madan

Soli said:

madan said:

Soli said:

madan said:

Soli said:

madan said:

Soli said:

MacPro said:

I think this particular Samsung department will fold.

ߤ㠎ice!

I'm not a Samsung proponent at all and they can be pretty scummy but it's important to note that the same S-AMOLED screen in the X and XS/Max were touted * in this exact way * by Samsung about 5 years ago.  Most Apple fans poo-pooed it as inferior to IPS...until Samsung made it ready for prime time and Apple decided to jump ship from the IPS LCD in previous iPhones.

95% of phone/tablet screens come from Samsung.  They're very good at that.  Instead of mocking the technology, we should just realize that it needs more "time in the oven", so to speak, before Apple comes up with their own foldable concept.  A lot of bad AMOLEDs shipped for android before Samsung perfected the process and created a great screen.  A great screen...that current iPhones use to best effect.

Apple isn't stupid.  LG still isn't ready to create small AMOLEDs.  Samsung will be a partner for a while and if this technology becomes available for future products...Apple will use it.

1) Apple didn't move to OLED because Samsung phones were popular. They moved to OLED when newer technologies used with OLED made it possible for them to create the iPhone X.

2) As you note, most OLEDs come from Samsung and Samsung used most OLEDs which is why it was never going to be viable "5 years ago' for Apple to use OLEDs along their iPhone line.

3) Note that Apple used OLED displays in their Apple Watch over 3 years ago because it made the most sense for a variety of battery life and aesthetic reasons. Luckily, being such a small display and having a near existent volume compared to the iPhone in 2015 there was more than enough supply for Apple.

4) I also assume Samsung will be a core supplier for a fair while, if not indefinitely as one of several, as they have more experience with the tech and the foundries to make them now, but just like other components that Apple contracted Samsung manufacturer they will surely be marginalized as time goes on (just as new components from Samsung will likely get contracted out).

5) It wouldn't be smart for Apple to get beholden to a single vendor. This isn't an Apple v Samsung issue. It's an Apple as a client losing negotiating control from a contractor. The same applies for all contractors, even though not all are as reputable as others in certain arms of their business practices.

1. Did you even read what I posted?  Apple didn't move to AMOLED because Samsung presented it FIVE years ago.  They moved to it when it was ready and better than IPS LCD.  My point is clear...if this foldable screen does the same, Apple will move to that too.


2. Thanks for repeating my point.  That's exactly what I said.  Twice.


3. OLED made the most sense for the watch due to battery, size and shaping concerns.  I never referred to the watch.  I referred to the iPhone.  The article is about a PHONE/TABLET screen.

4.  Apple will continue to use Samsung as long as they have the best components.  The reason they moved to TSMC is because they had a functional 7 nm process and because they design their own SoC.  CPU & GPU.  They don't design their own screens.  And from the looks of it, since there aren't any rumors abounding about that possibility, they don't look like they will for any time.  Which means that the company capable of producing the best product, will get Apple's business.  And for the foreseeable future...that's Samsung.

5.  No one said they should.

Thanks for the 0 calorie reply.

Oh, I read what you wrote, which is I why I made a detailed reply pointing out issues with your premise.

PS: Obviously Apple does design their own screens, or are you actually trying to argue that Samsung came up with the notch and chin-less design for the iPhone X which they then shared with Apple? What you're probably referring to is Apple designing their own OLED display tech for the current lot of devices, but you'd still need to modify that statement to denote Apple is rumoured to be designing their own display tech -and- that they also designed their own tech to make Samsung's middling display tech function at Apple-level standards.

You read it so carefully, you repeated everything I said...and then had nothing to add. Kudos.
Btw, the screen technology that Apple is using in the X is developed by Samsung.  The shape of the screen and the case are Apple but the SCREEN was Samsung.  I'm sorry that bugs you.  But it's true.

The point still stands.  Apple will continue to use Samsung for the foreseeable future.  For a variety of components.  For MOST components in the iPhone XS and XI actually.  And that won't change as long as Samsung continues to lead with world class screens.

Whether it twists panties or not.

LOL Ladies and gentleman, for his next trick Madan will further his argument that Apple doesn't make anything and that Foxconn and suppliers should get all the credit for Apple products. (Waits for a comment about how Apple is only good at marketing.)

You do know that Galaxy S9s have comparable screens to the X-XS right?  And that their TVs, with the exception of LG are the best in the market by far.  And that Sony thought Samsung had such great engineering and IP that they contracted all Sony panels to be Samsung-designed/made about 3-4 years ago right?

Right? Right?


Right.

bgold04 said:

High performance requires multiple compute nodes.  I am increasingly using a Linux Box with Xeon chips for bioinformatics before I move to the cloud (which is slower because of input/output).  The clouds are never able to keep up with the newest microprocessors and their increased compute capacity, nor is the massive storage often needed by bioinformatics inexpensive in the cloud.  What Apple needs to do is to convene a group of experts; not only video editors, but high performance users of all sorts.  Otherwise many many will move to Linux or other solutions, just based on box flexibility.  I hope someone is reading this.

Mathematics, simulations and heavy sciences only need powerful CPUs and fast storage.  Very few simulators, except for some large economic aggregates use GPU farms instead.  So the average Mac Pro-Mini farm already satisfies that need.

Again, the issue has nothing to do with DIY.  The issue is the problem of Apple offering systems that are underpowered for Pro needs and then charging super-Pro prices.

The last Mac Pro dropped at a time when Apple still purchased from NVidia.  The fastest GPU available at the time was the 780 Ti/Titan.  Those GPUs even by today's standard, converted to AMD-eq in teraflops is about 5.2-5.5.

Uhm.  Those GPUs are still solid by today's standards...almost six years later.  You can dev for VR or 4K meshes on those GPUs.  A 780 Ti trades with a Radeon 570/480, which is a modern midrange GPU.

Instead, Apple chose to push D700 270x-class "pro" line GPUs that only produced about 2.6 Teraflops or *half the performance*.  Oh but wait, there were two of them right, right?  Apple didn't have Crossfire and even if it had, they bet wrong because SLI and Crossfire are a pipe dream now (and they only ever were a thing in gaming but not in the maths/sciences and content/asset manipulation).  So the GPUs *never* combined to produce a linear sum of Tflop performance. 

So you were using a 4000 dollar computer that was equipped with a 175 dollar GPU.  A GPU that by today's standard is woefully underpowered.  It's basically a budget GPU.  This is the core of the issue of the new Mac Pro.  If they want to push carriages and eGPU, no one would care if they continued to provide a marked up but quality offering that offered comparable competence to other manufacturer systems.  However, no sane person is going to pay twice as much for less performance.  That just doesn't make sense.

I guess we'll all see what happens next year.

nht said:

madan said:

lorin schultz said:

nht said:

What folks are STILL whining about a decade and a half later is that Apple stopped making affordable towers when they dropped the MDD G4 machines in 2004.  

They could make it a little larger but if they solved the thermal issues there’s no reason to.  With 2x airflow it’s likely fine.

So it’s useless whining about something Apple has shown its not going to do.  We now have a headless iMac that costs pretty much exactly like an iMac (within $50 or so) without the screen. It’s not “overpriced”.  It’s not “underpowered”. And it’s designed like every other fucking Mac out there with soldered parts, adhesives and limited user upgrades.  

People just need to GET OVER IT.  15 years of whining about how Apple cheats users, overcharges them and don’t give them what they want is enough for everyone else to get tired of it and tell these losers to buy a PC.   They aren the losers because of what they want but because they stay with a vendor that they think has been abusing them for over a decade.  Especially the dimwitted tools that start thier whining with “Ive owned a Mac ever since the original and Steve wouldn’t blah blah blah”.  Holy shit...that was an AIO  that if Steve could have gotten away with gluing shut to keep users out he would have.

Apple isn’t going to build it.  Move the fuck on.  HP makes a great little box. The intel NUCs are nice little boxes.  There’s lots of options in 2018 and win10 is a decent OS.

Just for the record, I'm not advocating for a design change. The size doesn't matter to me. Within certain practical limits, it just doesn't seem like an issue worthy of much attention, at least to me.

I was simply responding to the argument that Apple had to make concessions in areas like graphics capability and internal storage in order to keep the mini small. That's begging the question, since Apple could have chosen to make it bigger.

Apple didn't. I don't care that they didn't. I just don't buy the argument for WHY they didn't. It's a logical fallacy.

Exactly.  We're all Mac enthusiasts here.  People don't need to get so defensive.  We understand that Macs are expensive but the difference between this Mini and other past products is just how high the markup is.

People are not defensive but annoyed about the constant whining.

This machine has no GPU.  Great, Mac Minis don't have discrete GPUs.  The problem is that this Mini's specs are hardly "super".  They're mid-range.  And yet they're charging 800 dollars for a computer that amounts to 500-550 tops.  That's practically a 100% markup.  Which is steep, even by Apple standards. 

Absolutely WRONG.  

The base mini is like the base iMac.  NO GPU.

$1049 - 21.5" iMac 2.3GHz DUAL core i5, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, Iris Plus Graphics 640, 1920x1080 Display

$799 - Mac mini 3.6GHz QUAD core i3, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, Intel UHD Graphics 630
$130 24" LG IPS monitor http://a.co/d/ieZ0bFj
$48 Logitech K750
$74 Magic Mouse
----
$1051

Other than the keyboard being a Logitech THERE NO MARKUP FROM THE IMAC.

Then we have the allegation that this is a good pro machine.  A good pro machine without a GPU and a good monitor is what exactly?  If you were to try to match the specs in an imac Core i7/580 right now, you'd be looking at spending close to 2200 dollars.  On top of the 800 dollars for the mini.  That's practically 33% more than a comparably specced-iMac...for the same performance.

$2399 27" iMac 4.2-4.5GHz QUAD core i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD Radeon Pro 575 4GB DDR5

$1299 Mac mini 3.2-4.6GHz HEXA core i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD
$699 Blackmagic eGPU Radeon Pro 580 8GB DDR5
$294 LG 27UD58-B 27" 4K UHD IPS - http://a.co/d/h0Z31yq
$48 Logitech K750
$74 Magic Mouse
----
$2414

6 core vs 4 core
Radeon Pro 580 vs Radeon Pro 575
4K vs 5K

That's not a good value proposition on any level.  Yes, the mini has certain uses and advantages.  It's small.  It can be stacked. It can be used in server farms. It can make a great HTPC or set top box. And if you're as dumb as a box of rocks with no financial limitations you can try to turn this into a spider-web iMac Pro/Mac Pro by shoving a Vega 64 (and getting only Vega 56 performance through eGPU) in an external carriage, hooking up a monitor and paying almost 4000 dollars for the privilege.

$4999 iMac Pro 3.2Ghz OCTO core Xeon W 32GB ECC, 1TB SSD, Vega 56 w/8GB HBM2

$1899 Mac mini 3.2-4.6GHz HEXA core i7, 8GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 10GbE
$271 Crucial 32GB SODIMM
$1199 Blackmagic eGPU Pro Vega 56 w/8GB HBM2
$1499 LG 27" 5K IPS
$48 Logitech K750
$74 Magic Mouse
-------
$4990

So no markup vs the iMac PRO either.  It is slower since it 6 core vs 8 and you take a hit on the GPU performance but the real kicker is the $100 10GbE option for render farms.  You can configure a set of minis for encoding (Compressor, Resolve, whatever) and hang it off the primary mini or iMac.  

Not for the $5K base price of a iMac Pro but for a $8K budget I bet you could build a more effective configuration based on the Mac mini than based on an 18 Core iMac Pro with a Vega 64.

Apple has a big margin on iMacs but it's not offensively big.

Then neither is the mini.

Constant "whining" is a straw man.  No one is "whining".  Several of us are simply saying that the past Mini was outdated.  It was.  It was using 3 year old hardware.  And the price wasn't reduced at all.  Secondly, the new Mac Mini is now 50% more expensive, despite having strictly midrange hardware.  It's not "whining" to contend that it's a disappointing development to see Apple produce an interesting but ultimately uncompelling product.  Not everyone has to be a circle-jerking bubble droid to be an Apple enthusiast or supporter.  Criticism is allowed.

As to my post, instead of marking up my post with conclusion-jumping "Wrong"s! How about you actually read what I wrote because I was very clearly comparing the Mini to an iMac 27" i7/580.  Every 27" iMac comes with a GPU.  I would know, as I have two on my desk linked TB-MDP linked.  If you're going to compare a Mini to the 21" iMac, then a discrete GPU isn't necessary, so why would I have brought up the GPU?  Btw, most "pros" don't use a 21" iMac, which I very clearly addressed and you, I don't know, ignored? 

Pros don't use a Core i3 (starting Mini CPU) and even the 6 core upgrade for the Mini is an i5, which is hardly some world-beating super chip. Comparing it against the iMac 27" i7/580, would be the kind of "pro" machine you could reasonably contrast.  I like how you compared the iMac 21" to the Mac Mini 799 intro and ignored that the Mini has 1/8 the storage capacity and that the 21" iMac is almost 2 year old hardware.  So yes, I suppose if you compare the intro Mini to a *2 YEAR OLD COMPUTER*, it's a consistent offering.  Your contention is that the i3 is a great offering...if you compare it to a Mac released almost 2 full years ago.  You also glossed over the fact that the Mini is marked up over 100% over its base cost.  Any comment on that?

I suppose not.

You're also moving goalposts.  Why have an i7-based iMac and opt for a 575 when the 580 is a droplet more and produces 35% more graphics performance.  The i7 4.2/580 iMac with a 2TB Fusion HD costs 2500 dollars.  The Mini by comparison has 2 more cores but 50% less clock. Check the benchmarks.  That 7-series i7 still smokes that 6 core i5, even in multithreaded tasks because the i7's superior clock gives it so much more IPC.  Combine that with the fact that it has a 256 GB SSD, while the iMac has a component of SSD within its Fusion drive, and an additional 1.75+ TB of HD disk space.  Then you add on a GPU carriage.  And a Radeon 580 but already you're misrepresenting the facts.  Because no 580 you put in a carriage will give you 580 class performance.  So now you're cherry picking parts. Drop the 580 to a 575 so that the carriage 580 can keep up.  Except few pros that use graphics would settle for a card that has 3.5 Tflops of performance when the 580 has almost twice that for nary a hundred dollars more. 

Except that's why you did that right?  Because then what are your options if you want 6- TFlop class performance and you're doing pro level editing or 3D work or the like and you need to hit the minimum 5Tflop marker that is the minimum threshold.  Well gee, then you'd have to pull a Vega 56 and suddenly the Mini is costing you several hundred more than the iMac and your argument falls apart.  But nice try cherry picking your parts.

You're right about one thing.  You can't compare a Mini to an iMac Pro.  The strongest Mini CPU has no shot against an iMac Pro CPU.  None. Zero. it's not even 75% as fast.  It's not even *50%* as fast on deep/mt assignments.  And since there's no chip you can put in a carriage that will give you Vega 64 performance due to the inherent 20-50% eGPU tax, the best you can hope for is to spend a fortune for a machine with the equivalent of a GTX 1070 GPU that's *STILL SLOWER* than a base, intro iMac pro.

Go ahead and cherry pick some more parts or compare the new Mini to a 2010 MacBook pro and tell us what a great bargain it is.