What annoys me about MKBHD's video is that he complains about an ageing design like it's a bad thing for the general case.
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.
At the same time he did seem to suggest that it was a design that is aging quite well.
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.
Yep - the case was pressed aluminium, which cant be returned back to it’s original shape after it has been deformed or bent, so the fitment around thinner spots near the ports and cd drive would always look a bit off after a few years of use.
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.
I agree, I just gave away my wife's 2007 macbook from grad school and it was a great piece of engineering. I also really like my 2004 T41p until the magnesium hinges broke in half - otherwise another great laptop. For the people saying these new ones are expensive, both of those machines 15-20 years ago were much more expensive.
I agree with this take. Tools should rarely require style updates. Sometimes you see style updates in hammers for example, but mostly they are gimmicks. A hammer from 89 years ago still hammers or pulls out nails. Some forms may be better for certain jobs (framing hammer, pein hammer, etc), but overall the design does not change very much.
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.
I guess to some it is, to me its just a tool. I don't want ti to be a hideous monstrosity but its not a luxury, I have a largely pointless mechanical wrist watch for that purpose. I used a Macbook Air from 2012-2020 and never really cared that it was stylish, my previous computer was a big black brick (aka Thinkpad).
> What annoys me about MKBHD's video is that he complains about an ageing design like it's a bad thing for the general case.
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.
I don't think any part of the old MacBook Pro design was "time-tested" or "popular" though. MagSafe being removed wasn't popular, USB-C ports only wasn't popular, no SD card reader wasn't popular, Touch Bar wasn't popular and the keyboard… Well, the less said, the better.
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.
"Being lazy about design", as if the point of this model refresh isn't:
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.
> he complains about an ageing design like it's a bad thing for the general case
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.
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.