I think the MacBook was intended to be the “permanent” replacement for the Air. I get the sense that Apple back-designed the Retina Air when sales of the MacBook were less than expected. Perhaps it will make a comeback if and when Apple switches to its own ARM chips for Macs, rather than rely on Intel. The Y chips now are 9W and require active cooling. But Apple’s A13X has similar benchmark performance as the chip in the base MacBook Pro and doesn’t require active cooling.
[automerge]1575484742[/automerge]
I agree about the Air. I have a hard time recommending it since it isn’t much lighter than the MacBook Pro, and isn’t that much more powerful than the 12” MacBook. If it were 2.4 lbs like the old 11.6” then I’d have an easier time recommending it.
Absolutely, that's how I feel about the current MacBook Air. If you consider all factors of why you buy a Mac laptop (weight, size, specs, performance) against the cost, in terms of best-bang-for-the-buck, the MacBook Air compared to the 13" MacBook Pro seems to be 60% of the bang for 85% of the buck. These are made up numbers, just to illustrate a point, before anyone pulls me on them.
For me, the Macbook had a more defined place in the lineup both before and after the MacBook Air got a retina refresh. I love it when people say "Yes but the MacBook Air..." when comparing it to the Macbook, because most of their arguments are almost completely ignoring the fact that the 13" MBP exists. Yes, it's got more ports, bigger screen, more power, but if you're after all of that then you've got the 13" MBP. And it's also cute when people say about why they should have done this-and-that with the Macbook, like add a second USB-C port. Yes, I'm one of the first people who would have loved a second USB-C port, but it's not as easy as 'sticking it in'. Same goes for CPU, ram speed, etc etc. The whole point is that they got it that small, light and silent by making compromises across the board. If you start adding a second port (hell, lets make them both thunderbolt ports, since this is all just an oversight), proper CPUs, a big fat fan, scissor keyboard, guess what...it's not a MacBook anymore. Obviously, any changes are possible, but any change affects the whole architecture, and something like a second port would have likely had several rippling consequences across the whole machine.
I think the Macbook just fell between the gaps in the lineup. Maybe Apple thought that people would appreciate an ultra-portable laptop more than they actually did. Or maybe there wasn't enough breathing room between the products; for instance, let's imagine how well it would have done if the 12.9" iPad and MacBook Air didn't exist, and the Macbook lived between the 10" iPad and the 13" MBP.
I still think that if Apple doesn't plan to resurrect the Macbook, then they should have made the refreshed MacBook Air a halfway house between the Macbook and the 13" MBP; well, I'd say leaning more towards the Macbook than the Pro, to give a broader scope of scale between weight and performance. The Macbook was 0.92kg, the Air is 1.25kg and the 13" Pro is 1.37kg. I think that they should have made the new Air around 1.1kg to 1.15kg, allowing them to beef it up a little more and get that extra port in there (or perhaps, a single USB-C gen2 port or thunderbolt port, if possible). That to me, would make for a better, more defined lineup.
But all of this is off the assumption that Apple aren't planning a Macbook resurrection, which hopefully they are...