Apple is doing everything they can to ensure it doesn't appear as a premium product.
A decade ago, they had the 12" MacBook (not Air, just "MacBook") it it felt super premium because it was lighter and smaller than any Air/Pro ... and used by executives (because it targeted that use case).
By having this product:
- called "Neo"
- thicker
- as heavy
- limiting RAM
And marketing this towards kids and lower grades, they are avoiding any mistaking this product as premium.
Yeah that’s totally reasonable. I’m just curious about how do they make a thicker and heavier laptop with less capabilities… do they intentionally make the case thicker or something?
The MBA is an absolutely solid product that is actually sufficient for the large majority of full stack devs. I use it (MBA 15" M3) with a large complex TypeScript code base, and it is fast and amazing at 24GB of ram or more.
PS. The biggest speedup I got this past year (10x) was switching to native TypeScript (tsgo) and native linting (biome or oxlint).
> absolutely solid product that is actually sufficient for the large majority of full stack devs
Worth pointing out that the same thing is true for a $350 windows box. The news here isn't "The M5 Air is a disappointment", it's "Laptops are commoditized and boring".
Were you 3x as productive though? That's the analysis "they" tend to be doing.
I don't even use windows (beyond gaming). The Jedi and I are just off on the ends of the bell curve pointing and the stupid numbers on the stupid price tag.
And I repeat, you're doing a meme like performance art:
Me: The windows junk is three times cheaper and does the same thing.
You: "You should look at the total output of the human / cost + equipment. If the output of the human is 10% higher but the cost is only a fraction of their monthly salary, then it is worth it"
Jedi: The windows junk is three times cheaper and does the same thing.
I mean, I'm not actually as dumb as the chad in the meme. I know how to do division. I'm just unwilling to accept your framing like "10% higher output" without evidence, and am pointing to the bleedingly obvious and extremely large signal (price) that I can measure.
99.999% of the time, the obvious hypothesis is the right one. And the obvious hypothesis is that macs are outrageously overpriced and you should just by an Asus Whatnot instead.
There are only a couple of relatively niche spaces where things like cpu performance are really the bottleneck right now.
Hell - RPi 5 is perfectly fine for a huge range of development tasks. The 8gb version is very reasonable $125.
Can you find things that these boxes can't do? Absolutely. Do most developers do those things? ehhhh probably not. Especially not in the webdev space.
Would I still pick a nice machine if given the chance? Sure, I have cash to burn and I like having nice laptops (although not Apple...).
But part of the "AI craze" is that hardware genuinely is commoditized, and manufacturers really, REALLY wanted a new differentiating factor to sell people more laptops. There's not much reason to upgrade, especially if the old machine was a decent machine at time of purchase.
I have 8 year old dell XPS laptops that do just fine for modern dev.
> Depends. Are you doing dev on Microsoft's stack, or are you doing dev on all of the other stacks?
You can run docker in WSL better than you can on a Mac. You can run Linux natively on that box, too. "Stacks" is sort of ambiguous (my world is embedded junk, and the answer for using a mac with these oddball USB flashers and whatnot is pretty much "Just No, LOL"), but to claim that the mac is more broadly capable in these spaces when it is clearly less is.... odd.
Macs are popular among the SV set, so macs are strong in whatever the SV set thinks is important (thus "I bought a Mac Mini for OpenClaw!"). And everything else runs on $350 windows garbage.
Makes sense; according to Geekbench, 9955XX has about a 25% lead in multi-core over the base M4, and about a 5% lead in multi-core over the base M5. And more cores, so better for parallel Rust compilation.
I'm comparing it to my M2 laptop, but in practice the 9955HX is substantially faster than even the M4 Pro I have in my Mac Mini, about 30%~ or so in wall clock time for Rust compilation.
Yep, Pro only has 12 cores, and a third of those are efficiency cores. Even the Max loses some of its performance to efficiency cores. This is why I was so upset to see Intel replace a bunch of performance cores with efficiency cores. (Remember how Intel used to offer enthusiast chips with up to 18 full fucking cores? Now they think 8 full cores + 16 small useless cores is the answer? I am appalled. Even aside from HEDT they used to offer up to 10 full cores.) More, and more performant, hardware threads is almost always the path to faster Rust compilation. Lose a few of those to efficiency cores and even Apple can fall behind.
Why is the finder the way it is? Is it actually easier to use than (whatever the normal file browser windows and linux uses is called) if all you ever use is macs?
Most of the other quirks I can work around (though the default alt tab behavior not picking up windows of the same app is an insane default) but the finder is just unusable.
As much as this saddens me I think its because most computer users these days never think about files. Everything we do on a day to day basis exists as database records, either in sqlite databases hidden away in application data directories, or in the databases behind a million SaaS products. Music is done in Apple Music, photos are managed in iPhoto, and so and so forth.
In which way are other GUI “finder-equivalents” better? I’m not invested either way, but I’m quite curious. It would be a great biz opportunity to make an aftermarket replacement if there is huge gap.
Snarky but I agree. I dislike how much MacOS changes with each version. My kids have a Linux box (NUC). I wish we could have Linux on a late model Mac Mini
The amount of people that know how to and also want to replace their operating system is effectively a rounding error in the consumer electronic market in general.
I like Linux and had Linux laptops before, but can’t comprehend why anyone would go as far as replacing MacOS on an Apple laptop. The OS is just fine, there is nothing superior about Linux Desktop environments. And you can easily run Docker containers for work that needs Linux.
Oddly, except for font sizing, it's OK on the iPhone, and fine on the iPad, too, but it just bothers me endlessly on MacOS. I'm glad Sequoia still works well.
I don't get it either. I've rolled out well over a hundred of these in a higher education setting and I have never had one have a hardware issue or needed to retire it other than wanton damage. I still have a ton of M1s in circulation and they are great still. I had to just replace a Dell with only 2.5 years of service, they tend to fall apart.
Twenty years ago, I worked at a Dell laptop repair facility, which primarily supported education customers.
>other than wanton damage
Some fairly clever students read their warranties closely and figured out how to get annual upgrades without violating warranty exclusion clauses. Very clever. Very annoying.
> The MBA is an amazing value, and appears to have only gotten slightly cheaper.
Looks to me like the base model went up by $100, no?
The whining is just whining. It's a fine laptop, but it's not significantly improved from the one they shipped a year ago. Add to that the fact that laptops as a whole are well on the way down their commoditization slope and the general HN desire to cheer about Great New Apple Devices, this is for sure a backwards step.
I retired my M1 MacBook Air last year, really out of power greed. I wanted to play with local LLMs (lol).
I seriously never had issues with my m1 in my workloads. Dev stuff, docker, etc. editing 30min 4k GoPro videos. I probably would these days with rust dev stacked in there but yeah. Can’t agree more, they’re an amazing value.
The MB Air M line is a personal contender for best product of all time: Fantastic performance without fans, amazing battery life, high res display and build quality at that price point.
When the M1 came out it was quite frankly unbelievable. And, even after all these years, I still don't see who would beat it across those dimensions.
My M1 Air is going strong as my travel & about-town laptop. It can do everything I do on my vastly more powerful M4 mbp, aside from compile multiple mobile apps simultaneously in less than a minute. Absolutely insane value and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
I have an MBA15M3 that is lovely. With 1mm thermal heat pads (internal, CPU|case), I was able to increase the run-time before throttling significantly.
Among my favorite evening companions. Much more durable than initially conceivable.
Could be worse. OpenAI is asking for ID verification to use Codex 5.3, through Persona, which was just exposed as doing extremely dodgy surveillance stuff.
They could be considering the new high end display a different product rather than a refresh (for marketing purposes at least).
I recall the XDR being announced alongside the last Mac Pro redesign. No new Mac Pro yet, so maybe they’ll announce the new large display whenever that is announced?
This seems odd to me. I have never seen obfuscation techniques in first party Apple software - certainly not in Espresso or ANECompiler and overall nowhere at all except in media DRM components (FairPlay).
Apple are really the major OS company _without_ widespread use of a first party obfuscator; Microsoft have WarBird and Google have PairIP.
> Apple are really the major OS company _without_ widespread use of a first party obfuscator
You might want to look into techniques like control-flow flattening, mixed boolean–arithmetic transformations, opaque predicates, and dead code injection — Apple uses all of these. The absence of a publicly named obfuscator doesn’t mean Apple doesn’t apply these methods (at least during my time there).
Ever wonder why Apple stopped shipping system frameworks as individual .dylib files? Here’s a hint: early extraction tools couldn’t preserve selector information when pulling libraries from the shared cache, which made the resulting decompiled pseudocode unreadable.
I'm very familiar with CFG flattening and other obfuscation techniques, thanks.
That's interesting; I suppose I must not have touched the parts of the platform that use them, and I've touched a fair amount of the platform.
Again, I _have_ seen plenty of obfuscation techniques in DRM/FairPlay, but otherwise I have not, and again, I am entirely sure the ANE toolchain from CoreML down through Espresso and into AppleNeuralEngine.framework definitely does not employ anything I would call an obfuscation technique.
> Ever wonder why Apple stopped shipping system frameworks as individual .dylib files?
If the dyld cache was supposed to be an obfuscation tool, shipping the tools for it as open source was certainly... a choice. Also, the reason early tools couldn't preserve selector information was selector uniqueing, which was an obvious and dramatic performance improvement and explained fairly openly, for example - http://www.sealiesoftware.com/blog/archive/2009/09/01/objc_e... . If it was intended to be an obfuscation tool, again it was sort of a baffling one, and I just don't think this is true - everything about the dyld cache looks like a performance optimization and nothing about it looks like an obfuscator.
I’m still relatively new to HN, but I continue to find it fascinating when people share their perspectives on how things work internally. Before joining Apple, I was a senior engineer on the Visual Studio team at Microsoft, and it's amazing how often I bump into people who hold very strong yet incorrect assumptions about how systems are built and maintained.
> I suppose I must not have touched the parts of the platform that use them
It’s understandable not to have direct exposure to every component, given that a complete macOS build and its associated applications encompass tens of millions of lines of code. /s
That said, there’s an important distinction between making systems challenging for casual hackers to analyze and the much harder (if not impossible) goal of preventing skilled researchers from discovering how something works.
> Also, the reason early tools couldn't preserve selector information was selector uniqueing
That isn't even remotely how we were making things difficult back then.
I led the SGX team at Intel for a while, working on in-memory, homomorphic encryption. In that case, the encryption couldn’t be broken through software because the keys were physically fused into the CPU. Yet, a company in China ultimately managed to extract the keys by using lasers to remove layers of the CPU die until they could read the fuses directly.
I’ll wrap up by noting that Apple invests extraordinary effort into making the critical components exceptionally difficult to reverse-engineer. As with good obfuscation—much like good design or craftsmanship—the best work often goes unnoticed precisely because it’s done so well.
I'm done here - you go on believing whatever it is you believe...
I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread by the way, between someone who is clearly informed and educated in platform research, and pretty enthusiastic and interested in the field, and yourself - an deeply experienced engineer with truly novel contributions to the conversation that we don't often see.
Looking very forward to more of your insight/comments. Hopefully your NDA has expired on some topic that you can share in detail!
Thank you for your comment. I started this thread just as a simple "job well done" to the authors. I didn't expect to be told that my work doesn't exist. ;-)
No one ever notices plastic surgery when it is done well. The same can be true for obfuscation. But, as I indicated, no amount of obfuscation is foolproof when dealing with experienced, well-funded attackers. The best you can do is make their task annoying.
No it doesn't. Because literally anybody who knows anything about NASA and follows the Space industry in detail has known about most of the issues since 2015 or even in 2011 when this whole new Post-Constellation shit-show started. And many of the problems have been talked about since the day NASA created Artemis. Destin is just more famous then many of the people in nerd forums.
Destin analysis is ok and he makes a number of good points, but it very pro-Alabama (Mafia) inside NASA and contractors since he very clearly is influence by the strong Albama presence and those are the parts of the industry he interacts with.
So Destin misses a huge amount of the relevant puzzle pieces, or he simply doesn't talk about them.
He also simple makes a few assumptions that are fundamentally wrong, namely the different targets of the program. The goal was never to repeat Apollo and landing a few people a few times is totally different from the original goals of Artemis.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LFMS6uVg3V3agVZc6?g_st=ic
If the case, wonder how far this Band of Holes went on for originally.
reply