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

Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

machinelearning.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 562 posts

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#531

Post by arvinsim »

user_7832 wrote: post #431
barbecue_sauce wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the time I felt like Apple was getting rid of the 3.5mm jack as a potential bottleneck for future iPhone designs (as one of the limiting aspects of form factor), but there still doesn't seem to be anything design-wise to justify it, even several years later. It is very clear now that it was merely to encourage Air Pod adoption.

I would say this was obvious to the cynical of us from the very beginning. Unless you are trying to go portless (for water resistance perhaps?) or have a very thin phone, there’s very little benefits of removing the jack… except to drive airpod sales, of course.

I draw the line on going pure portless. I would like to retain USB-C thank you very much.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#532

Post by Hugsun »

hajile wrote: post #399
Hugsun wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get considerably more ML FLOPS per dollar in a 4090 than any mac. It seems like the base M2 MAX is at roughly the same price point. It does grant you more RAM. Quadro and Tesla cards might be a different story. I would still like to see concrete FLOPS/$ numbers.

They don't need the entire mac. Their cost per Max chip is probably $200-300 which beats the 4090 by a massive margin and each chip can do more than a 4090 because it also has a CPU onboard. 4090 peaks out at around 550w which means they can run 5+ of their Max chips in the same power budget. A 4090 is $2000. Apple can probably get 5 chips on a custom motherboard for that cost. They'll use the same amount of power, b…

> Their cost per Max chip is probably $200-300 which beats the 4090 by a massive margin...

That's true. I was talking about end user pricing.

> ...each chip can do more than a 4090 because it also has a CPU onboard.

That's a strange thing to say. It has a CPU, correct. It makes the chip more versatile but for data center ML tasks it doesn't really matter. A 4090 chip also has much more ML relevant compute per chip. So apple's chips can't really "do more than a 4090" in any relevant way.

Of course apple pays less for their in house made chips vs external products. That comparison doesn't seem relevant to the context, e.g. they're not going to challenging CUDA with internal chips.

They might get more compute per watt though. My guess is that nvidias datacenter chips are competitive in that space, but that's another story.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#533

Post by pjmlp »

talldayo wrote: post #456
pjmlp wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they can, buy something else.

I've been doing that for six fucking years and not a single thing has changed. The base memory and storage has not changed in that time. During that same amount of time: - Macs transitioned to Apple Silicon, got rid of dGPU memory - Baseline Macbook Air models increased in price by $100 - AI became a realistic and usable technology - Gaming is slightly feasible with GPTK Of course we shouldn't be starting at 8 gigs o…

When I know I will get robbed in the highway, I take another safer road instead, instead of playing lucky and complaining afterwards.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#534

Post by froggit »

viscanti wrote: post #496
prmoustache wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But last at bringing a calculator on the iPad =)

No one has ever brought a native (not 3rd party) calculator to the iPad before. Apple is the first.

> No one has ever brought a native (not 3rd party) calculator to the iPad before. Apple is the first.

I'm not sure I understand... Considering apple makes the ipad, wouldn't all ipad calculators other than apple's be 3rd party by definition?

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#535

Post by danielmarkbruce »

idiotsecant wrote: post #504
dang wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Don't be snarky. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You caught me, I was weak in the face of ridiculousness. Keep on keeping on, you do a great job keeping this place halfway civil.

What was ridiculous? Are they not doing stock standard lora?

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#536

Post by talldayo »

scottyah wrote: post #521
breuleux wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is very obviously what they are doing: they have a small margin on the entry config where people are a lot more price-aware, and jack up the upgrade costs to get a fat margin on configs bought by orgs and power users who generally care less about how much it costs. Frankly, I'd do the same thing.

I always thought the products like the $700 computer wheels[1] and $1,000 monitor stands[2] are made exclusively for the companies who are trying to signal their wealth. For anyone who knows how much these accessories cost, walking into an office where all the workstations have these components puts out a message of wealth (much like standing desks, Herman Miller chairs, expensive art, super espresso machines, etc).…

> Why not get some easy cash while letting your customers display their vanity?

Because computer wheels and monitor stands are high-demand utilities, not jewelry or makeup.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#537

Post by idiotsecant »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #535
idiotsecant wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You caught me, I was weak in the face of ridiculousness. Keep on keeping on, you do a great job keeping this place halfway civil.

What was ridiculous? Are they not doing stock standard lora?

I don't think you were ridiculous. In fact, I agree with you. I was sarcastically pointing out that whenever apple adopts some well understood technology the fanboys always gush over how innovative it is now that apple is doing it.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#538

Post by danielmarkbruce »

idiotsecant wrote: post #537
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was ridiculous? Are they not doing stock standard lora?

I don't think you were ridiculous. In fact, I agree with you. I was sarcastically pointing out that whenever apple adopts some well understood technology the fanboys always gush over how innovative it is now that apple is doing it.

oh, ha. Makes sense.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#539

Post by tonynator »

ihumanable wrote: post #477
duxup wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that way, have an iPhone.

Yea, same. I have literally no desire to hack and fuck around with my personal cell phone, doing so would take away time from the hacking I actually want to do.

One option you can't hack on, the other you can but don't have to at all. Why choose the former? Are you so sure you'll never want to do anything on your phone that's unapproved by your corporate overlords?
Post reply on HN