Enlarge / Could the 12-inch MacBook make a return as some kind of “lower-cost MacBook”? (credit: Andrew Cunningham)

If you want a Mac laptop, you usually need to be ready to spend at least $1,000. Whether we’re talking about the white plastic MacBook from 2006, the 11-inch MacBook Air from a decade ago, or the modern M1 MacBook Air, the list price for Apple’s cheapest MacBook is usually within $100 or so of that four-digit price barrier (not counting refurbished Macs or ones that go on sale).

Apple has a stated aversion to releasing less-expensive hardware just to hit an attractive price—”cheap is for other people because we try to build a better product,” Apple marketing SVP Greg Joswiak told us a few years ago. But rumors of a low-cost MacBook pop up every few years, undeterred, usually conflating “entry-level” with “low-cost.” Here’s a prediction about an $800 MacBook from October 2008 (actual entry-level prices: $999 and $1,299). Here’s analyst Ming-Chi Kuo and Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman in 2018 predicting a MacBook Air “with a lower price tag” that would “reignite sales” (actual price: $1,199, $200 more than the previous MacBook Air).

This week, Kuo came back with an updated version of that same report, claiming that Apple “may also consider (but hasn’t decided yet) introducing a more affordable MacBook model to boost shipments.” Mac revenue and unit shipments have indeed been down year over year for a few quarters, though that has more to do with a pandemic- and Apple Silicon-fueled sales spike in 2021 and 2022 than anything (the revenue numbers are still on the high side of normal compared to 2019 and most of 2020).

Enlarge / Tory Bruno, ULA’s chief executive, inside the company’s rocket factory in Decatur, Alabama. (credit: Cameron Carnes for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

While Bruno did not disclose details of any negotiations about a potential sale of ULA, he told Bloomberg News this week that the launch operator is primed for a buyer. Boeing and Lockheed Martin each have a 50 percent stake in the Colorado-based rocket company.

“If I were buying a space business, I’d go look at ULA,” Bruno said. “It’s already had all the hard work done through the transformation. You’re not buying a Victorian with bad plumbing. It’s all been done. You’re coming in at the end of the remodel, so you can focus on your future.”

Enlarge (credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images)

One year after Elon Musk’s $44 billion purchase of Twitter, which he completed on October 27, 2022, after months of legal drama, the social media firm that Musk renamed “X” is on shaky financial ground.

Musk has expressed ambitions to transform X into an “everything app” that includes a digital payments platform and audio and video calling. He told employees that, despite massive cuts eliminating most of Twitter’s pre-Musk workforce, he sees “a clear but difficult path” to a future valuation of more than $250 billion.

X doesn’t provide detailed financial statements or user numbers because Musk took the company private when he bought Twitter. But data leaked to news media and third-party research depicts a platform in decline, which might not be exactly what Musk meant when he called the firm “an inverse startup.”

Enlarge / A push for more IronSource customers may have been a major motivation behind Unity’s controversial install-fee proposals (credit: Unity)

It’s been over a month now since Unity partially backtracked on its controversial proposed “pay per install” fee structure, a trust-destroying saga that seems to have contributed to the retirement of Unity CEO John Riccitiello. Now, a new report highlights some of the internal divisions over the “rushed-out” policy introduction and provides new insight into what may have been motivating the company to even attempt such a plan.

Business-focused site MobileGamer.biz cites multiple “sources from inside Unity and across the mobile games business” in reporting that Unity received some significant pushback from senior-level managers before rolling out its initial fee-restructuring plans. “Half of the people in that meeting said that this model is too complicated, it’s not going to be well-received, and we should talk to people before we do this,” one anonymous source told the site. “It felt very rushed. We had this meeting and were told it was happening, but we were not told a date. And then before we knew it, it was out there.”

After the negative reaction to that initial plan, Unity reportedly considered a modification that would take up to 4 percent of revenue from the largest Unity publishers—slightly under the 5 percent charged by the Unreal Engine. The final policy knocked that cap down to 2.5 percent only after the extent of the backlash became clear.