I think the basic problem is this. Some years ago, under Steve Jobs, Apple committed itself to dividing the market into four segments. Pro and Consumer on one axis. Portable and Desktop on the other axis.
Thus, the ideal Apple would offer four computers. A iBook, an iMac, a PowerBook and a PowerMac. Simple. To the point. Easy for Customers to understand when buying the machines, not necessarily easy for them after they've bought them, (because they change from year to year, yet the name stays the same.)
Slowly Apple has expanded out from this scheme, but the demands of brand cohesion have prevented Apple from introducing too many niche products. Intel, however, faces no such constraints, and offers a almost bewildering array of chips that are each strong in one area, while compromised in another. Everything is a tradeoff. Sometimes those chips fit into Apple's conception of what a good computer is supposed to be. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they are intended to fill the needs of a trend that Apple hasn't yet identified. Sometimes they break things that Apple consumers have gotten used to seeing.
Apple views its laptops as ultraportable machines. If you need power in excess-perhaps you should look at an iMac instead. There's no room for a luggable computer in Apple's lineup. Not until it changes its branding scheme.
Unfortunately, this has made Apple's Macintosh division into rather lumbering beast.
Which is a bit sad, because I would have thought that the iOS division would have opened up Apple's eyes to the merits of a person owning multiple, ultra-specialized computers, each sharing access to the same set of data, instead of a single computer that's stretched to the limits. Maybe that would cut into their profit margins.
The MacBook Pro can't be all things to all people.
