Exactly my point. For the 13-inch to make sense to have the "Pro" label, it needs to come closer to the 16-inch's power. If it needs to become fatter to accomplish that, so be it.
But Apple will never make it fatter, so that's a moot point. Therefore, by your logic (and mind you, it's logic I agree with), it shouldn't have that label.
They first gave it that during the brief period of time where Apple used NVIDIA IGPs that didn't suck as bad as Intel's, but that ended in 2011.
The 13-inch shouldn't be the consumer-oriented machine, though. Isn't that the whole premise of your thread? The iPad/iPad mini/iPad Air vs. iPad Pro have significant differences. The MacBook Air vs. 13-inch MacBook Pro (and the 2015-19 MacBook vs. the 13-inch MacBook Pro) oddly do not.
I think that's a mistake that was made in the 2015 era.
The premise of my point is that the 13" Pro, regardless of what it's called or whether or not it is given the "Pro" moniker, becomes moot once the MacBook Air is given its features (which wasn't possible in the Intel era, but becomes possible in the Apple Silicon era). If the lowest-end of three laptops is now able to adopt the features of the higher-end laptop, then you don't need three laptops, let alone two.
Well, if you've already decided that the Pro shouldn't be a Pro, then I don't see the point of this discussion?
If you're disagreeing with it, then there's a debate to be had. I posed the thesis to see what kinds of opposition to it that I'd get. Aside from the messy marketing with two distinctly different kinds of 13" MacBook Pros, the lineup makes some kind of sense with Intel. I'm saying it won't with Apple Silicon. I know there are staunch 13" MacBook Pro fans out there. I want to see what they have to say.
It can become even more Pro, if Apple wants it to be, especially now that they decide themselves what the CPU is going to be like.
Right. My debate with you isn't over the fact that it can be more Pro-like, but rather your definition of "Pro" and how the 16" MacBook Pro isn't a machine aimed at higher-end computing needs just because it doesn't (yet) have features that are on the iPad Pros, some of which aren't necessary for such a form factor.
So a car shouldn't have cellular networking?
Shouldn't is the wrong word, my friend. It is far from essential though, especially since one's eyes need be on the road, and most people, on most modern cars, will hook up their phone into CarPlay or Android Auto and have all the cellular capability they are able to do whatever with. What else would one need cellular on a car for?
Do you think people with 16-inch MBPs don't use them on their commute? Sure, a smaller laptop is more likely to work well on an airplane seat, but other than that, I don't see how you figure that.
I think people use them on their commute. I don't think most people are going to pay the extra $130 (assuming cellular iPad premiums) and add an additional data line on something that large. I have a cellular iPad and a smartphone and unlimited everything on both, that costs PLENTY. I think most people are fine with tethering. But that's neither here nor there; I don't believe that cellular is a feature that makes a 16" MacBook Pro less professional.
I… uh… OK?
So iPads shouldn't have cellular either, right? Nor should Apple Watches? After all, there's personal hotspot.
No, iPads are substantially more portable than 16" MacBook Pros. I'd argue further that cellular makes more sense on the smaller iPads than the larger iPads (because you're much more likely to take one to a location that lacks a WiFi Network you're authorized to hop onto the larger they are). I have Cellular on a 5th Gen iPad, and even that's a bit big for me to travel to places where I won't have a WiFi network to easily hop onto; in my opinion it makes more sense on a mini.
I see nothing illogical about Apple Watches having a cellular option; but it's certainly not for everyone. Again, all of these devices require a line to be paid for on top of one's smartphone line and often times that can get pricey.
