Skip to main content

Apple MacBook: Targeted Engineering


In my assessment of machines to replace my MacBook Air the MacBook never featured in my thoughts. That’s not because it’s a bad machine, however I decided it wasn’t suitable for my needs because of the compromises it demands. Whilst it isn’t a machine that I could see myself using if you are looking for a machine in the space the MacBook lives, you’ll find its a very competitive device.

When the MacBook was launched, the general consensus was that Apple would kill the MacBook Air and in doing so keep its range slim. That hasn’t happened, primarily because the MacBook and MacBook Air target two very different users and replacing one device with the other or making one behave more like the other just aren’t sensible things to do.

The MacBook exists to provide a machine to customers who want the ultimate in portability and will make sacrifices in almost all other areas to get it. The MacBook has a footprint not much larger than an iPad and weighs not significantly more than an iPad / case / keyboard combination. Yet it can be used to do real work. In that I mean it can run all of the OS X application catalogue, which amounts to an awful lot of functionality outside of what can be achieved by the iPad.

It doesn’t need to be fast, it doesn’t need to have a epic battery life and it certainly doesn’t need a whole host of ports because those buyers who make up its target audience really don’t care about those sorts of things. They want portability, premium build and a great screen all of which the MacBook delivers.

The compromises asked of the MacBook buyer are the keyboard and the lack of a touchscreen.  The former would be resolved with familiarity and the latter is something Apple doesn’t appear to want to provide on any desktop class machine.

In all other respects the MacBook is engineered to meet the needs of its audience. I’m just not in that group right now.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…