Even with the keyboard? May I ask how fast you type (roughly) and whether you use it much for text input (such as emails) or programming?
It really comes down to two things
1. Weight
2. Tolerable Performance
The Macbook I have has a 1.4 GHz Core i7 and 16 GB of ram. Very rarely do I feel that I have issues with the daily things I need to do with the mac, which are some light programming/scripting/SQL and even hums when I have to do spreadsheets and manage multiple websites.
Given the performance is very good by real life standards, the weight is really the big issue to consider.
This is a considerable amount of difference between 2.03lbs and 2.75lbs. That's 35% lighter, that's a huge percentage when you have to drag your laptop around everywhere with you. I would gladly pay up to $1000 for that weight cut because of how much better my quality of life is with a smaller and more portable Macbook.
For me, I need to have my computer with me everywhere I go: dinner, hiking, vacations, etc. Having it do everything I want in a reasonable performance threshold and being 35% lighter, the Macbook is still by far the superior product.
It also appears anecdotally that the smaller screen is more popular in Asia than in US/EU (for both Mac and Windows).
The smaller laptop is lighter, and when we have airlines aggressively enforcing 4kg limits on carry-on, every gram matters. I put my chargers in checked baggage, while my camera, lenses and laptop live in carry-on.
An extra 200g of laptop means leaving behind part of my camera. Not price sensitive about one-off purchase, but I am price sensitive about more frequent purchases!
But at this point that's heavily played out. Progress is certainly not "done" by any means, and the slowdown is uneven (GPUs still scale more easily for example), but it's not exponential or essentially "free" anymore either. Bumping into harder physics means process shrinks keep getting harder and vastly more expensive for less gains, the low hanging frequency improvements and IPC has been picked, a lot of the trivial vectorization and parallelism done, hyper cheap mass labor utilized, the easy parts of the global market gobbled up, etc. There are also softer issues like inequality to deal with and in turn a wider spread in prices people might pay.
So tech companies are going to face a more "normal" world, where no a device from a year ago or two years ago or even 5 or more years ago isn't necessarily "obsolete". That means they'll need to figure out how to start raising prices over time just to keep pace with inflation let alone secure more growth when expanding marketshare or cutting costs is ever harder. But the public has been conditioned for a very long time to expect prices to always stay the "same" (which really means it's falling in real terms over time) or outright drops on the sticker price. Figuring out how to navigate that to a new normal without promoting undue backlash is something everyone will need to grapple with. One approach that Apple may be going for is to just take some pages from mature areas like cars, where there is a huge premium for "brand new", and large percentages of the population are fine getting used or "last year's that didn't sell" (let alone an "old model but newly manufactured" which isn't really a thing with cars) and will never buy brand new their entire lives. But "old" models still get support for a long time and to the basic job fine.
Other strategies of course include trying to shift more into ongoing services revenue, platform monetization (be it a cut of software sales or ads), premium support offerings, etc. Different players will try different mixes. But nobody will be able to avoid it anymore then other industries, at least not unless some other huge productivity shift (automation related perhaps) happens.
I think the rate of price reduction in tech has slowed down enough that even though the prices are being reduced, the inflation offsets the perceived price reduction and ordinary people just get upset that Apple jacked up the prices yet again.
An iPhone cost $200 in 2008.
The combined rate of inflation in the US since 2008 is 17.2%. So an iPhone should cost less than $240 today, if inflation were the main driving factor.
The cheapest iPhone costs $450 now. The technological equivalent of that 2008 model costs almost 3x.
Inflation is not a driving factor. You could raise IT prices 5% YOY and nobody would bat an eyelid.
The cheapest non-subsidized ("no commitment price") iPhone you could get back then was $499. At your 17% inflation rate, that's almost $600 in today's dollar, so Apple's entry level iPhone is actually a little cheaper than in 2008.
[1]: https://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/iPhone/Pricing_U...
Two things better on the old model: keyboard and MagSafe.
I'm glad I own an older Macbook Pro Retina. I'd always have "keyboard anxiety" with any of the new models: is this the day my keyboard fails? And: do I dare take my laptop outside? Will airborne dust get into the keyboard mechanism?
Bah!
Other than the outdated display, performance is perfectly adequate, and battery/trackpad/keyboard/SSD speed/ports are still doing great.
You're absolutely correct here, though I disagree with you on saying the "keyboard and MagSafe were better" is necessarily the reason. It's more fundamental, this is one of those "things everyone knows" that was a product of its time and is rapidly (or long since) obsolete but will no doubt linger for a while. When it comes to "computers" (as in traditional desktops/notebooks) that probably stopped being true at least a half a decade ago or more. It's not the 90s or 00s anymore, a decent 8 year old system can still be a solid performer (perhaps needing an SSD upgrade at that age, but SSD improvements have now slowed too). Getting an "old model" that meets ones needs at a significant discount will probably be how many people get their systems. The newest will carry a bigger premium.
Mobile systems are now going that way too. A 2-3 year old iPhone is still a fine device and can count on years more of software support from the mothership. That looks to be Apple's new plan for addressing different price points: rather then build new "entry point/midrange/high end" models each year, the "entry point" is simply "the model from 2 years ago", the midrange is "last year" and the high end is the newest.
For me the most interesting aspect here is knowing there's an upgrade path now for legacy MBA and Mini owners.
Legacy MBA owners don't generally want modern MBP laptops due to price/keyboard/etc but don't want the MB either as it looks like a toy.
If you use the base model in each category, set all the machines at 256GB disk and 16GB of ram and use geekbench cpu numbers as a performance metric, you get the table below. Also geekebench is a pretty short test, I would guess that the core-m / y-series models will fall further behind under sustained loads. I don't think this is a particularly bad spread of options.
2017 Macbook - 1.2Ghz dual, 3.0Ghz T - $1499 GBS:3740 GBM:6835
2018 Macbook Air* - 1.6Ghz dual, 3.6Ghz T - $1599 GBS:4189 GBM:7896
2017 Macbook Pro 13 (non-TB) - 2.3Ghz dual, 3.6Ghz T - $1699 GBS:4333 GBM:9440
2018 Macbook Pro 13 (TB-quad) - 2.3Ghz quad, 3.6Ghz T - $1999 GBS:4643 GBM:16540
In Singapore the difference in price between cheapest Air and cheapest Pro is less than SG$100 (US$70). The only advantage of Air is longer battery life, but that's it.
I think at this point the Air series should be merged with MacBooks. Make it small (12"), give it one more USB-C port, upgrade processor, add TouchID and it's good to go.
And less weight.
(I was going to say "and less volume", but one end of the Air is actually thicker than the MBP, so overall volume might not be that different in the end - even though it does look smaller.)
This seems to be the same issue that the (seemingly) ever-increasing lineup of iPhones and iPads have.
At this point, Apple is nearly back to the mid-90's state of having an assortment of overlapping products that compete against each other due to overlapping pricing.
Will the MacBook stay around? I suspect Apple is quite disillusioned with the performance that Intel offers in this TDP range, and the MacBook will either get dropped or go ARM.
If you need to decide between MB and MB Air, performance should't enter into it, it's almost the same.
I could see Apple just dropping it again and focusing on the Air/Pro lineup.
Except it's a dual-core Y-series (same as the macbook) while the 13" MBP gets a quad-core 25W U-series, and the MBP comes with double the storage (that alone accounts for $200) and connectivity.
I'm also waiting for new keyboards but I fear it will take a couple of years.
I imagine a new keyboard means a complete redesign, and considering the new MBPs were released in late 2016 I doubt we will see new models before 2020.
Apple used to release new Mac models ever 2-3 years but the Mac line is not a priority anymore (it's only 10% of Apple's revenue).
The MacBook, new Air, and 13 inch Pro are roughly priced the same with very few discernible differences. An average buyer would be very confused.
But I know how to and what to look up. For most people: super confusing.
I mean, I certainly didn't choose it over some other phone merely because WASN'T flashy, but I'm a lot happier buying something that doesn't advertise itself.
i have news for you. for anyone that does care, you can tell an iphone X all the way across the bar.
I think Apple's biggest question is what's next? The Apple Watch is really starting to hit's its groove and I think within the next few years will become a really fantastic product (even moreso than now) but what's next?
iOS is way too limited for what the hardware can do.
macOS is way too slow compared to what Windows feels like on the same Mac hardware.
They need to focus on the software right now.
What are you smoking?
and the original title is different.
Meh, what a load of BS. I know a lot about technology and prefer the 12-inch. Form factor matters, both to professionals like myself and to "people who know nothing about technology".