I'm not sure why people who need high performance are so sniffy and condescending about those who don't. A requirement for massive computer resources doesn't make the work more valuable or respectable. Your moral worth is not linked to the number of processors you require to get your work done.
> Or the infinite other ultrabooks available now?
They don't run MacOS.
People with more strenuous computing needs are miffed because the MBP used to fit our use case, and now it doesn't. There isn't a single Apple product focused on the high performance market any more, and some of us are bitter.
I do mind that they don't offer at least one good alternative that is "programmer pro": harddisk can be changed, RAM can be added, battery can be replaced and may be bigger. I really don't mind 5mm or even 1cm extra thickness if that gives me all this for a reasonable price. And the 2012 Macbook Pro (without retina) was offered up til last year, but that was no real option with four year old hardware and still for the same price.
The current laptop lineup is great, and perfect for a wide range of professions, myself included. But there is nothing for the person who wants more power, even if with more weight and cost. The desktop lineup is okay, but 3-year-old models keep being sold at launch prices, and are not practically upgradeable.
Nobody cares if HP comes out with boring laptops one year - because there's always Lenovo, Dell, etc to choose from, and for desktops you can always build your own. But if you want to stay with your software and workflows on MacOS, Apple is the only maker of Macs.
My "suggestion" for Apple would be to give up on the Mac Pro desktop line, take one high-end Dell workstation every year, and test and qualify it to run MacOS. People already build Hackintoshes, so it cannot be too complex compared to designing and building their own hardware.
This would mean that people who want to pay $10-50k, can have a MacOS computer with 44 cores, a terabyte of memory, 4 graphics cards, 8 SSDs in RAID, and so on. Add a generous "Apple tax" to make it worthwhile for Apple, and people who want the power always have one "really maxed out" option. And everyone who complains about laptops not being powerful enough can be told to get a desktop instead.
I submit that it's because the people in one camp feel that Apple screwed them in order to cater to people in the second camp. The people in the first camp are sick of hearing how the MBP is adequate for the people in the second camp, and are projecting a little bit.
Do you know of that instant update feature in Excel? It automatically updates cells when you alter one, up to a certain performance point. My MacBook (non anything) stops doing so much faster than when I use a desktop. When I do process a line of heavier formulae I do have to also wait a fair amount longer than when I use a larger machine.
And the pretty penny argument does not really hold up when you are talking about it as a company expense, due to the very favorable tax perspective.
Sorry but that has to be one of the most ridiculous benchmarks I've seen in a long time.
They don't "need" to... We just really want them to.
They made their brand exactly by caring about the people they are throwing away now. It's not obvious if their brand will sustain itself without those people.
I think that the only thing that could "trick" them into making a gaming machine is VR, as it requires similar hardware.
Screen size. I'd personally love a 15" fanless MacBook.