Apple will allegedly discontinue the MacBook Air because we need more performance?

[AlTech]

If some sources are to be believed, Apple will allegedly discontinue the MacBookAir. We should have seen this coming as Apple discontinued the iPad Air line and started focusing more on Professional grade hardware. Well it seems like Apple is doing the same for Macs.

 

 

 

 

Quote

if you look closely at how the company’s been making some recent launches, we just might not get to see a MacBook Air this time around.

In fact, the MacBook Air’s death could have been predicted with the launch of the larger iPad Pro last year with the A9X on-board. Succeeding the A8X, Apple’s latest tablet processor scaled things up in terms of performance and we subsequently saw the 12.9 inch iPad Pro deliver efficiently when running performance intensive applications. In fact, as the A9X continued to outer perform Intel’s Core M in benchmarks, the need for a low powered, light notebook proved to be even more irrelevant.

Taking a look at all of these factors, the fact that there might not be a MacBook Air this year either starts to make a bit of more sense. To further make things interesting, some sources have allegedly also started to make similar claims, so all of you who’re looking for a moderately priced, thin notebook from Apple might be in for some disappointing news in the future. But even more sources speculate that Apple will be making some serious dimension upgrades to the MacBooks it does launch; which when coupled with Skylake would make for some well equipped notebooks indeed.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/apple-discontinue-macbook-air/#ixzz46528TDkC

 

 

 

Cool. But does this mean that we could see 2016 MacBook with a Apple A9X? Cos if that was the case (super unlikely) it would so freaking awesome. But all Mac Apps would need to be ported to ArM. Something that most likely wouldn't happen unless they allow iPad and iPhone apps to run on Macs.

[Dabombinable]

Oh they can fuck off. They have the balls to say that after releasing the fucking atrocity called a Macbook last year?

[LynxThe1st]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

[Hamako]

Not too long ago, the news was that Apple was possibly planning a 15" MacBook Air.

[ZetZet]

Air was stupid anyway when Pro Retina laptops got thinner. You save 100g for worse screen and performance...

[VerticalDiscussions]

Hmmm, K. So, MacBooks are bound to soon become extinct? Im just saying this because the local Apple store here, which opened this year LOL, is doing "Flash Sales" on all MacBooks. Guessing only 5% of the population is buying them, because theyr unaware of the 2013 hardware inside, and everything called I5/I7, for them is as good as any desktop cpu...

[Prysin]

so, 2mm thicker and still atrocious?

GREAT.....

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Hmmm, K. So, MacBooks are bound to soon become extinct? Im just saying this because the local Apple store here, which opened this year LOL, is doing "Flash Sales" on all MacBooks. Guessing only 5% of the population is buying them, because theyr unaware of the 2013 hardware inside, and everything called I5/I7, for them is as good as any desktop cpu...

In their defense, skylake vs haswell (broadwell in the 13" macs) won't make any difference in their daily workloads whatsoever. Sure skylake would improve battery life and cpu/igpu performance, but Macs already offer some of the best battery life in a laptop, and the vast majority of users won't ever notice a difference in cpu or gpu horsepower anyway.

[shdowhunt60]

The problem with the Air lineup was that it got consumed by the other Macbook lineups. What with the 2015 Macbook and the 13 inch Retina, what's the point of the Air any more?

[abazigal]

I think it's more that the air branding has lost its significance. It made a lot of sense back in 2010 when laptops were generally still quite bulky and heavy and it actually made sense for people with modest computing needs to give up some performance for portability. 

 

Today, most laptops are thin and light and capable. Worse, continuing to label your MacBooks with the "air" title suggests that you are trading performance for portability, when in reality, MacBook airs are actually pretty capable. 

 

I think that moving forward, we may just see the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines? 

 

[VerticalDiscussions]

1 hour ago, djdwosk97 said:

-snip-

Yeah well, for me that isnt even arguable. Its not fair, to pay premium, and get specifications that dont match the generation and even possible features, for more knowledgeable users, who actually want and need the extra horsepower. Some of the best music and video editing apps are still in Mac OS.

[BuckGup]

THANK GOD IT SUCKED! Thermal throttled and the performance was trash just for a little bit thinner. Bring back 17inch macbook pros with dedicated GPUs

[Eroda]

no macboook air if you need something about that size buy a macsiPad

[Sharp_3yE]

Guys, basically they couldn't have two cheap macbook versions. They will have the Macbook and Macbook pro. Macbook basically replaces the Air as the cheap option. The Macbook next version will be released and have addressed previous complaints.

[Sentryy]

IMO, the air was good for people who don't need a pro but need something "Apple and Premium Feeling" on a budget. For the families in the upper middle class or lower upper class; where they don't need a Macbook pro, but need the apple branding. The consumers who don't know any better.

[ThinkWithPortals]

Bah, never liked it. Screen was pretty poor IMO. Still think the 13" Retina Pro is the king of MacBooks.

[MonkeyFace]

Good riddance. It was starting to look hideous next to all the Apple products rocking Retina displays. 

[CtW]

What this article fails to take into account is the fact that the only Apple product line that uses the core m processors is the Retina Macbook, which was introduced around this time last year. The Air line use Y and U series chips, which are faster than an A9X. Given how well the Air sells (it's their best selling laptop), it would be an absolutely idiotic thing for them to do. This company is no stranger to doing idiotic things though. The only macbook line they would be getting rid of would be the retina macbook, given how many issues it has in regards to performance and I/O. 

[79wjd]

11 minutes ago, CtW said:

What this article fails to take into account is the fact that the only Apple product line that uses the core m processors is the Retina Macbook, which was introduced around this time last year. The Air line use Y and U series chips, which are faster than an A9X. Given how well the Air sells (it's their best selling laptop), it would be an absolutely idiotic thing for them to do. This company is no stranger to doing idiotic things though. The only macbook line they would be getting rid of would be the retina macbook, given how many issues it has in regards to performance and I/O. 

honestly, I expect the MacBook line to just merge with the MacBook Air line (I don't see an arm based laptop happening....not yet anyway). 

 

What im expecting is the MacBook body with more I/O and at the MacBook Air price point. 

[PlayStation 2]

5 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

What im expecting is the MacBook body with more I/O and at the MacBook Air price point. 

Eh, if there's anything Apple's known for, it's removing ports that people actually use.

I hope to fucking god Apple loses that mindset because it's straight up retarded, but I can't really see this happening.

[PlayStation 2]

1 minute ago, Jon1764 said:

Good, I think it is a great idea. Looking at their Mac lineup objectively, it doesn't really fit in. You have the MacBook which is designed for portability and battery life. It has a Core M processor so you're not going to be able to do anything powerful on that machine. MB Air is a MB on steroids, still thin and portable, but can handle more powerful tasks, it has a Core i5. MB Pro is for those who need performance, but sacrificing a bit of thinness and battery life.

 

So why not just keep it to 2 product lines? MB for portabilty, MB Pro for performance. The Pro can be made thinner, the Air and Pro already have i5 (and i7 for 15" Pro)  and you can keep it at 13" or 15" screens. Since the MB is for portability, you probably won't need anything higher than 12".

While I agree with the first part of the MacBook, why would the Pro be thinner? Honestly, it'd be a lot better if they were slightly thicker in exchange for better cooling or a dedicated GPU.

[PlayStation 2]

Just now, Jon1764 said:

oh they don't necessarily have to. I personally find the thickness of the Pro to be a non-issue. They could make it thinner if they wanted it to.

Ah, that makes more sense.

[handymanshandle]

I might not be very keen on the thinnest of the Apple laptop line up, however I still think that's dumb.

I strongly feel that unless they can get a ULV i3 and i5 or i5 and i7 into the package of the Macbook with more ports (perhaps 1 or two USB 3.0 or 3.1s and like 2 or 3 USB type C ports) then sure do away with the Macbook Air.

@Jon1764 Because options are never a bad thing. It's always good when the consumer has more (reasonable) options. Of course there is such a thing as flooding the market such as what Samsung had done in the past, but when we're talking about no more than 3 product lines reducing it to two would only be acceptable if one of the lines made up for what was lost in the one that was cut.

So I mean unless Apple decides to thicken the MacBook Up a little bit for it to accommodate a Broadwell or Skylake ULV i3 or i5 (or i7) and add back some I/O then I don't think Apple should drop the MacBook Air then. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

13 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

 

Cool. But does this mean that we could see 2016 MacBook with a Apple A9X? Cos if that was the case (super unlikely) it would so freaking awesome. But all Mac Apps would need to be ported to ArM. Something that most likely wouldn't happen unless they allow iPad and iPhone apps to run on Macs.

Actually it would suck.

 

In the areas where the A9x wins over the Core M is does so by relatively small margins, while the opposite is not true.

 

http://anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-review/4

 

"Relative to the MacBook, the iPad Pro does best in 445.gobmk, the Go benchmark, while its largest deficit is with 462.libquantum. The latter is a particularly interesting case as the benchmark is very easy to vectorize, giving us perhaps our best look at the vector performance of Twister versus Broadwell, and how well their respective compilers can actually vectorize it. The end result has the Intel platforms solidly in the lead here, hinting that Intel still has better vector performance at this time.

Shifting gears to the Asus ZenBook UX305CA and its newer Skylake based Core m3-6Y30, to little surprise Skylake closes the gap with A9X in the benchmarks where Core M was losing, and pulls further ahead in the benchmarks where it was winning. Despite this the two systems split the number of wins at 5 each, but in the cases where the ZenBook is winning it’s very clearly winning. Overall Skylake sees some decent performance improvements relative to the Broadwell CPU in our MacBook – with the exact gains depending on the test – allowing it to widen the gap compared to the A9X. Overall A9X is still competitive in specific scenarios, but on average it definitely trails the Skylake Core m3.

Finally, going back to Broadwell we have the ASUS Transformer Book T300 Chi, which incorporates a high-end Core M-5Y71 processor. This is still officially a 4.5W TDP processor, and as a result this essentially measures Broadwell Core M’s best case performance. With a maximum CPU clockspeed of 2.9GHz as compared to the slower low-end Skylake and Broadwell CPUs, the T300 Chi unsurprisingly beats the iPad Pro in every single benchmark. At best the two are neck-and-neck with Apple’s best benchmark, 445.gobmk, but otherwise it’s a clear and very significant lead for Intel’s fastest Broadwell Core M processor.

 

In the end, what to take away from this depends on how you want to read the results and what you believe the most important CPU comparison is. As Apple doesn’t use multiple bins/clockspeeds of A9X processors, this muddles the comparison some since there’s a significant difference in performance between Intel’s fastest and slowest Core M processors, and at the same time Intel’s official list prices put every CPU except the top-bin Core m7-6Y75 at the same price of $281.

 

Ultimately I think it’s reasonable to say that Intel’s Core M processors hold a CPU performance edge over iPad Pro and the A9X SoC. Against Intel’s slowest chips A9X is competitive, but as it stands A9X can’t keep up with the faster chips. However by the same metric there’s no question that Apple is closing the gap; A9X can compete with both Broadwell and Skylake Core M processors, and that’s something Apple couldn’t claim even a generation ago. That it’s only against the likes of Core m3 means that Apple still has a way to go, particularly as A9X still loses by more than it wins, but it’s significant progress in a short period of time. And I’ll wager that it’s closer than Intel would like to be, especially if Apple puts A9X into a cheaper iPad Air in the future."

 

Geekbench is a horribly inaccurate standard by which to draw from.

 

And with the -U lineup getting so powerful, I think coreM just needs to disappear.

[Belgarathian]

14 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Oh they can fuck off. They have the balls to say that after releasing the fucking atrocity called a Macbook last year?

I love that little Macbook, it's fucking great!