What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition • Hacker News Board

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#11

Post by lapcat » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:06 AM UTC

teruakohatu wrote: post #7

akamaka wrote: post #5

How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? Most of the M-series chips are shared across multiple products, but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. I don’t see Apple doing it simply as a vanity project, so there will have to be some inn…

> clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. It will simplify MacOS when they end Intel support.

Exactly this. There's a cost to supporting Intel forever only for the Mac Pro and nothing else.

Not only a cost to Apple, but also a cost to 3rd party Mac developers, who would be even less likely to have the resources to support the Mac Pro for its own sake.

Apple dropped PowerPC support in Mac OS X (10.6) 3.5 years after the Intel transition started, and they dropped Rosetta support in Mac OS X (10.7) 2 years after that.

IIRC the last PPC Mac hardware was discontinued very soon after the Intel transition started.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#12

Post by bpye » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:07 AM UTC

akamaka wrote: post #5

How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? Most of the M-series chips are shared across multiple products, but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. I don’t see Apple doing it simply as a vanity project, so there will have to be some inn…

> How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product?

In their own datacentres?

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#13

Post by ksec » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:11 AM UTC

It seems strange to include the Mini. As it is more of an Intel Mac for those who somehow still need Intel macOS for whatever reason. The memory capacity is limited in ARM Mac. So if you want high capacity memory you go to Mac Studio.

And with Mac Studio, which brings us the next question. What are the Market Mac Studio couldn't compete with Mac Pro. If it is not powerful enough now, will possibly another doubling of LPDDR6, that is 512GB with 1.5TB/s of bandwidth with M3 Ultra be enough?

The only market I could think of right now is Audio Professionals with specific Plug in Sound Card. Could that market not be served if Apple had made a few more Thunderbolt 4 port available?

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#14

Post by eptcyka » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:15 AM UTC

bpye wrote: post #12

akamaka wrote: post #5

How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? Most of the M-series chips are shared across multiple products, but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. I don’t see Apple doing it simply as a vanity project, so there will have to be some inn…

> How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? In their own datacentres?

I am under the impression they do not run macOS in their own datacenters. And, unlike mortals, if they need to run macOS in datacenters, they're not bound by their own license to never virtualize macOS on non-macOS hosts, they can do as they please.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#15

Post by ksec » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:19 AM UTC

akamaka wrote: post #5

How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? Most of the M-series chips are shared across multiple products, but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. I don’t see Apple doing it simply as a vanity project, so there will have to be some inn…

>How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product?

Which is the question I have been asking since 2015. From a cost prospective it never made any sense. Presumably they will wait until Mac Studio becoming powerful enough to fill the gap.

>but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now.

It surely does. Except it will be the only Mac in the lineup without Metal Support and Apple's increasingly important NPU for Machine Learning features. I dont see it as a good trade off.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#16

Post by eastbound » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:21 AM UTC

dwaite wrote: post #10

IMHO Mac mini isn't going to die any time soon; it is there in the lineup to be hostable/rackable operations glue for running old software and (old operating systems) headless. I doubt they will release a M2 Pro Mini. They will instead update the Mac Studio. Conversely, if they make a M2 Pro in the current Mini form factor, they'll likely use that as an excuse to redesign the regular M2 Mini to be smaller (Mac Micro)…

I buy Mac Mini because OSHA once demanded (and I find it’s not a bad idea) that I use screens instead of laptops to avoid employees spending 7hrs bending to neck. So they have 2 displays at work and 2 displays at home, and a Mac Mini, total 2300€, better than a 2800€ Macbook Pro + screens.

What is the state of the art, do all of you simply buy a top-notch Macbook Pro and work on it all day?

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#17

Post by vlovich123 » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:21 AM UTC

teruakohatu wrote: post #7

akamaka wrote: post #5

How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? Most of the M-series chips are shared across multiple products, but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. I don’t see Apple doing it simply as a vanity project, so there will have to be some inn…

> clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. It will simplify MacOS when they end Intel support.

Yeah, that’s a common analysis people seem to miss even though Apple is very clearly vertically integrated. Software maintenance costs are so much significantly higher that unifying HW is significantly more value even if the margins aren’t as good. The high end macs serve as cachet status symbols amongst the creators and designers which tend to contain a lot of trend setters + mind share + creative software being optimized around the macs which then means that hardware is purchased at disproportionately higher levels (+ potential downstream effects where if you’re mostly a max shop already, shouldn’t you just get the MacBook Air and other Apple devices to simplify corporate device management?). Also a unified HW platform ALSO reduces software maintenance costs for partners and which is a nice virtuous cycle of encouraging that porting to happen. Apple has a uniquely holistic view of the market place that they’ve cultivated over decades and I’ve seen no sign that they’ve ever lost sight of that like many competitors due at much smaller market caps.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#18

Post by tcmb » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:27 AM UTC

akamaka wrote: post #5

How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? Most of the M-series chips are shared across multiple products, but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. I don’t see Apple doing it simply as a vanity project, so there will have to be some inn…

Low volume simply means higher unit prices, doesn't it? The Mac Pro as an explicitly professional high-end machine is OK to be expensive. Its USP compared to fast x86 machines is that it runs macOS.

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#19

Post by eastbound » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:30 AM UTC

jamujamu wrote: post #4

Hopefully what’s also left is a 27-inch iMac with M2 or M2 Pro chip inside. The current 24-inch iMac just doesn’t cut it, and the Mac Studio + Apple Display combo is way to expensive compared to the price point of Intel iMacs.

The lack of proper 27-inch displays with the quality of Apple (apart the $1800 Apple Display) is the reason I’m not replacing my iMac…

Re: What’s Left in the Apple Silicon Transition

#20

Post by ksec » Mon, Jan 02, 2023, 7:32 AM UTC

tcmb wrote: post #18

akamaka wrote: post #5

How will Apple recoup the cost of designing a powerful chip for a product like the Mac Pro, which is presumably their lowest-selling product? Most of the M-series chips are shared across multiple products, but the Mac Pro seems to be a clear case where using a powerful off-the-shelf Intel chip makes more business sense right now. I don’t see Apple doing it simply as a vanity project, so there will have to be some inn…

Low volume simply means higher unit prices, doesn't it? The Mac Pro as an explicitly professional high-end machine is OK to be expensive. Its USP compared to fast x86 machines is that it runs macOS.

>is OK to be expensive.

That is until you run the calculation when the cost of doing it are in the tens of thousands per unit. Suddenly it doesn't make much sense.