You probably don't need a MacBook Pro

The state of the Mac in 2022 is probably the best it's ever been, and by some margin. The M-series chips have re-defined the entire Mac lineup, and there's a wider range of products available than ever before. However, as recently as a few years ago, things were very different.

There were two main issues with the Mac lineup:

1. If you needed an everyday notebook, your only choice was the MacBook Pro

2. If you needed a powerful desktop machine, your only choice was the MacBook Pro

In 2016 Apple released the 4th generation MacBook Pro, which I think we can all agree was pretty much a disaster. They introduced the Touch Bar, which nobody asked for and everyone seemed to hate. It only came with USB-C ports, meaning you needed a network of adapters to plug anything else in. And it had the much maligned butterfly switch keyboard, with keys that would jam once a grain of dust found its way underneath. Apple went through multiple iterations of the butterfly switch design, but after multiple repair programs, lawsuits, and people needing several keyboard replacements, Apple finally gave up and returned to the scissor switch design in the 2019 16" MacBook Pro.

During the time the butterfly switch keyboard, I would definitely not have wanted to be in the market for a MacBook, or at least I couldn't recommend one. However, putting aside the issues with the keyboard, if you had to buy a MacBook during that time with a choice of the Pro and the Air, the only one that was really viable in terms of an all round product was the Pro.

I had a mid-2014 3rd generation 15" MacBook Pro, the penultimate version from that generation followed only by a graphics card refresh in 2015. The 3rd generation MacBook Pro was widely regarded to be one of if not the best notebooks available at the time, and is a surely now an all-time classic. I was praying and hoping mine lasted beyond the lifetime of the 4th generation, as I desperately didn't want to have to get one to replace mine. As well as the issues with the keyboard, I used my Pro purely as a desktop machine, and didn't actually need an inbuilt screen and keyboard. This was the dilemma I had - there didn't seem to be any other product that I could afford as an alternative to a MacBook Pro, as only the iMac Pro and Mac Pro would match it, so I'd have been forced into buying a MacBook Pro with a keyboard I a) didn't need and b) knew would be unreliable.

The other side to the problem with the Mac lineup is that the MacBook Pro seemed to be the only product that was viable for anyone needing a notebook. You would see students using a MacBook Pro to take notes at lectures or for doing much lower-level tasks than the developers, graphic designers and video editors using the same devices - sure, they would have been specced higher, but they were ultimately from the same range, and I thought that was strange considering the Air was available. The only benefit I could see to the Air was its ultra-portability, but I'm not sure how it would hold up as a primary everyday machine.

The Air always felt like a more entry level product, with lower specs, but with a strangely high price tag. This was especially apparent with the introduction of the Retina screen, which came to the MacBook Pro in 2012, while the Air was left with a lower resolution screen until as late as 2018. Prior to the Pro gaining the Retina screen, you may have been able to justify an Air, but once the Pro had Retina, the Air was almost totally redundant in the range. 

The cheapest the base 3rd generation 13" Pro was ever available for was £999 (Mid 2014 onwards), so I'll use that as the comparison point:

Mid-2014 to 2016 sub-£1000 MacBook Air and Pro comparison

Winner: MacBook Pro

The entry level Air had a significantly slower processor, half the memory, and half the screen resolution of the entry level Pro, with only a £150 price difference. Even worse than this, if you spent the same amount on the Air, you'd only beat the Pro on storage, but still be worse off on processor, memory, and display resolution. Configuring the Air to have the same specs as the Pro would probably have made it somehow more expensive. At these prices and specs, absolutely nobody should have bought the Air - the base Pro was a steal in comparison. I can't quite comprehend what Apple were thinking pricing the Air so high.

My assessment of Apple's notebook lineup based on use case was that the MacBook Pro was essentially the only machine you could realistically go for.

During lifetime of 2nd generation MacBook Air and 3rd generation MacBook Pro

Based on this, I would have had to buy a MacBook Pro for anything other than everyday desktop use - even if I was in the market for a secondary machine, I would have gone with a 13" Pro over the much weaker Air.

Prior to the data for this comparison, the Late 2013 13" Pro refresh only came with 4GB of memory as standard for some reason, so until the Mid-2014 refresh when the default was 8GB again, the Pro was somewhat underpowered (but at the time, it was still more expensive than its low of £999). The 13" Pro was originally more expensive, starting at £1,449 at launch, with the Air starting at £999 at the same point in time. This may admittedly have made the Air somewhat more appealing at the time with a £450 price gap, and it's interesting that the Pro ended up starting at that magic £999 price point after a few years. However, while the Pro gradually reduced in price, the Air didn't follow suit at the same rate to make it good value for money, making it a less attractive prospect as time went on.

Rather confusingly, the 3rd generation Pro became more expensive after the 4th generation was released, increasing by £250 to £1,249, as well as the Air increasing by £100 to £949 at the same time, with the new 4th generation Pro starting at £1,449. So, seeing as the price gap between the Air and Pro (even the older Pro) was now wider, you might, maybe, have been able to justify the Air, similar to when there was a larger price gap when the 3rd generation 13" Pro was more expensive at launch. However, at this point the 2015 12" Retina MacBook had been released, and the Air was now lagging behind both that and the Pro, so you probably still couldn't. What that meant though, was that the MacBook Air was joined in the lineup by the 3rd generation 2015 13" Pro, 4th generation 2016 13" Pro, and 2015 12" MacBook - it was certainly a confusing time to be in the market for a 12-13" Apple notebook.

The first product to feature Apple's infamous butterfly switch keyboard was not the MacBook Pro, but actually the aforementioned 2015 12" MacBook. At the time, some thought this would replace the Air despite being more expensive, as the Air still had a smaller screen and lacked the Retina resolution of the new MacBook. However, its single USB-C port limited connectivity and its fan-less design limited performance, and I remember people questioning who this was actually aimed at. It was as if they took the things the Air was lacking, but made it inferior in other ways. And while it may have worked well as a secondary machine with lighter use, the keyboard would still have been a dealbreaker for me.

In 2018, the 3rd generation MacBook Air was released, which finally brought it up to parity with the rest of the lineup with its new Retina screen. It also came with 2 USB-C ports compared to 1 with the MacBook, and, weirdly, was cheaper too, which begged the question why the MacBook still existed (until it was axed in 2019). So, was the Air finally a viable machine? Butterfly switch keyboard aside, yes. If you had to buy a Mac notebook and only needed it for everyday use (or more specifically, didn't require professional-level performance), the Air would now have been a worthy buy, but probably still not the one you'd go for.

Late 2018 MacBook Air and Pro comparison

Winner: MacBook Pro

This is much better for the Air than before. In 2014 the Air was vastly inferior and a relatively small additional spend would have got you a superior Pro. In 2018 however, aside from an expected slower processor, the Air more or less matches the base Pro, assuming you didn't need P3 colour support (and if this was an everyday machine, you wouldn't). This specification of 13" Pro didn't include the Touch Bar as this was reserved for the 4 USB-C port model which started at £1,799, so it's a fairly direct comparison. In saying that, it was still only an extra £50 to upgrade to the superior processor by getting the Pro, so they needed to work on the Air's pricing as the boundary between models price-wise was still blurry, but at least you wouldn't be getting such an inferior machine with the Air. Regardless, I still personally wouldn't have bought or recommended either due to the butterfly switch keyboard, but if you had to get one, I would probably have recommended getting the Pro for the sake of £50. The Air was much better, but just a touch too expensive to avoid getting cannibalised by the Pro.

Apple finally got their act together in 2019 with the 16" MacBook Pro, which featured the new Magic Keyboard, reverting back to scissor switches. This new model received very positive reviews - the dark age of the MacBook Pro was over and you could feasibly buy one again.

Shortly after that, in March 2020, the MacBook Air was updated to feature the Magic Keyboard. This was the first time since the product was created that line the Air was actually viable as a primary everyday machine, and one that I would buy or recommend.

I was in the market for a secondary machine to do light development work away from my desk, and my choices were either the MacBook Air, or the base 13" MacBook Pro, which had also just been updated with the new Magic Keyboard.

When I started to compare models though, I was quite surprised to realise that the base 13" Pro was a waste of money. These are some specs for the various models and configurations (for simplicity, I ignored the base Air with the i3, and compared everything with an i5):

Comparison of mid-2020 13" MacBook Air and Pro models

Winner: MacBook Air

Whereas before the Air was inferior to the Pro (as you would expect), by 2020 I'd say it had flipped the other way, and the Air was actually the better option at the same price point. The 13" Pro now featured the Touch Bar on the 2 USB-C port model (with no option now not to have it), with the base spec now £50 more than it was in 2018 (for double the storage). What struck me here though is that the Air came with processors that, while running at a slightly lower clock speed, were two generations newer than what the Pro came with (and I don't know much about processors, but I know that the generation is more important than clock speed). But also, the base Pro, with an older processor and only 8GB of memory, was the same price as an upgraded Air, with a newer processor and double the memory at 16GB. So, why would anyone buy that £1,299 Pro, or for that matter, the £1,499 one? The most expensive Air had better specs than the cheapest Pro. There's no way I'd get the base Pro with an older processor and less memory than the Air, just to have the Touch Bar. The Pro didn't even support Apple's new 6K XDR monitor, but the Air did. This pricing model is even stranger than the Late 2018 Air and Pro comparison from before, as now the Pro is actively worse than the Air - we've gone from an Air that made no sense in 2014, to an Air and Pro more or less the same in 2018, to a Pro that makes no sense in 2020. Go home Apple, you're drunk. It seems the only reason Apple offered this model was to claim they had a "Pro" machine at this price point, but the Air was better in every measurable way here, in a similar way to it being better than the more expensive 2015 12" MacBook.

In the end, I went for the £1,099 Air, with the i5 but only 8GB of memory. In hindsight I probably should have got the 16GB model, but I wasn't planning on doing anything too heavy with it, and considering my 2014 15" MacBook Pro had been getting on fine with 16GB as my main development machine, I figured 8GB would suffice. I found it to be very good as a light development machine, with the only complaints being sometimes the fan would spin up for no obvious reason, and while the battery life started off pretty well, it degraded quicker than I was expecting (which was probably due to me having it plugged in all the time).

A few months later in November 2020, Apple announced its M-series chips, which changed the game completely. The 3rd generation Air was updated to use the new M1 chip, and was fan-less as the M1 chip didn't need it. This essentially blew the i5-powered Air out of the water. To top it off, it also came with P3 wide colour support. The Air was the most complete machine it had ever been, and critically, meant customers who didn't need professional-level performance but would previously have defaulted to buying a Pro because the Air wasn't up to scratch, could now buy an Air instead. Time to update the table then:

October 2018 (Retina)/March 2020 (Magic Keyboard)/November 2020 (M1) Air introduced

With the introduction of the 4th generation Air with M2, and the newly designed 5th generation Pro, the gap between the models is much clearer:

Late 2022 MacBook Air and Pro comparison

The base 5th generation 14" Pro comes much better equipped than the base Air, and you can configure the Air to the same memory and storage as the Pro, while saving money with a non-XDR display and not having the Pro chip (plus other benefits of the Pro). The M2 Air is very, very capable for general everyday use.

And, while Apple still sell the older generations:

When it comes to the 3rd generation Air, the base £999 model makes sense as a budget option, and for the most part so does the higher-end configuration - they're the cheapest ways of getting each specification. As for the 4th generation Pro, unless for some reason you want the Touch Bar, there's no real reason to consider it at all (and the general consensus I've seen is that Apple needs to just ditch this model). Both the base and higher-end 4th generation Pro here come in at £100 more than the equivalently-specced 4th generation Air, so I'd save the money and get the newer Air. Or, if you're looking at the higher-end 4th generation Pro, it's priced right between the upgraded Air and base 5th generation Pro with the same specs, so if you didn't want to go down to the Air, you may as well go up to the 5th generation Pro for another £150. You don't need that Touch Bar anyway.

Overall, the current lineup and pricing model finally feels like a good balance. The viability of the MacBook Air can be nicely summarised in 2 year intervals:

With the MacBook Air now a fully viable primary device for many customers, the Pro was reserved for high performance only, but was still the only option for a desktop machine, even if you didn't need to use it away from your desk. The more I think about this, the stranger it sounds - why did Apple not have a high performance desktop option that wasn't significantly more expensive than the MacBook Pro, which wasn't even a desktop machine?

I originally bought my 2014 MacBook Pro to replace my iMac not only for the improved performance, but also the ability to use it away from my desk. However, as time went on, I ended up never unplugging it at all. I kept in clamshell mode, so the screen and keyboard were totally unused, and due to being plugged in all the time which notebooks aren't really designed for, it went through 2 batteries (in fairness one was after the machine had been retired from day to day use). Consequently, I was not super keen on getting a 16" Pro to continue using as a desktop machine, as not only would I end up going through batteries again, but it would have a beautiful screen I'd never look at and a keyboard I'd never use, all while paying a premium to have those features. What would be the point?

The MacBook Pro was treated to more powerful M1 Pro and M1 Max chips, pushing them even further beyond the Intel chips. There had been rumours of a Mac mini Pro, which would use the same M1 Pro and Max chips, and this is what I was waiting for - the power of the MacBook Pro, in an affordable desktop machine. This would be the missing high performance desktop product.

What we got, was the Mac Studio.

The design was maybe a bit incongruous, sort of 3 Mac minis stacked on top of each other, but it was the device I was waiting for. Instead of the M1 Pro and Max, it came with the M1 Max as standard, with the option to select the even more powerful M1 Ultra. It also supported 5 monitors, which was great news for me.

The Mac Studio is incredibly well priced for what it does. Below is the price for the base Studio compared to the equivalent MacBook Pro, and how I configured mine (all with the M1 Max with 10-core CPU, 24-core GPU:

The better-specced Studio is cheaper than a base 14" Pro, let alone a base 16" Pro, and when configured to the same specification, I saved £800-£1,000 by buying the Studio and not having a screen and keyboard I was never going to use anyway - a no brainer really.

Now I'm going to go ahead and say it. The Mac Studio is the best machine Apple has ever made (or at least when it comes to desktop class, as the current MacBook Pro is as powerful which is impressive being a notebook). I haven't used every machine Apple has ever made, but I don't believe I need to. It is simply incredible. In the 9 months I've had it, it hasn't missed a beat. I have 5 monitors hooked up to it, and I can be playing a HD video stream (YouTube, watching the football etc), installing brew packages, running NPM asset builds, not to mention running everything else I have open, and it's like it's not even trying. I am yet to ever hear the fan spin up, or experience any slowness. The processor usage can be maxed out by an intensive process, and you won't notice it at all. The 32-core GPU would be overkill for me considering I don't do anything graphically intensive beyond powering the 5 monitors. It apparently out-performs a well specced (even a top specced if I remember rightly) Mac Pro. The Studio is just an amazing device in every way.

To put it simply, if you are not going to use your machine away from your desk, do not buy a MacBook Pro. I have seen various setups of a MacBook Pro hooked up to a single external monitor, also using the inbuilt MacBook display as the "second" display - if the MacBook is regularly used on its own away from your desk, then that setup is fine. However if you only ever use it at your desk, then you're spending £1,000 extra purely for a 16" screen, and if it's used in clamshell mode it's even more of a waste (plus the Mac Studio can support 5 full sized monitors, the Pro can only support 4 plus the smaller inbuilt display). So, if you buy a Mac Studio instead, you can use the money you've saved to buy much larger external monitors (I got 3x 27" Dell P2723D 1440p monitors for £339 each, but you could spend more on a single larger 4K monitor to replace the 16" MacBook screen), have some change left over, and also not have to worry about the battery needing to be replaced after being permanently plugged in.

Now we have our final table:

March 2022 - Mac Studio introduced

Looking back, it does seem strange to me that for such a long time, the MacBook Pro seemed to be the only device that a large portion of Apple's customer base could realistically buy, and that it took such a long time for that to change. 2020 was the first time a notebook other than the MacBook Pro was viable as a primary machine, and 2022 was the first time there was an affordable desktop machine that could match the MacBook Pro. With the arrival of the M-series chips, there's now a much wider array of suitable products to choose from.

Today, I have an M1 Max Mac Studio as my primary, high performance desktop machine, an M2 MacBook Air as an everyday and portable secondary machine, and they are both exceptionally capable devices for what they are used for. Now that the Air is such a capable notebook, and the Studio is the high performance desktop machine that was always missing, I don't think I'll ever need to buy a MacBook Pro again. And unless you need high performance and portability, you probably won't need to buy one either.