techconc

danox said:

...

All of the Mac range of computers need to be released at the same time at each SOC M1, M2, M3 level upgrade, overlapping isn’t going to work. Apple had trouble with Intel’s schedule, it’s a shame now that Apple is in charge they are having internal marketing release trouble with themselves with their own chip.

One more thing the performance of the M2 at low wattage is utterly ridiculous when compared to the Intel and AMD chips, where are the SERVERS? What is Apple waiting for Jerry Jones? The Fourth season of Ted Lasso? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf9sjtv3LYs Incredible!.

Your comment is quixotic and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how chip design works.  Do you think Intel intentionally kept their Xeon chips a generation behind their desktops?

Generally, it works like this.  You have a team building the new technology for things like the CPU and GPU cores.  Those cores are used with the most simplistic and highest volume chips the company makes.  Why?  They are easier to debug and they produce the highest rate of return for the company.  The A series chips will always be the leading indicator for where Apple is going with their technology.  Then, they scale this out to bigger and better chips like the Mx, Mx Pro, Mx Ultra, etc.  Meanwhile, concurrently, they're working on their next technology for their CPUs and GPUs.  On occasion, you might get something like media encoders showing up on a later M series chip first just because that's when the technology was ready. 

As for servers, Apple is not in the server business and they don't sell their chips to others to use.  The server market will eventually move away from Intel, but it largely has to happen on the desktop first.  Why?  Because people develop on the desktop and then deploy to the cloud.  Right now, the cloud is driven by the popularity of the desktop architectures, despite the obvious advantages of moving to ARM based solutions. 

rob53 said:

It really doesn't make sense for Apple to release a M1-based product, other than for the iPad (again), when the M2 has been released. That said, Apple really needs to make sure the M2 design really works withe least amount of heat so the normal fans and heatsinks will work. Once the M2 was released, nobody in their right might would have purchased an M1 Mac Pro or updated M1 Mac mini, they'd just wait a year to get the upgraded versions. 

There is going to be a continuous cycle.  The pro models will always follow the base models for a chip design.  It's the same with Intel.  The Xeon chips are always about a generation behind their desktop class chips.  The point being, if you take that position, you will always be waiting for the next thing.

9secondkox2 said:

I think Apple recognized the M1 Ultra, as powerful as it is, wasn’t going to be the nuclear weapon they intended. So the Studio was developed in a short space of time and bridges the gap. The M1 Ultra has since shown itself to not take full advantage of its potential and so we wait for M2 Ultra and “Extreme.”

Probably 3nm. 

The M series Mac Pro needs to be a mic drop. 

The "Ultra" is and will still likely be the low end of the Pro configuration.  The higher end will effectively be 2 Ultra modules or maybe "extreme" as Gurman calls it.  I think the real question is whether Apple is able to make it user scalable with something like Apple branded video cards, etc.  To your point, the GPU in the M1 Ultra didn't scale to its potential.  Looks like a hardware / engineering problem.  That's likely why they scrapped the M1 based Mac Pro machine.  Hopefully, this will be corrected for the M2 series of Ultra / Extreme chips. 

Also, no the Studio is not a stop gap.  It's more like a "mini Pro" in lieu of a 27" iMac. 

tht said:

The big issue for Apple is really how willing they are going to compete in the workstation market with a 1.5 kW box. 

That’s what the 2019 Mac Pro is and at minimum, I think they need to have that much compute in the box. Not only do they need to have a 20+64 (M1 Ultra), a 40+128 SoC ( or M2 equivalent), they need to be able to put 4 or 5 of them in a 1.5 kW box, with flexibility for 4 3.5” HDDs, and lots of PCIe cards. 

They really don’t need a new box. Just use the 2019 Mac Pro box, develop an interface for 32 to 64 PCIe lanes, and go. But their product marketing folks are quite… focused. 

I agree that they likely need some form of PCI expansion, but I don't agree that it needs 3.5 HDD options at this point.  Especially for a high performance pro machine.  If you were talking about a "prosumer" type of box, I might agree, but not for the high end pro machines.

avon b7 said:

For starters Apple never put a number to 'small' (or whatever the exact term was) and then there is the pesky subject of what the repair entails (substitution of the keyboard, battery and top case). That is a hefty cost to manage under a repair programme that would effectively be covering most laptop macs produced by the company over the last few years. And a new keyboard and battery would surely inject a few more years of life into any affected unit. 

Yeah, I don't know the exact number of failures, but I've seen something reported a long time ago which suggested the failure rate was some fraction of a percent higher than other keyboards.  Not statistically insignificant but also not proportional to the media hysteria.  Again, I'm not a fan of the design solely because of the shorter keyboard travel. That said, I also don't subscribe to the notion that these keyboards are ticking time bombs that will certainly fail over some small period of time.  That's just not true.  Unless, of course, I just happened to get that one magical unicorn keyboard that is immune to such failures despite being HEAVILY used.

omasou said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Pretty small payout relative to the hysteria in the tech press about this issue. 

The ONLY people who make out in a class action lawsuit are the law firms / lawyers.

I had a MacBook Pro w/the butterfly keyboard, It was fine. Just different.

True.   I have a 2016 MBP.  While I was never a fan of the shallow key travel, I never had any reliability problems with it.  I should note that this machine was used by the entire family, including teenagers who don't exactly take care of the products they use.   I suspect the hysteria over such issues were massively overblown, but all the same, I'm glad Apple moved on to a keyboard with greater travel for the keys.

9secondkox2 said:

techconc said:

sflocal said:

darkvader said:

GOOD!

His early stuff wasn't awful.  Everything he's touched for the last 15+ years has been.

Yeah... all that junk he touched that resulted in the fastest and highest AAPL.  Right?  All those countless Apple customers for the past 15+ years buying all those products when they shouldn't have.

Keep doing your revisionist stuff.  Maybe someday someone will believe you.

I think you’re missing the point of his post.  Jony was clearly a talented designer.  However, he’s an example of what happens when the designer has too much authority and is not kept in check.  

The fundamental design of many of his products are great.  However, there are countless examples where he let function follow form.  He had an obsession with symmetry for example which led to the removal of important ports.  Thankfully, some of this has been reversed in recent products.  Then, there was the butterfly keyboard with his obsession for thinness, etc.  Seriously, Jony deserves equal amounts of praise and criticism.  If you can’t objectively see his obvious faults then you’re not being honest with yourself.

Actually you missed his point. You were presented with facts that contradict your opinion that was pretty much the end of discussion right there. 

Such as?  Example??  You make a bold claim without the ability to demonstrate how that is so. 

Ive created amazing products that worked perfectly and looked as great as they functioned. Apple became a raging success as a result. 

He had the right amount of authority a leader should have and was the reason apple products were so awesome. 

Jony designed beautiful products.  Unfortunately, with each of his designs, form followed function.  His obsession for "simplicity" and "thinness" led to poor design decisions that left products without the appropriate ports, small batteries and mice that can't be used while being charged, etc.  Beautiful products indeed, but functionally poor designs.

Such bad comedy how some point to one troubled product - butterfly keyboard - and next thing you know the best industrial designer in history known for his care and balance in knowing intrinsically when to say “no” is retconned into a runaway lunatic who does whatever he feels like on a given day. 

There is a fine line bestween innovative risk and paradigm shifts in function. Ive somehow managed that on the regular. If one thing in a long history of extraordinary successes goes wrong, that’s nothing. 

Such a bad comedy how you are so blinded that you're only able to see his successes and not also see his failures.  Jonny was indeed a talented designer.  However, his designs were also flawed.  This is true for MOST of his designs.  To that end, it is undeniable that Apple's product designs have started to improve AFTER Jony left.  As an example, we wouldn't have the ports that we have on MacBook Pros if Jony was still running the show.

Jony is owed only thanks and gratitude. Hee a legend and has shown the world how todo great things well. 

It’s pathetic how quickly people forget and choose to take a dump on someone who defied all odds, made the best product on the planet and made them not only must haves, but a joy to live with. 

Thank you Jony Ive. If you read this, Please ignore the nutcases that lurk here. Can’t wait to see what you do next. 

It's also pathetic how blinded some people are that they cannot actually view someone's work from a neutral perspective and acknowledge both successes and failures. Jony was a great designer. He made mistakes. It doesn't seem that he's learned from those mistakes. Products have clearly improved after he left. Jony, if you read this, please ignore the helpless sycophants that are not objective enough to provide you with objective criticism. Nobody learns or improves without such critical feedback.