Is Apple’s new “Pro = Beefy” design language a mistake?

[jclardy]

Your point seems to be at some point, the "cheaper" laptop will serve your computing needs, and likely that will eventually become true. In Apple's eyes - this doesn't matter, because you are literally saying you will buy a different product in their lineup, and not even considering anything outside of it.

I've already done this - I went from my M1 Pro to an M2 Air as a software developer, and I love the Air. I don't need major GPU performance on the go, don't need the extra ports, and the screen was nicer, but I can live with 60hz and lower brightness. Instead I got a completely silent machine (Not that I ever heard the fans on the Pro), a cooler color (midnight), lighter weight, and better battery life (More efficiency cores to handle long periods of just text editing.) Will I ever go back to the Pro? Maybe if AR/VR development becomes big, but I doubt it.

In all honesty - the secret is that the base M2 would cover 95% of the computing world as it exists today (All productivity work, marketing, software development, even low end video work for TikTok/IG), the majority of people that buy the macbook pro buy it for the name and to have the "best", feeling that the milliseconds of CPU time savings is what is holding back their productivity.

In the end, Apple wins if everyone buys a MacBook Air. Their margins aren't thin on any devices in their lineup. And either way, Pros and non-pros will continue to buy the "best" available machines.

 

[unrigestered]

this!
i love my Air (probably more so than my 16" MBP) because of the portability, but when i need the raw performance, i wouldn't want to trade it in for something in-between. (i know i could get even more raw power by going desktop, but i vastly prefer using laptops)

but asking that a Pro model should rather become an ultra-portable computer than an actual "pro model" is really weird, as Apple already has incredible ultra portable products like the MBA, which by no means are slouches either, but why intentionally "gimp" something that's supposed to be "pro" for a something that's neither fish nor fowl.

the current MBPs are looking great too in their way (ok, i personally could life without that notch thing). they might have a more "robust" industrial look to them - not cheap looking at all, mind you, while the MBA is going for the sleeker look and even better portability.
and to be honest, the current M2 MBAs aren't even looking all that different.
Haven't seen one in the flesh yet though

if i was going purely by the looks, i think the Dell XPS13 Plus might actually be (one of) the sleekest looking devices available.

 

[Alex Cai]

At first I thought the MacBook Pro is utilitarian, (Better design since you need to get a little bulky to be pro)
But after I saw my old MBA 2019, I was stunned by it’s elegance. Also iPhone X looked better than 14 Pro, especially in the video with Jony Ive talking. Apple needs to find the balance between Jony Ive and whoever is in charge now

But one thing about the bulky 16in MacBook Pro is that Apple needs to fit a HDMI Port in the side, so thin edges won’t work

 

[leman]

At first I thought the MacBook Pro is utilitarian, (Better design since you need to get a little bulky to be pro)
But after I saw my old MBA 2019, I was stunned by it’s elegance. Also iPhone X looked better than 14 Pro, especially in the video with Jony Ive talking. Apple needs to find the balance between Jony Ive and whoever is in charge now

It’s a personal thing. I for example much prefer the current “slab” design on Mac laptops, it looks and feel better to me than tapered edges.

But one thing about the bulky 16in MacBook Pro is that Apple needs to fit a HDMI Port in the side, so thin edges won’t work

They managed to fit HDMI on the 2012-2016 chassis and that one was tapered.

 

[maflynn]

I liked the thinner design but I am happy that they moved away from the thinness at all cost mindset.

I'm pretty happy with how my 14" MBP looks, feels and travels, so I won't complain that its a chonky boy (its not) or the lines not as sharp/squared off as the prior generation.

 

[sifpilsen]

Keep the choice to opt for bulky, but also the lightness of Air, both MacBook and iPad. Was surprised with the bulkiness of iPad Air 4th gen. Love the option of either Mac mini or the Studio.

 

[Piplodocus]

If you want a thin machine, get a thin machine. That's what the Air is for. If you want to do some Pro work that needs the horsepower, you have to have thicker machine - it's physics.

I need a Pro machine for performance. I'm VERY glad we've left the era where every MacBook was basically an Air: extra thin, it's performance suffers as a result, you get a load of thermal throttling, and you can't actually buy a MacBook with the highest performance from it's CPU as possible.

If you'd rather less performance and it being thinner/lighter the Pro is clearly not aimed at you - so don't wish it didn't exist for those of us who actually need it. I seriously considering switching to PC before the actually-still-pretty-thin-and-light-by-most-peoples-standards new Pros came out. Now I've been a happy M1 Max owner for the last year.

 

[jeshanros]

After exclusively purchasing MacBook Pros, my next Mac is likely to be a MacBook Air — not because I want an Air, but because the MacBook Pro is too damn bulky.

However, this “Pro = Beefy” design language is not relegated to the Apple Silicon MacBook Pros. The issue extends to the M1/M2 iPad Pro and iPhone Pro devices as well.

​

M1 MacBook Pro​

I love my M1 Max 16” MacBook Pro when using it — it’s powerful, quiet, fast, cool and handles anything I throw at it gracefully and reliably; but this love transforms to doubts when hauling it or using it inflight or on anything other than a roomy desk for an extended period of time.

After hoisting my laptop bag to my shoulder, strolling to a gate at the airport or trying to use it inflight my inner talk increasingly turns to “Do I really need the power?” “Can I get away with a thinner, lighter, less powerful Mac laptop?“

The answer today is probably not — I need the 12 core CPU and 32 Core GPU to run discrete event simulations and visualize results as fast as possible. The difference between 30 minutes to run 20 iterations of a one-year complex simulation vs 45 minutes to do the same thing is huge — especially when collaborating with others and relying on simulation results to help others think through problems and solution with each run.

However, that rumored M2/M3 15” MacBook Air is sounding very promising. If it matches or comes close to the performance of my 16” M1 Max MacBook Pro, I’m going for it.

Yes, I’m willing to trade ProMotion, Mini LED display, and 1 Thunderbolt, HDMI and CF ports to eliminate 2 pounds and nearly 1/4 (.22) inch height on my daily driver — and likely pay less for the privilege!

M1/M2 iPad Pro​

I love my 12.9” Cellular M1 iPad Pro, but it’s too damn bulky — the M1 and M2 iPad Pro’s 1.51 pounds and .25 inches height vs 1.42 pounds and .23 inches of their 4th gen non M1 predecessor does not seem like a lot until you use it one handed and notice the significantly greater hand stress than the 4th gen iPad Pro .. or haul it around in your laptop bag along with your M1 Max MacBook Pro — that’s a total of 6.3 pounds without the power brick!

Similarly, the 4th gen 12.9” iPad Pro without mini led was fabulous in many ways (screen, performance, battery life, light weight, one-handed operation) .. and in practice the M1 version did not improve my experience as I thought it would — in retrospect I traded comfortable 1 hand operation for beefiness and the hope of future-proofing.

Likewise, I’m willing to trade off mini-LED, ProMotion and other enhancements for reduced weight and bulkiness of a larger screen iPad Air — and likely pay less for the privilege!

iPhone Pro​

The iPhone 12 Pro marked the leap from a 5.8“ screen to 6.1” screen. I reflexively upgraded from my beloved 5.8” iPhone 10 X to the 12 Pro to follow my practice of always purchasing the most feature rich, top of the line iPhone. However, after 2 months of use I realized that the iPhone X to 12 Pro “upgrade” came with a trade off: give up comfortable one-hand operation for better cameras and a bigger screen. This was a downgrade for me — not an upgrade.

I spent months trying to adapt to this change but could not — I simply valued the smaller 5.8” form factor more than better cameras and bigger, better screen. As soon as the iPhone 13 was released, I purchased an iPhone 13 mini and gave the 12 Pro to a family member. I continue to love the iPhone 13 mini’s combination of size, functionality and performance — and definitely paid less for the privilege!

Size matters​

After my iPhone Pro to iPhone mini conversion, I received an in-depth survey from Apple inquiring A. why I chose the iPhone 13 mini over the Pro and other devices (Answer: size), B. what I wanted (Answer: a 5.8” iPhone Pro model) and C. what I would do if the mini was not available: (a) choose another iPhone model, (b) choose a competitor’s mobile phone, (c) something else. Answer: (c) something else ..

The “something else” for me is to ditch the “phone” completely if the iPhone mini is discontinued and instead rely on my Apple Watch for “phone” functionality. I know the watch is not currently capable of untethered operation; but I hope that is the case in the next 1-3 years — as I refuse to buy an oversized phone when I have an iPad Pro and MacBook Pro for occasions when I need a large screen.

I have sympathy for Apple product managers enduring to the stresses and challenges in defining and evolving complex product lines but for me, the recent “Pro = Beefy” trend — first evident in the iPhone Pro, then the iPad Pro, and now the MacBook Pro — is a mistake that will impact the bottom line as it forces those who value compact portable form factors to purchase lighter devices that are often less expensive.

So, I’m wondering if Apple may be making a strategic mistake with this “Pro = Beefy” design approach as it seems to force customers to (a) choose between size and performance — which historically was not mutually exclusive — and (b) pay less for compactness — which historically came at a premium. I may be an outlier in my preference for compactness vs functional overkill; but this feels like a departure from the Apple design culture that saved us from 2 inch bricks masquerading as laptops and made us eager and excited to pay a premium for compactness.

What do you think?

/end-therapy-session/

I was more thinking Ultra = Beefy. I'm happy with my Apple Watch Ultra and would welcome an iPhone Ultra if it were truly ruggedized enough to go caseless and still had all of the features of the iPhone Pro. Can't speak to the laptops. I have a hard time imagining there's much of a market for a rugged laptop, but maybe. I just upgraded my 2015 Macbook Pro to to an M2 Macbook Air and find the Air preferable.

 

[jeremysteele]

If people put half as much effort into applying themselves into something helpful for society as they do worrying about Apple's stance on pro machines, the world would be a much better place.

 

[heretiq]

I don't think that this has ever changed. Apple's design for the MBP is still making the most compact laptop within a given performance target. The fine details of course vary from model to model, and other manufacturers have caught up in the meantime, but the basic principles are still the same.

Reading this thread I again became painfully aware how popular misconceptions and makeshift beliefs have formed a very stubborn public opinion. For example, we have hard empirical evidence that the "thin" 2016+ chassis can dissipate more heat than the previous 2012+ chassis. The "heat and performance issue" commonly associated with 2017-2018 15" MBPs are primarily because of the increased power consumption of the Intel CPUs. But the "internet wisdom" has decided that "thin is bad for performance" and here we are. Just read what people are arguing that it's the bigger chassis that allows M1 Max to be "fast", completely ignoring the fact that M1 Max CPU uses half the power (or less) for the same level performance as an Intel chip. We didn't get better performance because of the bigger chassis, we got better performance because of better silicon. And of course it "runs hot"! That's how Apple configures it to run! They always matched the fan curve and power management so that the chip runs at maximal safe temperature (100C) at maximal performance level, they've been doing it since 2014! But now I'm just ranting.

No, I think the reason why the new Pro got a bit of "bulk" has everything to do with user psychology. Users have been complaining about thin laptops being bad for performance and the "lack of ports", so Apple decided to capitalise on these (often irrational) emotions. They wanted to create the impression that they care about the "Pros" and that they take the feedback seriously. So they integrated some visual cues from early MBPs and Powerbooks, made the chassis styling more aggressive and "industrial" and made the cooling system stand out more. It was a brilliant move really, especially their "here is your MagSafe/HDMI/card reader back" — allows them to save tons of money on the actually expensive fourth thunderbolt port by giving you a cheap integrated USB hub, AND make more money out of MagSafe cable sales. Just genius. And the consumer loved it. Indeed, Apple marketing is second to none.

Anyway, let's get some perspective in here. This is the picture of three generations of the large MBP. Bottom-to-top: 16" M1 Max, 2015 15", 2017 15". I am very bad at photography, so the perspective is probably not the best, but the point is that the surface size of these laptops is almost identical, with very small variations. Not pictured is the 2019 Intel 16" (which I also have here) — that one is slightly wider funnily enough.

View attachment 2160029

Here is the M1 Max vs the 2015 15" chassis side by side. Looks much thicker, right? Well, most of it is an optical illusion, notice how the bottom of the silver chassis is almost invisible thanks to the slightly tapered shape. And the M1 Max has these very large rubber feet that easily add another 2mm to it. Don't get me wrong, the new one is thicker. But only barely so.

View attachment 2160030

And lastly, here is the old-school 2009 MBP (from the internet, as I don't have one). Notice something? Exactly!

Good points, well stated and supported. My only comment is that while the dimensions of the current 16” M1 Max MBP are indeed nearly identical to the Prior gen 15” MBP, the M1 MBP feels appreciably heavier when hoisting and hauling it (perhaps due to the larger heat pipe and weight distribution). Add the M1 Max MBPro power brick and 12.9” M1 iPad Pro to the bag and the sense of hauling bricks is unmistakable. While I love these devices and need the screen size and CPU and GPU performance they offer, my experience is that they are almost prohibitively bulky — so I’m hoping that Apple Silicon can help Apple squeeze enough performance out of the rumored 15” M3 Air to come close enough to M1 Max performance and present a lighter, less bulky alternative for someone that doesn’t need the cutting-edge CPU performance, display and all the ports of provided by the latest MBPro.

 

[heretiq]

This is again a popular argument, but I don't think it holds to scrutiny. Obsession with thinness is not just Ive, it's Apple. The first ever Intel MBP was described as "thin and light". Making computers as thin as possible has always been Apple's mission and it didn't change a bit. Even the new M1 chassis is still thinner than other laptops with comparable performance. Reducing the port types was a push towards embracing the new universal standard (read up on the complains Apple got for moving to USB in 1998 — it's literally the same story), sadly the rest of the industry lagged massively (not least because the consortium botched a lot of things). Butterfly keyboard was an attempt to design a new type of switch that promised a better typing experience, unfortunately, plagued by systematic issues. Sometimes stuff just doesn't work out. Sometimes you make something new and later discover it's not up to expectations. Doesn't mean it's Ive's ideology.



Not really. It's just that a negative public opinion has been formed around these models and certain subtle design cues and Apple is now using that to their advantage by negating these cues. See my post just above this.

Agree 100%. If there’s ideology at play it is the tarring and feathering of Ive who should instead be celebrated for providing the design direction and tension that engineering needed to produce insanely great products.

 

[heretiq]

For years there's been a lot of complaints that Apple, under Jony Ive's vision, were prioritising style over substance and making devices thinner & lighter whilst sacrificing things like battery life and performance.

The good news is they've done a u-turn on this, but they're also still making things like the MacBook Air and a range of different iPads in different sizes, so there's much more choice, as well as a range of devices with lots of ports. Thanks to Apple Silicon, devices like the Air are no longer compromised in terms of performance & battery life just because they're thinner.

So no, I think the new design language is very good and its exactly what the majority of posters on here have been asking-for for a long time.

Yes, the choices are great. The aspect of the design language that I see as a strategic mistake (for Apple not necessarily users) is that it forces those seeking performance plus compactness to trade down within the Apple product line (and pay less) to get it. This is a reversal of the prior trend where power and compactness went hand in hand in a premium (and higher priced) device and users were not forced to choose one or the other.

 

[heretiq]

A lot of internal politics within Apple. Under Jobs, Ive was given free reign and decision power. But of course, there's Jobs who was a very product person, looking at how things are, keeping things in check. Tim Cook, unfortunately, is not that kind of person. So post Jobs, unchecked, Ive went out of control, and the results were obvious.

But that's over now, and we now have a new Apple, for better or worse. We return to engineering-led designs that doesn't mainly prioritize form over function, but it seems like some of that bold vision has lessened. And the cost cutting focus is not helping. But that's the new Apple with mostly new leadership team. Many high executives from Jobs era have left.

I don't think we will see bold moves like the iPod shuffle (reimagining a low cost device), Macbook Air (reimagining the laptop), iPhone (reimagining the smartphone), etc anymore. Those things were bold and revolutionary when they were first recevealed. All Apple's lineup other than Apple Watch have been established during Jobs era, and all we have today are mere improvements. Seeing how Apple services is now making quite a lot of money, I guess it's the nature of a large company. Conservative.

👍

I’m hopeful for revolutionary products from Apple as Tim Cook often highlights that Apple Silicon now enables products that Apple aspired to build. Mr Cook is a smart man with high integrity so I don’t believe he is just spouting a marketing point. I’m looking forward to an insanely great 15” M3 MacBook Air that redefines and resets expectations for a thin, light laptop! 😃

 

[leman]

Yes, the choices are great. The aspect of the design language that I see as a strategic mistake (for Apple not necessarily users) is that it forces those seeking performance plus compactness to trade down within the Apple product line (and pay less) to get it. This is a reversal of the prior trend where power and compactness went hand in hand in a premium (and higher priced) device and users were not forced to choose one or the other.

To be honest, I think the main point of criticism for these new models is the weight. They did get considerably heavier. I don’t mind the visual language per se, although it would be a better laptop if it could shave a few mm from the height.

It is entirely possible that what Apple is doing now is some sort of “design reset”, to free themselves of the subjective stigma of “thinness at the expense of performance”. They can always make the laptops thinner again later. It’s a little bit like they got rid of the touch bar - “our pros love the full-sized function keys!”, only this time “the pros love how our silicon does not have yo sacrifice performance for mobility, so we made the new MacBook Pro even more mobile, but now up to 20% faster!”. Something like that

 

[heretiq]

Your point seems to be at some point, the "cheaper" laptop will serve your computing needs, and likely that will eventually become true. In Apple's eyes - this doesn't matter, because you are literally saying you will buy a different product in their lineup, and not even considering anything outside of it.

I've already done this - I went from my M1 Pro to an M2 Air as a software developer, and I love the Air. I don't need major GPU performance on the go, don't need the extra ports, and the screen was nicer, but I can live with 60hz and lower brightness. Instead I got a completely silent machine (Not that I ever heard the fans on the Pro), a cooler color (midnight), lighter weight, and better battery life (More efficiency cores to handle long periods of just text editing.) Will I ever go back to the Pro? Maybe if AR/VR development becomes big, but I doubt it.

In all honesty - the secret is that the base M2 would cover 95% of the computing world as it exists today (All productivity work, marketing, software development, even low end video work for TikTok/IG), the majority of people that buy the macbook pro buy it for the name and to have the "best", feeling that the milliseconds of CPU time savings is what is holding back their productivity.

In the end, Apple wins if everyone buys a MacBook Air. Their margins aren't thin on any devices in their lineup. And either way, Pros and non-pros will continue to buy the "best" available machines.

Yes, that is my point. And yes, Apple does “win” if I’m trading down within the product line vs going to the competition. But I think the choice between performance and compactness is more pronounced in the Apple Silicon MacBook line than it has been previously and possibly leading to more trading down and potentially winnowing of the MacBook Pro segment to just those who want substantially all of the presumed “pro” features and corresponding reduced average selling price/margin across the line. I wonder if forcing this dynamic is a mistake for Apple.

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

B. what I wanted (Answer: a 5.8” iPhone Pro model) and

I said the same thing. 5.8" was the best screen size. I also have a 13 mini and it's just a tad too small with the battery life also sucking.

 

[ian87w]

👍

I’m hopeful for revolutionary products from Apple as Tim Cook often highlights that Apple Silicon now enables products that Apple aspired to build. Mr Cook is a smart man with high integrity so I don’t believe he is just spouting a marketing point. I’m looking forward to an insanely great 15” M3 MacBook Air that redefines and resets expectations for a thin, light laptop! 😃

Apple Silicon is revolutionary, but it was started under Jobs, the A4.
The current Macbook Air might have new looks, but the original idea is still ultra thin and light laptop, that was pioneered by the original Macbook Air.

There won't be a real reimagining groundbreaking products anymore at this moment. This is typical of a mature and big company. It becomes conservative as to not disturb the main cash cow and shareholders' confidence. We will see how the AR/VR and Apple car go.

 

[heretiq]

To be honest, I think the main point of criticism for these new models is the weight. They did get considerably heavier. I don’t mind the visual language per se, although it would be a better laptop if it could shave a few mm from the height.

It is entirely possible that what Apple is doing now is some sort of “design reset”, to free themselves of the subjective stigma of “thinness at the expense of performance”. They can always make the laptops thinner again later. It’s a little bit like they got rid of the touch bar - “our pros love the full-sized function keys!”, only this time “the pros love how our silicon does not have yo sacrifice performance for mobility, so we made the new MacBook Pro even more mobile, but now up to 20% faster!”. Something like that

I think you nailed it leman — Yes, weight is the primary contributor to the bulkiness that inspired the post. I switched to MacBook Pro laptops in 2005 because they were performant and lightweight. Now I find myself thinking maybe I should trade down to a MacBook Air because the MacBook Pro has become too heavy. 😂

 

[MallardDuck]

More capable requires more mass. That's simple physics. Instead of getting hung up on a word (maybe for bragging rights?) focus on what capabilities you need regardless of labels.

If you don't need the features on a pro, buy a non-pro (that's what the air line is for on the Mac, especially if the rumored 15" comes out). In my case, I do need more performance on my mac and am willing to deal with the tradeoff in mass because I'm damn glad that Apple is providing beefier and more capable machines. On the phone I pick a pro, but would never carry a plus because of the size - that's the 'middle ground' phone in the lineup.

The Jony era crippled 'pro' machines in the pursuit of thin and light weren't worth the money, and left a substantial amount of performance and capability on the table. Apple's finally heard and fixed that.

 

[heretiq]

I said the same thing. 5.8" was the best screen size. I also have a 13 mini and it's just a tad too small with the battery life also sucking.

I feel you🙏🏽

 

[heretiq]

More capable requires more mass. That's simple physics. Instead of getting hung up on a word (maybe for bragging rights?) focus on what capabilities you need regardless of labels.

If you don't need the features on a pro, buy a non-pro (that's what the air line is for on the Mac, especially if the rumored 15" comes out). In my case, I do need more performance on my mac and am willing to deal with the tradeoff in mass because I'm damn glad that Apple is providing beefier and more capable machines. On the phone I pick a pro, but would never carry a plus because of the size - that's the 'middle ground' phone in the lineup.

The Jony era crippled 'pro' machines in the pursuit of thin and light weren't worth the money, and left a substantial amount of performance and capability on the table. Apple's finally heard and fixed that.

What if I need a light device with 15” display, 32GB RAM and the equivalent of a M1 Max CPU/GPU and don’t need mini LED, ProMotion, HDMI, CF slot, extra Thunderbolt ports? Which device should I get?

 

[jabbr]

Why not go for the 14” M2 pro? GPU is similar to M1 Max. You can scale the display if you really need more space.

 

[turbineseaplane]

People seem to be missing what was actually so great about the designs in the past..

Yes, the laptops were thick still -- but the designs made us think and feel as though they were thinner than reality.

That's awesome design.

Now they've just punted and made a big thick rectangle with really no interesting "shape"... and huge feet that look like "clogs"

 

[floral]

In my eyes - not quite. I've seen many people celebrate macbooks reverting from that (while beautiful and slim) flawed and weaker design, to the (while heavy and clunky) immeasurable power that a thicker laptop gives them.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I've seen many people celebrate macbooks reverting from that (while beautiful and slim) flawed and weaker design

Do we have any data to support this notion that the new design language is "not flawed" and "stronger"?

(I totally disagree with the notion that previous designs were "flawed" beyond the butterfly keyboards)

Looks can be very deceiving here and in no way necessarily mean the new design ideology is some "tank" of strength and reliability.

I have a friend who still uses a 2012 rMBP and THAT thing has been through the wars.