Hacker News Reader

Comment by slantyyz | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple products, but the compromises made in exchange for thinness cause problems for people who don't value thinness over other things.

Having said that, it's important to note that CR did not give the Macbook Pro a Recommended badge (think of it as the equivalent to "Editor's Choice"), it doesn't mean they're telling people not to buy them either. The headlines are somewhat misleading about this.

Personally, even though I've left Macs because I don't like the direction Apple has taken, I'm still hard pressed to say that the current crop of Macs are horrible just because they don't cater to my specific needs. For the vast majority of people looking for a higher end laptop, they're perfectly fine (albeit pricy). I've gotten over the fact that "Pro" in Apple speak no longer means "Workstation Class" (or something close to it).

View on HN

> The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple

It's the Peter Principle for laptops. Laptops are made thinner and thinner, which is always an improvement, until the point when they no longer function properly.

Fundamentally, people expect a certain amount of travel in their keyboard for comfort, and long enough battery life. Apple made a big mistake thinking these were mere "nice things to have".

With respect to the keyboard, at least in the reviews I've been seeing, a lot of people seem to be OK with it after an adjustment period.

In terms of battery life, I'm with you, I'd rather see Apple get as much life out of the maximum sized battery that the TSA will allow on a flight (100Wh), but I don't know that I would call it a big mistake, since it hasn't hurt the sales of the new MBPs. I think they could do that in a chassis the size of the 2012 and earlier 15" unibodies. They'd also have plenty of room for legacy ports too. Those 15" unibodies were the sweet spot for me in terms of size and user upgradability.

Still, the computer costs thousands of dollars, and most people's purchase decision will be informed by their 15-minute experience of using it in the Apple Store.

I tried it, the keyboard was uncomfortable, and I decided not to buy it.

It would be nice if Apple would make an international version of the 15" that has more than 100Wh!

I'm generally flexible when it comes to keyboards.

The only keyboard (if you can even call it that) I've ever hated is the Surface Touch cover keyboard.

As long it has some type of switch (scissor, cherry, dome, etc) I don't find that my speeds are affected too much.

> The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple products

Is this actually true? Like...is there a material population of customers who really care about this? Not joking. I know zero people who care about that, at least for laptops. (I don't use an iPhone, so I don't pay attention to that side of things.)

>> Is this actually true? Like...is there a material population of customers who really care about this?

Based on my memory of mac-related laptop threads I've seen on HN, I believe it is. It sorta begs the question - if it wasn't worth some marketing appeal, why would Apple keep making devices thinner?

Personally I prefer a bigger laptop for a Macbook Pro (think 2012 and earlier unibodies), but I tend to think I'm in the minority.

I can totally believe that Apple might have an internal consensus that it must be true. I am less convinced that it is true, though, y'know?

I don't think people care about thickness specifically, but about weight. And weight is (for the most part) correlated to thickness.

I used to think this, then acquired a Macbook Air from work. Its is actually quite nice when traveling with only hand luggage to squeeze the laptop into a relatively full bag, yet you still have a big screen and keyboard. Not sure I would pay a lot more for that if I was paying myself, but it is nice to have.

For Airs, I can definitely buy that. (I owned an 11" for a while. It was great.) But it's more the 15" rMBP that I'm curious about. Like--you're not spending $2K on a computer to not use it, and the thinner it is, the more you're not going to be able to use it, yeah? It's weird.

> The problem is that reducing thickness is a selling point/feature for a lot of people on Apple products, but the compromises made in exchange for thinness cause problems for people who don't value thinness over other things.

Almost everybody would rather have thinness, all else being equal. The new 15" MBP is a pound lighter than the 13" Macbook I had ten years ago, and barely bigger in footprint. The new machine also packs a larger battery and quad-core CPU. There is now way I'd go back to the old form factor just to get back say the optical disk or MiniDVI port.

>> Almost everybody would rather have thinness, all else being equal.

Absolutely. But, as you say, all else has to be equal.

I guess the contentious part will be that "all else" means different things to different people.

If you can give me a thinner, modern version of the 2012 15" unibody Macbook Pro, I'd be super happy.

But my "all else" definitions includes a big battery, user serviceable RAM and Storage, gigabit ethernet, USB, displayport, Magsafe and an SD card reader -- all of which were a huge selling point to me about the <= 2012 unibodies. The only thing I am willing to lose from the unibody is the optical. You could replace one or two of the USB ports with USB-C/TB3, but I pretty much want all of the other stuff to stay the same.

Because the rMBP was not "all else being equal", I pretty much started planning a switch away from Macs when the unibodies were effectively discontinued for the 2013 model year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com