Apple's Touchscreen MacBook Pro: Worth the $400 Premium?

Apple finally unveiled its long-awaited touchscreen MacBook Pro, along with several other updates to its Mac and iPad lineup, and I have to say that my reaction was not quite what I expected. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was discussing rumors about Apple potentially introducing a touchscreen MacBook and explaining why I have never been particularly interested in the idea. Now that the announcement has actually happened, I find myself feeling pretty much the same way. There are some interesting improvements here, particularly with the new OLED display, but there are also some significant price increases that make me question what Apple is really offering. We also got an updated iPad mini, a refreshed iMac, and a new MacBook Pro using Apple's standard M6 processor. On paper, that sounds like a pretty substantial collection of announcements, especially considering how long some of these products have been waiting for updates. But after going through the specifications and comparing everything to what Apple already sells, I think a lot of these announcements come down to the same question I have been asking more frequently lately. Just because a company introduces something newer or technically better, does that automatically make it worth buying? That is really what I wanted to discuss in Episode 46 of Tek With Josh, because I think Apple had an opportunity to make some meaningful changes to its computers, and I am not convinced it took full advantage of that opportunity.

Before getting into the computers, though, I wanted to talk about something happening with Apple's new foldable iPhone Duo. There have been reports of damaged displays and people experiencing problems with the device, which has naturally led to questions about Apple's quality control. Some people are suggesting that Apple may have relaxed its manufacturing standards to produce enough phones for the launch, while others believe at least some of the damage could be coming from people who are simply unfamiliar with how foldable phones need to be handled. I want to be careful about making assumptions here because I have not personally examined the damaged devices, and I certainly cannot tell you whether Apple has a manufacturing problem based on complaints circulating online. It could be a quality-control issue, it could be people applying pressure to parts of the screen that were not designed to handle it, or it could be some combination of different problems. First-generation products are especially difficult to judge because there is often a period where manufacturers and consumers are both learning about the limitations of a new design. What I do think is worth discussing, however, is that foldable phones are fundamentally different from the traditional smartphones most people have been using for years, and some of those differences are not necessarily obvious until you have actually owned one.

I have quite a bit of experience with foldable phones because I currently use a Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7, and before that I owned the Z Fold 6 and the Z Fold 3. One of the first things you learn when using these devices is that the inner folding display is not built the same way as the glass screen on the outside. The external screen can use the harder protective glass that people are accustomed to seeing on traditional smartphones, but the inner display needs to be flexible enough to fold repeatedly without breaking. That means the materials are softer, more susceptible to scratches, and more sensitive to certain types of pressure. When I close my Fold, I do it using the frame of the phone rather than pressing my finger directly into the flexible display. That might sound like a small distinction, but it matters because you do not want to concentrate unnecessary pressure on a screen while the hinge is moving. Someone who has never owned a foldable might naturally treat it like closing a book, placing a finger against the inside to push the two halves together. I am not saying that is definitely what happened to the people reporting problems with Apple's Duo, but it is one possibility worth considering before deciding that every damaged screen is the result of poor manufacturing. Foldables have improved considerably over the years, but they still require a different understanding of how the hardware works.

There are also complaints about the Duo's cameras, the absence of Face ID, and the compromises Apple made to fit everything into the design. I understand why those complaints exist, especially when someone is spending around $2,000 on a smartphone. At that price, people naturally expect premium hardware across the board. But the reality is that a folding phone has to accommodate an entirely different set of internal components and physical limitations. You have a hinge occupying space, two sections of the device that need to remain relatively thin, and a larger internal display that requires additional power. Manufacturers often divide the battery between the two halves because there simply is not enough room to place everything on one side. Once you account for those components, there is less space available for larger camera sensors and other hardware that might fit into a traditional flagship smartphone. That does not mean consumers should accept every compromise without questioning it, but I think it is important to understand why those compromises happen. Personally, I did not jump on Apple's Duo because I am not a fan of the wider, passport-style foldable design. I prefer the form factor of Samsung's Fold lineup, and I am comfortable with the trade-offs that come with it. Whether Apple has a genuine reliability problem is something that needs more investigation, but I would not automatically assume that every issue being reported has the same cause.

Moving over to Apple's computer announcements, the first product I wanted to discuss was actually the new iPad mini. I know Apple does not market the iPad as a traditional computer in quite the same way it markets a Mac, but it is still a computing device, and the mini finally received an update that people have been asking about for a while. The biggest change is the move to an OLED display, along with Apple's A20 processor. The new model is scheduled to arrive on November 6 and starts at $699 with 128GB of storage. Moving up to 256GB costs $799, while the 512GB configuration comes in at $999. Apple is also offering its nano-texture display option on the higher-storage configurations for an additional $100, which can help reduce reflections if you frequently use the device under bright lighting. Cellular connectivity is another $150. Those are all pretty straightforward options, and I think the OLED display is probably going to be the main reason someone considers upgrading. OLED can provide deeper blacks and better contrast than a conventional LCD, and on a device primarily used for reading, watching videos, and browsing, those improvements can make the screen more enjoyable to look at.

The part that disappoints me about the iPad mini is that Apple is still limiting the display to a 60Hz refresh rate rather than offering ProMotion. For anyone unfamiliar with the terminology, ProMotion is Apple's branding for its adaptive high-refresh-rate display technology, which can go up to 120Hz on supported devices. The difference is particularly noticeable when scrolling through webpages, moving around the interface, or interacting with content that benefits from smoother motion. Older iPad mini models have also faced complaints about the so-called jelly-scrolling effect, where parts of the screen appear to move at slightly different speeds while scrolling. Since the new mini has not reached consumers yet, I cannot say whether Apple has completely addressed that behavior, and I would want to see the display tested before making a judgment. But I do find it disappointing that we are getting a more expensive iPad mini with OLED while still missing a feature that has been available on Apple's higher-end iPads for years. If you really like the smaller form factor and have an older mini, this could be a worthwhile improvement. On the other hand, if your current iPad mini already does everything you need, I am not sure OLED and a newer processor are enough reasons to spend another $699 or more.

Next is the iMac, which received an update to Apple's new M6 processor. This is probably the easiest announcement to summarize because there really is not much different about the machine beyond its internal specifications. The familiar all-in-one design is still here, along with the same general display size and color options, including green, orange, pink, purple, and silver. The starting price is $1,499, which gets you an M6 with a 10-core CPU and 10-core GPU, 16GB of unified memory, and 256GB of storage. Apple also offers a higher configuration for another $200 that increases the processor to a 12-core CPU and 12-core GPU. The additional processing power is nice, but one of the more important differences between these configurations is actually the number of ports. The base model has only two Thunderbolt connections, while the higher configuration provides four. And I want to emphasize that distinction because this is not a situation where the base machine has two Thunderbolt ports plus a couple of additional USB-C connections. You are getting two ports total, compared with four on the upgraded model. Depending on how many accessories you use, that could make a bigger difference to your daily experience than the additional CPU or GPU cores.

Apple also continues to offer its nano-texture display option and the familiar Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse accessories, with additional charges for certain input-device upgrades. None of that is particularly surprising, but it reinforces my feeling that the iMac update is primarily about keeping the processor current rather than improving the overall product. I would have liked to see Apple do something more interesting with the lineup, especially when it comes to display sizes. We still do not have a new 27-inch iMac, and there is no return of the iMac Pro for people who want a more powerful all-in-one desktop. I understand that Apple has the Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro available for customers who need different levels of performance, but those machines require separate displays and accessories. There is still an audience for someone who wants a larger, powerful iMac without having to build an entire desktop setup around it. Instead, Apple has essentially given us the same familiar computer with a newer chip inside. That is not necessarily a bad thing if you are buying an iMac for the first time or replacing a considerably older model, but it is difficult for me to get excited about an announcement where the most meaningful change is simply the processor generation.

The next announcement was the 14-inch MacBook Pro with the standard M6 processor, and this is where Apple's naming starts to bother me a little. When I hear MacBook Pro, I generally think of a machine equipped with one of Apple's higher-end processors, such as the M5 Pro or M5 Max. Those are the chips designed to offer additional CPU and GPU performance for more demanding workloads, which is one of the reasons people pay extra for the Pro models in the first place. But this new machine uses the regular M6, the same general class of processor Apple is introducing in its refreshed consumer products. That does not make it a bad chip, and I am sure it will be very capable for a wide range of tasks. I just think calling the machine a MacBook Pro creates certain expectations about what is inside it. Apple used to have a more distinct separation between the MacBook Air, the regular MacBook, and the MacBook Pro, and I find myself thinking of this particular model as more of a regular MacBook than a true Pro machine. That might not be how Apple wants to position it, but it is how I look at the hardware.

The M6 MacBook Pro starts at $1,999 and is available only in a 14-inch configuration, with black and silver finishes. The base model includes a 12-core CPU, 12-core GPU, 16GB of unified memory, and 1TB of storage. You can also add the nano-texture display option for another $150. Those are respectable specifications, and for someone coming from an older Intel MacBook or an early Apple Silicon machine, the performance improvement could be substantial. The more interesting comparison, however, is what happens when you look at the M5 Pro configuration sitting above it in the lineup. For another $500, the M5 Pro model offers 24GB of unified memory, a 15-core CPU, and a 16-core GPU. That gives you more memory and additional processing resources, which can matter if you work with demanding applications or run several intensive tasks simultaneously. The newer M6 could have an advantage in certain single-core workloads because it uses a newer processor architecture and manufacturing process, but that does not automatically make it faster in every situation. A newer base chip is not necessarily a better choice than an older Pro chip, and the answer really depends on the software you use and what you expect the computer to accomplish. I would want to see independent benchmarks and real-world comparisons before deciding which configuration represents the better value.

That brings me to the announcement Apple clearly wanted everyone talking about: the new touchscreen MacBook Pro. This has been rumored for quite some time, and now Apple has finally introduced a Mac laptop with a touchscreen display. On top of that, the new models feature tandem OLED technology, increased display brightness, a slightly updated design, and the return of the glowing Apple logo. Those changes certainly make the machine sound interesting, and I can understand why some people are excited about finally being able to interact directly with macOS using their fingers. But the first thing that caught my attention was not the touchscreen or the display technology. It was the price. The 14-inch touchscreen MacBook Pro starts at $2,899, compared with $2,499 for the traditional version. The 16-inch starts at $3,399, compared with $2,999 for the regular model. In other words, Apple is asking for an additional $400 to move into the touchscreen OLED lineup. That is a substantial premium, especially when you consider that the underlying processors are not fundamentally different from what Apple is already selling.

To be fair, the new display does bring some improvements beyond simply being touch-sensitive. Apple is using tandem OLED technology, which should provide excellent contrast, deep blacks, and better performance when displaying HDR content. Peak brightness increases from 1,600 nits to 2,000 nits, and there are improvements to the display's contrast as well. Apple has also replaced the familiar notch with a Dynamic Island design, which some people will probably prefer aesthetically. The screen is slightly larger, the overall machine is a little lighter, and there is additional video stabilization for the FaceTime camera that could help when someone is interacting with the touchscreen. The nano-texture option remains available for another $150, and the storage ceiling has increased to an enormous 16TB, compared with the 8TB limit on the traditional configurations. That last specification is interesting because having that much internal storage in a laptop can be useful for certain professional workflows, especially when working with large video projects or other data-heavy applications. Of course, Apple is going to charge considerably more for those higher storage configurations, so I would not exactly call that a free benefit of the new design.

The OLED display is probably the part of this announcement I appreciate the most, and that is because I already have experience with Apple's tandem OLED technology on my iPad Pro. It looks great, particularly when displaying HDR content or scenes with very dark areas where OLED's ability to control individual pixels makes a difference. There is no question that this technology can produce an impressive image, and I am sure the new MacBook Pro will be excellent for people who prioritize display quality. But I also think there is a point where display improvements become less meaningful depending on how you actually use a computer. My current MacBook Pro already has a very good display, and when I am working with applications, browsing the internet, writing, or handling everyday tasks, I am not constantly thinking about whether the blacks could be slightly deeper. If I put the two machines side by side and watched HDR footage, I would probably notice the improvement. The question is whether noticing that difference would make me willing to spend hundreds of dollars more, particularly when I already own a laptop that performs well. For me, the answer is probably not.

What makes the pricing even harder to justify is that Apple is still using the M5 Pro and M5 Max processors in the touchscreen models. You are not getting a new M6 Pro or M6 Max, and Apple has not introduced an Ultra configuration for this laptop. I understand that putting an extremely powerful processor into a thin portable computer creates challenges with heat, cooling, and battery life, so I am not suggesting Apple should simply drop its most powerful desktop chip into a MacBook without considering those limitations. But when a company introduces a more expensive premium version of an existing professional computer, I expect something that meaningfully improves what the machine can accomplish. Instead, Apple has taken processors that are already available, placed them into a slightly different laptop with a better display, and added touchscreen functionality. That might be enough for someone who has specifically wanted an OLED touchscreen MacBook for years, but it does not do much for me. I would have been more interested in seeing additional connectivity, meaningful changes to the chassis, or some other improvement that expanded what the machine could do rather than primarily changing how I interact with the screen.

And that brings us to the touchscreen itself, which is the feature I have been skeptical about from the beginning. I know there are people who genuinely enjoy using touchscreen laptops, and I am not going to tell someone that their preferred way of interacting with a computer is wrong. But I have used touchscreen Windows devices before, including a Microsoft Surface Pro 3, and the experience never convinced me that touching a laptop display was particularly useful for the work I do. When I am sitting at a desk with a keyboard and trackpad in front of me, reaching up to touch the screen feels less natural than simply moving a pointer. A mouse or trackpad also gives me a level of precision that I find much more appropriate for desktop applications, especially when working with smaller interface elements. If I am editing something, selecting text, managing windows, or moving through a complicated application, I do not want my fingers covering the very content I am trying to interact with. And that is before getting into the fingerprints and smudges that inevitably end up all over a display when you touch it throughout the day. I already spend enough time keeping my screens clean without intentionally turning my laptop display into another surface I have to wipe down constantly.

The other issue is that this new MacBook Pro is still a traditional laptop. It does not transform into a tablet, and it does not have the kind of convertible design that makes touchscreen interaction more practical on some Windows devices. With my Surface, I could detach or reposition the keyboard and use the computer more like a tablet, which made direct touch interaction useful in certain situations. If I wanted to sit back and read something or browse through content without using a keyboard, that kind of configuration made sense. The new MacBook Pro does not offer the same flexibility. You still have the keyboard sitting directly in front of the display, and you still have to reach across it to touch the screen. Apple has suggested that touchscreen support could be useful for developers who want to test how applications respond to direct interaction, and I can see that being convenient in certain circumstances. But developers can also test applications on actual phones and tablets, which provides a more realistic representation of how those applications will ultimately be used. I am sure there are workflows where the touchscreen will be genuinely helpful, but I have a difficult time imagining it becoming something I would regularly use instead of the trackpad.

There is also the return of the illuminated Apple logo on the back of the display, which has been getting a surprising amount of attention. I remember when older MacBooks had glowing logos, and I understand why people have some nostalgia for that design. It is a recognizable part of Apple's laptop history, and bringing it back gives the new machines a little visual distinction from the existing lineup. But personally, I do not think it is a particularly important feature. It does not make the computer faster, improve battery life, or change what I can accomplish with the machine. It is essentially a decorative detail, and while I am sure some people will enjoy seeing it return, it is not something that would influence my purchasing decision. The Dynamic Island is another design change that people will have different opinions about, and I can understand both sides of that discussion. Some might prefer it to the traditional notch, while others may find it distracting. But these are relatively small design differences when you consider the overall cost of the computer. When I am spending nearly $3,000 or more on a laptop, I am considerably more interested in performance, memory, cooling, and functionality than whether the Apple logo on the outside lights up.

I think part of my disappointment comes from the fact that I expected Apple to do more with this redesign. When the rumors first started circulating about an OLED MacBook Pro, I thought there might be an opportunity for Apple to rethink some aspects of its professional laptop lineup. A new display technology could have been accompanied by improvements to the chassis, more connectivity, different hardware configurations, or other changes that made the new model stand apart from its predecessor. Instead, most of what we are getting feels familiar. The processors are the same, the general form factor remains recognizable, and the biggest differences revolve around the display and touchscreen functionality. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach, especially when the existing MacBook Pro is already a very capable computer. But I also think Apple is asking customers to pay a considerable premium for changes that may not have much practical value in their everyday workflows. The expanded storage option is welcome, but it also makes me wonder why Apple could not offer the same capacity on the traditional models. If the hardware can accommodate that amount of storage in one configuration, I would be interested in understanding why the option needs to be associated with the more expensive touchscreen lineup.

There are also still some important questions that cannot be answered by looking at Apple's specifications alone. Battery life is one of them. Apple is presenting the new models as offering similar battery performance to the traditional MacBook Pro lineup, but I would want to see how that holds up under actual use. OLED displays can behave differently depending on brightness levels and the content being shown, and that can affect power consumption. The thermal performance is another question because even relatively small changes to a laptop's internal design can influence how it handles sustained workloads. I am particularly interested in whether the thinner or lighter construction has any effect on performance when the CPU and GPU are being pushed for extended periods. Those are the kinds of things that do not always show up in a product announcement, and they are part of why I generally prefer waiting for independent testing instead of immediately ordering something based on the marketing presentation. A machine can look impressive on paper and still have compromises that only become apparent after people have spent time using it.

If you already own an M5 MacBook Pro, particularly one with an M5 Pro or M5 Max processor, I honestly have a difficult time recommending that you replace it with one of these new touchscreen models. You are not getting a fundamentally more powerful computer, and unless you have a specific reason to want OLED or direct touchscreen interaction, the practical improvements appear relatively limited. Even someone with a slightly older Apple Silicon MacBook Pro should probably think carefully about whether their current machine is actually struggling before considering an upgrade. If you are still using an older Intel Mac or a laptop that is beginning to have performance, battery, or reliability problems, that is a different discussion. Moving to a modern Apple Silicon machine could provide a substantial improvement, and there is nothing wrong with buying the newest model when you genuinely need a replacement. But there is a difference between upgrading because your computer no longer meets your needs and upgrading because Apple introduced something with a new display or a different design. I think that distinction is especially important now that premium laptops can easily cost several thousand dollars.

Looking at all of Apple's announcements together, I think this was a week of improvements rather than major innovation. The iPad mini gets OLED and a newer processor, but still lacks ProMotion. The iMac gets an M6 chip without a significant redesign or a larger display option. The standard M6 MacBook Pro may offer good performance, but its value depends on how it compares with the existing M5 Pro configurations. And the new touchscreen MacBook Pro brings a better display, expanded storage options, and some visual changes while charging customers an additional $400 for hardware that is otherwise very familiar. None of these products are necessarily bad, and I am sure there will be customers who find exactly what they are looking for in the new lineup. Someone who has been waiting years for a small OLED iPad might be thrilled with the mini, while a person who specifically wants a touchscreen Mac could see this as a long-overdue addition. But when I look at the announcements from the perspective of someone who already owns capable Apple hardware, I do not see anything that makes me feel like I need to replace what I have. That is probably the most important part of this discussion because manufacturers are always going to find ways to make the next generation sound better than the previous one. What matters is whether those improvements translate into something useful for the person buying the device.

That is really where I landed after recording Episode 46 of Tek With Josh. I was looking forward to seeing what Apple would do with its first touchscreen MacBook Pro, even though I have never been convinced that a touchscreen belongs on a traditional laptop. The OLED display is impressive, and I appreciate that Apple continues to improve its hardware, but I expected something more substantial from a machine positioned above an already expensive professional lineup. Maybe independent testing will reveal some advantages that are not immediately obvious from the specifications, and I am certainly open to changing my opinion if the hardware delivers something genuinely worthwhile. For now, though, I think the smartest approach is to save your money, wait for the benchmarks, and ask yourself whether your current computer is actually preventing you from doing something you need to accomplish. Technology should make our lives easier, improve our workflows, or give us capabilities we did not previously have. A better screen can certainly contribute to that, but a touchscreen and a glowing logo are not automatically worth hundreds of dollars more. Sometimes the best upgrade is simply keeping the computer you already own until something comes along that makes a meaningful difference.

Thanks,

Josh