Luckily the article does not say that the Surface Studio is in competition with the MacBook Pro. The author says that what Microsoft and Apple unveiled at their respective events heavily favoured Microsoft.
The author (along with many other articles) compares it to the iMac, though:
> The Studio (...) is what the iMac should be by now — a truly innovative, ultra-thin, 28-inch touchscreen.
That doesn't make any more sense to me. The iMac and MacBook Pro are both expensive, but they're "computers for the masses" - they're great machines for almost everyone. (Or in the case of the MacBook Pro dongles, they're equally frustrating for everyone.)
The Surface Studio, on the other hand, is a computer built for illustrators.
I agree with the author that Apple's presentation was terrible, and I can't get excited about the TouchBar either. But I don't think that building niche computers is the way forward.
Far more 'for the masses' than the Surface Studio which is three times the price, though. And, of course, at those prices, three times is a LOT. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that home desktops 'for the masses' are on the way out anyway, so those who will be buying iMacs (if they continue to exist) in future are likely to be in the 1%; the Surface Studio buyers will probably be in the 0.1%, though.
> The Studio (...) is what the iMac should be by now — a truly innovative, ultra-thin, 28-inch touchscreen.
That doesn't make any more sense to me. The iMac and MacBook Pro are both expensive, but they're "computers for the masses" - they're great machines for almost everyone. (Or in the case of the MacBook Pro dongles, they're equally frustrating for everyone.)
The Surface Studio, on the other hand, is a computer built for illustrators.
I agree with the author that Apple's presentation was terrible, and I can't get excited about the TouchBar either. But I don't think that building niche computers is the way forward.