DuhSesame

rmoo said:

TheDrivenDev said:

Considering the performance of M1 against its peers, I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't delay releases simply because the competition isn't challenging their product's performance. Let's be honest, Intel isn't even really in the game at this point.

Huh? Intel "isn't in the game" when it comes to power per watt. But 11th gen Intel Core i7 was within ballpark of the M1 and 11th gen Core i9 exceeded it. 12th Gen Intel Core i7 exceeds the M1 Pro and M1 Max. 12th gen is actually an outdated design because it needed to wait until Intel's 10nm process was ready. 13th gen launches in 4Q2022 with performance and efficiency enhancements and a mature 10nm node, meaning that 13th gen Core i5 will be competitive with the M1 Pro. 

It is amazing how the discourse went from "we are pleasantly surprised that Apple's CPUs are competitive with Intel's!", which was actually true, and "Apple's CPUs are clearly better than Intel's!", which was never true, and to the degree it was, it was only due to Apple's decision to use unified memory instead of RAM and being on a 5nm process instead of a 14nm one. On the former, general purpose CPU makers using unified memory is very stupid because unified memory removes flexibility and upgradability. On the latter, once Intel's 7nm chips arrive in 2023, while the Apple power-per-watt advantage will remain, it will significantly decrease to the point where no one is going to talk about it anymore. For example, you are going to see 7 inch Nintendo Switch-type devices and 12 inch Windows 11 tablets running 14th gen Intel Core i5 CPUs that won't require discrete GPUs or fans that will have very good battery life. 

Even Apple claimed that they were never going to be able to outdo Intel (or AMD) in single core or multicore performance and their big advantage was going to be power per watt. The problem is that unless you run a data center or are someone whose job requires them to be constantly "on-the-go" (and the people in the latter group switched to smartphones and tablets as their primary devices ages ago) then power per watt isn't going to be something that you care about that much. People aren't going to start valuing that metric overnight just because Apple says that they should, and the people who are going to all of a sudden after all these years start claiming that power per watt is the most important thing are going to be loyal Mac customers already. 

Detnator said:

sloaah said:

darkvader said:

shareef777 said:

The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.

An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.

No, it's not meant for professionals.  I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.

They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.

Those are for rich idiots.

Sadly this is true. I’m also in the film industry and the XDR has received so much flak for its poor backlight performance. It sits in a no man’s land - too expensive for a GUI monitor, and nowhere near good enough for colour critical applications. 

It also feels to me a bit like the philosophy of the previous gen of Intel MBPs. A proper colour grading pipeline is quite complicated involving LUT boxes etc. Apple tried to simplify all of that but has consequently forced a workflow which simply cannot work in an professional colour grading context. 

Personally I think the monitor should be retired completely, and that Apple should release cheaper models and possibly an updated Pro XDR which is actually functional. 

These are some reasonable comments.  Indeed the XDR has some issues. It’s a first gen product that fits a pretty small niche, but that’s been true of past Apple monitors. 

When the first 22” Apple Cinema Display came out in about 2001 or so It was amazing and like nothing else at the time. But it was also pretty niche and about $5K.

But as niche as it was, for that niche it was just what we needed. I bought one for what I was doing at the time and the increased productivity paid for it. 

Within a couple of years they had replaced it with the 17/20/23 inch range followed by the much loved aluminum 20/23/30 range all for a fractions of the 22” price. 

I’d argue this XDR is even more niche, because of the points made above by sloaah but I’m hoping the XDR is the start of a new range of displays - a repeat of something like the above. 

Detnator said:

darkvader said:

opinion said:

Half the price is still to high. Sometimes I think that there is no point in making the best products if people can’t afford them. 

10% of the price is still too high.  $350 would be about reasonable for a good 27" monitor, you can get a nice 27" 4K LG for about that.

I suppose Apple might charge $500 for a monitor about that quality, but it would be a ripoff.

As usual you make me laugh.  You want a cheap 27” 4K monitor…?  Everyone and their mother makes them. At 250, maybe 350 nits brightness, with woeful contrast, washed out images, no color accuracy and the build quality of a dollar store trinket. Put one of those next to an iMac and tell me you can’t see the difference and I’ll recommend a good eye surgeon for you. 

But as we all know facts aren’t of any interest to trolls and shills.


 darkvader said:

shareef777 said:

The best display is the XDR and it’s not meant for people in general, it’s meant for professionals. Just because it’s not sold in volumes doesn’t mean higher end (low volume) products shouldn’t be made. The average monitor today is 2k one going for ~$500. Apple offering a “lower cost” smaller XDR at $2500 doesn’t fit that average, not even on the high end. The high end consumer monitor is a monster 49 inch curved one by Samsung and it “only” goes for $2000.

An M1 iMac sans Mac parts is EXACTLY what people would go for. $700 for the 24”, $1000 for a 27”, and $1500 for a 32”.

No, it's not meant for professionals.  I work with video professionals, folks who do TV stuff that there's a decent chance you've seen.

They don't have monitors like that ridiculous $5000 Apple screen.

Those are for rich idiots.

Just because I’ve seen it doesn’t mean it’s any good. People who use Apple’s high end gear may be rich but they’re not idiots. Maybe they are rich because they use the right tools for their jobs and so they can actually make stuff that people want to buy - like Marvel movies for example.