Well, yes, they are the highest performance in the Apple product line, but not necessarily when compared to the competition. The question is about how pro they are in terms of build and configuration.
Again, I'm not just talking about laptops. Pro products should be more durable, probably, yes, faster, and more configured to pro user needs. In more recent years, Apple's products have been less so along some of those vectors, especially compared to the competition.
If you go a decade ago and back, Apple's pro products were typically industry leading and aimed at pro-user needs. They could run heavy loads, where very well built and durable (so much so, in laptops, PC people would buy them and load Windows because they were that much better hardware/build).
When a pro goes looking for a new machine, they might be pretty dedicated to Apple. But, when the competition starts getting too wildly difference (especially at lower cost), it gets hard to stick with Apple. And for we prosumers (the category I more fall into), Apple has a huge void.
Hence my criticism that they make products for 'regular users' in iMacs and iDevices, and then semi-high end expensive stuff that doesn't really fulfill the pro moniker, but fits more people with cash burning a hole in their pockets who want 'higher-end' stuff.
Nothing against the coffee-shop entrepreneur who wants a better machine just because it's better and is willing to spend more to get it... even though a lower machine would also do the job just fine. But, Apple traditionally targeted a more true pro user for the high end, and those people bought the less pro machines.
Yes, I think people often miss that when comparing Apples to 'oranges'. But... could there be a market for an Apple portable that was also plugged in more, but with higher performance? I would guess that there would be. It might not be a huge pie-slice, but part of my argument is that the old-Apple would have been more likely to build out the product line, vs focusing on just what products hit the biggest pie-slices.
And, there is a side benefit from doing so, more than just serving a broader customer base. When you have that breadth in your product line, it pushes the R&D to be more flexible and discover more, which often trickles down through the product line.
(ex: BMW in the car world. All that racing isn't the big pie-slice, and might be a money-loser. But, it influences the real-world performance of the rest of the line, and is what ultimately gives them the brand/image to demand the prices that they do. I guess my fear for Apple is that as the products become more bland and average, and the competition improves, what makes an Apple worth the premium pricing at some point?)
Just keep in mind that it is about more than video editing. People use Apple laptops for other stuff too. Plus, going back before the MBP, Apple's higher end laptops were typically industry leading on multiple fronts as far back as I can recall. That edge is slipping, if not lost in recent years. Instead we get gimmicks like TouchBars, trade performance for battery life, etc..... and not just on some models, but on the full range.
As for ports, remember that some people don't just use the computers as desktop replacements. For people who are actually mobile the majority of their time with their laptops, not having the ports is kind of a pain. Yes, it can be worked around, but it's still a pain.
I realize at some point, certain ports have to go in trade for thin/light, etc. But, if I'm in a server room, or out on a photo shoot, or whatever, I'd rather just have the port instead of dealing with dongles and adapters. They are harder to use when truly mobile, get pulled out much more easily, often less reliable/stable, break easier, etc. And, true pros in those situations don't favor absolute portability and sleekness as the top factor.
