Is the Macbook Pro... too thin?

[Samuelsan2001]

I think the point that lots of disgruntled people are trying to make is they wouldn't have cared if the new MBP was heavier or had less good battery life. They'd rather have had the performance, than had thin and light. If they wanted thin and light, they'd have gone for the MacBook.

Then they are buying from the wrong company this has been apples direction for at last 15 years and they pretty much told us exactly what they would do with the update. If you are surprised or disgruntled you haven't been paying attention,not apples problem or anyone's else's Apple aren't doing what you want, that's life get over it.

I realise many people got into Apple laptops in the 2009 to 2011 era purely because everyone else was making very bad laptops, but the competition is now good and if you have specific needs rather than a slim light excellent balanced all round portable then other makes are more what you are looking for. That's fine just go with another make of laptop then swapping over is not the problem it was, but don't blame Apple with following through on a vision for portable devices that they have been aiming for for more than a decade because it's not what YOU want....

 

[Rkuda]

Your follow-up response, relying on the word "better", shows that you have no clue how little the processing and graphical performance has improved. You said the new Macbook pro "stomps" the old one's performance. It most certainly does not. The improvement in performance is so incredibly minimal.

It would've been much nicer to see the same size so that they could provide better heat dissipation. They could fit faster performing hardware into the 13" MBP that way, and keep the larger battery in it.

Imagine the 13" MBP if it were priced as it is right now, but it had ~15-20% faster CPU/GPU performance (than the current 2016 iteration has), and 30%+ better battery life. Granted, the hardware inside (CPU/GPU) might be more expensive by, very roughly, $50 on their end. That would be a possibility if they didn't prioritize thinning the body out.

Even if the CPU/GPU are only nominally faster it still stomps the old one. Better screen, better portability, better SSD, much faster and versatile TB3 ports, touch bar. So whole package wise yes the new ones stomp the old ones.

Also keeping the Pro at the same thickness would never satisfy people. All the people complaining about the thinness would just be replaced by those claiming Apple has lackluster industrial design and was completely unable to even try match the thinness/design of PCs like the HP spectre, etc.

 

[leman]

You said the new Macbook pro "stomps" the old one's performance. It most certainly does not. The improvement in performance is so incredibly minimal.

I didn't say 'stomp', you must be confusing me with some other poster. The fact is though that the new model is faster than the old one in every single aspect. Except the GPU, which is 50-60% faster.

Imagine the 13" MBP if it were priced as it is right now, but it had ~15-20% faster CPU/GPU performance (than the current 2016 iteration has), and 30%+ better battery life. Granted, the hardware inside (CPU/GPU) might be more expensive by, very roughly, $50 on their end. That would be a possibility if they didn't prioritize thinning the body out.

I can even imagine it being ten times faster. What difference would it make? I don't see any point in discussing made-up fantasy CPUs and GPUs.
[doublepost=1478090664][/doublepost]

Then they are buying from the wrong company this has been apples direction for at last 15 years and they pretty much told us exactly what they would do with the update. If you are surprised or disgruntled you haven't been paying attention,not apples problem or anyone's else's Apple aren't doing what you want, that's life get over it.

Exactly this. The 2016 MBP is simply the logical continuation of the MacBook Pro design as it has been from the start: best-in class CPUs, energy efficient memory and storage, mid-tier energy-efficient GPUs, focus on mobility and battery.

 

[Chicane-UK]

Then they are buying from the wrong company this has been apples direction for at last 15 years and they pretty much told us exactly what they would do with the update. If you are surprised or disgruntled you haven't been paying attention,not apples problem or anyone's else's Apple aren't doing what you want, that's life get over it.

Just for the record, I don't care. I wasn't interested in the MacBook Pro originally, and I'm even less interested in it now.

However I do not agree that this has been their direction for the last 15 years. This is making excuses for design compromises, that simply didn't need to be made. For example, in the last 15 years they went from the PowerMac G4, to the PowerMac G5 and then the (original) Mac Pro. Those were awesome upgrades, that improved expandability, performance without compromising a great deal. They may have started down this road in recent years however, but my point is, that this isn't how Apple has always been.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

Then they are buying from the wrong company this has been apples direction for at last 15 years and they pretty much told us exactly what they would do with the update. If you are surprised or disgruntled you haven't been paying attention,not apples problem or anyone's else's Apple aren't doing what you want, that's life get over it.

I realise many people got into Apple laptops in the 2009 to 2011 era purely because everyone else was making very bad laptops, but the competition is now good and if you have specific needs rather than a slim light excellent balanced all round portable then other makes are more what you are looking for.

Exactly this. You could argue that Apple has been neglecting the Mac Pro target customers, but I don't see this as being the case with the new MBP.

Follow your need, not a specific brand (for arbitrary reasons).

 

[T-Bob]

Prior owner of rmbp 2013, and now MacBook, to me the new line is goldilocks; just right.

Considering another shift, if it was an ounce more would make me hesitate. I think a lot of people forget that to some portability is *very* important, and the new mbp seems to be an ideal balance of weight and power for my needs.

 

[myscrnnm]

It frustrates me when I read comments like this because it displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the type of components that are used in these computers. The Retina MacBook uses Core M processors. These are CPUs that consume so little power that the device they're housed in doesn't even require a fan to stay cool. Whereas the the 2016 MacBook Pros use up to 28W and 45W CPUs. If you can tell the difference between the two, chances are you didn't need that extra power anyway, so it doesn't affect you. And just because the 2016 MBPs don't have Kaby Lake doesn't mean they're "obsolete." There's still a huge distinction between the Retina MacBook and MacBook Pro lines.

 

[stockscalper]

Is the new Macbook Pro truly thinner than the Macbook Air? It depends on which end of the Air you measure. In the Apple demo they compared the thickest end of the Air to the Pro and declared the Pro to be thinner. I choose to measure the Air at the other end and in doing so it will be the thinnest. What Apple should be promoting in their comparison is that the new Pro's have a smaller footprint than the Air while maintaining the same screen size.

To answer the OP's question, I don't think the new Pro's are too thin, just right and shaving off the weight really helped too.

 

[therealseebs]

I think Apple has done a good job balancing performance with portability and battery life. Clearly some people are unhappy with the design decisions that Apple has made, but I think they are more the exception, and it's not realistic to expect Apple to accommodate their needs over the rest of their user base.

In which case, why have two product lines? Why have more than one product at all, really?

Did you ever notice that most brands of spaghetti sauce now come in several varieties? This was a major breakthrough in marketing, it turns out. For years, people were trying to find the "best" spaghetti sauce, and they kept getting confusing results. Then someone pointed out that it made sense once you understood that different people wanted different things. So if you make your spaghetti sauce more chunky, some people like it more, and some less.

So, you differentiate products.

The original idea was that the MacBook would be the mass-market laptop that had what "most" people want, and the MacBook Pro would be the machine that had a bunch of features that not everyone needed. So maybe one person doesn't need Ethernet, but needs 32GB of RAM. And one needs Ethernet, but only needs 16GB of RAM. And one needs an SD card, but would be fine with 16GB of RAM and no Ethernet.

So you have two machines: One has 16GB of RAM, no SD card reader, no Ethernet. And one has 32GB of RAM, SD card reader, and Ethernet. And all three of those users buy the fancy machine, because it does a thing they need, and they don't mind the other features.

That was the plan, once. It stopped being the plan around the time they dropped Ethernet because they wanted to make the case thinner. And now all three of those users are unhappy. And that turns out to be a significant number of people who are putting up with sub-par machines because their individual requirements aren't all that common... But Apple could be making a fortune selling a slightly thicker machine that actually met the needs of the various pro users.

 

[T-Bob]

In which case, why have two product lines? Why have more than one product at all, really?

Did you ever notice that most brands of spaghetti sauce now come in several varieties? This was a major breakthrough in marketing, it turns out. For years, people were trying to find the "best" spaghetti sauce, and they kept getting confusing results. Then someone pointed out that it made sense once you understood that different people wanted different things. So if you make your spaghetti sauce more chunky, some people like it more, and some less.

So, you differentiate products.

The original idea was that the MacBook would be the mass-market laptop that had what "most" people want, and the MacBook Pro would be the machine that had a bunch of features that not everyone needed. So maybe one person doesn't need Ethernet, but needs 32GB of RAM. And one needs Ethernet, but only needs 16GB of RAM. And one needs an SD card, but would be fine with 16GB of RAM and no Ethernet.

So you have two machines: One has 16GB of RAM, no SD card reader, no Ethernet. And one has 32GB of RAM, SD card reader, and Ethernet. And all three of those users buy the fancy machine, because it does a thing they need, and they don't mind the other features.

That was the plan, once. It stopped being the plan around the time they dropped Ethernet because they wanted to make the case thinner. And now all three of those users are unhappy. And that turns out to be a significant number of people who are putting up with sub-par machines because their individual requirements aren't all that common... But Apple could be making a fortune selling a slightly thicker machine that actually met the needs of the various pro users.

Here's the sauce lineup:

Very light: IPP 9.7"/12.5"
Original blend, hold the oomph: rMacbook
Ooolala: MBP+

That's on the mobile side, I think the real issue here is that people want these mobiles to have bleeding edge desktop performance, and that's now beyond their scope. Plus there are no new tech desktops available.

 

[Chicane-UK]

In which case, why have two product lines? Why have more than one product at all, really?

Did you ever notice that most brands of spaghetti sauce now come in several varieties? This was a major breakthrough in marketing, it turns out. For years, people were trying to find the "best" spaghetti sauce, and they kept getting confusing results. Then someone pointed out that it made sense once you understood that different people wanted different things. So if you make your spaghetti sauce more chunky, some people like it more, and some less.

So, you differentiate products.

The original idea was that the MacBook would be the mass-market laptop that had what "most" people want, and the MacBook Pro would be the machine that had a bunch of features that not everyone needed. So maybe one person doesn't need Ethernet, but needs 32GB of RAM. And one needs Ethernet, but only needs 16GB of RAM. And one needs an SD card, but would be fine with 16GB of RAM and no Ethernet.

So you have two machines: One has 16GB of RAM, no SD card reader, no Ethernet. And one has 32GB of RAM, SD card reader, and Ethernet. And all three of those users buy the fancy machine, because it does a thing they need, and they don't mind the other features.

That was the plan, once. It stopped being the plan around the time they dropped Ethernet because they wanted to make the case thinner. And now all three of those users are unhappy. And that turns out to be a significant number of people who are putting up with sub-par machines because their individual requirements aren't all that common... But Apple could be making a fortune selling a slightly thicker machine that actually met the needs of the various pro users.

Thank god - the voice of common sense.

 

[therealseebs]

Here's the sauce lineup:

Very light: IPP 9.7"/12.5"
Original blend, hold the oomph: rMacbook
Ooolala: MBP+

That's on the mobile side, I think the real issue here is that people want these mobiles to have bleeding edge desktop performance, and that's now beyond their scope. Plus there are no new tech desktops available.

Well, why is it beyond their scope? Other people can make bleeding-edge performance laptops.

Seriously, compare the state of things now with the state of things the last time the MBP had an Ethernet port. Back then, the MBP was the "performance" line, and it wasn't as sleek as the Air, but it did have a lot of features.

Now I'm supposed to consider a machine which doesn't even have an escape key, doesn't have Ethernet, doesn't have any ports that work with literally any existing device or peripheral, and doesn't have a card reader, the "Ooolala" machine? No, I'm not convinced. Back when there was an actual pro line distinct from the casual use line, this would have been unambiguously on the "casual user" side.

Apple no longer makes a "pro" laptop. They haven't for a while. And the new one is significantly less like a "pro" model than the previous one.

I think the problem is that the people at Apple are trying desperately to emulate Steve Jobs, and aren't aware that "becoming thinner and thinner and not being able to do your job any more" was actually a fatal illness, not a visionary design decision.

 

[0x100]

I think the point that lots of disgruntled people are trying to make is they wouldn't have cared if the new MBP was heavier or had less good battery life. They'd rather have had the performance, than had thin and light. If they wanted thin and light, they'd have gone for the MacBook.

The products make no sense. The pro computers are desktop replacements. The macbook and air are thin and light ultraportables. The Pro shouldn't aspire to be like the air or the macbook.

 

[T-Bob]

I think the 15" is more of a desktop replacement machine and suffers being limited to just 16GB, it is a pity apple didn't consider a different package design like they did for the non touch bar 13". Sounds like people would prefer DDR4 and a few hours less run time, or even a slightly thicker body for the extra battery, like the iPad 3.

For the 13" it seems just right really, and you would be more likely to want greater stamina than the 15".

 

[neteng101]

No they are not: mid of the line CPU and Lame GPU

I think what he meant was best in the "lightweight" class!

 

[shareef777]

Then they are buying from the wrong company this has been apples direction for at last 15 years and they pretty much told us exactly what they would do with the update. If you are surprised or disgruntled you haven't been paying attention,not apples problem or anyone's else's Apple aren't doing what you want, that's life get over it.

I realise many people got into Apple laptops in the 2009 to 2011 era purely because everyone else was making very bad laptops, but the competition is now good and if you have specific needs rather than a slim light excellent balanced all round portable then other makes are more what you are looking for. That's fine just go with another make of laptop then swapping over is not the problem it was, but don't blame Apple with following through on a vision for portable devices that they have been aiming for for more than a decade because it's not what YOU want....

God, I wish more people understood this. Thank you!

 

[PaulWog]

I am amazed by the ignorant forum-frequenters who are disagreeing with me about everything. I can lay it out plain and simple and somehow I'm attacked off-point. Trump style.

When I say they could've put a more powerful processor in there if they didn't thin it out, I'm told I'm talking about "imaginary processors". That has to be the most idiotic response I've heard. If you have better cooling options and a bigger battery, you can house a more powerful mobile processor. Plain and simple.

Yet, somehow me saying that the current choice in processors is underpowered, due to Apple prioritizing a thinner laptop, shows a fundamental misunderstanding?

Jesus. It's like Trump supporters are applying the same logic on Apple boards.

Apple ****ed up. They churned out a thinner laptop with no noteworthy performance increase (CPU/GPU specifically). Those saying "Oh well there's so much screen performance, or port speed, or bla bla bla" are absolutely burying their heads in the sand.

 

[shareef777]

I am amazed by the ignorant forum-frequenters who are disagreeing with me about everything. I can lay it out plain and simple and somehow I'm attacked off-point. Trump style.

When I say they could've put a more powerful processor in there if they didn't thin it out, I'm told I'm talking about "imaginary processors". That has to be the most idiotic response I've heard. If you have better cooling options and a bigger battery, you can house a more powerful mobile processor. Plain and simple.

Yet, somehow me saying that the current choice in processors is underpowered, due to Apple prioritizing a thinner laptop, shows a fundamental misunderstanding?

Jesus. It's like Trump supporters are applying the same logic on Apple boards.

Apple ****ed up. They churned out a thinner laptop with no noteworthy performance increase (CPU/GPU specifically). Those saying "Oh well there's so much screen performance, or port speed, or bla bla bla" are absolutely burying their heads in the sand.

What processor are you talking about (admittedly I'm only looking at the 15")?

 

[ugru]

I think what he meant was best in the "lightweight" class!

You and the other defenders of the 2016 rMBP are missing the point. Their thinness obsession crippled their "Pro" laptop

Make a laptop with the same formfactor of 2015s (which is already thin enough) or even a bit thicker and you can put inside a better CPU and an a lot better GPU (1060 anyone??) and probably keep 6/7 hours battery, which is enough for even the most extreme uses...

"But we want thin and light"-----> Buy the frickin' MacBook...

"Apple has always done so I don't see why they have to change" -------> They are wrong and they are loosing a big chunk of the market that is migrating back to windows or Linux, if you do not see why you are simply blinded by your applebrain

 

[Wildkraut]

Did you ever notice that most brands of spaghetti sauce now come in several varieties? This was a major breakthrough in marketing, it turns out. For years, people were trying to find the "best" spaghetti sauce, and they kept getting confusing results. Then someone pointed out that it made sense once you understood that different people wanted different things. So if you make your spaghetti sauce more chunky, some people like it more, and some less.

WTF who buys Spaghetti Sauce? It's so easy to cook it by yourself, and also tastes 1000 times better.

 

[neteng101]

You and the other defenders of the 2016 rMBP are missing the point. Their thinness obsession crippled their "Pro" laptop

LOL you missed the sarcasm in my statement totally. Best in the "lightweight" class meaning it can't do any "Pro" class heavy lifting.

 

[shareef777]

The simple fact is that more people prefer 10hr battery life vs having 6/7with a 1060. They grabbed the best AVAILABLE components that gets us 10 hours and put it into a chassis as small as possible. Batteries are limited to less then 100 Wh, and with a 1060, you wouldn't hit that 10 hour goal. Price is what really sucks, but that's expected. You're adding 4 TB3 ports, a P3 display, fastest SSD available anywhere. Those things add up. Every manufacturer has compromises. Most are on the battery, Apple is on the GPU and memory.

 

[myscrnnm]

The products make no sense. The pro computers are desktop replacements. The macbook and air are thin and light ultraportables. The Pro shouldn't aspire to be like the air or the macbook.

In what way are the MacBook Pros aspiring to be like the Air or MacBook? Because Apple made them thinner than they were the last generation? That's not because Apple is trying to make them ultraportables, it's because they're trying to make them mobile machines. It's always preferable to make a laptop lighter when possible.

It's crazy how in the 1990s we envisioned computers of the future that were paper thin, embedded in sheets of glass, projected onto a variety of surfaces, et cetera. And now in the 21st century we have the technology to make thinner computers that maintain a high level of processing power and all-day battery life, and people are actually complaining. People don't know what they want anymore. Consumers are making computers worse, not Apple.

 

[PaulWog]

In what way are the MacBook Pros aspiring to be like the Air or MacBook? Because Apple made them thinner than they were the last generation? That's not because Apple is trying to make them ultraportables, it's because they're trying to make them mobile machines. It's always preferable to make a laptop lighter when possible.

It's crazy how in the 1990s we envisioned computers of the future that were paper thin, embedded in sheets of glass, projected onto a variety of surfaces, et cetera. And now in the 21st century we have the technology to make thinner computers that maintain a high level of processing power and all-day battery life, and people are actually complaining. People don't know what they want anymore. Consumers are making computers worse, not Apple.

So would you be happy with a 10% performance increase every year over the next 10 years?

That would mean in 10 years, the Macbook Pro would have a processor and graphics card that are 2.6x more powerful than what we have right now.

 

[myscrnnm]

So would you be happy with a 10% performance increase every year over the next 10 years?

That would mean in 10 years, the Macbook Pro would have a processor and graphics card that are 2.6x more powerful than what we have right now.

Why? Is that what Apple has been doing? Because I think the CPU performance of Apple laptops over the last ten years has averaged more than 10% per year. (serious question, not sarcastic or rhetorical)