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

[ric22]

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"

I am also baffled about the new thick feet... why raise the thing any higher? Combined with the sharp edges it seems like Apple wants to hurt our wrists or something 😆

I much preferred the previous chassis shape- not sure why we've gone backwards in time 14 years to return to an older design.

 

[dmccloud]

how do you explain the super thick Mac Studios?
not even taking the Ultra into account, but the "base" Studio Max is basically the same chip as the one in the laptop and yet it is thick as a brick.
and as far as i know it is running way cooler than the laptop chip (i think even under heavy sustained loads usually not more that in the mid 60 degrees of celsius)

it might be true that the chips themself are designed to work at ~100 Celsius, but the usual "internet wisdom" is saying that this isn't idea for siliconl in the long run and many developers are trying to avoid running stuff this hot when possible (even Apple does in the Studio)

and then there's the unavoidable soldering points. sure, close to 100 degrees celsius won't directly melt them, but it's still not good for a truly long lifespan, especially with the "new" regulations that made them more fragile (from the beginning of this millenium IIRC) due to the prohibition of use of lead for the solderings outside of some exceptions for cases of high risks for human life, such in aviation, etc

1: much easier to visually distinguish between the Mac Mini and Mac Studio based on the chassis size.
2: The space is needed to accomodate the heatsink needed to cool the M1 Ultra, especially since it actually cools both sides of the logic board where the Ultra resides.
3. Not sure where you got your solder melt points from, but that would be extremely low, especially in high-performance computing applications.
4. "Internet Wisdom" is a poor resource for sorting fact from fiction and personal narrative.

 

[leman]

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.

No it doesn’t. We are talking about hardware that uses 70 watts on a CPU+GPU torture test. You don’t need a beefy chassis to dissipate that.

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.

The machines were crippled by the fact that Intel CPUs required more and more power. My Intel i9 MBP uses more power opening an excel file than my M1 Max running a statistical simulation on all cores.

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"

I do like it. It’s a bit more brutal but also very slick. Also, nicer to carry around. It’s a matter of taste though.

Really, the only thing I would criticize is the weight.

 

[unrigestered]

Not sure where you got your solder melt points from, but that would be extremely low, especially in high-performance computing applications.

i got my solder melting point from... soldering
and i didn't even say those were melting points, but still higher temps (that 100 degrees already are) are not a good thing for longevity even if it's still far from melting if you are doing heavy work almost 24/7 (like rendering large projects)
same as plastic will not immediately die from exposure to UV- radiation, but it will be weakened and eventually fall apart over long periods

and according to the "internet wisdom"(sorry i'm not a scientist myself) constant 100 degrees celsius aren't even great for silicon long term either. at least according to the opinions i've seen.
do you have any reliable sources that state that those systems will survive such temps no probs for 10+ years?
then why are most developers so cautious getting there?

 

[leman]

i got my solder melting point from... soldering
and i didn't even say those were melting points, but still higher temps (that 100 degrees already are) are not a good thing for longevity even if it's still far from melting if you are doing heavy work almost 24/7 (like rendering large projects)
same as plastic will not immediately die from exposure to UV- radiation, but it will be weakened and eventually fall apart over long periods

and according to the "internet wisdom"(sorry i'm not a scientist myself) constant 100 degrees celsius aren't even great for silicon long term either. at least according to the opinions i've seen.
do you have any reliable sources that state that those systems will survive such temps no probs for 10+ years?

I already replied to all these points. If you want a source:

a) https://www.ti.com/lit/an/sprabx4b/...ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2F#page4

b) the fact that all CPU manufacturers say that running at 105C is safe for your hardware (why 105? read the first link )

then why are most developers so cautious getting there?

Developers? What does it have to do with developers? Makers of chips have no problems with those temperatures.

 

[unrigestered]

thanks for the link!

and sorry, english is not my native language, but i thought that some developers must be responsible developing a system.
but maker or manufacturer would probably have indeed been more appropriate

 

[Nicole1980]

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/

Seriously? .02 inches thicker has created this kind of trauma for you. Talk about a first world problem.

 

[smelly feet]

I’m more talking about someone like a student on a tight budget who needs a MacBook. I think it would be better if he spent less on the MacBook and maybe have more money to live off of.

The students I know, college and otherwise, do almost all of their work "in the cloud". Local apps and local horsepower are needed less and less each year. So I agree, they don't need much beyond a MacBook Air (or a Chromebook).

 

[heretiq]

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.

Good question. I need the larger screen real estate of a 15” or 16” device due to the large process simulations that we work with. When not on the move I use a 32” 4K external monitor. However I travel 1-2 weeks each month and need to rely on the laptop screen while on the move. When contemplating the update from my 15” Intel MacBook Pro to the M1, I tried out the 14” in the Apple Store (as I found the 16” bulky from the outset) but felt the screen was too small — so I went with the 16”. All in all I’m happy I made the move to the 16” M1 Max MacBook Pro; but each time I travel I find myself lamenting the weight and bulkiness.

 

[Beau10]

"the answer today is probably not — I need the 12 core CPU and 32 Core GPU"

Which is available in the 14". Why not that and save 1.2 pounds and significant form factor to move around. I own both - it's a big difference

 

[heretiq]

"the answer today is probably not — I need the 12 core CPU and 32 Core GPU"

Which is available in the 14". Why not that and save 1.2 pounds and significant form factor to move around. I own both - it's a big difference

I chose the 16” because of screen size. However as you’ve confirmed, the extra 1.2 pounds makes a big difference — so in retrospect that might have been the better trade off (less than desired screen size for lower weight).

 

[smirking]

I think a better characterization of the Ive era is “design-led”. In this era, design challenged engineering to deliver on an ideal experience defined by functional, emotional and social factors (not ideology).

Well said. Most people only think of innovation as being innovation when it results in something they like, but really anything innovative is as likely if not more likely to end in failure than in success.

If you enjoy innovation, you'd better be prepared to accept some stinkers along the way because what you're really appreciating is the willingness to take chances and make radical departures from conventional wisdom. Apple's willing to do that. I don't always like the results, but I do appreciate that willingness to take risks.

 

[heretiq]

Well said. Most people only think of innovation as being innovation when it results in something they like, but really anything innovative is as likely if not more likely to end in failure than in success.

If you enjoy innovation, you'd better be prepared to accept some stinkers along the way because what you're really appreciating is the willingness to take chances and make radical departures from conventional wisdom. Apple's willing to do that. I don't always like the results, but I do appreciate that willingness to take risks.

Very well said 🙏🏽. And Apple silicon provides the best platform for ambitious design that Apple has had in decades.

 

[Beau10]

"the answer today is probably not — I need the 12 core CPU and 32 Core GPU"

I chose the 16” because of screen size. However as you’ve confirmed, the extra 1.2 pounds makes a big difference — so in retrospect that might have been the better trade off (less than desired screen size for lower weight).

In the post above, you mentioned comparing it against the 15" and finding it too much of a difference.

At max scale, the 14" has 97% the usable desktop space (because extra height that tucks away the menu) and 93% the width. So you're barely giving up anything. You're definitely giving up more compared to the 16", but if the 15" was workable, the 14" should be as long as you're okay with everything slightly smaller.

 

[heretiq]

In the post above, you mentioned comparing it against the 15" and finding it too much of a difference.

At max scale, the 14" has 97% the usable desktop space (because extra height that tucks away the menu) and 93% the width. So you're barely giving up anything. You're definitely giving up more compared to the 16", but if the 15" was workable, the 14" should be as long as you're okay with everything slightly smaller.

You may be right, but I use my devices at native scaling and my recollection is that the 15” and 16” were nearly identical based on the casual comparison I conducted. When making the purchase decision, I evaluated both the 14” and 16” MBPros at default settings while at the Apple Store. I didn’t play with display settings to see what was possible with with scaling — just experimented with multiple windows on both devices and the 16 felt a lot like my 15” MBPro — so I went with it. It was only after a couple of days when I dropped the 16” MBPro, power adapter and my 12.9 iPad Pro into my MacCase laptop bag and hoisted it to my shoulder that I realized the considerable difference in weight from the 15” and 12.9” iPad Pro. At the time I thought I would adjust to the difference, but that hasn’t happened. Please note that I’m not complaining. I love the 16” MacBook Pro — I just wish it wasn’t so bulky (weight and dimension-wise). And maybe with a more measured purchase process I might have discovered that the 14” M1 Max may have been the sweet spot. Live and learn.

 

[Beau10]

You may be right, but I use my devices at native scaling and my recollection is that the 15” and 16” were nearly identical based on the casual comparison I conducted.

The default on the latest 15" isn't using native scaling though, that's 1440 x 900. The 14" has much higher DPI and a higher absolute native resolution.

Here are the new MacBook Pro screen resolution options, native 2x Retina by default - 9to5Mac

The 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro were announced to much fanfare yesterday, with one of the hero features being the...

9to5mac.com

2019 15" - "2880-by-1800 native resolution at 220 pixels per inch"
2021 14" - "3024-by-1964 native resolution at 254 pixels per inch"

Personally... I can't tell the difference, my eyes can deal with the smaller elements. I'd bet $100 to just about anyone that they'd fail a blind test differentiating HiDPI perfect factor scaled vs. interpolated, esp at these 250+ dpi densities. The pixels are that tiny and HiDPI is just that good.

 

[Phil108]

The edges of the MBP 16" took a while to get used to when looking at pictures. Having the device on my desk it simply looks amazing to me.
Also it seems they finally went back to form follows function and not the other way round with the sharper edges of the display and the rounded ones on the body.

 

[Kingcoherent]

I just went for a MacBook Air m2. My reasoning is I wanted something light because I travel a lot. Performance is superb, for anything I need to do that needs more I need cuda so no Mac will help. As well as slides/docs I use it for development (including some heavyweight crypto/ml tasks) - even then I struggle to max the cpu. I don’t do deep learning on it, but then I didn’t use my intel Mac for that because it was far too slow.

Frankly way too many people got pro macs because they wanted the most expensive (especially corporate use cases where senior managers would have a maxed out mbp to write their PowerPoints). The new pro machines are for pro use cases. It would be nice if the air topped out at 32gb, but for 99% of what I need my Mac for the air can do it just as well as the pro.

This may all change once more deep learning runs on Apple silicon, and the gpu becomes more important.

If you need to do something that will require proper cooling of the chip, and actually use all those gpu cores then you will need a larger chassis. The air is raised off the desk to cool it for anything that doesn’t require that.

 

[maflynn]

Frankly way too many people got pro macs because they wanted the most expensive

Oh of course, (I include myself in this), we justify our needs in such a way that we get the pro model or a higher end configuration.

 

[MBAir2010]

the way I looked at these MacBooks and Powerbooks since 2004 was
 and Steve Jobs designed a laptop for my needs, which is always the base model.
and they are still a popular seller and specifically designed for the era.

My Powerbook G4, MacBook Air 2010 and MacBook Air 2020 were the bare minimals
which was alway enough for my graphic design and other computing tasks.
I never felt that I was under equipped my these MacBooks
and orchestrated what project was needed to run efficiently, with overloading the MacBook.

Lately the MacBook Air 2010 is suffering in 2023 were the 4GB RAM
is not enough to run stream video without fan noise and heat, as I discovered last night,
which could be Sierra, Firefox or the website overloading other graphics during the game.
because in 2013, that MacBook would stream NHL games outdoors using menial WiFi in 50º weather,

 

[heretiq]

The default on the latest 15" isn't using native scaling though, that's 1440 x 900. The 14" has much higher DPI and a higher absolute native resolution.

Here are the new MacBook Pro screen resolution options, native 2x Retina by default - 9to5Mac

The 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro were announced to much fanfare yesterday, with one of the hero features being the...

9to5mac.com

2019 15" - "2880-by-1800 native resolution at 220 pixels per inch"
2021 14" - "3024-by-1964 native resolution at 254 pixels per inch"

Personally... I can't tell the difference, my eyes can deal with the smaller elements. I'd bet $100 to just about anyone that they'd fail a blind test differentiating HiDPI perfect factor scaled vs. interpolated, esp at these 250+ dpi densities. The pixels are that tiny and HiDPI is just that good.

This Post in thread 'If your on the fence: This is why I chose the M2 MBA over 14" or 16" M1 MBP'
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ba-over-14-or-16-m1-mbp.2372512/post-31781035

.. reminded me of what I observed while comparing the two devices in the Apple Store.

These pictures included in that post illustrate the factor that drove me to select the 16”:

14” M1 MBPro Display

16” M1 MBPro Display

I recall the 16” (and my previous 15” Intel MBPro) delivering way more information on the screen than the 14” with default display settings. So despite the on-paper specs the practical experience of the 14” was less information than the 16” and my 15”. This is what drove me to select the 16”.

 

[turbineseaplane]

@heretiq Good observation

The 15"+ class size of Mac laptops have always been the inflection point into "can do things side by side" territory for me as well.

Anything below that screen size tends to be better off with "one thing going on at a time" (for me and my eyes anyhow)

 

[gpat]

the way I looked at these MacBooks and Powerbooks since 2004 was
 and Steve Jobs designed a laptop for my needs, which is always the base model.
and they are still a popular seller and specifically designed for the era.

My Powerbook G4, MacBook Air 2010 and MacBook Air 2020 were the bare minimals
which was alway enough for my graphic design and other computing tasks.
I never felt that I was under equipped my these MacBooks
and orchestrated what project was needed to run efficiently, with overloading the MacBook.

Lately the MacBook Air 2010 is suffering in 2023 were the 4GB RAM
is not enough to run stream video without fan noise and heat, as I discovered last night,
which could be Sierra, Firefox or the website overloading other graphics during the game.
because in 2013, that MacBook would stream NHL games outdoors using menial WiFi in 50º weather,

To be honest Apple historically switched between "good enough" base models and "forced expiration" base models.
11" MBAs were supplied with 64GB SSDs (replaceable but cramped) and 2GB RAM (unreplaceable) that pretty much forced you to buy the 13" that had much more comfortable entry level models.
White Macbooks were pretty much the only computer you could buy at any price point with a Combo drive. Even $300 cheap laptops had moved to Superdrives by then.
15" touch bar MBPs were also stuck with 256GB for a disgustingly long amount of time.
21" iMacs had for years harder-to-replace RAM and 5400rpm HDDs forcing the upsell to 27" models for pretty much any aware user.

But yeah you could also make smart buys with the base models in a lot of situations. Just not every time.

 

[Beau10]

This Post in thread 'If your on the fence: This is why I chose the M2 MBA over 14" or 16" M1 MBP'
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ba-over-14-or-16-m1-mbp.2372512/post-31781035

.. reminded me of what I observed while comparing the two devices in the Apple Store.

These pictures included in that post illustrate the factor that drove me to select the 16”:

14” M1 MBPro Display
View attachment 2160806

16” M1 MBPro Display
View attachment 2160807

I recall the 16” (and my previous 15” Intel MBPro) delivering way more information on the screen than the 14” with default display settings. So despite the on-paper specs the practical experience of the 14” was less information than the 16” and my 15”. This is what drove me to select the 16”.

Understood, but you're not comparing apples and oranges with the defaults. If you were, you'd be comparing 1440 x 900 for the 15" vs. 1512 x 982 for the 14". Those are the native pixel doubled resolutions. Which is a smaller desktop on the 15". As you stated "I use my devices at native scaling" - no, you didn't, not with the 15" if that is where you were coming from.

As the article I linked to above stated, Apple moved beyond the pixel doubled resolution into interpolated at a later point in the lifecycle for the 15" display due to complaints about the size of the desktop. Doing similar w/ the 14" again yields more on the desktop, because again, the actual resolution of the 14" is higher (regardless of its actual size, it holds more pixels)

If you do go to max interpolated the 15" will yield more desktop space, but it will do so at lower detail. The only advantage of the 15" panel is it's slightly larger which of course is a benefit for eyesight issues, but the 14" still holds more detail (PPI) which would ameliorate that to some degree.

 

[Beau10]

@heretiq Good observation

The 15"+ class size of Mac laptops have always been the inflection point into "can do things side by side" territory for me as well.

Anything below that screen size tends to be better off with "one thing going on at a time" (for me and my eyes anyhow)

But there's a difference between screen size and actual detail. The 14" is flat out superior, not only in DPI, but overall pixels.

It actually makes it *easier* to use a smaller display because of the detail.

At 47 years old with my bare eyes (no glasses/contacts/lasix) I can use the 14" all day long at max apparent resolution, no strain what-soever. Heck, I occasionally reduce font size in my code editor to use 3 panes side by side.

I do enjoy the 16" when stationary for longer periods of time, at max apparent resolution on that as well, for the bit more extra desktop space. But the difference in productivity is pretty slim on the whole. My workflow/layouts are identical on both.