Live data from Hacker News

Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

macrumors.com

51–60 of 327 posts

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#51

Apple could probably sell a machine starting at $10,000 if they architected it as the sole place one’s Private Cloud Compute [1] ran. It would need a path to a $2,500 machine, I think. But this is a niche I don’t think another consumer-facing brand could do like Apple. [1] https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/

[flagged]

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#52
post #24

If I had the capital I’d make an household inference appliance. No peripherals except Ethernet, integrated compute (cpu+gpu+mem) and secondary storage (+mobo, psu). No accoutrements, just the minimum amount of hardware to run a model as a utility. Even the appliance faceplate would be a display showing stats like an old HiFi stereo. Edit: something like a series of modules consisting of a RISC-V CPU + Vortex GPGPU +…

[flagged]

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we should use current prices as landmarks for large scale demand. That Studio’s current prices is inflated because of a (presumably) short term supply crunch, not because the average user is willing to pay $24k for a home AI inference device. It assumes that RAM remains supply constrained and that none of the existing RAM contracts are cut short. But Meta and xAI putting A TON of AI compute onto the mar…

What makes you think the supply crunch is short-term?

Unless the raw materials have an inherent limit on mining/production due to the amount present on the planet, why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand?

Edit: Okay, this doesn’t mean that that’s actually possible in the short-term, so I think you’re right. But that means as the silver lining, in the medium term horizon there’ll be enough supply again? :’)

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think we should use current prices as landmarks for large scale demand. That Studio’s current prices is inflated because of a (presumably) short term supply crunch, not because the average user is willing to pay $24k for a home AI inference device. It assumes that RAM remains supply constrained and that none of the existing RAM contracts are cut short. But Meta and xAI putting A TON of AI compute onto the mar…

What makes you think the supply crunch is short-term?

If demand doesn't fall down or current manufacturers supply go up, somebody (presumably in China) will spin up fabs. Apple wanted to use blacklisted Chinese RAM already.

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#55
post #47

Apple doesn’t have an ads business, and it is inevitable that Google/openai/Anthropic are going to seek to monetise consumer ai via ads. So the ad free Apple on device experience will be welcome.

What does this mean? Apple ads bring in 8 billion revenue a year.

They aren’t as aggressive and focus on the customer experience more than others, 8bn isn’t a lot for a company with their reach.

For example Apple radio is a free product with no ads, Apple TV and Apple Music don’t have an ads supported tier.

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#56

Oh please the neural engine is mostly useless for LLMs. Siri in iOS 27 is laughably pathetic and slow compared to GPT Live DESPITE sending personal context to their (attested) cloud to execute anything but the most basic queries. Still years behind.

I think the relevant comparison is the developer beta, which has access to the Gemini-powered Siri that will roll out publicly later this year. From the reviews I've seen, Apple won't be "years behind" (which surely they were) for long.

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#57
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this mean? Apple ads bring in 8 billion revenue a year.

They aren’t as aggressive and focus on the customer experience more than others, 8bn isn’t a lot for a company with their reach. For example Apple radio is a free product with no ads, Apple TV and Apple Music don’t have an ads supported tier.

You think Apple is a saint, but they have a completely locked down mobile computing/phone platform. Why the trust in them doing what is best for the user?

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#58
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think the supply crunch is short-term?

Unless the raw materials have an inherent limit on mining/production due to the amount present on the planet, why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Edit: Okay, this doesn’t mean that that’s actually possible in the short-term, so I think you’re right. But that means as the silver lining, in the medium term horizon there’ll be enough supply again? :’)

> why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand?

Memory is a cyclical market that has historically rewarded conservatism [1].

Counterpoint: there is enough demand from enough capital-rich customers that they may be willing to shoulder the capital risk.

[1] https://www.ldeepai.com/tech-hub/dram-industry-consolidation... Sorry for the slop link, it has a good chart from a solid source

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#59
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the raw materials have an inherent limit on mining/production due to the amount present on the planet, why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Edit: Okay, this doesn’t mean that that’s actually possible in the short-term, so I think you’re right. But that means as the silver lining, in the medium term horizon there’ll be enough supply again? :’)

> why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Memory is a cyclical market that has historically rewarded conservatism [1]. Counterpoint: there is enough demand from enough capital-rich customers that they may be willing to shoulder the capital risk. [1] https://www.ldeepai.com/tech-hub/dram-industry-consolidation... Sorry for the slop link, it has a good chart from a solid source

Thanks for the link (and underlying thoughts), I really hadn’t considered that.

So essentially, due to technological progress and other factors inducing price collapses (or at least cycles), you can’t start stockpiling insane amounts of finished-product semiconductor, which means you can’t scale production at current technology levels to infinity either?

Re: Apple Silicon Exec Explains Mac Mini AI Demand and On-Device Future

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me clarify, I think Apple could sell a device at the scale Apple sells at around the $10 to 25 thousand price point. Like, take out the price sheets for the Apple Car. Then sell me an AI tower at those price points.

Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume. Those Macbook Neo users would be very reliant on Apple intelligence, enough maybe to pay for a service with it. I think Apple's much happier going this path.

> Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume

If it's an "or," absolutely. But if it's an or, they should be prioritising Macbooks over the Mac Mini Doug Brooks is discussing.

When we breach the "and" of memory supply sufficient to allow for more Mac minis (and Mac Studios), I think it would make sense to consider relaunching Xserve (with new branding, of course) as a consumer/small business product.

Post reply on HN