You have a point. Unfortunately, this thread drifted into iPad territory, which gave rise to the Flash debate raising its ugly head again. I agree that it isn't an issue where the MBA is concerned. As much as I have enjoyed my iPad in many, maybe most, ways, I certainly do not think that Flash support would turn it into the functional equivalent of the MBA. In fact I would wonder what anyone who made such a claim had been smoking.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No New Air at WWDC
- Thread starter sekoitus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just some thoughts about MBA possibilities
The MBA was thin at one end at least but did that create some of the problems we have seen with overheating?
The iPad is thin and so is the new iPhone so what if there were a new MBA which could be uniformly thin?
The original MBA was a great idea but apparently it has been beset by the following problems:
poor battery life,
overheating,
limited memory
fragile hinges
and last but not least the lack of sufficient ports (usb, firewire, ethernet).
So my thought is this, if Apple could radically redesign the iPhone why could they not do the same with the MBA thus countering all the flack that has been thrown at it? Surely a uniformly thin flat design would be able to have a larger space for a bigger battery, at least one more usb port and an sd slot then there would be lots of happy bunnies queuing up to buy one, wouldn't there?
The MBA was thin at one end at least but did that create some of the problems we have seen with overheating?
The iPad is thin and so is the new iPhone so what if there were a new MBA which could be uniformly thin?
The original MBA was a great idea but apparently it has been beset by the following problems:
poor battery life,
overheating,
limited memory
fragile hinges
and last but not least the lack of sufficient ports (usb, firewire, ethernet).
So my thought is this, if Apple could radically redesign the iPhone why could they not do the same with the MBA thus countering all the flack that has been thrown at it? Surely a uniformly thin flat design would be able to have a larger space for a bigger battery, at least one more usb port and an sd slot then there would be lots of happy bunnies queuing up to buy one, wouldn't there?
The MBA was thin at one end at least but did that create some of the problems we have seen with overheating?
The iPad is thin and so is the new iPhone so what if there were a new MBA which could be uniformly thin?
The original MBA was a great idea but apparently it has been beset by the following problems:
poor battery life,
overheating,
limited memory
fragile hinges
and last but not least the lack of sufficient ports (usb, firewire, ethernet).
So my thought is this, if Apple could radically redesign the iPhone why could they not do the same with the MBA thus countering all the flack that has been thrown at it? Surely a uniformly thin flat design would be able to have a larger space for a bigger battery, at least one more usb port and an sd slot then there would be lots of happy bunnies queuing up to buy one, wouldn't there?
It exists already. It's called a 13" MBP.
If you cannot live within the design window of the MBA, then get the appropriate product. Some of us want optimized ultra light weght computers. The last things the mba needs is a larger (i.e. heavier) battery or more ports.
/Jim
The MBA was thin at one end at least but did that create some of the problems we have seen with overheating?
The iPad is thin and so is the new iPhone so what if there were a new MBA which could be uniformly thin?
The original MBA was a great idea but apparently it has been beset by the following problems:
poor battery life,
overheating,
limited memory
fragile hinges
and last but not least the lack of sufficient ports (usb, firewire, ethernet).
So my thought is this, if Apple could radically redesign the iPhone why could they not do the same with the MBA thus countering all the flack that has been thrown at it? Surely a uniformly thin flat design would be able to have a larger space for a bigger battery, at least one more usb port and an sd slot then there would be lots of happy bunnies queuing up to buy one, wouldn't there?
Since you said the original MBA, I would counter that the current MBA is a much different beast than what was originally introduced....and much better. That being said, limited memory is the only item on your list that I think needs to be addressed in Rev D. Some of the other items (battery, heating, ports) are due to the portability vs. performance trade-off.
In the MBA, better battery should come only when better battery technology is available. Anything that will increase size or weight should not be considered an option, especially since the 13" MBP does that trade-off. As far as ports go, I'm hoping that a couple of LightPeak (or similar tech) ports will go a long way to solving connectivity problems. Having multiple devices simultaneously connected to the MBA was really not part of its design or intended use.
The MBA was thin at one end at least but did that create some of the problems we have seen with overheating?
The iPad is thin and so is the new iPhone so what if there were a new MBA which could be uniformly thin?
The original MBA was a great idea but apparently it has been beset by the following problems:
poor battery life,
overheating,
limited memory
fragile hinges
and last but not least the lack of sufficient ports (usb, firewire, ethernet).
So my thought is this, if Apple could radically redesign the iPhone why could they not do the same with the MBA thus countering all the flack that has been thrown at it? Surely a uniformly thin flat design would be able to have a larger space for a bigger battery, at least one more usb port and an sd slot then there would be lots of happy bunnies queuing up to buy one, wouldn't there?
Although, I think there are things Apple could do to improve the MBA, particularly concerning its RAM limitations, overheating, and fragile hinges, it seems to me that there are some things Apple can't really do anything about and have the resulting computer still be an MBA. If Apple thickened the MBA enough to accept RAM slots, multiple ports, and a 10 hour battery, it would weigh 4.5 pounds, just like the 13 inch MBP does, and would have lost the traits that made it the MBA in the first place. The ugly little secret of laptop design is that it is a series of compromises. In the case of the MBA the compromise made to give it its sleek design and light weight also prevented there being enough room within its thin case to accommodate multiple ports and a bigger battery. In short, there is no free lunch.
Probably an execs child graduation party
I think it's Steve's daughter. If I recall, I remember hearing Leo Laporte on MBW say that his daughter and Steve's daughter are the same age and both graduating this year.
The point is we should all decide for ourselves, AS CONSUMERS, as to whether we will accept the Flash negatives with the positives. When consumers don't get to decide what to do with the products they buy, the motive of the strategy needs to be examined to see if it's anti-competitive or not. Do you really believe that Jobs was telling the truth about 90% battery loss with Flash on the iPad (how about if Adobe was "allowed" to optimize it")? Do you really think the consumer should have no rights to decide what to do with the products they pay their hard-earned money for? Do you think Jobs was 100% honest about the reasons for his dissing of Adobe and Flash?
Have you ever heard of "follow the money?" It's not just a "saying" that is sometimes true; it's an amazing way to look at business decisions in public corporations; one can easily see how the money is influencing Apple's decision to ban Adobe's Flash by just following the money with a few thoughts of how Apple makes money. Apple's charge-for-all-content model makes more money for Apple. This is a business model, and Flash is competition to the model. Flash technologies provide free content to the consumer by using advertisers to pay for the content costs. Apple doesn't make as much money if people play Flash games rather than buy apps in the App Store. Apple doesn't make as much money when people watch ad-paid content on sites like hulu.com that use Flash for streaming. Plus there's the alternative concept of getting people to buy your product to influence exactly how they spend their money once they "buy-in" to the iOS product model.
Like I have said before, if Jobs stood up and said to all Adobe is their competitor and they will not allow Adobe's Flash on their devices because they compete with Apple's own business model of paid content, I would think 100X more of him. For him to publicly trash Adobe again and again, and ignore the honesty of the "follow the money" reality of Adobe's Flash threatening Apple's business model, is sickening. I am sickened by the level of "trash" talk by an innovative leader who is the man in charge of the most innovative and incredible company in the world. A great public speaker, amazingly gifted innovator, but pathetic leader to trash talk his competitors. It's always a blow below the belt when Jobs trash mentions Adobe or Flash. In addition, lately Apple has taken more and more of the positions we used to see by the "big bad Micro$oft."
In the long run, we're all going to be doing a lot of things different on our Apple products. Apple is acting very anti-competitively, and one of these days the DOJ will decide customers are losing big here. It is going to come back to haunt Apple, because of their ignorance to consider and value their customers' experience and free will to choose what they do with devices they pay Apple obscene amounts of money for. It is the customer that is losing when SJ's blocks Adobe's Flash from iOS products.
The biggest problem with this "debate" is that nobody wants to consider the way these iOS product users are losing out by not having the ability to choose for themselves if they want to use Adobe's Flash. Everywhere there are Apple fans that repeat Jobs every word and act like Adobe's Flash is trash just because SJ's says it is. There are others, like me, who love Apple but realize what Apple is doing here is obvious... we can follow the money and quickly understand the truth about "why" Apple doesn't like Flash. It is obvious that Adobe's Flash threatens the paid content business model Apple is seeking with its iOS products. It is sad that Apple cares so little about its customers to not allow them their own decision as to what they want to do with their Apple products.
I want the Apple computer company back personally. I want Apple to focus on Macs, OS X, and their customers' experience when using their computers. I really hope Apple finds a way to split into two devisions that allows continual efforts of innovation on the Macs and iOS products at the same time. I have been disappointed with Apple's Mac efforts lately. It's obvious that Apple has had "everyone" on iOS and the products that run it. I want an incredible ultraportable Mac notebook that destroys the competition like the v 2,1 MBA did. I want OS X 10.7 to be a focus and feature not put on the backburner behind iOS. I hope Apple learns to keep innovation up on the Mac while it also develops iOS and the products that run iOS. It would be nice if Apple just spent the next year developing OS X and getting Mac computers back up to speed.
I really don't think you can say Apple is being 'anti-competetive' by not allowing flash on the iPad.
It's a 'feature' they choose to not allow on their product... if we don't like the fact that it's not there, no one's forcing us to buy it.
You say you want to be 'free to choose' what you want to do with the iPad, well then, let's see:
I want to video chat on it, but the iPad doesn't have a camera, or a way of adding one, is that anti-competitive?
I want to run internet explorer on the iPad, but it can't run windows, is that anti-competitive?
I want another choice of provider for my iPad, but the iPad can only get 3g on AT&T, is that anti-competitive?
If it was that big a deal to people that the iPad or iPhone didn't have flash then they would flop in the marketplace ... but guess what, they're selling them faster (by far) than Apple can make them.
Besides, what's to stop another company from making a slate device that runs flash? Again, if flash was such the big deal, then that product would KILL the iPad when it came to market. Apple certainly isn't somehow stopping another company from doing that - now, if they somehow did that, then THAT indeed would be 'anti-competiive'.
It's a 'feature' they choose to not allow on their product... if we don't like the fact that it's not there, no one's forcing us to buy it.
You say you want to be 'free to choose' what you want to do with the iPad, well then, let's see:
I want to video chat on it, but the iPad doesn't have a camera, or a way of adding one, is that anti-competitive?
I want to run internet explorer on the iPad, but it can't run windows, is that anti-competitive?
I want another choice of provider for my iPad, but the iPad can only get 3g on AT&T, is that anti-competitive?
If it was that big a deal to people that the iPad or iPhone didn't have flash then they would flop in the marketplace ... but guess what, they're selling them faster (by far) than Apple can make them.
Besides, what's to stop another company from making a slate device that runs flash? Again, if flash was such the big deal, then that product would KILL the iPad when it came to market. Apple certainly isn't somehow stopping another company from doing that - now, if they somehow did that, then THAT indeed would be 'anti-competiive'.
The problem with your argument is you're boldly ignoring the fact that one year before the iPad, 97% of all devices that connected to the Internet had the ability. 97% is a BIG GIGANTIC amount of devices. Basically, the iPhones and BlackBerries, were connected without Flash.
I believe Apple is combining a bunch of strategies that are anti-competitive, and I believe it will add up to repercussions against its anti-competitive behaviors... of which this is one of many that will be acted upon. Also, for Apple to advertise "full Internet in their hands" of iPad users is completely misleading. Many people I know who have bought iPads or used mine didn't realize how "important" Flash capabilities are. Meaning these people have been disappointed and felt that Apple didn't "warn" them that Flash wasn't just advertising and pretty pictures.
It's truly NOT the same as Windows nor IE, as the iPad's abilities are limited by not having the ability to have "full power of the Internet" while the other devices along with Macs have those powers but not the iPad. The problem is the iPad doesn't just exclude the "Flash" software, it excludes the ability to view Flash software.
In addition, Apple is so controlling of the entire platform and controls what people are "ALLOWED" or "PERMITTED" to install on their own iPads. NO OTHER TECH DEVICES ARE LIMITED AGAINST ALLOWING USERS TO DO AS THEY WILL WITH THEIR DEVICES THEY PAID FOR.
The nature of Apple's anti-competitive behavior is part of this "system" of Apple deciding who can and cannot install what they will, and it eliminates companies from making any software or functions they want so users can decide for themselves.
Apple is making gigantic strides in anti-competitive behavior here... I am surprised people don't see the differences. It's a vertical control of every component of the iPad's system... that's the problem! It's completely anti-competitive. Go read a few bits on anti-competitive behavior and the laws meant to prevent vertical control and see what I mean.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.
Apple makes the device, and the software to run it. And yes, they control to an extent what can run on it. YOU KNOW THIS GOING IN ... so when you 'pay for it', you're saying you're ok with that. You know the iPad doesn't run flash, and probably never will. Based on that, buy it don't buy it!
And again, no one is stopping HP from coming out with their 'slate' that runs flash (oh, wait, that's right, they cancelled that project cause the performance sucked).
ANY company could compete with Apple by coming up with their own tablet computer ... so how is Apple being anti-competiive? I just don't get you're logic here.
P.S. by the way, I have a Tivo, and I'm pretty sure that I can't install a different kind of DVR recording software on it... so indeed that's an example of another tech device that limits what I can do with it.
Sorry, but your Tivo has nothing to do with anti-competitive analogies with Apple, and nothing touches the vertical control by Apple with its iOS software and products. You're still off on HP's Slate too... just because a competitor offers a device with a different OS which might have Flash doesn't mean Apple doesn't act anti-competitively with its iOS software and products.
In addition, Apple's problems are adding up in terms of anti-competitive behavior. It's a problem that will be addressed on multiple fronts sooner or later. It's the way Micro$oft acted before it got itself in trouble, only far worse. The intent here is obvious, and it's not in the best interest of consumers. The choice to do what they want with the products they buy is important. Here we have a vertical problem with Apple.
Guys, nothing that I know anything about is more complex than antitrust law. That's why a lot of lawyers specializing in antitrust cases make a lot of money representing clients who claim they were damaged by anticompetitive conduct and a bunch of others make a lot of money by defending the targets of such claims. In short, from this remove, anyone who predicts whether conduct is or is not legally anticompetitive behavior is telling a "tale, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Apologies to William Shakespeare.)
)I think the frustration comes from what we 'want' the iPad to be and what Apple says it is.
We 'want' it to be full computer, a REAL computer. Apple is basically saying 'no, it's a DEVICE, with limited functionality.'
Apple offers another 'device', the Apple TV, which also is not a 'full' computer.
As far as Apple is concerned, if you want a real computer, with flash and the ability to install what you want on it, you have plenty of choices, including the macbook Air. If you want their 'device' with it's limited, but easy to use functionality, get the iPad.
Now, I do agree that it's annoying ... it would be cool to have an iPad-like item that was a full computer, but that's not what Apple is offering right now. Annoying - yes. Anti-competetive - no (given the fact that they offer plenty of REAL computers).
We 'want' it to be full computer, a REAL computer. Apple is basically saying 'no, it's a DEVICE, with limited functionality.'
Apple offers another 'device', the Apple TV, which also is not a 'full' computer.
As far as Apple is concerned, if you want a real computer, with flash and the ability to install what you want on it, you have plenty of choices, including the macbook Air. If you want their 'device' with it's limited, but easy to use functionality, get the iPad.
Now, I do agree that it's annoying ... it would be cool to have an iPad-like item that was a full computer, but that's not what Apple is offering right now. Annoying - yes. Anti-competetive - no (given the fact that they offer plenty of REAL computers).
I am not following your logic at all. How are consumers being prevented from deciding what to do with the products they buy? If you want to use media consumption devices like the iPad as a picture frame to hang up on the wall....you're more than welcome to do that. If instead you want to stream NetFlix videos, listen to music, or surf the internet, the iOS devices let you do all that too. With their hard earned money, consumers can use the devices the way they were designed to be used, or as a beer coaster for all Apple cares. The decision to not support Flash in iOS devices is not the same thing as "telling people what to do" with their devices....in fact, demanding Flash support is exactly like telling Apple how to design their products. Nobody is forced into buying Apple products...consumers have a choice how they want to spend their money, and if Flash support is a requirement, then they are free to purchase a product that meets their needs. If we were talking about something cross platform like Apple's Safari browser...then I could see your point on how it could be considered anti-competitive. But excluding anything from an iOS device (which only runs on Apple hardware) is at Apple's discretion, and the market will decide whether it hurts or helps Apple in the long run, based on what people end up purchasing.
Your "follow the money" analogy actually proves my point instead of yours. The exclusion of Flash has not doomed iOS devices to an early demise, and in fact, their sales seem to be increasing with every new device that gets released. As evidenced by iPad sales, and now iPhone 4, the perception that life without Flash is not an option is slowly fading from people's minds. Seems like plenty of people are willing to give up Flash to own an iOS device...and for those that aren't...they are free to buy alternatives that do promise Flash support, like Android devices.
And I'm not sure where you got the notion that Apple's stance against Flash has to do with competition in the App Store. While web apps have come a long way, they are still nowhere near as capable as native applications. And while there are several popular Flash games out there, the App Store developers creating quality content have nothing to worry about, especially since they can make an identical native app, or even web based one if they prefer, without using Flash. The App Store is successful because it does for mobile applications what iTunes does for music. To see proof of this, compare the Android market to the AppStore. Not only are developers "unrestricted" and "free" to develop in any way they choose on that platform...Flash and Flash-based apps are more then welcome over there. Yet, in spite of all the moaning and groaning over "walled gardens"....App Store developers continue to be more successful than Android developers, not to mention Windows Mobile, Symbian, and other alternatives. So, instead of Apple and the AppStore being threatened by Flash...the exact opposite is happening. Applications that were traditionally Flash-based only are having AppStore versions...the recent announcement of Farmville is a high profile example of this. And I don't even have to go into how big game studios are now starting to take interest, not to mention Nintendo seeing Apple as a threat....any "threat" that Flash apps could have posed are small potatoes under the circumstances.
Jobs is not "trash talking" about Flash, he is stating facts. Flash in its current form sucks for mobile devices...period. Adobe has created some outstanding products, and while some are still great today (like Photoshop), others (like DreamWeaver) are bloated crapware that no longer serve as the best tool for the job, the way they did when they first came out. Flash obviously falls into the latter camp. The way Flash was distributed, and the way Adobe sat on an innovative product once it gained dominant market share, is much more analogous to "big bad Micro$oft" of old. Adobe, and now Google, are the ones using the business tactics of a young MS.
Why wouldn't a company be able to decide how to design their own products? If the DOJ steps in and says Apple "must" support Flash, where will it end? The whole "Mac experience" would vanish as more and more products by any and all companies have to be supported. The whole premise of the Mac experience is that an Apple developed OS is running on Apple designed hardware.
I think your desire for Flash on iOS devices is clouding your logic. Flash was considered problematic before Steve Jobs ever even said a word. There was nothing that could be done about it though since it was already installed on the majority of computers. The only thing Jobs did was be proactive about preventing the same problem from happening in the mobile internet space. And how can you bash him when his decision only affects his own products...Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, HTC, etc. are all more than welcome to do whatever they wish with their own products.
Well this I can agree with.
I think what you're looking for is an Apple sanctioned, fully BTO product. You want the sleek design of Apple hardware, the intuitive design of Mac OSX, but with no restrictions or limitations. Sadly, that will never happen unless Apple splits into two companies. One would be iOS/OSX focused and cross platform (similar to Android or Windows), while the other would be a hardware manufacturer or maybe even along the lines of, or similar to, Dell/HP, etc. Either way the full Mac experience would never be the same, and Apple would have no advantage over its competitors.
Textbook case of Apple Denial Syndrome, huh?
Sony (and a bunch of others by now) have demonstrated that it is indeed possible to build a 13in device with better specs and less weight. The Air still has a lot of air inside (all these edges that add visual thinness are pretty much empty). Also, how much do you think a couple USB and an SD card port would add to the weight?
The 13in MBP is too heavy for a lot of people, and it features an obsolete optical drive which I never use.
For me, the iPad is replacing the breakfast laptop for morning browsing. To me it feels that Scottsdale is right: The only reason for Apple to exclude Flash (among many other things) is not technical, but to keep competition away from Apple's software cashcows. This is different from other dedicated devices - the iPad is, after all, not a TV or a game console, but an internet consumption device.
The argument to buy a Windows tablet does not really cut it for me, for the same reason as it did not in the Microsoft antitrust cases (customers could have bought Linux, no?). The majority of applications and the best user experience is available not on Windows or Android, but on the iPad/iPhone/iPod. Users want to have Flash in there, and Adobe and many Flash artists want to make it possible. If Apple just believed that Flash was technically inferior, they should let the market decide for the superior offering, instead of their SDK rules.
That said: whether the courts find enough reason to act, and whether such an enactment would be sufficient and helpful to solve the problem is an entirely different matter.
The weaknesses you have pointed out about the MBA and the weight of the 13 inch MBP are there. I agree with you that the 13 inch MBP is not a viable substitute for the MBA because it weighs 50 percent more than the MBA. What would you suggest, though, for those of us who want a small computer that runs both Windows and OS X without being hacked? That was a rhetorical question of course. The answer is that no computer other than a Mac can do that.
For me, I believe it's a compilation of anti-competitive practices that WILL add up to a real problem within two or three years. Apple is acting so badly for consumers right now it's ridiculous. Anyone that has studied antitrust cases can easily see Apple is getting itself into serious problems here. The problem is the line is so fine between going too far. However, this is a no brainer, in three or four different segments of products/software it sells it is going beyond acceptable... it will definitely be taken down. And whether Apple fans like it or not, it's only fair. Apple is acting worse than Microsoft ever did. But in reality, Apple should be trying to leverage its competitive advantages.
Have you ever seen the interview with Bill Gates after M$ lost? He had no clue in the world, because to him it was "fair" competition. M$ did what Apple is doing on a much smaller scale in terms of percentage of costs to its users. Meaning, what M$ was doing was low cost to its users and hurt its competitors terribly. What Apple is doing is high cost to its users and is destroying the established competition and what users want. Apple is truly making its customers pay dearly and unfairly for its competitive advantage. I expect Jobs to say the same types of things Gates said after he lost. It's a game on a tight-walk, but Apple is way past acceptable.
We will have years to talk about this, so there's no point in me continuing to argue this case now against people who say but HP is coming out with a version with Flash so that means Apple isn't doing anything wrong. Common misconception about consumer belief of a non-monopoly. Sorry that's difficult to comprehend but not an easy way to say it. Basically, people think when there's a competitor it's not a monopoly or when there's not a competitor there's a monopoly. Neither is normally true in reality. People use the phone company and say since there's only one phone company in their area that company has a monopoly. Finally, this has NOTHING to do with a monopoly. This is all about Apple being anti-competitive. Consumers and competitors are losing out BIG TIME because Apple is going far beyond the line of acceptable. As always, it takes years to get worked out. There's no point stressing it now, because it will be the number one "debate" on these forums for years to come. We haven't seen anything yet.
Maybe you should clarify your definition of anti-competitive then, since we clearly don't understand it the same way.
If you want to talk about how Apple positions the App Store...I could see your point if you wanted to call them "anti-competitive" since it would affect other similar entities by Android, Windows, and other mobile application marketplaces.
If you want to talk about how Apple leverages iTunes to gain an advantage with online music distribution...then I could see your point about them being "anti-competitive" since it would affect other online music distribution channels.
And now with iBooks, if you want to talk about Apple being "anti-competitive" with how they influence publishers, etc. I could see your point since it affects companies like Amazon.
But the inclusion/exclusion of Flash, and how it affects Adobe, is not the same thing as how Google, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. are being affected by the situations above. And whether or not Apple's stance on Flash affects consumers is not by itself "anti-competitive". Lumping everything together is confusing to say the least, and misleading. Steve Jobs should not have made claims like "the whole internet in your hands" when Flash is a big part of the internet, I will agree with you 100% on that point. But he is just doing what he does best...making people believe that they need products that they never even wanted before...as well as make people realize that they don't need products that they thought they couldn't live without before.
Does Apple engage in anti-competitive practices? I dunno, but can definitely see how their content distribution channels could be used to do so.