https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdKnNj7ozk
This little device is a beast!
I laud any manufacturer that's come up with a time tested design that doesn't change, which is why the IBM Thinkpads of the day were so popular.
But in this specific case, MKBHD is right, this is an Apple being lazy about design and probably reusing their existing parts and tooling just to slap on an M2 for a laptop that probably shouldn't exist anymore.
When you introduce things like “titanium” and nail holders, etc., it’s mostly marketing gimmick and is reminiscent of kids’ toys. Kids need to constantly be provoked for new interest.
This translates DIRECTLY into reducing the chances that you wind up with carpal tunnel or jacking up your wrist, elbow, and shoulder.
I don't think that statement is true. He speaks to the specific pros/cons of each. It isn't that the design is old--the problem is that that specific design was hobbled from the start, a condition that is especially apparent in comparison to the Air.
That's part of the reason why the new MacBook Pro was so liked. Apple did a complete 180° and fixed everything that people hated - but they're still selling the hated one.
Personally, when I look back at some of the original MacBook Pros with the milled chassis, I think they still look better than any recent Windows or Chromebook laptop. It really is quite a timeless design.
I recently handled a ca. MacBook Pro from 2004, and it feels awful, like a collection of parts barely holding together. My 2008 unibody MacBook still feels nice to the touch and rock solid, even though it has been dead for many years now.
Unibody was a huge investment for the company and my understanding is that this was in part one of Ive’s highest career points.
If I remember correctly, before unibody laptops the chassis was a separate component inside, with everything including the case attached on the outside.
Thicker aluminium on the unibody is less prone to bending, and much easier to assemble once you’ve overcome the challenges that come with milling, such tooling, optimising the materials usage and recycling the swarm and scrap.
That's unfair. He does "complain" but praises Apple for sticking with it immediately afterwards, saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it". It is obvious he's playing two characters presenting different arguments.
1. an upgrade path for those in the Business Leasing program who are due a replacement for their existing MBP13-with-touchbar, that is careful to not break their use-cases;
2. to use up an existing stock of parts. (See also: most of the reason the iPod Touch existed for so long.) Any touchbars they already cranked out ideally have to go into something, rather than just being left in a warehouse to depreciate.
3. to relieve demand pressure on their limited supply of newer-model parts (which could be fairly important in the middle of a global tech-supply-chain crunch.)
Points 2+3 could theoretically be called "lazy" (or perhaps "selfish") on Apple's part — but there's little real downside for anyone here, since, per point 1, most of the expected consumers of this hardware are business customers doing bulk buys/leases, who don't care about having the "newest and sexiest" designs anyway; and releasing a "retread" model for those customers "frees up" the logistical resources to get new laptops to the customers that do care about those things.
Home users are expected to just get an Air; "individual professionals" are expected to get the MBP14/16. It's only corporate buyers that requirements-checkbox themselves into buying MBPs rather than Airs, but then also economize themselves into the cheapest possible MBPs.
My inner cynic says that he's rather a living proof of survivorship bias of that approach. There's really a lot of talented people out there, he just did it at the right point of time, when not many thought of it. He risked and survived.