Instead of making devices ultra thin I really wish manufacturers would simply fill up the freed space with batteries.
Not only Apple MacBooks, this goes for mobilephones as well. Samsung Galaxy half an inch thick and a runtime of one week please.
Not only Apple MacBooks, this goes for mobilephones as well. Samsung Galaxy half an inch thick and a runtime of one week please.
Right now, 3100 mAh is the most you can get out of a 18650 cell, and those are only made by Panasonic. Most laptop manufacturers use 2600 or 2800 mAh 18650 cells - obviously, there's not enough demand to accelerate the release of higher capacity batteries (which will also cost more).
Then again, Apple might very well be waiting for solid state cells to become ready for production...
As for smartphones, the RAZR Maxx is great with its 20+ hours life, hopefully other manufacturers will pick up on the trend.
In 2004 Intel had CPU parts with TDP of 5W http://ark.intel.com/products/27609, Pentium M ULV (ultra-low voltage) series. Now the lowest TDP in ULV series is 17W: http://ark.intel.com/products/54617. Of course, over the course of this time the memory controller and GPU got integrated on the chip. And manufacturers are not eager to use LV/ULV parts in their laptops anyway. But still, given the progression of Moore's law I think that low power consumption is just not a priority of chip, parts and laptop designers.
I am quite sure she'll be happy with her MBP for the next 5 years.
The Latitude line of Dell machines also ages very well - my company-issued notebook is a Latitude 4310 and it's built like a tank. My previous one, a D630 is still being used by a less lucky employee.
In fact, a ULV Core 2 Duo is nothing more than a factory undervolted Core 2 Duo - you can significantly increase your battery life and reduce heat by undervolting (sadly, that's not possible anymore with Sandy and Ivy)...
In a perfect world, they would have a 15 or 17 Pro model with an empty bay for BTO options, such as a 2nd battery, an optical drive, a platter HD, or a second SSD.
But we all know they won't do this. They'll cook the SSD onto to the motherboard to make it as crazy-sexy-thin as possible, the tech press will ooh and ahh, they'll sell like hotcakes, and the power users will cling to the last generation as long as they can, hoping in vain that Apple will eventually come around.
All I know is, unless affordable 2TB SSDs magically appear out of nowhere, I'm never going back.
What they might have a problem with though is convincing the average user that their computers with 256 gb are actually better than the really cheap windows machine with 750gb, to a user that does seems like it's 3 times better.
I'd also expect a next-gen MacBook Pro to have multiple Thunderbolt ports for connecting a multitude of monitors, storage and pro peripherals.
Do you have any clue what it costs to do a low-volume custom build of a product? Apple's margins would vanish in a puff of irrationality.
> The Air itself finally satisfied the sub-notebook market that Apple all but ignored for a decade, and it was fantastic for their bottom line.
You presume without evidence that a MacBook Air made with 2000ish technology would be wildly successful. I have no reason to believe that to be true, particularly because sub-notebooks were very much a niche product until the netbook fad, which is pretty much over.
> power users will cling to the last generation as long as they can, hoping in vain that Apple will eventually come around
And eventually the power users will come around. They always do. The cycle is quite predictable.
I'll stipulate that I have no clue what BTO infrastructure costs.
However, I do take umbrage with the notion that power users will simply see the light one day. Most of the time, it's not a matter of preferences or delicate sensibilities, but needing a tool to do a job. It is today impossible to have a modern Mac laptop with five extra batteries, harming a certain user segment's ability to work while traveling. Soon, it may be impossible to get a modern Mac laptop with over 512G of storage, which sucks for someone, say, editing video in the field. (Dangling an external HD sucks; you're one jostled cable away from serious data loss.)
I have no issue with the "applianceification" of computing; in fact, I'm all for it. But because this has been Apple's focus, they've spent less effort in recent years on professionals for whom Macs are vital tools (see also the Final Cut fiasco). Maybe those users simply aren't profitable, which would be very sad indeed, given the alternatives.
Hopefully, cheap and huge
I don't think so. People seem to believe ANY lost sale is lost money, but it is not so. Every sale comes with what is called an "opportunity cost" (wikipedia it).
Making stuff for tiny niches is not worth it if you have a nicely streamlined production run going.
Doesn't make much sense. We get the same kind of battery life now that we used to have to carry 2 or 3 spares to achieve, close to 8-10 hours with some models. And it keeps getting better. Even my Air gets around 5 hours of running time, and that too will get better --so no need to compromise on weight for something that can be improved with better technology tomorrow.
After a point, it makes no sense to add a larger battery. What use would I have for a 15-20 hour battery? So I can use my laptop in the desert?
Not only Apple MacBooks, this goes for mobilephones as well. Samsung Galaxy half an inch thick and a runtime of one week please.
Are you going for long stretches of time alone in the woods with your phone? Because even on the road, you can charge it in a car-charger, in a motel, etc.
Carrying something heavy and thick is a real problem, because most of us carry our phones 24/7. Charging it every day or every other day, less so. So, I'd go for thin (within reasonable bounds) and light, over thich, heavy but with more battery time.
I can understand such a need for, say, photojournalists, or war correspondents, nature professionals and the like, but what is the use case for the ordinary guy?
Or do you consider working on the laptop on the beach or in the woods for stretches > 5 hours?