Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#41

Post by gchamonlive » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

Grombobulous wrote: post #19

I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have. I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardw…

I think 24gb is the bare minimum for a local qwen3.8 based setup. I've used qwen3.6 and it's not as straightforward as "can it replace "

Local llms don't suffer from cloud availability issues. Anyone that used Google models know that sometimes they just don't have capacity whatsoever, at least that was the state of things some months back when I used them. Just bear in mind if needed, cloud providers will prioritise API and corporate customers over subscriptions if availability degrades more.

Also they don't have the same guardrails as the other models, so for hacking, reverse engineering and black coding (piracy etc...) these local models might be the only options.

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#42

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #25

Grombobulous wrote: post #19

I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have. I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardw…

> it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. The $20/month subs are much stronger than the local models you can run, even with how far local models have advanced lately. The appeal of local models is that the data never leaves your network so you can feel safer putting sensitive content into it. It also feels “free” to use when you’ve already paid for the hardware…

Uncensored models are also popular reasons, although it’s more of a niche.

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#43

Post by adamtaylor_13 » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

Grombobulous wrote: post #19

I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have. I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardw…

The principle of KISS keeps coming to mind when I consider local computing. I'm looking forward to the day we can just run Opus-level models at 100 tok/sec on consumer hardware.

But currently it's really hard to beat anything offered by the cloud companies. And the cost and complexity of setting it all up, just to barely (if at all) touch on Opus-level intelligence makes it seem like we're not quite there for the common man (enthusiasts are a different story.)

I am very excited for open source local models, and we're nearly there, but it's still too complex and expensive to be my daily driver (yet).

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#44

Post by monatron » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #28

Grombobulous wrote: post #19

I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have. I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardw…

Local setups aren't going to make sense purely from a cost perspective, and definitely not when you are buying Apple hardware. AI subscriptions are too highly subsidized right now.

I think your last point is exactly why I'm so interested in local models. The current landscape doesn't feel sustainable. The last few months we've seen the big providers (OpenAI, Anthropic) start to play with usage limits, resets, banked resets, pulling models, etc. I think local models are close to the point where, with a sufficiently well-architected harness, you can get results that are on par with the experience you'd have with cloud inference. It is nice to know that I have hardware under my desk that I control with open weight models that I can interact with on my terms.

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#45

Post by fancyfredbot » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

fisle wrote: post #34

Grombobulous wrote: post #19

I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have. I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardw…

Could you elaborate on your experience with local models on your card? I've been thinking of upgrading to 9070 XT, and was thinking the 16GB would be okay-ish to at least run something usable locally, no?

Usable certainly. But my impression is that useful models still need a bit more than 16GB. Something like Qwen 3.8 27B is useful but squeezing it into 16GB requires fairly aggressive quantisation which will make it unreliable (e.g it'll get stuck in loops) and won't leave enough space for a long context (which qwen 3.8 really likes)

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#46

Post by AdmiralAsshat » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

Mac Mini's were really nice HTPC candidates, too, before the AI boom. Like all things genuinely useful and affordable, they were snatched from the hands of normal consumers by a bunch of schmucks chasing the latest gold rush.

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#47

Post by xienze » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 2:00 PM UTC

Grombobulous wrote: post #19

I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have. I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardw…

IMO local models require a substantial amount of prompt+harness engineering to get in the neighborhood of what you'd get from a cloud model. Which isn't a bad thing, you'll learn a whole lot about how these things work.

What you'll learn pretty quickly from said engineering is that there's a lot more to a good LLM than just the weights themselves. You need a good search provider (also self-hostable, but sounds easier than it really is). You need (well, it's debatable) a memory system. You need a good system for up-to-date library references like a Context7 (also self-hostable but the options are surprisingly not that good). You need a good set of specialized subagents that can perform various tasks well -- for the sake of "doing things well" but also managing context efficiently.

When you've got all that, local models can be _extremely_ useful. But there's one other important thing and that's decent hardware, unfortunately. A lot of people try out local models using small consumer GPUs or Macs and are rightfully unimpressed with the performance. And if the performance doesn't get them, usually they have expectations that they'll perform at Claude levels out of the box. Getting in that neighborhood, like I said, definitely requires some work.

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#48

Post by tonyedgecombe » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

xattt wrote: post #24

setgree wrote: post #14

It's fun to see that even an extremely large company can find unexpected product market fit [0]. Per this article, "The company reportedly did not possess an engineering team dedicated to business customers or staff focused on developer relations, and lacked an enterprise AI strategy." That sounds insane in retrospect, but I think there's just inherent uncertainty in what people actually need and will use things for.…

Was this the case in the past? My vibes were that Apple wound down the “actual work” side of their operations (including machines like Xserve), because Ives couldn’t handle the unsexiness and unpredictability of business requirements in hardware. He was self-indulgent and only wanted to work on things that “vibed” with him, rather than what the customers needed. It’s easy to be creative when you get to do what you wa…

I think Jobs was quite sceptical about courting enterprises. Personally this is one of the reasons I choose Apple over Microsoft.

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#49

Post by xienze » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

spacedcowboy wrote: post #40

Grombobulous wrote: post #19

I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have. I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me. Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardw…

I was getting semi-useful results from a 128GB M4 Max. That was a few months ago, and the models have improved (quite a bit) since then, but now I'm happy to send my $20/month to get Claude code. It's still frustrating as hell to come down in the morning, having given it a list of tasks to do overnight, with tests to pass before they're "done" and find that it worked for about 20 minutes after I went to bed, and deci…

> I went to bed, and decided that it would stop at "3am" (it wasn't) and "not do significant work this at this late hour". Like WTF ? You're an LLM. You don't sleep.

I think that's Anthropic trying to get you to not extract as much value out of that subsidized subscription as possible.

Re: Apple caught off guard by AI demand for Mac Mini and Mac Studio

#50

Post by tristor » Mon, Aug 31, 2026, 2:03 PM UTC

Xeoncross wrote: post #30

If I had to pick a product, I'd say an affordable 32GB mac would be the sweet spot for running local models that function well like Qwen 3.8. It's true, most people don't run models, but being the default platform for running open weights seems like it has plenty of advantages right now. Just like sales benefited from developers defaulting to MacOS for most open source languages like Ruby, Go, Rust, and TypeScript.

> If I had to pick a product, I'd say an affordable 32GB mac would be the sweet spot for running local models that function well like Qwen 3.8.

32GB is not enough RAM. I don't even own a device with less than 36GB at this point, and that device I only have because my employer is being cheap. 64GB is a reasonable starting point for running local LLMs + normal tasks. 128GB let's you really run most smaller models like Qwen 27B and 35BA3B with good context. Even Qwen3.8-Flash-Next runs in 128GB with a 4-bit quant.

32GB would be limited to running models like Gemma4 12B and smaller dense Qwen versions like 9B unless you were using very small quants which damages quality of response.