Hacker News Reader

Comment by superzamp | Hacker News Reader

Isn't the screen size difference basically enough between these two? I can't see why the 16" would need more performance, some ppl just want / can carry large computers with them while some other prefer to have something as small as possible.

View on HN

It’s more a statement on price and the assumption the more expensive one with the “more capable” chip like the MAX would be expected to not be less performant than any in the lineup. It would be a disappointment, especially for me as I’m about to buy a 16” in November regardless, to be a generation behind while paying more, and it would be not unusual for product reasons to nerf the lower prices chip to ensure it didn’t canabalize the more expensive models sales.

I have to say if I had any choice I would delay my purchase until the 16” catches up rather than buying a generation behind. If I see specs saying M5 14” is more performant for my workloads than my more expensive 16” I’m even more motivated to delay. Most product managers would be aware of these things.

I can see why that sounds sensible, but my personal obsevations are that heavy duty power users almost universally prefer the bigger screens, and those people also want the highest level settings. Most people I know who want smaller screens are not serious power users.

I can see an overlap with people who want smaller computers who also want max power, but I just would not believe that is a significant group. (again, all personal observations)

More pixels? Thats the only reason I can think of. 13/14 inch is what I tend to go for since I use my laptop as a desktop 80% of the time. 16 is really too big for my needs.

I also think the 15 inch MacBook Air filled the non-power-user-but-likes-big-screen niche.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com