Is the world really as obsessed with smallness as Apple thinks it is? From what I keep hearing (and this is anecdotal, of course), it seems that most people would prefer to (reasonably) maximize the battery life with the downside of adding a bit more heft.
Of course, there's always a balance that has to be stricken, but it seems like Apple always pushes much more to the side of size over battery vs. what seems to be the desired balance (leaning more towards improved battery life).
back
6 comments
I see this more as an evolutionary step. They size the whole package down with lower battery life and lower performance, then as the technology catches up they will up the battery life and performance once it's possible. Same thing they did with the original Air and Pro. When the original Air came out people mocked it for giving up ports and optical drives for size, now it's the standard laptop that's recommended for most use cases.
This is one product at a specific price point. Hardware wise, this thing is a cell phone with a really nice screen, a full size keyboard and a gigantic battery. Could they have made the battery a little bit bigger? Probably, but I'm sure they have detailed metrics on how often people charge their laptops. Apple doesn't strike me as the type of company to make arbitrary design decisions. Hate them all you want, but they don't do things without research.
And Apple laptops already give really good battery life: my 2014 retina MBP gets 6+ hours on a full charge -- and that's while running VMWare Fusion with 2-3 VMs. I have yet to see a Windows laptop give anywhere close to that battery life under that type of load without a bulbous battery pack protruding from the back.
> this thing is a cell phone with a really nice screen
Man, at $1299 I hope that's not the case. It was amusing how the "logic board" was really mentioned as kind of an afterthought in the design video, and then only to point out how small it was.
Seems like you'd need to run that "benchmark" on windows. My 2014 MBP gets like 4 hours on a full charge while running windows.
I do run a Windows VM (Windows 7, to be exact). My battery life jumped from 4+ hrs to 6+ when I updated to Yosemite.
I would love a bigger battery for a slightly bigger device but this isn't what Apple is aiming for.
Apple design the hardware to work with what they want it to look like not design a device around the hardware.
I used to think that was stupid but it clearly works for Apple. Their business is not making the best device spec wise but the "best" device design wise (in their view obviously).
This makes sense, but when designing the new MacBook, they still have to take battery life into account. For example, if Apple truly wanted the best device design at any expense of hardware, it would be even thinner with only 1 hour battery life.
But they knew customers would want more battery life than 1 hour. So rather than make it as thin as possible, they figure out: what is the best battery life:heft ratio?
That is what I was questioning in my OP: is this ratio, in the eyes of Apple, out of sync with this ratio in the eyes of the consumers?
Obviously, Apple knows how to build products. But it would be naive to assume that Apple always strikes this balance perfectly. I'm just suggesting that they may be pushing slightly more towards design over function.
I think the logic is that this particular chassis is constant, and we are to assume that battery technology will only get better.
So while the laptop may be underpowered/under ratio _today_, it won't be in its next incarnation, i.e. same chassis but better batteries.
So it's more of a bet/investment/concept car. This first gen isn't where the ratio is satisfied. It's v2 and onwards.
The "best" device is also one that is hard for their competitors to manufacture. The strategy is to dump a huge amount of money into a competitive advantage that's not easy to duplicate. Charge a huge premium by being out in front, then the rest of the industry falls in line eventually (such as with Intel's Ultrabook initiative). The followers pay somewhat less, but they also don't see a premium. It almost doesn't matter what they do as long as it's hard for a competitor to match cheaply.
Is the new battery life still not good enough for you?
Also please all saying this is only "design". This is design made from user problems. Apple is a master at solving actual user problems, and that's why they are so successful. As a side product, their hardware look handsome. But that's actually the less important side.
Real users don't care about 10% more processor or 20% more storage. They care that they can wear their laptop everywhere (and in their purse, many Apple customers are women), that they can type fast and not be bumed by the noise of the computer.
Call it design, I call this utility, and I'm glad Apple tackle those issues. They really care about the whole and are not just assembling off the shelf pieces together.
'Wear their laptop' — never thought about it that way, but thats dead right
~9 hours for a machine with a 2304*1440 display is pretty impressive even if you don't consider the smallness of the new Macbook.
I would agree with your comment if not for the fact that Apple invented a whole new terraced battery design (watch the keynote) in order to pack the thing full of batteries, and the thing has 9 hours battery life. The laptop is basically a keyboard, a screen, a tiny logic board and a huge battery.
Where do you need the battery life? (I mean what scenario)
I work at coffee shops and airplanes. Having 24 hours battery life so I don't even have to carry the power adapter is my dream. You could easily trade the weight of the charger with more batteries in the laptop (You will end up carrying the same weight in your bag) I want to charge my laptop the same way I charge my phone: while I'm sleeping.
There are various external battery packs that can charge laptops. I've been looking at them, but haven't decided on buying one yet.
The scenario where you're on a long flight and need to heavily use your laptop to catch up on things, or just pass time.
The scenario where you forget to plug it in at night, and don't realize it until you're ready to head out for the day.
Just to name a couple. And both of these scenarios have happened with my phone, which has arguably better battery life.
At university I move around a lot, and often there isn't a power plug because tables are out in the middle of rooms or something. I could try and sit next to a wall or something, but why bother when battery isn't a concern.