lensman

Depends what you mean by "business laptop". I think it will be fine for running office productivity software, but not so much for video production, serious photoshop work, or heavy software development. I'm sure it will be fine for light development work, though.

Lol, I don't think fewer ports can count as a plus. I think everyone wants slimness as well as at least two type-C ports. Good point about preferring slimness over extra ports, though.

What do the benchmarks say about Bay Trail Atom vs. the latest Core M?

ScottC

The processor doesn't really matter here. That single USB port pretty much disqualifies this from any kind of serious video production work.

WIRunner

But if out of the box it has performance like a 4 year old machine, this will not bode well for the longer term viability. Regular updates to browsers, office, etc, will really start to put a drain on resources in a year. I had a netbook a few years ago, upgraded the HDD, to an SSD. It was plenty fast at first, but software upgrade after upgrade really took its toll on it. Upgrading to Windows 8 helped (seriously.) But eventually even loading Chrome took a while. I retired it in favour of a Chromebook, which too quickly became sluggish with the revisions.

lensman

I'd even question anyone using any ultrabook-class device for serious video production. Isn't that what Apple sells the Mac Pro for? I mean, you need to at least drive a couple of 2k monitors if not more not to mention the storage subsystem. I'm not personally familiar with post-processing but I do a lot of transcoding and I'd guess that you really benefit from CPU when actually manipulating the video vs just editing.

My point being that I agree that there are a number of reasons why you wouldn't use the thinnest, lightest, least powerful notebook in Apple's product line for video processing.

My early 2008 MacBook Pro is still fine for business applications and anything in the browser. My Netbook from the same era is also totally unusable at this point even for web browsing.

deniah

my 2011 and 2014 macbook air ran all business software, lightroom and photoshop, transcoded GB+ videos, and even produced 720p videos occasionally (limited only by my interest), all without a hiccup

why are they slagged as browsing only machines? thats a silly dismissmal

FreakingFlyer

Agreed, but don't forget that the first Airs were seriously slower than the other Mac laptops, and while they're still slower, the discrepancy has narrowed significantly.

I'd guess this is where Apple plans to innovate and is devoting a lot of resources to this laptop, figuring it will trickle-down to the others.

ScottC

One of the first real reviews is out from Engadget, and despite their hyperbole title, it has a surprisingly low rating (81). For reference, the new MBP scored 91, and the new Dell XPS 13 (which is the same price with better specs) is at 89.

Another rare miss for Apple in the same week as the Apple Watch mostly got panned.

That said, I'm sure neither of these bad reviews will slow sales down.

WIRunner

In reading the Engadget review they seem okay with it, but there's no standout/breakout thing about it. The Air or one of the new ultrabooks would probably be a better option. And for basically filling the whole thing with battery, it didn't do particularly well in their battery life testing.

planemechanic

You must be reading a different internet.

tmiw

For reference, what did Engadget give the original MacBook Air when it first came out?

WIRunner

They've changed their rating systems since 2008. Here's the article though. http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/macbook-air-review/

They did end that review with this ominous sentence though: Give us the lovechild of the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro, and it's all over.

ARS published their review... also not so hot.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/04...ot-quite-here/

They said it feels like something between a 2011 and 2012 Macbook Air, and their speed testing puts it just slightly faster than a 2011 MBA. They're also not recommending it as a solo machine, and have generally rated the MBA or rMBP as better alternatives.

ScottC

I haven't seen any reviews that say "go out and buy this". All the reviews I've read complained about performance, weird gestures and price.

mikel51

After reading CNET, NYTIMES and WSJ reviews--it gets a close but not quite review. Beautiful machine, but too short a battery life, wish for more powerful processor (but thats not a deal breaker), and pretty serious complaint about only having one port.

The apple watch on the other hand has been getting great reviews. The limitations are cited, but the reviewers think that the advantages and joy of using clearly outweigh the limitations.

Even though I am in the market for a new travel laptop, I will probably pass on the macbook for now. I am pretty on the fence about the watch, but I may let my wife be our family guinea pig.

robertw477

If you do a google search you will find a ton of negative reviews on the original Iphone. Definitely some haters on the first IPAD as well.

WIRunner

The difference, looking back particularly at the iPhone, is that it was groundbreaking. Yeah, phones had touchscreens in 2007, but the ecosystem that was around then was extremely different. (The HTC Dash, HTC Touch, and the Blackberry Curve were the common phones, so two Windows Mobile and a BBOS device.) The Macbook is entering an ecosystem where Apple is competing against itself, in that $1300 price range sits the Macbook Pro (which is faster, and has better battery life) and the Macbook Air (which is also faster, and has better battery life, but not as nice of a screen), and a whole lot of other Windows 8.1 Ultrabooks (which are equally as fast, with equally good displays, and about the same battery life.) The thing will undoubtedly sell a ton of them, but there will be that person who looks at one and ends up with the MBP or the MBA... and it may not be that power user. Apple is facing a bit of an uphill struggle with it, I have no doubt that the 2nd generation will include a second USB-C port, the only reason why Apple didn't include a traditional USB port was because they're Apple, that's why.

I like to use my mother as the "yard stick" when it comes to technology, and we were looking at getting her a new computer (she's settled on some Dell behemoth) and when looking at the Macbook her question was simply "Where do I plug my mouse in?" I explained it to her, the follow up question was "Where do I plug my iPhone in to charge it?" And again explaining it to her, and telling her that she'd need another $80 for the dongle, she became suddenly disinterested.