But my point of comparison is a 2006 Macbook, which wasn’t a pro level machine and didn’t have pro level cooling.

> but it's problematic when the machine is sold as a "Pro" device

I’m so tired of this trope. Do you think there’s a single definition of Pro and it’s yours?

If you sell me a "Pro" machine, I expect to be able to fully utilize all its resources for as long as I need to. While I don't need full power all the time (once or twice a month I need it for more than 10 minutes), when I need it, I'd prefer it to be available for more than a couple minutes at a time and not make my laptop sound like a hair drier and compute like an Atom laptop.

Having said that, my 15" MBP is sufficient for my needs, but I'd not recommend it for anyone doing heavy numeric lifting. Or compiling large volumes of code.

There's not, but in general one would guess they use the machine during their work. If a machine is expected to put in an 8-12 hour workday, whether it's a computer, car, truck, power tool or whatever, it needs to be able to handle operation at full load for extended periods of time. Adequate cooling, lubrication, duty cycles, lifespan and so forth should be considered by the manufacturer's engineers before they slap the "Pro" label on anything.

FWIW, my definition of "pro" aligns with theirs.

I expect to be able to compile moderately sized software, transcode an hour long video, render a scene in a ray tracer, etc without throttling.

I can do these things on my Dell XPS developer edition. If I'm going to spend more than $1000 on a machine, these capabilities are a minimum standard.

My $200 netbook hits thermal throttling and that's ok. It's not "pro" and it isn't meant to be.