61–70 of 327 posts
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/
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
This is mostly an US phenomenon, no Mac mini nor Mac Studio around here.
Only Thinkpads and Macbooks laptops talking to hyperscalers.
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/
But that would be more for enterprise usage. I cannot imagine a personal computing usage which can justify a 10k machine.
For me, the privacy pitch wins. I have a friend visiting, however, who spends like $2,400 with Anthropic every year. That's a solid ROI even if the thing becomes obsolete after a couple years. (I'm still on my 2020 MacBook Pro. I love it and will be sad when I have to replace it.)
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.
I don’t understand why they are not reintroducing the Apple Xserve?
They would even sell less than Windows Server licenses.
By the way, they are down the same path with the workstation market, now that they only top level answer is the Mac Studio.
Workstation market wants flexible towers that they can customise to their own liking and special use cases.
The main reason Swift exists for Linux, is that app developers need to have servers somewhere, and if they want to share Swift code with the backend, well it isn't going to be on macOS Server.
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/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that would be more for enterprise usage. I cannot imagine a personal computing usage which can justify a 10k machine.
> cannot imagine a personal computing usage which can justify a 10k machine For me, the privacy pitch wins. I have a friend visiting, however, who spends like $2,400 with Anthropic every year. That's a solid ROI even if the thing becomes obsolete after a couple years. (I'm still on my 2020 MacBook Pro. I love it and will be sad when I have to replace it.)
How can that be a solid return on investment? There's no model you can run locally to have frontier model level performance. Also who spends 2.4k yearly for personal AI usage, like what's the usecase? If your friend is spending that money for his business then it's not personal computing.
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
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/
I am unsure that apple themselves understand why their hardware (top end & bottom end) has been so successful, without this understanding leaning into these use cases isn't really going to be possible.