Hacker News Reader

Comment by paulpan | Hacker News Reader

The new M3 14" MBP seems to be a red herring - why does it even exist? Why not just refresh the MBA instead?

An obvious rule of thumb is for "Pro"-branded laptops to only use "Pro"-branded chips. It's what they follow for the iPhone lineup, but I suppose iPad Pros also use non-Pro chips. Just seems like a very confusing SKU to create, and definitely something Steve wouldn't approve of.

View on HN

It replaces the 13 inch macbook pro with m2. Apple always has a “pro” macbook at that price point and it is one of the better selling macbooks, because not all “pro” users have a need for cpu grunt. A lawyer, for example, probably wants a “pro” class of hardware but doesn’t need more than an 8 gb m1. You could argue they should get a macbook air, but this 14 inch macbook pro is effectively that but with a better screen and more ports, which is exactly what that kind of buyer needs.

I personally struggle with the 14". It feels too small to be productive on, at least for coding. Anyone else experience this?

And yet, the MBA's screen in comparison is serviceable and nice, but nothing outstanding. That's the case for the MBP 14 (when the 16 is just too large and bulky).

I find it to be the perfect size actually. Easily in a backpack and is light, and can use it on the couch, etc. comfortably. I’d never buy a 16” laptop.

I find the 14" perfect, but I also find a tiling window manager (universally) vital.

> I personally struggle with the 14". It feels too small to be productive on, at least for coding. Anyone else experience this?

absolutely not... working for 10 years on 13/14 and never _felt_ that way I get this is personal ;)

Absolutely love my 14” M2 pro and use it daily for coding. Perfect size/weight for the backpack, and endless battery at the local coffee shop.

The old 15” was like the perfect dimensions. It practically had the footprint of the present 14”, maybe even smaller. Apple made a big deal about how their new chips run so cool, yet they made the pro laptops as fat as they were in 2012 again so clearly thermals were an issue.

Aren't the new 16" laptops the same dimensions as the old 15" ones? I thought the 16" display was simply because they were able to shrink the bezels on the display enough to get an extra inch on the diagonal. Other than the rounding on the edges, my M2 16" Pro feels about the same size as my old Intel 15" one.

I feel there is an obvious appeal to the MacBook Pro 14"/16" with M3. It has a good display, lots of battery life, and plenty of performance.

I'm more confused about the "M3 Pro" variant. Its performance either seems to be overkill or not enough. A more sensible lineup to me would be:

M3 - 2 thunderbolt ports, dual monitor support, memory up to 8-24gb (2x4, 2x6, 2x8, 2x12, 2x16). In the MacBook Pro, always comes equipped with second tier upgrades.

M3 Max - 3 thunderbolt ports, quad monitor support, 32-128gb (8x4, 8x6, 8x8, 8x12, 8x16).

Then again this wouldn't let Apple upsell people on basic functionality like dual monitor support so they'll never do this.

About the M3 pro, I’ve heard a theory it’s most likely due to lower yields by TSMC and M2 pro and max being too similar.

Now it’s clearly, if you really need perf you get an M3 max.

The most popular Macbook Pro?

Look, I'm a 16" guy myself, I even carried one of the 17" cafeteria trays back in the day… but it's clearly the sweet spot for _most_ people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com