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

Apple Mac Studio

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 734 posts

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#151

Post by lquist »

areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

Why are they doing this? Trickle down effects for their mass market products? There is no way that the prosumer market is big enough to justify this distraction for Apple even if it used to be their core business line.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#152

Post by NorwegianDude »

nouveaux wrote: post #71
areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

> they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there I think they're blowing all their competitors out of the water with the price point. It's not just a 10-20% difference in price anymore.

$8k for 128GB RAM, 8 TB solid state storage and 22 trillion ops/sec isn't exactly a bargain.

I do however image that the performance per watt will be really good.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#153

Post by yurishimo »

borodi wrote: post #112
yurishimo wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison chart for the high spec M1 Ultra was using a 3090. So even if it "only" reaches 3060 levels of performance in games, I think many people would be okay with that. Reality will likely place it somewhere between a 3060 and the 3090.

So 3090 price for 3060 performance, doesn't sound very promising. I wish we could exploit those gpus easier for compute, but compute with metal is simply not there, at least for now.

It's not priced like a 3090 though? There's an entire computer there and the CPU performance is no slouch, even if the GPU may be lacking for what gamers want today.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#154

Post by ggreg84 »

yewenjie wrote: post #107
areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

Wait, how and why did Apple suddenly become cost-effective?

When the M1 was released... a year ago...

You could buy a 900$ laptop with a better CPU than any laptop out there. 20 hours battery life (almost 3x any other laptop out there). Silent (no fans). With a great screen, a great keyboard, lightweight, well built, etc.

Basically a machine that was more than 2x cheaper of competing laptops at 2500 $ or more, yet had more than 2x of everything.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#155

Post by bogwog »

The 2TB option is an extra $400. That's $200/TB. The 4TB option is $250/TB. The 8TB option is $275/TB.

That looks like planned obsolescence to me. A customer with 1TB will likely want to upgrade sooner than a customer with 8TB, so this pricing strategy discourages people from buying the more future-proof options. Other SSDs on the market tend to be cheaper per TB as you go up in size, but Apple's seem to be completely backwards (and obscenely overpriced, of course).

Or am I being too cynical here, and this is just that famous "luxury tax"?

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#156

Post by traceroute66 »

nouveaux wrote: post #71
areoform wrote: post #22

I would like to highlight just how much Apple is focusing on their customers and use cases right now. It seems that they're targeting products to what their professional customers actually want. And in this case, it's a 3.7" little thing that can process 18 streams of 8k video (fully specced out). That's kinda crazy, and they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there.…

> they're doing it at a price point that's competitive compared to all of the companies out there I think they're blowing all their competitors out of the water with the price point. It's not just a 10-20% difference in price anymore.

> I think they're blowing all their competitors out of the water with the price point.

Not only on price point but also performance per watt. The M1 laptops were a game changer on that front, and I expect the M1 Ultra to be the same.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#157

Post by karlshea »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #142
karlshea wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they've been saying that for, what, nearly a decade now? The latest generation is from 2019?

I guess. I mean, it's a forgettable stopgap machine (I forgot it ;-) It's not really what people wanted, is it? It's just something they had to put on sale to shut people up. A conventional, Intel-era thing. They've been saying "something really great is coming", all that. That Mac Pro was not that. Does Apple still care about the market that wants to plug in internal GPU cards? Does that make much sense even in the…

What? It's a whole new tower with PCIe slots and everything, and was super well received. Were you still under the impression they were selling the trashcan Mac Pro?

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#158

Post by londons_explore »

hughrr wrote: post #29
rovr138 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Obviously depends on people's workload. For myself and to future proof, I can see a benefit for 2TB locally. The rest I can offload to network storage.

Indeed. I’m running on a 512Gb MBP 14” and have 310Gb free so no point in this for me.

Start editing high res video, and those TB's will quickly fill up.

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#159

Post by SamuelAdams »

nerdjon wrote: post #15

More and more I see the M1 chips and I wish Mac worked seriously well for gaming. Would love too see something like Proton but for Mac (given up hopes for native support). I hate that I have my gaming PC and then my Mac for everything else. I have to wonder though what their plan is for the M2. Are they laying the groundwork for when the M2 comes out all of these variants will be ready at the same time? Or a gradual…

There is a lot of support for M1. See these lists. Please note though that "playable" does not mean "on par with other platforms", ie, Windows and Xbox / Playstation.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1er-NivvuIheDmIKBVRu3...

https://applesilicongames.com/

Re: Apple Mac Studio

#160

Post by ohgodplsno »

yurishimo wrote: post #88
Thaxll wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well crazy mac hardware is actually not very good compared to PC graphic cards.

The comparison chart for the high spec M1 Ultra was using a 3090. So even if it "only" reaches 3060 levels of performance in games, I think many people would be okay with that. Reality will likely place it somewhere between a 3060 and the 3090.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN