Aperture Users Network

After yesterday's announcements of new hardware from Apple, forums started to flood with comments about the lack of FireWire on the new MacBook lineup. While the MBP still has a FW port (albeit the newer FW800 that requires a simple converter cable to go to FW400) the less expensive model is lacking FireWire entirely.

I've been watching the debates over this (see the long running thread at TUAW for example and people seem fairly up in arms about the lack of a FireWire port.

I'm a bit mixed right now. This might be because I'm in a bit of an enviable situation, as a traveling instructor I have two portables, a 17" MackBook Pro and a MacBook Air. Because the incredible amount of time I spend in airplanes, the MacBook Air has become my nearly constant companion. When I'm off to teach Aperture or do a shoot for work, the 17-inch comes along too.

Most of the time this isn't an issue for me, aside from the fact that the MacBook Air is vastly under-equipped with RAM. 2GB is not enough to perform more than the most rudimentary of tasks, but that's understandable as the mission statement for the MacBook Air does not include the phrase "perform high-end photo retouching work." When I transfer images from my Canon 1Ds Mark III while on a personal shoot, I basically go and hop in the shower while the transfer process is happening. Sometimes I think I can hear the fan over the running water as the computer struggles to keep up with the volume of data passing over the bus.

I haven't had FireWire on that machine ever. When I'm working on a machine that needs FireWire, I take the larger MacBook Pro.

I think a large amount of the focus on the lack of FireWire now comes from the fact that people are often using MacBooks as an in-field alternative to a desktop, a machine that's designed mostly for ingest and some light editing. In that case, FireWire is crucial, but in many cases I think that the MacBook is the wrong machine for that job. But economics are what they are, and so people buy the low-end machines for the road, trading off a bit of speed for the convenience of not lugging around a 17-inch monster.

The issue here seems to be one of design and marketing. The MacBook looks like the MacBook Pro, hell let's call a spade a spade here, the MacBook is really a MacBook Pro. The case looks the same, it uses the same one-piece aluminum enclosure design, has the same glossy screen (more on that in a future piece) and has the same chipset.

So what makes a Pro a Pro? It's no longer whether one is made of plastic and one is aluminum, now it's about functionality. And in order to make a distinction it's necessary to cut features. In the case of these new laptops, Apple clearly looked at the main market and said "what don't they need? How do we squeeze this all into a 13-inch chassis?" FW got the bump, and so did ExpressCard. Understandable, if the only people looking to buy one of the models happens to be a real consumer. Deadly if that customer is really a pro with a consumer's wallet.

The lack of FireWire isn't a killer for me as an Aperture user. I find that the burst-speeds of USB 2.0 is sufficient for when I'm working in the field. In the last version of the MacBook vs. MacBook Pro the bottlneck was the processor, now in this revision the bottlneck is the input/output of the USB 2.0 bus. If a customer was willing to take the slower speed of a lesser powered processor, then a faster processor with slower USB 2.0 will probably work out just fine.

The thing that blows this equation though is Target Disk mode, a diagnosis, repair and transfer tool that's been used since the Mac first sported Target Disk. Booting a Mac into Target Disk allows it to mount as an attached hard drive, and it can be a life saver for the laptop user with a malfunctioning drive, or who needs to back up the entire system quickly.

For the Mac user who knows Target Disk, it can be a life saver. It's like knowing how to jump start a car without blowing up the battery. For the Mac user who doesn't know it, it's not a big deal. In the case of the MacBook, it seems that the users who are pros looking to buy-down to the lower price point are a bit ticked about this feature lack. (And in this case it's the lack of Target Disk not the lack of FireWire that's the issue. Give us a way to boot off USB 2.0 in Target Disk mode and that's moot).

If Apple had chosen to create a different chassis for the Macbook, something less-slick and heavier, I think people would have been more accepting of the lack of ports.

To put it into another context, let's say that Volkswaggen releases a new model Passat with some configurations (can you tell I'm car shopping) one is a four door and one is a two door. If the smaller one happens to be missing something important—say side cushion airbags—but is otherwise the same and there's no way to upgrade without also spending a lot more and getting the larger four-door, people are going to be upset.

But, if you call one of them a Jetta and one a Passat, then it makes sense, even if the two of them share the same manufacturing process and the same assembly line. MacBook and MacBook Pro are evidentally not different enough.

Personally I'd have loved to see a MacBook line with a 13-inch model and fewer ports for less money, and a MacBook Pro line with a 13, 15 and 17-inch with all the ports. Let consumers choose based on the functionality.

What do you think? Is the lack of FireWire going to be a deciding factor for you?