Marvin

BiC said:

795 million minutes divided by 60 minutes divided by 24 hours = 0.552 hours per day.  I don't watch TV but it's 0.552 hours per day of wasted time.  Rather go for a run an extra half hour.  Or spend 'special' time with the Misses if you know what I mean.

If you are as good with a calculator as you are with your misses, she'd probably rather be watching Ted Lasso.

795m minutes divided by 60 gives the hours watched, dividing it by 24 doesn't give hours per day but the number of days watched, where you somehow managed to lose a factor of a million.

795m minutes / 60 = 13m hours / 24 = 0.55 million days watched.

This is a measure of how large the Apple TV audience is, not how often people watch.

Each episode is only around an hour, once per week. 13m hours = 13m viewings. That seems a bit high but the first episode of The Last of Us managed 40 million:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/the-last-of-us-season-1-finale-ratings-1235351440/

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/nielsen-streaming-top-10-ted-lasso-series-high-viewership-1235625712/



This means Apple is doing something right with some of their TV content, hopefully there will be more shows of this quality.

It doesn't seem worth it to save $240:

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/westinghouse-55-4k-uhd-smart-roku-tv-with-hdr/6489043.p?skuId=6489043 ($240)
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/insignia-55-class-f30-series-led-4k-uhd-smart-fire-tv/6450247.p?skuId=6450247 ($270)
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tcl-55-class-4-series-4k-uhd-hdr-smart-roku-tv/6500472.p?skuId=6500472 ($280)
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/toshiba-55-class-c350-series-led-4k-uhd-smart-fire-tv/6458645.p?skuId=6458645 ($280)

but not everyone has disposable income. This looks like it's designed for people who can barely afford food, where a TV purchase would be excessive, especially an extra TV for family members.

It may not be sustainable but if the unit cost is under $200, they only have to make $0.5-1 per day on ads/content to cover the cost.

cgWerks said:

StrangeDays said:

kurai_kage said:

Yeah probably not.   Apple hardware will (continue to be) more appealing for a wide variety of creative professionals.  The forest and Rivan shot were impressive right up to the end where it drives away.  The physics looked a bit off, with the vehicle appearing weightless.

Considering the mind-blowing photorealism and ease of virtual set creation, seems kinda minor. This thing is boss, and it’s running real time. 

Probably not on a Mac, though.
But, still, this is a good step. Hopefully Apple will step up with some good hardware soon.

Mac version doesn't support Nanite so it can only run those scenes with a patch. Unreal runs pretty well on M-series Macs though:

(Rosetta version)



The M1 Max GPUs run about 1/5th-1/6th the speed of a 4090 comparing the same resolution and settings. M3 Max will likely bring that down to 1/3rd and the M3 Ultra will sit between a 3090 and 4090 in a small form factor.

danox said:

If the full the range of Mac computers were for sale to the public, Apple probably would’ve been up in Mac Computer sales, when compared to last year’s quarter at the same time. 

The rest of the range only makes a fraction of the unit volume (<5%). Last year's revenue was due to the record M1 launch that near doubled their sales vs Intel.

This year is a contraction from that record high. M2 would never reach that level but it's still way above Intel Mac sales.

M3 and 15" Air will be able to go back up a bit, especially the 15" Air as it's the most popular form factor and will be at a higher price point.

AppleInsider said:

The Western European PC market got hammered in the last quarter, but both the Mac and iPad fared better than hardware from other companies.

Mac shipments declined in Western Europe

Apple shipped 39% fewer Macs in quarter four of 2022 than in quarter three.

The report from Canalys arrives around the same time as the claim that production of the M2 chip is down due to a decline in Mac sales. Although the data from Canalys doesn't go into specific processors, Apple has shipped fewer Macs and iPads compared to 2021 -- at least in some markets.

Apple raised prices 10% with M2 in Europe. That's not a good move for an incremental upgrade, especially when a lot of people are dealing with costs going up everywhere.

https://www.apple.com/de/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/16-zoll (entry 16" M2 Pro is 2999 euros)
http://web.archive.org/web/20221128172701/https://www.apple.com/de/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/16-zoll (entry 16" M1 Pro is 2749 euros)

People will hold onto older hardware longer as a result. M3 models will offer better value than M2 and M2 might drop to M1 price points.

These prices wouldn't be so bad if the upgrades were cheaper. Apple is charging $0.40/GB for SSD and $25/GB for RAM. Mainstream SSD is now at $0.10/GB, RAM is under $7/GB. They don't have to match mainstream prices but 4x the price is high. 2x would still be profitable. Even just bumping the entry RAM and storage at the same prices would help e.g 12GB RAM in Macbook Air and 512GB SSD, 24GB RAM and 1TB SSD in MBP.