I think I get what "pro" means to Apple.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by therealseebs, Nov 15, 2016.

  1. therealseebs macrumors 65816

    therealseebs

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #1
    I was thinking "Macbook" to "Macbook Pro". I think that's the wrong way to think about this machine.

    Think of it instead as "iPad Pro" to "Macbook Pro". This is the convergence; rather than shipping two completely different product lines, they're gradually migrating them towards each other. This is what everyone wants, for the same reason that no one wants sports cars or pickup trucks, everyone always wants SUVs and nothing else.
     
  2. Mcdevidr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    #2
    Id be careful with "everybody wants statements". Also if everyone had an SUV it would be really hard for Trump (although I am not sure he really believes what he says) to deny climate change. Another thing, I don't get what you mean? Let me tell you what I would like as convergence. A 13.3 inch MacBook Pro like we have now, but where the paper thin screen detaches and runs iOS so I would not need two devices. This is a niche use case as I want it to read sheet music off of. In the mean time I'm stuck with having an iPad and a MacBook.
     
  3. myscrnnm macrumors 65816

    myscrnnm

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #3
    People need to stop over-analyzing this. "Pro" simply means it's a more powerful machine than the "standard" MacBook. Just because Honda has a "Touring" trim for their Odyssey and CR-V models, does that mean you should regard them as grand tourers? Microsoft also uses the "Pro" moniker in their Surface line; I don't see anyone ragging on the Surface Pro 4, which is more definitely not a "professional" device going by what most "professionals" on this site apparently require.
     
  4. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
  5. therealseebs thread starter macrumors 65816

    therealseebs

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #5
    Really, I do think this is what's going on; it's device convergence. Which sucks for me, because I'm one of the people who wants an ipad mini and a desktop-replacement laptop, both, and doesn't get nearly as much value from devices between them.
     
  6. tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
  7. Antairez macrumors regular

    Antairez

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    #7
    Because Surface Pro is just a marketing terms while Macbook Pro isn't. That's the only way to describe these people's logic.
     
  8. Mcdevidr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    #8
    There are desktop replacement laptops although for me id rather go with one of those ugly as sin VR backpacks and a portable screen. Can you imagine how cool that would be walking into a boardroom meeting with a VR backpack computer?
     
  9. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #9
    Apple has never made a desktop replacement laptop, and in fact the data shows, rather conclusively, that this new generation of MBP is the most powerful laptop they've ever built, and by no small margin.

    It's fine if you want something Apple doesn't make, but frame it as such, rather than framing it as some major change in direction to the MBP lineup.
     
  10. therealseebs thread starter macrumors 65816

    therealseebs

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    #10
    Apple never really got into the super high end of desktop replacement laptops, but the 17" MBP was actually pretty credible in that field, except for the dismal GPU selections.

    This machine is powerful, arguably. I'm not sure how well it holds up under full load; I'm not sure it could actually provide rated power output on three ports, and run at full capacity, on 85W. I sort of doubt it could get rid of 85W worth of heat without making some impressive noise, for that matter.

    But compare the spec gap between high-end MBP and low-end macbook a few years back, to the spec gap now. There's a lot less difference between the high and low end of the range than there used to be, and the high-end machines are cutting a lot of corners on functionality in order to be lightweight.

    I actually sorta liked the Air. I had one for a while. I used it as a machine that wasn't expected to do all the things I could do on a big fancy machine, but that was super lightweight and easy to carry around. It was a nice option. But it was nice because it was an option, and I could also get the big fancy machine.
     
  11. Mcdevidr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    #11
    I don't know about that. I think the spec gap between the highest end 15.4 with radeon 460 vs the lowest end 12 inch MacBook is pretty steep in both GPU and CPU.

    I don't know I tried a desktop replacement gaming laptop. Just didn't suit my needs. Id rather have a lightweight machine like the 13.3 and stream intensive stuff to it from a headless desktop. That is just me though.
     
  12. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #12
    If you go back and compare the benchmarks, the 17" MBP was actually much farther away from a desktop replacement for its day than today's offerings. The CPU gap was much wider, the disk was a major bottleneck back then, and RAM and GPU were in a similar situation as today. A 2010 MBP could drive 1 external display to the Mac Pro's 6. Today we are nearly equalized there.

    There are actually few corners being cut today - rather that Intel is up against the wall with performance, so has shifted priority to efficiency, which allows for these new thinner, lighter designs. GPU efficiency hasn't moved as quickly, so Apple is still choosing the best GPU/watt they can get from anyone today.
     

Share This Page