verne arase

mjtomlin said:

Great read, but not much new stuff. Was hoping to hear more about Mac SoCs.

Speaking of which... Who else thinks that with these upcoming ASi Macs we’re going to lose the ability to customize for performance? Today I can buy an iMac with an i5, i7, or i9, but only because Apple can just buy those from Intel. Will Macs move to a more iOS device type of customization, where performance differences are marked by generation, not variant (expect of course for the AnX/AnZ)?

There are currently 4 Mac categories to design SoCs for: consumer desktop, consumer mobile, pro desktop, pro mobile. So that’s already at least four variants on the same generation SoC. Is Apple going to be able to make multiple SoCs for each category so that there’s a method of choosing more or less performance in CPU/GPU?

Or is it going to be... Here’s an iMac... choose your display size, storage and memory, that’s it!

Another way to look at it is that there are a bunch of performance tiers because Intel charges differing amounts depending on the performance of the chip.

Apple doesn't use all core-i9s because they're expensive and produce a lot of heat and consume lots of power, so they use a bunch of processors at different tiers to adjust the balance between power, expense, and performance.

Maybe with Apple silicon all models will be top tier models in each SoC catagory - A14 for lowest level, maybe an A14X for iPad/midrange, and others for higher performance (the first Mac SoC is rumored to have 8 Firestorm high performance and 4 Icestorm high efficiency cores). I would expect an incremental cost for higher performance SoCs, both due to silicon real estate and higher cost per wafer because of lower quantity produced, but not like what Intel's charging.

Apple could defray the cost by selling CPUs, but having their own silicon is such a competitive advantage there's no way they're going to do it.

Having your own high performance silicon line that no competitor can buy and compete with you? Priceless.

Remember that one of Intel's problems is getting enough working chips out of a wafer.

Intel's 10th gen chips are 10 nm - except for the 10900s which are 14 nm. The 10900K is Intel's overclockable 10 core 20 thread chip, and though it has a nominal TDP of 125w in the real world it can consume over 300w. They've reached the limits of physics, and actually had to shave the top of the chip to get enough surface area to cool the chip, and even then it requires heat transfer material, heat pipes, radiators, and cooling fans to maintain operation near advertised clock speeds.

Compare that to the A12Z whose normal operating environment is passively cooled in a glass sandwich. In a Mac it would produce more heat, but not to the extent of competitors in the x86 line where discussion of models and performance always devolves into how good the cooling system is.

We'll see, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the highest performing Macs won't be coming out until A15 which is planned to be produced on TSMC's 3nm node - provided they don't run into undue quantum effects. Even Apple silicon will eventually run into Moore's Wall.

Beats said:

The guy is one of the biggest iHaters on YouTube.

Nah ... but he does give Apple shit when they deserve it - like when their keyboards were crap.

haywood said:

I really hope the Pro models have USB-C like the iPad Pro and MacBook Pro. Will make it easier to have just one cord. 

It would really be nice to lose the USB 2 speed limits that Lightning enables - but it would not be nice to have to replace three Lightning alarm clocks a zillion cables.

Problem is, USB-C makes for a lousy docking solution due to tight sleeve tolerances and clumsy blind mating - it's why USB-C docks aren't popular or available in large numbers. So if they did go USB-C, I think we can say good-bye to such niceties as docking alarm clocks.

Another problem is at the other end: if the host end is USB-C, there just aren't a lot of USB-C hubs out there due to power requirements. Even Thunderbolt 3 docks have at most two USB-C outlets if you exclude the Thunderbolt 3 pass-through port.

rob53 said:

Why? Java isn't going to make use of all the Apple-specific capabilities, it's just going to continue to run on Macs. What Java applications do people even use anymore?

Obviously you don't use your Mac in an enterprise environment.

22july2013 said:

About a week ago I decided to trade my 3 year old iMac in using Apple's online trade-in system. The estimate said it would be worth $720. After I sent it in, they revised the estimate down to $150 because they said there was "screen damage". I can assure you that there was no screen damage when I sent it to them because I used the iMac over 8 hours per day 365 days per year for 3 years. Was it damaged during shipping or was this a scam to make money off me? I lost 80% of its value due to this alleged broken screen. They are offering me to send the Mac back at no cost if I don't accept the $150 offer. Should I take the offer? Considering I lost nearly all the value due to the screen, does that mean the screen is the only component that they are really paying me for? Is the screen worth 80% of the entire computer? I contacted Apple and they said they can't do anything because this is all handled by a subcontractor. OOPS, EDIT: my current iMac is 3 years old, this was my 6 year old iMac, sorry.

I recently traded in a 2014 iMac 5K to Apple's mail-in trade-in partner Phobio, and they too claimed screen damage.

The shipping box they sent me did not fit the profile of the iMac, and after trying various orientations settled on putting the iMac into the shipping box in the same orientation as the piece of cardboard with a picture of an iMac on it and forced the box closed.

Phobio claimed the 2014 iMac 4K arrived with screen damage in the lower left corner and reduced my estimated value from $540 to $130.

After some misgivings, I accepted the $130 simply because while I believe the shipping carton caused the damage, I also knew - having replaced an iMac 5K screen damaged in a slow motion accident for $567.05 in 2016 - that if I had them return the unit I'd have to replace the display before I could resell it, and the repair would cost more than the machine was worth.

If you're trading in a machine to Apple do it at a brick and mortar store - do NOT mail it in. If you're in desperate straits mail it in using the original shipping box and foam inserts if the shipping container they sent you doesn't fit properly.