If you took over for Tim Cook today, what would the next MBP look like? Thickest height, ideal ports layout, types of displays, and keyboard/input layout that you would put on Apple's workhorse notebook. The things that are worth both the customers' money and their arm muscles, and the things that aren't. I want to discuss chassis only, not internals, which is unproductive.
That said, we can grant that everyone wants to put back user-replaceable HD, memory, and battery, and we can grant for this discussion that you, the CEO, could give us all these things in under .95", and the only reason (no other design tradeoffs) Cook hasn’t been doing so for the last 7 years is to stop us from repairing our own machines. (Doubt this is possible for battery but we’ll grant it anyway.)
So, I'm quasi-reviving this thread, which matches my opinion exactly, but I want other views. (If another thread exists with this same aim as this one, oops - call this one the "Into the ARM era dream chassis thread”.) Also, it’s not just a matter of 2nd Gen vs the present era. As the list of MBP dimensions in my reply below show, the 3rd to 4th generation jump was also drastically reductive.
Why do I want to know your “thickest” acceptable height? Because volume and weight buy thermals, battery capacity, repairability, easier assembly, and easier QA. There's no business reason to make a computer smaller except that the niche and your brand want it. Tim Cook decided that 2nd and 3rd gen MBP heights were above what the niche/brand demanded. Feel free to take these/other considerations into account for your answer, or be an absolutist to your vision of what a “pro” Apple notebook is.
That said, we can grant that everyone wants to put back user-replaceable HD, memory, and battery, and we can grant for this discussion that you, the CEO, could give us all these things in under .95", and the only reason (no other design tradeoffs) Cook hasn’t been doing so for the last 7 years is to stop us from repairing our own machines. (Doubt this is possible for battery but we’ll grant it anyway.)
So, I'm quasi-reviving this thread, which matches my opinion exactly, but I want other views. (If another thread exists with this same aim as this one, oops - call this one the "Into the ARM era dream chassis thread”.) Also, it’s not just a matter of 2nd Gen vs the present era. As the list of MBP dimensions in my reply below show, the 3rd to 4th generation jump was also drastically reductive.
Why do I want to know your “thickest” acceptable height? Because volume and weight buy thermals, battery capacity, repairability, easier assembly, and easier QA. There's no business reason to make a computer smaller except that the niche and your brand want it. Tim Cook decided that 2nd and 3rd gen MBP heights were above what the niche/brand demanded. Feel free to take these/other considerations into account for your answer, or be an absolutist to your vision of what a “pro” Apple notebook is.