<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The MacBook Air Is Doomed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 04:22:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alfie</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-594398</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alfie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-594398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is no point removing the optical drive from the pro. DVDs (like CDs) arnt going to be wiped out by the download industry and many people I know prefer using CDs for gaming to avoid 15GB downloads. 
The pro is already very light and thin, getting rid of a, quite frankly, vital optical drive is stupid. The lack of an optical drive is what made me get a pro and not an air. 
Anyway, why would apple make the pro lighter and thinner? It would, as you said, make the air redundant.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no point removing the optical drive from the pro. DVDs (like CDs) arnt going to be wiped out by the download industry and many people I know prefer using CDs for gaming to avoid 15GB downloads.<br />
The pro is already very light and thin, getting rid of a, quite frankly, vital optical drive is stupid. The lack of an optical drive is what made me get a pro and not an air.<br />
Anyway, why would apple make the pro lighter and thinner? It would, as you said, make the air redundant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Next Apple Event and Product Updates: Apple &#171;</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351171</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Next Apple Event and Product Updates: Apple &#171;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:02:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] on its niche from opposite ends of performance and portability, the MacBook Air is probably doomed. If not, the most logical date for a significant revision is early 2011 when Sandy Bridge goes into [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on its niche from opposite ends of performance and portability, the MacBook Air is probably doomed. If not, the most logical date for a significant revision is early 2011 when Sandy Bridge goes into [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rumor Has It: MacBook Air Update Tomorrow</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351170</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rumor Has It: MacBook Air Update Tomorrow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 18:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] As interesting as a new MacBook Air would be, no update would be even more interesting, at least from the perspective of those who follow Apple. With the advent of the iPad, the rationale for an ultra-portable Mac starting at $1,500 has become even more dubious. If the MacBook Air is not updated tomorrow, or at the latest by WWDC next month, that will likely signal that the MacBook Air is indeed doomed. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] As interesting as a new MacBook Air would be, no update would be even more interesting, at least from the perspective of those who follow Apple. With the advent of the iPad, the rationale for an ultra-portable Mac starting at $1,500 has become even more dubious. If the MacBook Air is not updated tomorrow, or at the latest by WWDC next month, that will likely signal that the MacBook Air is indeed doomed. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ernie</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351168</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ernie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:51:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351168</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;Keep it but sell it at price in line with other laptops with similar specs. How much is that? 699.00&lt;/p&gt;
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keep it but sell it at price in line with other laptops with similar specs. How much is that? 699.00</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ks2problema</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351167</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ks2problema]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fanboyz -- of any ilk, whether Apple, Microsoft, or Google (or any other commercial brand) crack me the heck up. The desperate justifications and pretzel logic, the elaborate and ultimately rather pathetic rationalizations. 

Good stuff.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fanboyz &#8212; of any ilk, whether Apple, Microsoft, or Google (or any other commercial brand) crack me the heck up. The desperate justifications and pretzel logic, the elaborate and ultimately rather pathetic rationalizations. </p>
<p>Good stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KC</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351166</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[KC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have both MBA (trackpad w button) &amp; MBP(trackpad w/o button) and I prefer a lot the trackpad w button on MBA. Its very clumsy and non-intuitive  to perform primary &amp; secondary click on MBP&#039;s Trackpad w/o button. You can activate secondary click/tap by tap on the Lower right corner but it means you may have to raise your index finger to use it; you can&#039;t really use your thumb on these trackpad w/o button unless you want a lot of false input. Multi-Trackpad to support multi-touch is good but getting rid of the the button is a step backward.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have both MBA (trackpad w button) &amp; MBP(trackpad w/o button) and I prefer a lot the trackpad w button on MBA. Its very clumsy and non-intuitive  to perform primary &amp; secondary click on MBP&#8217;s Trackpad w/o button. You can activate secondary click/tap by tap on the Lower right corner but it means you may have to raise your index finger to use it; you can&#8217;t really use your thumb on these trackpad w/o button unless you want a lot of false input. Multi-Trackpad to support multi-touch is good but getting rid of the the button is a step backward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sothos</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351165</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sothos]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the macbook pro forgoes the optical drive, it effectively takes the form of the macbook air. Even if it would be named the macbook pro and the air name was removed, the air contributed the form factor and the pro contributed the name. Guess what product line just died.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the macbook pro forgoes the optical drive, it effectively takes the form of the macbook air. Even if it would be named the macbook pro and the air name was removed, the air contributed the form factor and the pro contributed the name. Guess what product line just died.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David W.</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351164</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David W.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The MacBook Air was a great machine when it was introduced and still fulfills a marketing niche.

The MBA was not meant to be the primary Mac for the house. The typical user is one who buys a iMac for the house, has a computer at work, and wants something very light and portable to carry in between. The MBA still fulfills that purpose weighing only 3 pounds vs. almost 5 pounds for the new MacBook and 4 1/2 pounds for the MacBook Pro. (Yes, the MacBook is actually heavier than the MacBook Pro). That 1 1/2 pounds makes a big difference when you carry it around all day on your shoulder. 

So, there&#039;s still a good market for the MBA. Why wasn&#039;t it refreshed in the last two rounds? Because it already had a unibody construction, multi-touch trackpad, backlit screen, and all the other features that were recently added to the MacBook Pro line and the Mac Book.

However, if the MacBook Pro does get lighter and a bit thinner (and that WILL happen), the MBA will be dropped. I wouldn&#039;t cry for it any more than I cried when Apple dropped the iBook because the MacBook&#039;s price dropped and the iBook looked too much like the MacBook.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The MacBook Air was a great machine when it was introduced and still fulfills a marketing niche.</p>
<p>The MBA was not meant to be the primary Mac for the house. The typical user is one who buys a iMac for the house, has a computer at work, and wants something very light and portable to carry in between. The MBA still fulfills that purpose weighing only 3 pounds vs. almost 5 pounds for the new MacBook and 4 1/2 pounds for the MacBook Pro. (Yes, the MacBook is actually heavier than the MacBook Pro). That 1 1/2 pounds makes a big difference when you carry it around all day on your shoulder. </p>
<p>So, there&#8217;s still a good market for the MBA. Why wasn&#8217;t it refreshed in the last two rounds? Because it already had a unibody construction, multi-touch trackpad, backlit screen, and all the other features that were recently added to the MacBook Pro line and the Mac Book.</p>
<p>However, if the MacBook Pro does get lighter and a bit thinner (and that WILL happen), the MBA will be dropped. I wouldn&#8217;t cry for it any more than I cried when Apple dropped the iBook because the MacBook&#8217;s price dropped and the iBook looked too much like the MacBook.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351163</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For me, Macbook Air got a big hardware mistake!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For me, Macbook Air got a big hardware mistake!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/apple/the-macbook-air-is-doomed/#comment-351162</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Phil]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theappleblog.com/?p=27995#comment-351162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good Article. I sincerely like it!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good Article. I sincerely like it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

