Razor Hail

On Oct 20, Apple revealed two new MacBook Airs (11” & 13” models).

I had thought that the 11” model ($999) would all but spell the end of the white, polycarbonite MacBook. That turned out wrong :-)

Apple made no subtractions to the product line that day, only additions. And what additions they were!

If you do any sort of traveling (even on a moderate basis) and don’t already have a MacBook, the MacBook Air is the *perfect* machine to have. Especially if you have a desktop already and just need something to travel with and do some light computing.

At $999 and 11”, it really is a great alternative to the existing ‘netbooks’ that are on the market now. It has a full-size keyboard, 11” screen and TONS of battery life.

It does cloud the waters a bit, though, when it comes to the iPad. Not as far as price, but as far as product function. I suppose if you already have a laptop, then you’d probably go for the iPad to use when traveling.

If you don’t already have a laptop, your choice is harder. Do you go for the iPad, or one of the MacBook Airs? It really is a tough decision. But either way, you can’t go wrong.

On Wednesday, Apple is holding a ‘Back to the Mac’ event. The current rumor du jour is new MacBook Airs along with a sneak preview of OS X 10.7 (Lion?)

I do think that the MacBook Air will see a refresh (espeically since it’s been almost twice the number of days (on average) since the last refresh (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Air))

The idea that there will be MacBook Airs (plural) is interesting. But where will a new one fit? The current lineup looks like:

iPad - $499/$629, $599/$729, $699/$829 (WiFi/WiFi+3G)

MacBook (13 in) - $999

MacBook Pro (13 in)- $1199

MacBook Air (13 in)- $1499 

Let’s assume the rumors of a smaller one are true and that the 13.3 inch model stays at $1499. What does that do to the MacBook & MacBook Pro (13”)? 

I’m thinking this spells the end of the line for the MacBook ($999) and the 11 inch Air will replace the MacBook at $999.

Let’s face it, the $999 MacBook priced so close to the $1199 MacBook Pro just doesn’t fit with Apple’s usual strict separation between models. Those two machines are just too similar (the essential difference is one has an aluminum case, the other polycarbonite plastic). 

If the new, smaller Air is $999, consumers can opt for the following:

iPad - $500-$829

MacBook Air (11 in) - $999

MacBook Pro (13 in) - $1199

MacBook Air (13 in) or MacBook Pro (13 in) -$1499

MacBook Pro (15 in) - $1799/$1999

A lineup like that fits more into Apple’s usual pricing/model structure.

A lot of talk lately is about Apple not being “open” and them “shutting out” Adobe; that Apple is not giving people a choice because they’re not supporting Flash. Apple isn’t supporting Flash because it’s some master plan to “kill Adobe”, or that Jobs is still pissed at Adobe for the late 90s, or anything ridiculous like that.

You will never see Flash on the iPhone because Apple doesn’t want to put itself in the position where it’s dependent on someone else.

Picture this scenario: Let’s say the number one App is a game based on Flash. Some time goes by and Apple releases an iPhone update that the current version of Flash is incompatible with. Most people won’t know or care that it’s actually *Flash* that is the problem. They’ll just know that “My iPhone is broke. I updated it and now <#1 game> doesn’t work anymore.”

Should Apple check in with Adobe before each iPhone OS update and wait for Adobe to upgrade their software before releasing their own? Or do they release it anyway and incur the wrath of people who are pissed that “their phone is broke from the new iPhone software”?

Apple doesn’t want to put itself in this position. By ensuring that all native apps are written using tools that Apple provides, they avoid any “dependency” issues.

Plus, Flash has horrible performance on mobile devices. Android keeps promising that Flash is “coming soon”. An “early 2009″ delivery date has been pushed to “2nd half 2010″.
Ever wonder why?

I’m not saying this out of “Apple fanboyism”. However, I realize that Apple created the iPhone and they really have the right to do as they damn well please with it.

Many people bitch & moan that Apple “should do this” & “they should do that”. If you don’t like what Apple is doing, or if their phone doesn’t have the features you need, no one is forcing you to buy it. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it. It’s that simple.

Looks like Adobe’s “Platform Evangelist”, Lee Brimelow, is a WEE bit upset about Apple’s latest SDK agreement. Specifically this part:

Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited.

Translation? Things like the upcoming Adobe’s Flash CS5 (which essentially has a ‘Flash-to-iPhone’ compiler) will NOT be allowed in the iTunes App Store.

Given that Lee’s blog is supposed to be an ‘official’ company communication “vehicle”, his last paragraph must REALLY have the suits at the “C-level” at Adobe wringing their hands today:

Now let me put aside my role as an official representative of Adobe for a moment as I would look to make it clear what is going through my mind at the moment. Go screw yourself Apple.

If Apple was on the fence about possibly allowing apps made with Flash CS5 into the app store (while banning other frameworks (Phonegap, etc)), then Lee has REALLY helped seal that decision. 

Hey, Lee, when you take your ball and go home, make sure you kick some rocks while you’re at it.