Rogue01

I saw the new Studio Display at the Apple Store.  It is definitely not worth the $1,599 price tag.  The fact that the display has fans in it, makes you wonder how hot is it going to be?  The Apple Thunderbolt Display was a literal space heater that could heat a room.  I had two of them that I got used for $350 total.  One started to fail after 4 years of use with the LED burn marks appearing, and I was glad to sell them for cheap to get rid of them.  They literally heated my room and in the summer, it was brutal.  I replaced them with two Samsung 28" 4K monitors that have much better image quality, and they were only $269 each!  I think the general consumer doesn't care about 4K or 5K and most will opt for a decent 4K monitor for much less.  I don't need a webcam or speakers in my display.  I have the Klipsch 2.1 Media Speakers that blow away anything from Apple.  If I need a webcam, I have one in my MacBook Pro, 2020 iMac 27", or iPhone or iPad.  I don't need Center Stage either.  Most say they get a sick feeling watching the panning.  It is like they added a bunch of features that most people don't really care about, and the one feature people would use, they left out - Ethernet!

Remember when everyone was spreading rumors that the new iMac would be 32"?  Guess what?  Apple gave you the same 27" display from the iMac, for the price of the iMac, without the iMac.  Remember when Schiller said you get this amazing 5K display, and it comes with a computer?  Now it is the other way around.  I think most people that buy the Mac Studio will opt for a third party display, and maybe go larger with a 32" 4K display.  Most will be able to get two excellent 4K displays for less than one Apple Studio Display.  If Apple priced it at $999, with the height adjustable stand, they would have had a hit.  Since Apple is so health conscious, the height adjustable stand should be the included stand.  The fixed tilt stand is ridiculous.  It is funny when people stack books under their iMac to raise it up.  Watch MKHBD's review of the display on YouTube.  He nails it with his review.

Other articles have already posted the benchmarks for the M1 Ultra.  Like all other M1 CPUs, the single core score is in the 1700 range.  The M1 Ultra only excels with the multi-core score, over 20,000 in Geekbench 5.  So unless your work specifically takes advantage of the multi-core tasks and video work, the Mac Studio would be a waste of money.  The other difference between the base model studio and the Ultra CPU studio is the massive 2 pound heat sink required to keep the Ultra CPU cool.  Shop wisely.

Everyone loves to claim how fast the M1 Macs are, but that is only the single core processes.  Most Intel CPUs have faster multi-core scores than the M1, by a considerable margin.  That is why Apple continued to sell the higher-end Intel Macs, also with dedicated GPUs that were faster than the M1.  The M1 Pro and Max fix the limitations of the M1, and the Ultra has amazing multi-core scores.  But if your work does not take advantage of the Pro, Max, and Ultra CPUs, you won't see any increase in performance because the single core score is the same as the M1 CPU.  I wonder what the M2 will bring to the table?

williamlondon said:

lucidcg said:

So Apple is eliminating expandability, sealing up the mac completely AND requiring an external power brick - for no benefits.  This design is a huge step backwards versus the intel Mac minis.  It's essentially a headless laptop.  I won't bother with this model.  It would be compelling if Apple made the bottom or top easily flip up (that bottom round cut out for a square machine was truly absurd) AND they added a pair of m.2 storage slots - now that would be a tangible benefit of moving to an external power supply (and an actual upgrader over dual SSD mac mini server configs).  I know it won't happen - Apple and their f*ckin' walled garden of no upgrades & no repairs from a pretend green company.

You are OBVIOUSLY in the wrong place.

He has a VALID point.  Just because you don't like his opinion, doesn't mean he is in the wrong place or should leave.

All Macs moving forward are not upgradable and not repairable.   You must buy the memory and storage at the time of purchase, and you must pay Apple's inflated prices.  Once the warranty expires, NO ONE is going to pay Apple thousands of dollars to replace the motherboard if there is something wrong with the Mac.  And the motherboard is not repairable, memory cannot be replaced, storage cannot be replaced.  The only replacement part will be an entire new motherboard.  Since they cannot be repaired economically anymore, people will throw them away.  You are not going to like that opinion/fact, but that is the cold hard truth of the matter.

rob53 said:

wood1208 said:

Entry level means entry level pricing and lower internal specs but look wise, ports, display size, etc should be same as there counter part.

There needs to be a capable laptop for non-“pros” who want to be able to use two non-powered TB external drives (doesn’t work on M1 MacBooks) along with a larger screen. I have the 13” and it’s small for my eyes. Even 14” would be small. Maybe Apple could make a 21” portable iMac with batteries. I could go for that. 

Jokes aside, not everyone needs or wants to pay for the M1 Pro or Max but we’d like a good laptop and iMac. Yes, my MBA blows my late 2015 iMac away but I’m not buying another entry level, port-compromised Mac. I can do without ProMotion if it drops cost a few hundred dollars allowing me to spend that money on storage. 

You probably should have researched what you were buying.  The port limitation of the M1 Macs has been well known since day one.  A battery operated iMac with a large display is something that no one wants.  Buy a larger external drive instead of using two external drives, or buy more internal storage, at Apple's inflated prices.  Or use an Intel Mac without the port limitations and use large external displays if you have vision issues.

patchythepirate said:

Ffs Apple.. then just put an M1 chip in the current 27" chassis and release that in the spring, save the M2 for the pro in the fall if you must, I'm tired of waiting for a larger M series iMac with black borders.

The M1 would not be a good experience in the 27" iMac.  The M1 has integrated graphics that are fine for laptops, but not so great in anything else.  The 21.5" iMac with the Vega graphics outperform the graphics in the M1.  The M2 is a replacement for the M1, not something an iMac Pro would ever have.  That is why the 27" iMac will have the M1 Pro and M1 Max with the high GPU cores to set it apart from the 24" iMac, which doesn't even offer a graphics upgrade anymore.  The M1 Pro and M1 Max finally get close to matching the performance of dedicated GPUs.