the 17" form 

[Kimmers]

Just update the Airs to Retina displays. @timcook

[mikat]

Just now, Kimmers said:

Just update the Airs to Retina displays. @timcook

yes, and the 11" macbook is great, i use it every day for school and it's super nice because it's so small, the rest of my school has the old white macbooks or iPads, both horrible, a retina display + 11" MBA would be the greatest thing apple has ever made

[Kimmers]

2 minutes ago, mikat said:

yes, and the 11" macbook is great, i use it every day for school and it's super nice because it's so small, the rest of my school has the old white macbooks or iPads, both horrible, a retina display + 11" MBA would be the greatest thing apple has ever made

Yup! I don't need the horsepower of the Pro and the lack of connectivity on the MacBook is concerning. I've spent a lot of money on electronics but my MBA sustains daily abuse and it's one of the best computers I have ever used. A Retina MBA will do me for a lonnggg time.

[mikat]

Just now, Kimmers said:

Yup! I don't need to horsepower of the Pro and the lack of connectivity on the MacBook is concerning. I've spent a lot of money on electronics but my MBA sustains daily abuse and it's one of the best computers I have ever used. A Retina MBA will do me for a lonnggg time.

yup, and even a 1080p 11" mba would be a huge upgrade for programming
 

[Dackzy]

huh I have always liked the idea behind the macbook air, but the screen and CPU has just been a no go for me, maybe they will change that this gen then.

[Maslofski]

4 hours ago, ITheSpazI said:

well that doesnt fuck up their models names anymore than the iPad: Thinest air in the atmosphere 34 33" screen varient with USB type D

vertical usb ports. 30 of them

[mikat]

8 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

huh I have always liked the idea behind the macbook air, but the screen and CPU has just been a no go for me, maybe they will change that this gen then.

what are you doing on it that makes you wanna get a quad core?

[Dackzy]

5 minutes ago, mikat said:

what are you doing on it that makes you wanna get a quad core?

I don't need a quad core, the CPUs they have put in the air has been under 2GHz typically. I can use a quadcore with no problem for 3D work, I can make my 4770k OC to 4.5GHz run at 90-100%. I just want them to put some faster CPUs in them.

[mikat]

Just now, Dackzy said:

I don't need a quad core the CPUs they have put in the air has been under 2GHz typically. I can use a quadcore with no problem for 3D work, I can make my 4770k OC to 4.5GHz run at 90-100%. I just want them to put some faster CPUs in them.

with that form factor, you're limited to 15 watt chips

[Dackzy]

4 minutes ago, mikat said:

with that form factor, you're limited to 15 watt chips

yeah I know, but you can still get 15w CPUs with a higher bass clock than 1.6GHz... I think most ULV CPUs are over 2GHz today.

[mikat]

Just now, Dackzy said:

yeah I know, but you can still get 15w CPUs with a higher bass clock than 1.6GHz... I think most ULV CPUs are over 2GHz today.

the i7-6660U has intel iris 520 graphics and a clock speed of 3.4 Ghz, double that of my i5-3317U

[Dackzy]

1 minute ago, mikat said:

the i7-6660U has intel iris 520 graphics and a clock speed of 3.4 Ghz, double that of my i5-3317U

A smaller bezel would also be nice and a option for 16gb of ram would also be great. The 3.4GHz is boost.

[mikat]

4 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

A smaller bezel would also be nice and a option for 16gb of ram would also be great. The 3.4GHz is boost.

oh yeah lol, but the i5-6300U (much more similair in price to my i5-3317U) runs at 2.4 Ghz

[Trixanity]

9 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

yeah I know, but you can still get 15w CPUs with a higher bass clock than 1.6GHz... I think most ULV CPUs are over 2GHz today.

Uh, you do know that the SKUs Apple puts in their laptops are much better than those on Windows OEMs? They're all 15W but most OEMs use 6200U or 6500U SKUs which means HD 520 graphics whereas Apple uses 6260U or 6560U. They are also 15W but has HD 540 graphics meaning double the EUs and much higher graphical horse power. At best you sacrifice a couple of 100 MHz but gain much higher GPU performance and besides, it's all about turbo boost and not base frequency and the 6260U has higher turbo than 6200U meaning in workloads where you need the extra juice, you'll have it.

 

Edit: not to mention that it also has eDRAM now which also gives a good boost to performance.

[Dackzy]

1 minute ago, Trixanity said:

Uh, you do know that the SKUs Apple puts in their laptops are much better than those on Windows OEMs? They're all 15W but most OEMs use 6200U or 6500U SKUs which means HD 520 graphics whereas Apple uses 6260U or 6560U. They are also 15W but has HD 540 graphics meaning double the EUs and much higher graphical horse power. At best you sacrifice a couple of 100 MHz but gain much higher GPU performance and besides, it's all about turbo boost and not base frequency and the 6260U has higher turbo than 6200U meaning in workloads where you need the extra juice, you'll have it.

Yeah they have better iGPUs, but they are still pretty crappy. Given the cooling I have seen on macbooks through the years, I don't think that it will be able to run the CPU at that boost clock for longer periodes.

[Trixanity]

13 minutes ago, Dackzy said:

Yeah they have better iGPUs, but they are still pretty crappy. Given the cooling I have seen on macbooks through the years, I don't think that it will be able to run the CPU at that boost clock for longer periodes.

The CPU part or the GPU part is crappy? In either case: 15W is what you can get in a thin design like that (and it is the best the market has to offer). You did mention that you would want a design with higher clocks and I assume we're still talking at 15W or else we're moving into different territory. I mean we are discussing thin laptops, correct?

 

So if we are talking 15W processors, the SKUs Apple use are much better. There is pretty much nothing to debate on that. In situations where you're CPU limited, you'll probably get similar performance from the 6260U and in situations where you are GPU limited, you'll get much better performance from the 6260U. It's a win-win. In only rare occasions will you hammer the CPU enough to make the 6260U throttle below a 6200U. Keep in mind the lower base clock is in place because the CPU and iGPU share TDP, so you would have to be gaming or a similar simultaneous workload to force the CPU to use base clocks but then you'll still be better off with the much better iGPU than the few 100 MHz you lose.

 

As for thin laptops: unless you design a really good cooling system, you are limited to lower power SKUs. You might be able to push a TDP of 25 or so into a chassis like that considering that HP could fit a 15W CPU into their latest Spectre but you would need to be clever about it.

 

[Dackzy]

3 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

The CPU part or the GPU part is crappy? In either case: 15W is what you can get in a thin design like that (and it is the best the market has to offer). You did mention that you would want a design with higher clocks and I assume we're still talking at 15W or else we're moving into different territory. I mean we are discussing thin laptops, correct?

 

So if we are talking 15W processors, the SKUs Apple use are much better. There is pretty much nothing to debate on that. In situations where you're CPU limited, you'll probably get similar performance from the 6260U and in situations where you are GPU limited, you'll get much better performance from the 6260U. It's a win-win. In only rare occasions will you hammer the CPU enough to make the 6260U throttle below a 6200U. Keep in mind the lower base clock is in place because the CPU and iGPU share TDP, so you would have to be gaming or a similar simultaneous workload to force the CPU to use base clocks but then you'll still be better off with the much better iGPU than the few 100 MHz you lose.

 

As for thin laptops: unless you design a really good cooling system, you are limited to lower power SKUs. You might be able to push a TDP of 25 or so into a chassis like that considering that HP could fit a 15W CPU into their latest Spectre but you would need to be clever about it.

 

I know all of this. Yeah the iGPU is better and all that, but it is still not a powerful GPU, so on that part I could not really give less fucks, if I saw some iris pro graphics I would be more excited about the iGPU part and trust me I can push a CPU to it's limet.

Yeah the formfactor is the limet that is why I would only use this type of laptop for light work like school work and maybe some simple google sketchup, not any of my CAD work, I stream my desktop to my laptop for that even though my laptop has a quadro.

And the cooling design for macbooks is just plain bad, some vents on the bottom would really help.

[KWelz]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

It's probably because it was cannibalizing the (much worse) macbook's sales. As for the new format, I wouldn't buy an ultraslim 15" laptop - it doesn't make too much sense to me, 13" seems just right for portability, which is all these laptops are about. I suppose people with worse eyesight may prefer the larger screen, but then again 15" isn't that big either.

Do you have number on Macbook sales?  I have seen you claim the sales were bad a few times but never seen any solid numbers backing that up. 

[bobhays]

3 hours ago, dtaflorida said:

Air used to be a premium model, now it's the entry/mid tier model so yeah they had to do something with some of the old products to move them to their new segment.

iPad Pro<MBA<MB<MBP

I'm pretty sure it's MB<MBA<MBP

5 hours ago, Djole123 said:

Why? Well, Apple was rumored to make a 15" MacBook Air because its flagship tablet (the original iPad Pro) is bigger than the smaller MacBook Pro, so they had to do something.

iPad Pro is bigger than 13" MacBook pro?