The new 2.4 GHz Penryn MBP chips cost Apple $75 less per chip than the old 2.2 GHz chips did, and they have a smaller L2 cache. 2.5 GHz Penryn chips with 6 MB of cache would have been the same price as the old chips. The remote is no longer included. These two cost-cutting measures are disappointingly stingy. Plus, consider the fact that Apple didn't put any R&D money into the new MBPs, because the design hasn't changed much. Apple products are becoming even more overpriced. When I adjust for "technological inflation" due to Moore's law, the value of the MBP has declined significantly over the years. Right after the introduction of Intel chips, accounting for "technological inflation," the MBP was a much better value for the money. Now, it is laughable how much cheaper a Dell would be. Please let me know if you disagree with my estimate of the rate of technological inflation, there is no CPI for technology. Update: Everybody hates me now, how interesting. I would like to point out that I really like the new MacBook Pros, and I am always amazed by the fact that Apple is the only computer company that makes non-ugly laptops. Go Apple. The point of my thread was not to say that MBPs are overpriced in absolute terms (read my next post, and my thread about how MBPs are priced competitively with other thin and light notebooks). The point of my thread is that Apple has made some downgrades in the MBP. The on-chip cache is smaller! I just can't get over that. But no, it doesn't make me cry. In fact, I am probably about to buy an MBP. I hesitate, because the new MB is so awesome as well, I almost can't justify the expense of the MBP. I am not complaining about the computer in and of itself, or the price in and of itself. In fact, I am not trying to complain. I am trying to point out the choices Apple is making: They seem to think hard disc space is important, and processor speed isn't. Okay, maybe they are more in tune with the desires of the consumer than I am.