WWDC 2013 MacBook Air

We had a feeling that Apple was going to be showing off some new Mac hardware today. And it did. After giving a preview of the new OS X Mavericks update, Craig Federighi brought up Apple’s marketing head Phil Schiller to talk about some new Macs.

First up, Schiller showed off some updated MacBook Airs. As expected, they’re sporting Intel’s new Haswell processors and other internal improvements that Apple says give it “all-day” battery life. Details on the Air and the stunning new MacBook Pro coming up…

With the new processors, Apple is promising 12 hours of battery life for the 13.3-inch model, and 9 hours for the 11.6-inch version, a significant upgrade from the 7/5 hours quote for last year’s Air models. They also feature support for 802.11ac Wi-Fi.

Both the 11-inch and 13-inch models will be available today from Apple’s website, and it has lowered the prices a bit. The 13-inch model starts at $1,099 with 128GB of flash storage, and the 11-inch model will start at $999 with 128GB.

And as for the new Mac Pro, this thing is gorgeous. Before introducing the desktop, Schiller said something to the effect of “We don’t normally do this, but you guys are very special to us, so we’re going to show you something we’ve been working on.”

WWDC 2013 Mac Pro inside

“Can’t innovate my ass,” Schiller quipped.

Mac Pro hero

Apple’s long-awaited desktop refresh will be ready to ship this fall, and will come with next generation Intel Xeon processors, dual GPUs, Thunderbolt 2 ports, and flash storage. It’s an astonishing 1/8th the size of its predecessor and is being assembled in the U.S.

So, what do you guys think?

  • Jaye

    “Can’t innovate anymore my ass” Phil Schiller.

    • charlie feathers

      I want that Mac Pro it’s such a beast in such a small badass package!

      • Gorgonphone

        its a mac mini pro..lol

      • felixtaf

        You are trolling… Seriously….

      • Gorgonphone

        he mac book pro is still the bast option for me… portable and powerful

  • Taf Khan

    It kicks ass… Simple!

  • Gorgonphone

    the mac pro looks great but the airs ummm… wtf? no retina?? pass…

    • felixtaf

      Check the specs and then BS… It supports 4K Cinema Display and Multi display support… You are a troll and a total fail… Sorry to say this…

      • Nicholas Anhalt

        Retina has 4x resolution of cinema display, you are a fanboy bitch and a total fail…sorry to say this…. times four.

      • felixtaf

        Bitch please… Go figure out… Resolution is 4K…PPI depends on the display manufacturer… 440ppi cinema display is already out… FYI Retina doesnt mean it has 4X resolution… Retina is based on pixels… not resolution.. Sucker…

      • Kevin Paterson

        Gorgonphone was talking about the MacBook AIRS having no Retina. Something I was looking forward to as well 🙁

        Maybe in September.

      • felixtaf

        Ok.. Lol.. Sry… I thot he was talking about Mac Pro. Sorry @Gorgonphone:disqus… and hey good luck on your Macbook air Retina…

      • Nicholas Anhalt


      • felixtaf

        Yeah… You are the genius who doesnt know the difference between PPI and resolution…

      • Nicholas Anhalt

        you’re not even talking about the same thing, you just ran off the fanboy cliff

      • felixtaf

        Yes, am not talking about the same thing, bcoz PPI and resolution are different. Retina is based on PPI not resolution. I dont own a mac or not planning to own one. But you are one of those some stupid trolls who think that they know everything.. Stupid troll…

      • felixtaf

        Resolution and ppi are same?? you are in coke or u r insane? iPhone 4 has retina display (326 ppi) with 960*640 resolution,iPhone 5 has retina display (326 ppi) with 1136*640 resolution, iPad 3 has retina display (264 ppi) with 2048*1536 resolution. Apple’s retina tech is based on ppi, not resolution… sucker…

      • nanhalt88

        First of all, this is the last time i’m posting on this thread, because I can’t stand talking to internet “know it alls” like you. You have this insatiable need to name call and run your mouth about what a genius you are. Frankly it’s embarrassing, and shows a deep lack of character on you’re part.

        It’s almost not worth paying attention to and I could probably get more practical advice from a 5 year old. Let’s face it, you would never have the balls to explain any of this in a face to face conversation because people people would never take you seriously. But hey, it’s the internet, the perfect place for you to hide in your moms basement while you tell other people how stupid they are.

        I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually think you’re right. You’re not, but ill explain it in a detailed way so that there can be no doubt in your mind as to how stupid YOU are.

        Let me explain for you how the world actually works.

        Retina has 4x the ppi of new macbook air which still has the cinema display, when you reduce a single pixel 4 times you end up with 4 smaller pixels that orient themselves inside of the original pixel. They fill the void out in an X,Y fashion so you get two pixels taller vertically and two pixels wider horizontally for every one pixel the cinema display had. Since true resolution just measures the total XY length in pixels of the entire screen. Each X and Y number are only going to be 2 times as big was the preceding resolution. 220ppi on retina display macbook multiplied by the length and width of the screen in inches because we’re talking about “pixels per inch squared” you end up with a “true resolution”2280×1800 pixels horizontally and vertically respectively for a 15” macbook pro.

        Now, having 4 times the PPI still makes the screen doubles the “true resolution” in terms of XY numbers of cinema display on the the old 15″ macbook pro which is 1140×900. But because we’re talking about doubling the vertical AND a horizontal quantity of pixels that occupy a space, the more important thing to think of it as doubling the potential maximum length the width of a shape optimized for said resolution in geometric terms, in this case it’s a rectangular screen.

        Algebraically, let original resolution = (x)pixels x (y)pixels

        Let original area of rectangle= (L) inches x (W) inches

        Area=Resolution=Pixel Density with regards to overall spatial dimensions of a screen being constant with the exception of units being used to define them.

        Since area is thought of as the final term of the equation LxW, resolution must be thought of in a similar fashion So when you go to solve the equation of doubling the resolution as doubling the pixels you’re actually only doubling the originals terms of the equation, not the final result.

        2L x 2W = 4LW in^2 : 2x x 2y = 4xy pixels


        2L x 2W = 2LW in^2 : 2x x 2y = 2xy pixels (incorrect)

        The product of this equation will always be 4 times the original variables.

        Since you aren’t very good at math and just copy and paste what you google don’t get lost now, i’ll be generous and let’s exemplify that equation for you in terms you might better understand. Let’s say a “true resolution” was optimized at 100×100 pixels for a square screen that was 10 inches by 10inches which gives you 100ppi and a total pixel density of 100,000 pixels on you’re screen. When you “double” the “true resolution” of this 10 inch screen to 200×200 pixels, the ppi increases 4fold to 400ppi, the image clarity thus increases 4fold, the total pixel density increases to a value of 400,000 pixels. This new resolution can now support optimization for a square display 20 inches by 20 inches. This new display is now a square that’s actually 4 times as big.You gain 4x the potential surface area.

        4x ppi
        4x image clarity
        4x pixel density
        4x RESOLUTION
        4x potential surface area

        Using ppi is much more conventional to describe resolution because it helps define the upper bounds of an images resolution. When people say the resolution of a macbook pro retina is 4x the resolution of a cinema display that statement is true. There are 4 times as many pixels on the screen as there were before. The image could be 4 times as large as it was before and still look as clear as it did on the cinema display.

        Completely off topic but since you already went there when you got confused and ran your mouth.

        A better real world example is that the same thing applies for the new 4k displays you started chirping about, it is a factual claim to assert that a 4k display has 4x the resolution of a 1080 display.

        1080 displays have 1920×1080 pixels that’s 2,073,600pixels.

        4k displays are now 3840×2160 pixels that’s 8,294,400 pixels

        Now fucking tell me, what’s 8,294,400 divided by 2,073,600? It’s the number 4.

        FOUR the number FOUR!!!

        How many time’s do I need to say it.

        Now, I’ve understood this concept for a long time, and if you want to make a big fuss about resolution vs. ppi when they are used interchangeably all the time. That’s fine, but at least propose a valid arguement and feel free to correct me if you’re talking about something I don’t know. But…



        You cannot say things like I’m a stupid troll, I’m a bitch, I’m a sucker. I’m on coke. I’m insane? That’s all libel.

        The truth however, is that you’re not only dumb, but you’re a fucking asshole, which is a bad personality combo I think most people would agree. Go read a book, get a job or get a fucking life. You’re in dire need of some basic fucking etiquette. You sound like a fool. When the new 4k mac pro come’s out (which let’s remember no one in the original thread was talking about) hopefully it will come with a razor-blade attached to it for you. That way you can shave your asshole with it for you’re boyfriend, while you pretend he’s johnny depp. Maybe you can count the number of times he pounds you in the ass? Might help you learn how to count? Counting is a valuable skill when learning math don’t worry you’ll get there some day…. Get the fuck outa here.

      • was wondering if anyone actually read this…+1 for efforts

      • nanhalt88

        i just realized i could look at all my old discuss comment threads, i’m such an arrogant prick….oh well, lot less complicated than explaining some of the questions on the LSAT or CPA exam…

  • Boss

    MacBook looks sexy

  • Yousif Ali

    Macbook pro?!?!?!?

    • felixtaf

      may be for September???

  • I was planning to get a Mac Pro… im on the fence on the black capsule design… I feel like its a giant suppository or a tissue roll container… either way just reminds me of the toilet. I still dig the aluminum casing… now if its aluminum.. now that looks like a giant bullet or cryogenic container… a cool cryogenic container.

  • Sam L.

    The amount of people who are confused with the difference between Macbook Pro and Mac Pro is too damn high.

  • iViperzLTD

    Could someone explain to me why the Macbook Pro range were not updated with Haswells? D:

  • Osama Muhammed

    i bought the previous macbook air 13 few months ago, this is so pissing off, it was upgraded to the max, i just want this longer battery

  • @sexyhamthing

    mac pro….. i mean…..really….. really apple?

  • tiredofit123

    A “Pro” computer should be customizable in whatever way you need it. This is really more of a Super-Mini.

    It was a wise choice to delete the floppy drive off of the iMac….in 1998. Not so with an optical drive. For $3.50 or so a disc you can store 50GB on a Blu-Ray dual layer. Flash isn’t that cheap, hard drives are there but if it’s something you want to archive or save—-and no, the Cloud isn’t the end all and be all to everything.

    It’s tiny, but once you add in all the Thunderbolt accessories to make it useful you’ll have a desktop covered with cables and boxes. Or try to do it wirelessly. This would have been interesting as a “processor core” on a cabinet that housed a RAID array and drives, and who knows, someone may make a case like that.

    But for today, despite everything Apple has tried the idea of a computer as an art object that lets us create by magic and doesn’t look like a normal computer simply isn’t there and may never be.

    We also know this won’t be cheap–I figure $3,500 easy, so a lot to pay for a technological exercise.

  • ha

    The Mac Pro looks like it was designed after a garbage can that was probably in the room of Apple’s design office.

    Which is also ironic because considering you can’t really do hardware upgrades on a Mac, that’s all it will be good for.

  • ha

    It’s a good thing Apple manager to put an Apple logo on the casing of the Mac Pro.

    If they didn’t it wouldn’t sell near as good.