The point is it was near the end of his tenure. You said:
“The way I see it, after Steve Jobs returned to being CEO, Apple's MacBooks were not targeted at a specific audience. We had the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air”
But for most of his time, there was the iBook and the PowerBook, which only became the MacBook and MacBook Pro almost a decade after he joined. The Air came even later than that.
And perhaps more to the point, with the exception of the 14-inch iBook, there was never a large consumer laptop under Jobs.
Yes, I realize it was kind of out of context. The iBook and the PowerBook were two laptops aimed at different audiences. But at least Steve Jobs I have the impression that he vastly simplified the line of Macs.
That’s all true, but you’re setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect anything other than a $2500-and-above model intended for professionals, prosumers, and other people willing to spend a fair amount of cash. That would’ve been equally true under Jobs, both in 1997 and in 2011.
It’s true of the iPad as well. The big one is a Pro model.
Yes, Apple somehow has this idea that bigger always has to mean better and more expensive (with the exception perhaps of their 6.1-inch phones).
True. But also, if they didn’t want to alienate people who want a cheap laptop, they could offer a $599 MacBook today. Or even $399. They could. Others do. There not interested in that segment.
I think these are different segments.
Apple could offer a $399 or a $599 laptop. But then it would have to cut corners in terms of build quality, which is something Apple was never willing to do. A manufacturer will not be able to put an aluminum chassis, an IPS high-resolution screen, and a decent configuration, inside of a $599 machine.
It does not seem to be Apple's business here. I remember Apple being a company which does not necessarily offer the most expensive devices, but one which offers premium quality standards all over its line-up, and prices them accordingly.
The maxed-out 15-inch MacBook Pro costs $5,149 but it has the same build quality as the entry-level $1,299 MacBook Pro. They are both made with similar materials, and they both feel premium. The 15-inch has a much more powerful configuration, but that does not affect the quality of the screen or the chassis.
A $599 MacBook would not deliver these premium quality standard, so it is out of Apple's business.
But I do want to talk about the Mac Pro.
Right now and only since last year and only on the 15-inch, the MacBook Pro only goes up to 32 GiB RAM. That’s barely enough. The iMac Pro goes up to 128. The Mac Pro to 1.5 TiB. So you can put 48 times as much RAM in there.
That’s a discrepancy that’s not entirely unavoidable on a portable machine, but it’s too large. I absolutely do want the MacBook Pro to deserve its name and be the Pro to the Air, much like the iMac Pro is to the iMac, and the Mac Pro to the Mac mini. Offer 64 GiB, at least (that’s already half as much as the iMac Pro, hey!).
Well, I can understand you, and I suppose we all would like to cramp as much power as we want inside of a portable machine.
But a Mac Pro is a different beast, and it supports motherboards and processors which are specifically designed for this kind of computer. It is a desktop and it takes space because it needs to consume a lot of energy and dissipate a lot of heat.
A laptop is a portable machine and cannot even compete with this kind of computer. I am not sure the amount of RAM a laptop motherboard can support at this point. Apple has never put desktop motherboards in its laptops, and I suppose it will never do this. Apple cares about the battery life of its laptops, and will not put a lot of power which will drastically reduce it.
For many people, it is better to have a powerful desktop and a thin and lighter laptop which can handle things while they are traveling. This solution tends to be cheaper and more adequate than having a big bulky laptop which is extremely expensive and, at the same time, too heavy to carry around, miserable at battery life, and still less powerful than a desktop. Of course this solution would not fit people that are on the run all the time and need to carry all the power.
So, the "Pro" in the MacBook Pro is just a moniker that means it is a more powerful machine than the "Air". Perhaps like the iPhone Pro means it is more powerful than the regular iPhone, but not necessarily for professionals who need lots of power.
I do not think Apple will be able to offer such very high-end laptops unless it starts to produce its own chips to equip them.
As for Apple offering very powerful machines for professionals, I am not very sure about it. Apple turned into a company devoted to consumers. In addition to the iPhone, it is releasing now a streaming service. The focus has shifted. And very expensive professional products do not represent a business large enough to compete with iPhones or streaming videos.
If you look at the business aspect, perhaps it makes sense for Apple to offer high-end devices to showcase new tech, and to please a small amount of faithful professionals who still rely on its products, so it is able to keep its "premium" aura. As a business per se, I do not think Apple would care about the niche market for $5,000+ powerful large laptops.
Your silly comment was about a MacBook that wasn’t released like you hoped.
