Christmas in America is troubling, for a variety of reasons. Sarah and I are trying to be extremely intentional as we raise our children, and have wanted to bring that intentionality to Christmas.
- We don’t want them developing an overly consumer-oriented worldview.
- We don’t want them to think of their time with relatives — especially around the holidays — as, primarily, a vector for Stuff.
- We have intentionally limited the number of toys they have in the house. We’ve seen a direct link between limiting toys and increased creativity in the kids.
Also, we weren’t comfortable with the Santa narrative. Not the in-the-moment narrative — North Pole, sleigh, chimney, tree, presents, cookies — that’s … fine, I guess. What we had an issue with was the longitudinal narrative: “We’re going to create this story that isn’t true, that we’ll tell you is The Truth. In fact, if you question us on it, we’ll double-down, and show you proofs of why Santa is Real (after all, could Dad have really eaten those cookies? pffft; why else would everyone talk about him if he isn’t real?). Then, when you’re a little older, you’ll find out the actual truth from your classmates at school or will otherwise figure it out, won’t want to bring it up, and so we’ll pass into a state of unacknowledged silence on the matter, where you’ll kind of pretend to be into it, but mainly because you get More Stuff, but we kind of know that you’ve figured it out, but won’t bring it up. And then maybe Santa fades into the background over time.” That narrative was the one we weren’t comfortable with.
So how do you balance the desire for a more intentional family with the standard Christmas narrative in the US? How do you deal with the mythos of Santa Claus and the presents he brings, which has become the key component of most people’s Christmas story? How do you remove Santa from the equation, but keep the kids from being total weirdos on the playground?
Here’s what we’ve done.
A new narrative: Santa as Game
From the time the girls were young, we’ve told them that “Santa Claus” is a game that everyone around the world plays together. You play the game by pretending that he’s real. You lose the game if you break character and talk about him not being real. And you definitely don’t talk about Santa not being real at school (mainly said so they aren’t the ones who break the news to younger kids on the playground).
And Santa, being just a character from the game, isn’t actually involved in Christmas at our house. So the kids get the idea of what Santa represents, and they can talk about him with other kids, or teachers at school, but don’t have any expectations that he’s real, or that he’s involved in the time we spend with our family.
We didn’t come up with this approach on our own. I’m sure it’s been around for a while. We probably read about it on MetaFilter or somewhere back when Lucy was a toddler.
It’s worked well.
For one thing, it’s the truth, so we don’t feel like we have to come up with elaborate ruses to tell the girls.
For another, it gives us something where our whole family is in it together — we’ve let the girls in on the secret rules of how the game is played. (Kids love being let in on Secret Knowledge.)
And for a third thing — and I’m finding more and more as a parent that this is crucial — it appeals to the homo ludens part of our nature. In fact, the five characteristics of play (taken from the just-linked Wikipedia page) are important here:
- Play is free.
- Play is not “ordinary” or “real” life.
- Play is distinct from “ordinary” life both as to locality and duration.
- Play creates (and even demands) order.
- Play is connected with no material interest.
That all sounds like Santa-as-Game at Christmas. But — wait a minute — what about that last one? No material interest? What about gifts?
There’s a whole post I could write on this, but the gist of it is that we keep presents simple and intentional. And they’re all from members of the family (not Santa).
I know there are factors that go into our being able to approach Christmas (and Santa) this way, and not every family can kill Santa. And I’m sure we’re warping our kids in our own unique ways.
But if your kids are young enough that you haven’t set expectations around Christmas, or if you’re looking for an alternate gift-giving narrative for Santa and the Christmas season, or if you’re looking for a way to softly transition away from the “Santa is real” narrative, “Santa is a game people play” has worked really well for us.
I’d love to hear how you handle Christmas and Santa. Shoot me a note on Twitter (@charliepark) if you want to chat about it.
For most of my work, I’m the only developer. That means that, up until now, I’ve mostly just worked in a master branch of my code, and haven’t utilized branches in Git.
But I’m eager to get better at using Git, so I’ve started creating branches for feature pushes. I create the branch, jump into it, make my changes, commit them, jump back to ‘master’, merge the changes, push them to the main repo at GitHub, and jump back to my branch to make more changes.
The problem? That’s a lot of steps.
Just so the steps are clear: After you’ve made your commits (to, say, a branch called “popups”) and are ready to push your repo to GitHub you have to type:
git checkout master
git merge popups
git push
git checkout popups
Even with shortcuts and aliases, it’s a number of unnecessary steps. They’re cumbersome, especially since nobody else is pushing code to this repository, so I don’t have to worry about conflicts with other peoples’ code. Apart from the branch name, my code to push it to GitHub looked identical every single time.
I wanted a way to reduce the process down to one simple shortcut. I asked for help on Twitter and got comments from Jared and Ken, and was able to put together a quick bash script.
If you add the following line to your .bash_profile, you’ll execute the four lines above (obviously, intelligently handling the name of the active branch) just by typing in gpm in your Terminal:
alias gpm="temp=$(git branch 2> /dev/null | grep '^\*' | sed 's/^\*\ //'); git checkout master; git merge $temp; git push; git checkout $temp;" # mnemonic: git push master
Update: Actually, I found a better option. This puts the work into an external bash script, which looks like this:
ref=$(git symbolic-ref HEAD 2> /dev/null) || exit 0
CURRENT="${ref#refs/heads/}"
git checkout master
git merge ${CURRENT}
git push origin master
git checkout ${CURRENT}
I save that in my root folder, as .ship (so total path: ~/.ship).
Then, I alias that in my .bash_profile as alias gpm="sh ~/.ship" and I’m good to go.
Obviously, if you’re on a team, you’ll want to make sure you’re up to date before you push to the remote origin/master, but if you’re working solo like me, this helps cut down the friction on using Git more efficiently.
And if you want a bunch of other shortcuts that do far more than mine, check out Ken’s shell commands, posted as a gist at GitHub.
Last night I had the great good fortune to see my favorite band, John Darnielle / The Mountain Goats, in Richmond. It was the first show in their tour in support of their new album, Transcendental Youth, which you can stream from Rolling Stone.
This isn’t a review of the album, or the band, or the show, as my strengths don’t lend themselves to writing reviews like that. I’ll just quote John Hodgman’s brilliant review: “TRANSCENDENTAL YOUTH is full of songs about people who madly, stupidly, blessedly won’t stop surviving, no matter who gives up on them.”
But, for posterity, I wanted to record the setlist. I’ve linked to the songs on Amazon, when available, and to YouTube when they’re from an unreleased/unavailable album.
I don’t think he actually played the title track (Transcendental Youth) from the new album, and I really would have loved to hear Counterfeit Florida Plates, and, of course, The Best Ever Death Metal Band In Denton, but maybe those were being held for a second encore, which, frankly, the audience didn’t deserve. Seriously, future tour cities? Pull for a second encore.
It was a phenomenal show, with the highlight for me being the first encore song, where they played “This Year” with a horn section (the horns from the opening act, Matthew E. White. It’s hard to articulate how much the horns added, and I hope The Mountain Goats will record a version in the studio with the horn section. If you go to one of the other shows on this tour, PLEASE grab a video of “This Year” and put it on YouTube? The world will owe you.
John Darnielle is a treasure. I’m so glad I got to see him last night.
I’ve always loved the posters from HATCH SHOW PRINT. You can see one above. See how they expand the type size until it fills the line? (“Johnny” is a smaller size than “Cash”, and “the fabulous” is even smaller.) I love that.
About a year ago, I was working on Monotask and wanted to make a way to dynamically create text that resized, based on the width of its container and the amount of text on the line. Typesetting and JavaScript are two of my favorite things … why not combine them? So I made a jQuery plugin: HATCHSHOW.js I put a page up for it, and shared it on Twitter, but I realized I never posted it here on the blog. So this is a post to rectify that.
Click on the image here to go check out HATCHSHOW.js.
The plugin is really simple. All you do is wrap the “lines” you want the effect applied to with a <span class=”hsjs”>, and it does the rest. You’ll probably want to make a few adjustments for the line height and for individual kerning adjustments. But the plugin does most of the work.
As you’ll see if you check out the HATCHSHOW page, the font-size for every letter on that page was generated dynamically. Cue theremin: By an algorithm. (Ooooo!)
The more astute among you are probably saying “Yeah, but this is the same thing Fittext.js does, isn’t it?” Good question, but no. Fittext is for a single line — a headline or the name of the page / service / whatever. HATCHSHOW is intended for multi-line displays, kind of like what you see in that concert poster up top.
If you build anything cool with it, be sure to let me know! And if you want the code, it’s right on the HATCHSHOW page (click on the “check out the code” link at the bottom, then scroll down).
Have fun!
As you might know, one of the main things I think about is something called “attention management” — basically, how do we focus on the things we need to be focusing on, and how to we put aside everything else? It’s all tied up with productivity and motivation and habits and medicine and cognitive-behavioral therapy research. But that’s all somewhat theoretical and fuzzy. I have a practical approach to handling e-mail that I’ve been working on, and I’m eager to share it with you.
This new system doesn’t require any new technology, or super-restrictive rules (like “only check e-mail once a day”) or any herculean efforts at getting to Inbox Zero In 30 Minutes or anything like that. In fact, it’s kind of the opposite of all that. But the cool thing? It works. I’m more in control of my inbox than I have been at any point in my career. And the handful of people I’ve gotten to try this approach have said that it’s been working well for them, too. It’s a little David Allen, a little BJ Fogg (warning: BJ Fogg’s site currently auto-plays a video).
I’m not going to go into the specifics here, because this approach is still in a testing phase. In fact, much about it is probably wrong and needs refinement. So why am I writing about it here / now? Because I want more testers. Like you!
If you feel overwhelmed by your e-mail, and are interested in trying this new approach out, just e-mail me — charlie@charliepark.org — and I’ll send you the details. It’s free. It’s just that the approach takes a little bit of work, and the first hurdle you’ll face is simply e-mailing me.
To handle the volume of this, I’m sending out info e-mails to cohorts of 5 people a week, so the sooner you get in touch, the sooner you’ll be on the list, and the sooner your inbox will be under control.
I look forward to hearing from you, and to helping you work down your inbox.
In the last few days, I’ve seen a few people talking about a new CSS property, position: sticky. The idea is straightforward, and neat: If an object has “position:sticky”, treat it as a normal position:relative block, as long as it’s on screen. If the user scrolls far enough that the object (let’s say it’s an h3) would be scrolled off the screen, but the h3’s parent div is still visible onscreen, treat the object as though it were position:fixed (at whatever top or left or right or bottom parameters you give it).
That explanation gets a little complicated, but it’s a principle you’ve seen before. Basically, if the parent div containing the headline (or whatever) is still on-screen, the headline should remain on-screen as well. Scroll down a bit to see an example (look for a table titled “The First 40 Elements”).
Why is this new implementation interesting?
What’s neat about this is that you get the effect of the static table headers by introducing a few lines of CSS. No jQuery, no weird CSS that breaks the semantic intent of the content, and no javascript handlers built off scroll events.
Lots of thanks to the developers at Apple for making this work.
So, tables?
One of the best use-cases for this is with really long tables. That is, tables where you want to see the different columns’ headers, as well as the data in the table. Tables like we sometimes have in PearBudget.
This is a use-case that, so far, has been served by javascript. A great front-end dev (and friend), Russell Heimlich, built a great implementation of it as a plugin for jQuery, Prototype, MooTools, and Dojo: Sticky Header. And his plugin is probably the best way to implement this effect for now, since browser support for this CSS property is currently almost non-existent.
It’s super-easy. All you do is add
position: -webkit-sticky;
position: -moz-sticky;
position: -ms-sticky;
position: -o-sticky;
position: sticky;
top: 0;
to the CSS for whatever object you want to stay on-screen. In the “elements” example below, I’ve applied that CSS to the <thead>.
Can I see an example?
Sure thing. If you’re using the latest version of a WebKit-based browser (or, in the future, if other browsers are supporting this and you’re on one of those), the following table will show sticky headers. The thing to look for: the gray bar with the columns’ headers will remain visible, even when you’re scrolling far down the table.
Revisiting the description above of what’s going on, as long as the parent element (<table></table>) is visible on-screen, the <thead> (and everything in it) should be visible as well.
If you aren’t using a browser that can handle this, it’ll just look like a normal table, and the header row will scroll offscreen like any other position: relative element. Again, there’s no javascript in play here.
You’ll notice that the effect degrades gracefully … if the user is not on a browser that supports position: sticky, the header just scrolls off-screen, like any other object on (read: off) the screen.
One thing to try doing (if you’re on the main charliepark.org page and not just this post’s page) is to scroll down a ways, and then scroll back up so you can see the table. You’ll notice the headers show up as soon as the table is in view.
Anything to be careful about?
First, this property is new. It’s not supported at all, apart from the beta builds of Webkit-based browsers. So caveat formator. Again, if you really want for your users to benefit from sticky headers, go with a javascript implementation.
Second, if you do use it, you’ll need to incorporate vendor prefixes. Perhaps position: sticky will work one day. For now, though, you need to use position:-webkit-sticky (and the others; check the block of CSS further up in this post).
Third, there aren’t any positioning defaults at the moment, so you need to at least include top: 0; in the same CSS declaration as the position:-webkit-sticky. Otherwise, it’ll just scroll off-screen.
Have fun, kids!
Hot diggity! I’ve found this to be so useful, I decided to turn the code into a Ruby Gem. You can find it over at rubygems.org/gems/fat_fingers. And if you want to fork / improve the code / tests, it’s over at GitHub.
This is about a regex I wrote for fixing e-mail typos. (When “joe@gmail.com” enters in “joe@gmai.cm”, fix it for him.) You can see it here: fat_fingers.rb.
Let’s help our users!
Just a few minutes ago, I got a “message failed to deliver” e-mail. Why? The user had entered in their e-mail address incorrectly. something@something.cm (note the lack of an “o” in “.cm”). So, now there’s a bit of a hassle, where I have to fix their e-mail in the system, then re-initiate whatever process sent them that e-mail.
That’s needless work.
Fat Fingers is simply a Ruby method for cleaning up e-mail typos.
It extends String objects with a method called clean_up_typoed_email.
All you need to do is attach that method to the user’s e-mail address before you save them in the system. Like @user.email.clean_up_typoed_email.
There are some more instructions in the file itself, but it’s really straightforward.
So this isn’t a library / plugin?
Nope! It’s just a regex. Eight lines of code, and we tell you where you can stick ’em!
Aren’t we disenfranchising users with this?
There’s a similar tool, called Mailcheck.js. It offers suggestions to the user, to check the e-mail they entered to make sure it’s legit.
Fat Fingers is different, in that it does the work silently, without checking with the user.
Perhaps you want to roll with their approach. That’s cool, and you’d be in good company. For my own projects, I’d rather not bother the user with something that’s obviously wrong, if I can fix it on my own.
A quick note for users running this on Ruby < 1.9
Our multi-line chaining in this regex features the dots at the beginning of each line. Just move them to the end of the previous line if you’re on Ruby 1.8.x.
Testing!
Fat Fingers has its own tests.
Once you’ve cloned it to your system, just run ruby fat_fingers.rb and you’ll see the output of the tests. Unless something’s gone horribly wrong, they should all pass.
Make it better!
I’d love to hear suggestions, critiques, and improvements. Feel free to fork it, ask me to pull in changes, and so on. I’d also love any test improvements.
I’ve created a page that aggregates the 2012 Apple WWDC livestreams from The Verge, Engadget, and MacRumors, all in one view.
Just wanted to share an easy way to make “bookmarks” using CSS. I’m guessing others have written about this before, but it took me less time to write this up than to search for it and get sidetracked by other stuff. So here you go.
Here’s what it’ll look like:
It’s really, really easy.
First, in your HTML, you need a DOM element that’ll act as the bookmark. You could just go with a <b></b>, but most folks will want something a little more semantically-rich. So let’s go with <div class="bookmark"></div>. Also, it’ll need to be sitting inside a <div> or other parent element that A) has a set background color (in this case, #eee), and B) that has a declared position. (You’ll probably have either position:absolute or position:relative. “Fixed” probably works as well.)
So here’s the HTML:
<div>
<div class="bookmark"></div>
<h3>Title of section or whatever</h3>
</div>
And then we’ll have some CSS. (I haven’t included the parent div’s CSS; just the CSS for the bookmark.) Here’s what I used:
.bookmark{
background: #b00;
background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, color-stop(0%,#b00), color-stop(100%,#900));
background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(top, #b00 0%, #900 100%);
background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(top, #b00 0%, #900 100%);
background-image: -o-linear-gradient(top, #b00 0%, #900 100%);
background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(top, #b00 0%, #b00 100%);
filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.gradient( startColorstr='#b00', endColorstr='#900',GradientType=0 );
background-image: linear-gradient(top, #b00 0%, #900 100%);
height:30px;
position:absolute;top:0;right:20px;
width:20px;
}
.bookmark:after{content:'';display:block;border:10px solid transparent;border-bottom-color:#eee;position:absolute;bottom:0;}
Feel free to lift my CSS and use it for your own projects.
You can use whatever gradient you want to, of course. (Or no gradient.) Mine runs from a light-deep red (#b00) to a medium-deep red (#900). And you’ll want the bottom-border color on that :after element to be the same color as the parent div (again, in this case, #eee). If you want the bookmark to stick above the parent element (that is, as though it were “folding over the page”), make the “top” value “-1px” on the .bookmark CSS.
Have fun, and if you use it, let me know what you make with it.
Update: So, yeah, this ended up not happening … yet.
I still think there’s room for Apple to tier their prices — note that the new retina MacBook Pros are significantly more expensive than the old versions, and Apple dropped the price on the Airs by $100. So the gap in the middle is even wider. It’s only a matter of time before the retina screens trickle down to the other form factors. The question, then, is: when Apple has exhausted the initial interest in retinas at the high end, will they roll them out to the Airs as they are? Or will they create a new intermediate tier of machines?
Quick Backstory on MacBooks
Apple came out with their MacBook on May 16, 2006. It replaced the PowerBook and the iBook laptops. They stopped selling it to general consumers back in July of 2011, and stopped selling it to the educational market in February of 2012.
The Process of Buying a MacBook
Almost inevitably, I think, the first question someone asks herself when considering a MacBook: “What size screen do I want”? In the past, there was a lot more consideration paid to the processor and the memory. But even the smallest MacBook Air these days is powerful enough for most users. So the screen size, followed by the form factor, is the initial decision.
When a good friend of mine went through the “buying a MacBook for the first time” process last month, the order of his decisions went like this:
- How big of a screen do I want? (Answer: Probably 15″, though maybe 13″ would do.)
- Do I want it to be in the slimmer “Air” form factor? (Answer: It’d be nice, but it’s not a deal-breaker.)
- Do I need the disc drive? (Answer: I don’t use discs a lot, but I’d like to have the option of using them.)
In the end, he was deciding between the 13″ MacBook Air and the 15″ MacBook Pro. The DVD drive in the Pro ended up being the deciding factor, and so that’s what he went with.
The Current State of MacBooks
For posterity, here are the various options currently available.
| family | nominal size | chief differentiator | price |
MacBook Air |
11″ |
|
$999 |
| 11″ |
|
$1,199 |
| 13″ |
|
$1,299 |
| 13″ |
|
$1,599 |
MacBook Pro |
13″ |
- 2.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor
- 500 GB hard drive
|
$1,199 |
| 13″ |
- 2.8GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor
- 750 GB hard drive
|
$1,499 |
| 15″ |
- 2.2GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor
- 500 GB hard drive
|
$1,799 |
| 15″ |
- 2.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor
- 750 GB hard drive
|
$2,199 |
| 17″ |
- 2.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor
- 750 GB hard drive
|
$2,499 |
It’s a little confusing when laid out in the table above … looking at it as a chart can be somewhat helpful. In the chart below, I’ve only included the cheaper option for models that have available upgrades.
MacBook Pricing, April 2012
MBA 11″
$999
MBA 13″
$1,299
MBP 13″
$1,199
MBP 15″
$1,799
MBP 17″
$2,499
As you can see, there’s a pretty substantial jump between the pricing on the 13″ Air and the 15″ Pro models. (The discrepancy isn’t as large when you include the up-sized model of the 13″ Air, but it’s still there.)
What I Think Apple Should Do
I recognize that “people telling Apple what they should do” is one of the silliest things to do. Apple’s data is far better than mine, their analysts are far smarter than I am, and they’ve been doing this for far longer than I have been (read: 10 minutes). But because the only thing I can lose by writing this is my time, let’s go. For the ease of narrative, I’m writing this as “Apple will …”, but, obviously, I have no intel or insight into Apple’s plans, their supply chain, or anything else. This is all speculative.
Apple Will Reboot the MacBook
Apple likes to spread out their news. They also like to maintain a certain level of uncertainty about their upcoming plans.
So on the day after their Q2 earnings call (April 25th), they’ll issue invites to journalists for a product announcement on May 15th. The tagline will be something that conveys the spirit of “everything old is new again,” but will be a bit snappier and more upbeat.
Journalists and pundits will assume that it’s for the revamp of the MacBook Pro. Hot rumors will include retina screens and an adoption of the Air form factor, with eliminated disc drives. Some will project that Apple will merge the Air and the Pro lines into a single family of computers.
But that’s not what’s going to happen.
What will actually happen on May 15th is that Tim Cook will announce that Apple is relaunching a classic. They’ve seen how well the market has responded to the Air — to its battery life, to its speed, to its lightness. And they’ve seen how, over the years, people have loved the performance and storage capacity of the MacBook Pro line. They don’t want to lose the Air, because it’s so good for what it is, and they don’t want to lose the Pro model, as it’s so useful for some of their most devoted users. But they wanted to take the best of both worlds, and they wanted to turn all of the knowledge they’ve gained about how people use the Airs and the Pros, and they wanted to create something new.
“But we’ve been here before,” he’ll say. “Six years ago tomorrow, we came out with a computer — the original MacBook — that revolutionized the way people interact with their world. It was portable, and powerful, and perfect. And that’s why, tomorrow, on the anniversary of its original launch, we’re doing it again.”
(Conveniently, the narrative will gloss over the fact that the MacBook Pro came out first, in January of 2006. Narratives get to choose their own details.)
Apple will come out with a brand new version of the MacBook line, in 13″ and 15″ screen sizes. It’ll have the Air’s form factor, but will use larger-capacity drives. No DVD/CD drives. They’ll use the new Ivy Bridge CPU from Intel (see Marco’s predicitons on new MacBook updates).
The difference between this scenario and all the others that I’ve seen on Apple’s upcoming plans is that Apple will maintain the current MacBook Pro line, in its larger, with-disc-drive form factor. And it’ll keep the MacBook Air line as it is, as well. The difference is that there’ll be a brand new (or new-again) line of computers sitting in the middle of the two.
Why?
Why would Apple do this? A few reasons.
1. A Desired Product
The 15″ screen with MacBook Air form factor would be a killer product. I’ve used a 15″ MacBook Pro for the last 3 years, and it’s been wonderful, but I’m planning on getting an Air next. My only problem: I’m concerned about the size of the currently-largest Air screen, 13″. A 15″ screen on an Air form factor would be ideal. (Though I recognize: There are many ways they could develop that product without rebooting the MacBook line.) Anyway, the introduction of a new line leads us into Point #2 …
2. Better Price Tiering
Up above, you saw that chart for the current MacBooks. Here it is, again, with an eliminated 13″ Pro, and with the addition of a 13″ and 15″ MacBook. (Again, I’ve left out upgrades, for simplicity. I’ve also kept all current computers priced as they are now.)
MBA 11″
$999
MBA 13″
$1,299
MB 13″
$1,399
MB 15″
$1,699
MBP 15″
$1,799
MBP 17″
$2,499
It’s simple and straightforward. It establishes a “standard” option. A default. A middle way.
Want an Apple laptop? Get a MacBook. Want it to be slightly more portable? Go with an Air. Want it to have the disc drive and be more powerful? Go with a Pro.
By introducing the middle tier, Apple would give users a sane default, which is what Apple has traditionally done so well with their hardware and software. Which leads us directly into Point 3 …
3. An Easier Buying Process
As I noted above, my friend’s first decision was based on the real estate of his new computer’s screen. By adding in MacBooks, Apple gives customers a much smoother deciding process. At the extreme ends are the 11″ Air and the 17″ Pro. In the middle, a user can decide wether she wants to go with 13″ or 15″ … and then, make the call as to whether she wants to trade down to the Air, or up to the Pro. But, again, the default would simply be to go with the vanilla MacBook. And with the defaults being the vanilla MacBooks, we get Point 4 …
4. Further Elimination of Disc Drives
At the moment, you either have no-disc-drive (the Air), or a disc drive (the Pro). While I can see Apple maybe taking the leap and dropping disc drives in the Pro models (they’ve done it before), I think customers (like my friend) would be put off at the idea of not having a disc drive even as an option. When Apple dropped floppy drives from the iMac, they were dealing with an early-adopter set of consumers. Since they’re so much more mainstream now, I think they’d have a harder time with it. BUT.
If the MacBooks are introduced, DVD drives are still an option, but, again, the standard option would be “no drive”. In fact, since both the Airs and the middle-path MacBooks would be disc-drive-less, the dominant paradigm for laptops would shift to “no drive”, and it’d continue to push that transition forward.
5. Increasing Revenues for Apple
The other points are nice, but this one is the key point for Apple.
I don’t know what the breakdown of Airs vs. Pros is for Apple currently. I also don’t know the profit-per-unit of those computers. But re-introducing MacBooks into the mix (at the hypothetical prices I outlined) increases the average cost of an Apple computer by about 4%, and in some scenarios, it increases by two or three times that amount.
Would more customers “buy up” (from ~$1,200 to ~$1,500, going from the Air to the MacBook)? Or would more “buy down” (from ~$1,800 to ~$1,500, from the Pro to the MacBook)? I can’t say. But I suspect that a user would happily go from a $1,300 13″ Air to a $1,400 13″ MacBook (which gives Apple an 8% increase in revenue on that sale). And once they’re considering the regular MacBook, it’s only another $300 to increase the screen, so why not?
Keep in mind, I’m a fairly standard consumer. I last bought a 15″ MacBook Pro, at around $2,100. I’m currently looking to buy a 13 ″MacBook Air, at around $1,300. I’d happily go with a middle-of-the-road 15″ MacBook, at around $1,700, especially if it meant that I got the larger screen and greater storage space than the 13″ Air.
6. Timing
I don’t mean to get into woo woo conspiracy theories, but there is one aspect of timing that I want to point out.
Intel’s Ivy Bridge processors were initially slated to become available to manufacturers at the very end of 2011, and would then be available in customer-facing machines in early 2012. Apple stopped selling MacBooks in summer of 2011, and then continued to sell their remaining stock to the educational market until February of 2012, when, presumably, their inventory ran out. The Intel processors have been delayed several times, but if they had come out according to their original schedule, Apple would be running out of their old stock just in time to roll out the relaunched MacBooks, using the Ivy Bridge processor.
Obviously, this could just be correlation / coincidence. I don’t even want to count it as an actual argument in favor of why Apple will go this route. Just wanted to point it out.
Counterarguments
Why might Apple not go with this approach? I can think of two reasons. (Update: a good point in the Hacker News thread suggest a third, added below.)
One argument that I expect to see against this approach would be that consumers prefer to avoid the middle of the road … they either go with luxury goods or with bargains. So, according to that line of thought, customers would want to go with either the Pro or the Air, but would avoid a middle-of-the-road MacBook. The problem with that critique, though, is that Apple is already positioned as the “premium” brand. I suspect that once a customer has made the decision to go with the higher-end Apple brand, they’re past the “bargain or luxe” dichotomy, and they then consider the options within the space.
The other problem would simply be one of finances. If the sales of this new line doesn’t make sense from a profitability standpoint, then, obviously, it’s not going to happen. Possible reasons: SSDs are still too expensive, current 1.8″ HDD capacity is too small, etc. But these details are so deep inside Apple’s books, I don’t have the ability (or time) to parse them, and I don’t know who would have the expertise to analyze them fully.
Via Hacker News user killion comes another good counterpoint, “increased supply chain complexity”: Basically, adding a new product (even if it shares the external form of the current Air) introduces new components that need to be sourced, maintained, and kept available. As he notes, “Because Apple has so few products it makes their supply and distribution chains more efficient. The economies of scale are a huge part of their profitability.”
A tangential argument against dropping the 13″ MacBook Pro is that, currently, Apple can say that MacBook Pros are available “from $1,199” … which is an impressively low number. But I doubt that positioning of the Pro model is something they need to maintain. After all, they’ll still have the whole MacBook family, “available from $999,” and I don’t know that Pro customers are looking for “value” as much as performance.
Waiting to See
So, yeah. Obviously, this is all speculative. But it seems like it’d make sense, and it’s not a theory I’ve heard anyone else talking about. I’m eager to see what happens in the next few weeks / months. Will the new MacBooks have retina screens? I don’t know. I doubt it, at first. (My guess is that they’ll add retina screens to the updated MacBook Pros this summer, and then trickle down the retina screens to the regular MacBooks in a year.) Will they add touch screens? (Again, no idea. Personally, I think it’d be great. Have you ever seen kids around a laptop?)
Bottom-line, though, I’m excited to see what happens. Now. Back to making stuff.