Macopinion

Do the Opposite

by Marc Zeedar macopinion@designwrite.com

It's an ironic fact in business today that many people love to talk about "thinking outside the box," but those same people deride you when you do. Business is all about copying what works, so is it any wonder that businesspeople get nervous when someone tries something new?

Apple has an amazing history of bucking the popular and accepted trends of business. When the trend was "computers should cost millions and be owned by corporations," Apple invented the personal computer. When the trend was following IBM and making a hard-to-use geek-oriented DOS box, Apple came out with a radical graphical interface Macintosh. When PCs were common and the beige box ruled, Apple brought out attractive color cases.

Universally every time Apple introduces something new, the pundits and naysayers deride the move saying how it will fail, how it has too many flaws and limitations, how it costs too much, and point to Apple's competition and say, "No one else does it that way!"

• The original Macintosh was mocked and called a "toy."
• The first iMac was criticized for not having a floppy drive.
• The original iPod was blasted as outrageously expensive.
• The iPhone was lambasted for being tied to AT&T, for not having a physical keyboard and user-changeable battery, and for being too expensive.

Now Apple introduces the MacBook Air -- a product they themselves admit is targeted at a subset of the general population -- and the commentators are fainting in horror at Apple's "huge mistake."

Of course these "analysts" all say the same things: large footprint, few ports, no optical drive, low storage capacity, no upgradability, no user-changeable battery, too expensive, and so on. The message is really getting old. Can't these morons think of something new to say?

Granted, the MacBook Air isn't for everyone. That's the whole point. If you miss that, you've missed the whole thing!

I don't need a MacBook Air. It doesn't fit my requirements. But that doesn't mean I think it's a poor notebook. In fact, I think the opposite. I think it's genius.

Know What To Compromise
The key with designing any sub-notebook is deciding what to compromise. You have to compromise on some things, that's just all there is to it. There's just no other way to build the thing. You can't have everything.

I used to work at a printshop and my boss had a great sign on the wall. It read:

You may have your printing Fast Cheap Great quality Pick any two of the three.

I always loved this sign because the compromises it had built-in made sense on a real, practical level. We could turn around a print job quickly and cheaply, but the quality would suffer. If we made sure the job was well done, it either cost more or took more time. You just couldn't have all three at once.

When engineers design a sub-notebook, they face similar compromises. Most companies focus on footprint -- the physical dimensions of the laptop. That's what most people think about when considering "size."

Apple, of course, zigs whenever others zag. If most people assume "size" means width and depth, Apple will look at the thing a different way and focus on the third dimension, thickness (height). Footprint is really only significant in cramped quarters -- like if you are trying to compute in a phone booth. And who does that? (If you do, then a handheld device probably makes more sense than a laptop anyway.)

The key problem with reducing a laptop's footprint is that that means reducing the size of the keyboard and screen. That is a compromise Apple decided not to make and it's a brilliant one.

Today's computer interfaces are designed for large, high-resolution displays (small screen devices need a custom interface, like the iPhone). I am writing this on a MacBook's 13" screen and even with Spaces and Exposé to help out, the screen is not big enough. For simpler tasks a smaller screen can be okay, but these days "simple" means web browsing, email, word processing, video playing, graphic design, music, games, and more. I wouldn't want to do real work on anything less than 13" (and keep in mind I've been doing graphic design since the Mac SE's 9" screen days so I know how to work with small screens).

Along the same lines, a full-size keyboard is a must for a "real" machine. I'm a writer and depend on a good keyboard. Typing must be one of the top things people do with a computer and compromising on the keyboard is stupid decision. I would say that for a writer, the MacBook Air is the ideal machine. It's plenty powerful for running complex software if needed and simple word processing will just scream on it. The 80GB drive is huge for text, the screen is excellent, and five hours of battery life is plenty. I can picture writers taking MacBook Airs with them to coffee shops and Internet cafes for a morning or afternoon of writing. No need to lug along cables and lots of external stuff: just take the bare laptop (put it in a sleeve if you want). I do believe I'm starting to drool a little.

In the case of the MacBook Air, Apple made the correct decision: keep the screen and keyboard full size and go thin. There are many who disagree with this, arguing that overall weight is more important than thinness, but I'm not sure I agree. Obviously I haven't used a MacBook Air yet -- they ship next month -- but I suspect its extreme thinness provokes a degree of emotional lightness that other laptop's, even lighter ones, won't be able to match. The Air just seems lighter, even if it isn't. When you see a thicker, clunkier laptop next to a MacBook Air, even if the PC is just 2.2 pounds to the Air's three, your mind will tell you the Air is lighter.

I will also argue the other "compromises" Apple made are hardly compromises at all. I see many pundits comparing MacBook Air to the Mac G4 Cube which is the wrong analogy: the MacBook Air is like the original no-floppy-disk iMac. Apple could have wedged a floppy drive into the iMac but chose not to do so. It was a strategic decision. Apple -- Steve Jobs in particular -- saw the future and it didn't include floppy disks.

Likewise, there are sub-notebooks that include optical drives, so it is possible to get a low profile unit in there (though probably not as thin as Apple wanted). But Apple didn't want to bother. What's the point? Other than using my MacBook's drive to install software or occasionally play a DVD, I never use the drive. I'm even less likely to use it while traveling. Today we routinely download CD- and even DVD-sized files from the Internet. Most software is bought via download today anyway. Music has already made the leap to digital and movies are on their way. Soon the need for physical media will be quaint, like floppy disks today.

Apple's solutions for the missing drive are equally elegant: a simple $99 external that doesn't even require a power cable or the clever software feature that lets you borrow another computer's drive via wireless networking.

I say that the lack of optical, along with the lack of Ethernet and other ports, is a strategic move on Apple's part. It's a look to the future. Wireless is the future, not Ethernet. Ports are for wires. They tether a computer. With wireless backup via Time Machine and Time Capsules, wireless printing via shared printers in Mac OS X, and Bluetooth for a mouse (which some people prefer to a trackpad), why do you need ports? Apple has included the most critical ports: a headphone jack for stereo music, video for driving a large external display, and USB for iPods, printers, and other peripherals you connect occasionally.

Frankly, though I'm not in the target market for a MacBook Air (I don't travel much), the lack of ports actually add to its attractiveness for me. Ports are ugly and I tend to hook up so many things my laptop soon looks like a tethered blimp. The MacBook Air would essentially force me to do more with wireless and the more I do that, the more convenient I find it and the less I like wires. As more people do this, wireless will gain even more traction.

Finally, we come to the unremovable battery. Why this is controversial I'll never know. Every iPod ships with an inaccessible battery and while the pundits whine and moan, it hasn't seemed to diminish sales at all. All my current laptops -- including my "ancient" PowerBook G4 -- are still using their original batteries. Granted, I probably should replace them as most get very little battery life (less than an hour), but why bother? Like I said, I don't travel much, so my machines are connected to electricity most of the time. I used to always buy additional batteries with my laptops, and once I even had a third-party external battery pack. Of course I rarely used any of them. The extra batteries just added weight I always brought along "just in case" and never used!

Granted, there are some road warriors that actually need extended battery life. The MacBook Air is probably not for them. (Though no doubt third parties will produce external batteries for the Air, so that is an option since those kind of users are used to such solutions.) For the vast majority of people, however, the Air's "battery issue" is just FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) spread to hurt the product's reputation.

Let the Market Decide
If the MacBook Air is not for you, that's fine. But the tone of most negative articles is that it's not for anyone, or that anyone considering it is a moron since better, cheaper machines are available. These people are forgetting that what they see as negatives -- the Air's missing features -- others see as advantages. Many are willing to pay a premium for a simpler, lighter, sleeker machine.

I believe there is a market for the MacBook Air. Until we get some sales data we won't know just how popular, but instead of criticizing the thing because it doesn't meet our needs, let's let the people who want it buy it.

macopinion@designwrite.com