I'd always been of the impression that the "faster" portion of the saying was more focused on time-elapsed, in the context of how "soon" you may have the completed product, effort, project, etc. Therefore, the laptop from your example is surely a better & cheaper laptop, but was not available for purchase until 5 years after the one to which you're comparing it. Better, faster (in the context of relative performance), and cheaper IS the norm for computers. laptops, and smartphones, as advances in technology inevitably lead to such.
In the same vein, a "superstar" may be able to provide a solution that's faster and better than an "average" team. The "superstar" may cost more per a productive hour (in the short term) than an "average" person providing the same/similar solution at a lower cost in twice the time. When "time is money," managers may opt to go to the superstar for a solution. When "cost savings" are the focus, or a solution may not be needed immediately, the lower-priority projects may be pushed to the "average" team. I prefer a balanced approach, as the "average" tech may become a superstar with time and experience, and the current "superstar" can best focus their time and effort on critical projects.