Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Mac Studio

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 734 posts

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#371

Post by qbasic_forever »

SZJX wrote: post #228
areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

> Bravo Apple. I'd love to see what they have in store for designers and programmers next. What would you say the programmers specifically need though. A laptop instead of a workstation?

Beautiful high resolution and crisp text rendering. I want looking at a dense page of code to look as beautiful and comfortable as reading a magazine. A comfortable keyboard and trackpad are a must too. Give me as much battery life as possible--at least a day or more. Performance, memory, and storage are less of a bottleneck these days and today's higher end specs are generally good enough.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#372

Post by brailsafe »

yborg wrote: post #336
brailsafe wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a $200-400 gumstick that you can get off the shelf https://www.newegg.com/seagate-2tb-firecuda-530/p/N82E168202...

The Apple upgrade cost to 1TB is also $200.

Right, but the link was for 2TB at the same speed, and it's a $600 upgrade for 2TB from 512, which means literally $800 for 2TB in total, plus tax! To be fair, it is likely higher quality, more efficient maybe, but I just think it's quite a reach to charge $800 USD for 2TB of storage that's not uniquely fast or anything. If you think that's a good value, it certainly might be depending on your work, but it would be twice as good value if it wasn't twice the price as off-the-shelf.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#373

Post by gaws »

areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

> It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want.

A $2,000 machine to handle editing, processing and posting video ~content~ on YouTube.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#374

Post by asiachick »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #242
cj wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $8k for 128GB RAM, 8 TB solid state storage Maybe not, but 32GB RAM + 512GB SSD for $2k is a pretty competitive price point.

a 512 gb ssd is kinda inexcusable in a machine that costs more than $1000 1tb of ssd is only around $100.

it's there for framing, solely to push you to the next tier

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#376

Post by jazzyjackson »

speed_spread wrote: post #229
GeekyBear wrote: post #77

Interesting tweet from Hector Martin, who is leading the Linux port: >Chances are our kernel will Just work on M1 Ultra with just device tree changes, might not even need any m1n1 changes. https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1501271229763706882

Good. None of these releases matter to me if all those machines can run is Mac OS. I'm not a Linux freak, but I like machines that last a long time. Long term support is the weak spot of any proprietary design. Given the incredible hardware capabilities of these new boxes, the 5 or 6 years official expected official lifecycle is waaay too short.

Latest MacOS is supported by Mac Pro from 9 years ago, that's pretty good. Macbook Pro from 7 years ago. These M1 machines are the new baseline, I wouldn't be surprised if they're supported a decade from now, it's not like MacOS is going to need 10x the CPU/RAM to run in 2032 knock on wood

https://www.apple.com/macos/monterey/ (have to scroll all the way down for supported devices)

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#377

Post by cududa »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #342
cududa wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CGI, CAD, rendering, driving huge screens, running live sporting events, scientific workloads, massive simultaneous automated app testing, etc. Just because you can’t imagine why someone would need that much compute doesn’t mean the use cases don’t exist.

I did not say -- at all -- that I can't imagine that kind of power requirement. Not at all. What I said if you read the rest of my comments is that I find it difficult to believe there is a specifically single-desktop-machine use case for that kind of power over and above the Mac Studio. The reason I mention this is that high end (TV and cinema) CGI just is not the domain of single machines anymore; it's the domain o…

The real-time rendering demos of the Studio were incredible. If the pro is 4x that it would be insanely cool. If I were still doing music videos I’d kill to have one of those on set. Or what we did for Kanye’s Yeezus tour (live motion tracking of the dancers with some kinects and putting them into models projected on the screen) - could’ve been so much cooler with this much compute in a small box. You’re talking about this as if you have knowledge from working in an industry that you clearly haven’t. $100,000 fragile rack or $8,000 shoe box you can drop and it’ll still work fine.

The visual arts this thing is going to enable us going to be amazing, and we haven’t even seen the Pro yet. One former client has been texting me all day about ideas from 10 years ago that weren’t feasible but now are with this lil thing. I keep telling him to wait for the Pro then we can take some REALLY neat ideas off the shelf.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#378

Post by ghostly_s »

BonoboIO wrote: post #64

The design of it looks a bit off to me. Like a cheap mac-ish intel nuc designed by huawei with their matebooks. https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/29/17396818/huawei-matebook-...

I just don't get why they wouldn't turn those usb-c ports the other way so they line up nicely with the sd slot....

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#379

Post by jazzyjackson »

tonguez wrote: post #247
thaw13579 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only a gap of roughly $500 between a maxed out mini and the entry studio, so perhaps the studio is the answer to what you're looking for?

M1 mini with 16GB RAM (most possible RAM): $1100 entry studio: $2000 That's a pretty big gap. Basically it means you have to shell out $2000+ if you want to do video editing on any M1 mac. Buying a brand new computer to do video editing that has only 16GB RAM in 2022 is unjustifiable. $2k+ is too much for most people especially young "creatives" that are making entertainment (videos). Lots of people here make hundred…

> 16GB RAM in 2022 is unjustifiable.

MacOS on ARM handles memory differently, try it you might like it.

They can only print so many M1max chips at a time, they want to sell them in a high margin machine. Give em a year and the M1max will trickle down to the mini.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#380

Post by infinityio »

wmeredith wrote: post #311
andjd wrote: post #212

I'm really happy they're not going with a iMac pro form factor for these. Having a separate display and computer is great for avoiding e-waste. There are a ton of iMacs out there that have obsolete hardware but a screen that still works great.

I died inside when they got rid of target display mode for iMacs.

I've seen projects online about converting 5k iMacs into external displays by essentially ripping out the insides and putting in a driver board instead - I wonder what the relative cost (/value proposition) of that is compared to these new displays if you don't need a webcam?
Post reply on HN