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

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

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 327 posts

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

#241

Post by bigyabai »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #60
bigyabai wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

Memory supply isn't what held back XServe. We wouldn't need XServe if Apple treated the Mac like a regular computer and supported usable, first-class headless workflows and eGPUs.

The writing has been on the wall since 2019. Apple doesn't like the old way of computing, their goal is to expand the ecosystem by prioritizing install-base and then pushing first-party service offerings like they did with the iPhone. And like they did with the iPhone, Apple is great at ignoring power users to focus on features that make them more money.

You may be waiting a few decades for this type of product, memory supply be damned.

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

#242

Post by not-a-llm »

officeplant wrote: post #162
not-a-llm wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where is this cheap Chinese RAM? I'd like to buy some

Ebay and Amazon are flooded with it. Especially if you are looking for anything prior to DDR5. DDR2 and DDR3 are especially flooded with weird brands you've never heard of before. Unfortunately its not so cheap anymore as everyone ramped prices up of course. Last year I could still get 32GB of DDR4 for under $60 from chinese brands.

DDR3 is from 10 years ago. DDR2 is from 15.

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

#243

Post by bigyabai »

gizajob wrote: post #134
bigyabai wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They could do both though. The margin from one user buying a $25000 is sky high compared to sixty kids all with the cheapest computer possible.

It's really not. Apple's phone margins have been as high as 30-40% per-unit, it's likely that they make at least ~$80-150 per Macbook Neo sold.

At the $150 mark (which is probably accurate factoring in lifetime service spend), that's a $10,000 minimum return on the 64x Macbook Neos. Apple can charge that type of premium on consumer hardware, but they're in no position to command $10,000 margins on professional hardware. They're not Nvidia, Apple has always been LARPing as an HPC vendor.

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

#244

Post by bigyabai »

ingenieroariel wrote: post #233
habosa wrote: post #219

Apple has totally failed to deliver interesting AI experiences so far ... and I still think they're going to be the dominant provider of AI in 5 years. We're just one or two advances in chips / models / both away from being able to run very good local models for free on mid-tier Apple devices. The privacy, cost, and latency story there will be too much for OpenAI/Anthropic/Google to beat. Just writing this down so I…

I wrote: "we should all be buying a fully loaded Mac Studio (128GB of ram, 20 CPU cores, a lot of GPU and Neural cores.)" April, 2023 We are both late and early. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35527692

You should not buy a fully loaded Mac Studio for AI unless you absolutely NEED macOS. You will be wasting so much electricity idling on prefill while your GPU pulls 150-250w from the wall.

Buy an Nvidia Spark, then whatever cheap Mac you want to use as a thin client. There's no reason to force Apple Silicon's round peg into a square hole like AI inference.

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

#245

Post by operatingthetan »

_verandaguy wrote: post #236
habosa wrote: post #219

Apple has totally failed to deliver interesting AI experiences so far ... and I still think they're going to be the dominant provider of AI in 5 years. We're just one or two advances in chips / models / both away from being able to run very good local models for free on mid-tier Apple devices. The privacy, cost, and latency story there will be too much for OpenAI/Anthropic/Google to beat. Just writing this down so I…

I'm perfectly happy with Apple not becoming an "everything we do is AI-centric" business. I'm fatigued by it all at this point. It's streamlining the interesting and fun parts out of my job (by practical necessity of use there), and if I used it half as much outside of work I'm sure it'd do the same there too.

>I'm fatigued by it all at this point.

This is the prevailing opinion of people even outside of tech.

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

#246

Post by klardotsh »

gizajob wrote: post #137
huragok wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but for inference. 45k is so far out of the budget of a professional unless you earn ridiculous money and have no dependents.

A professional AI engineer? Earning hundreds of thoundands of dollars a year?

Who lives on one of the coasts where that job likely requires them to be, where rent is $3-5k and mortgages within spitting distance of that, sure.

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

#247

Post by bigyabai »

eitally wrote: post #190
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23

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.

I think so, too, and I think it'll end up being a race between Apple & NVIDIA (or NVIDIA partners) to see who realizes this first. It would probably be easier for Apple to do it because it wouldn't require a form factor adjustment [over the Mac Studio they already have]. That said, NVIDIA already offers chipsets for both the lower end (DGX Spark with Vera + GB10, at roughly the $4500 price point) and higher end (DGX…

Form factor is the easy part - both Nvidia and Apple are experienced SOC designers.

The hard part is the GPU architecture. Apple Silicon was designed with a laser focus on raster efficiency (similar to AMD's GPUs) which makes a lot of sense for highly mobile hardware, but is a crippling mistake for high-performance compute. Apple's largest Ultra chips are hamstrung with SOC-tier GPU performance, their highest-end desktops are outperformed by Nvidia's laptop offerings. Apple has to find a way to scale upwards without imposing too much architectural strain on their cheaper hardware like the iPhone and Macbook. Nvidia has already solved this issue; full CUDA compute stacks are usable on extremely cheap GPUs like the Nintendo Switch's Tegra SOC, or the Mac Mini-sized Jetson boards.

In terms of "who needs to redesign more to address the market", Apple has a lot of technical debt to unearth before they catch up to Nvidia. And if they do catch up, Nvidia will still support Linux and other differentiating features that Apple refuses to implement. It definitely feels like Nvidia is closer to a winner with the Spark than Apple is with the Mini or Studio.

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

#248

Post by iknowstuff »

apparent wrote: post #56
iknowstuff wrote: post #34

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.

I did say iOS 27. I am using the new Siri. It’s better, but extremely unreliable (half of all requests fail) and slow. It should be like a Codex running on my phone with the ability to chain skills (intents) to execute a task, but it’s too crappy for that.

And the voice is still a poor text to speech model, very far behind GPT live.

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

#249

Post by nvme0n1p1 »

ransom1538 wrote: post #234
habosa wrote: post #219

Apple has totally failed to deliver interesting AI experiences so far ... and I still think they're going to be the dominant provider of AI in 5 years. We're just one or two advances in chips / models / both away from being able to run very good local models for free on mid-tier Apple devices. The privacy, cost, and latency story there will be too much for OpenAI/Anthropic/Google to beat. Just writing this down so I…

"Apple has totally failed to deliver interesting AI experiences so far ..." You think this is a mistake...

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/01/08/apple-new-artificial-in...

Of course. Do you think this was on purpose? All part of Apple's brilliant master plan?

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

#250

Post by _verandaguy »

operatingthetan wrote: post #245
_verandaguy wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm perfectly happy with Apple not becoming an "everything we do is AI-centric" business. I'm fatigued by it all at this point. It's streamlining the interesting and fun parts out of my job (by practical necessity of use there), and if I used it half as much outside of work I'm sure it'd do the same there too.

>I'm fatigued by it all at this point. This is the prevailing opinion of people even outside of tech.

I know public opinion polling supports that, but the parts of my social circle which are outside of tech seem to be, at worst, apathetic (and at best enthusiastic, though that's not a big fraction).

That said, I think it's a good thing that this sentiment is coming to the forefront.

Post reply on HN