mpantone

9secondkox2 said:

Interesting. She. seems to get everything from Apple. (prerelease software, etc.). Almost wonder if she has relatives on Apple leadership or is secretly. an Apple PR employee.
Seriousluy. It's different than Reneee. Ritchie getting an interview, etc. It's a bit much.  

Apple Fitness VP Jay Blahnik's comment "We're really committed to this notion of trying to welcome as many people as possible regardless of where they're at in their fitness journey" provides some insight into Apple's motivations.

For reference, here are some selected YouTube subscriber numbers:

• Rene Ritchie: 324 thousand
• E! News: 988 thousand
• David Pogue: 1.13 million
• Cosmopolitan: 1.6 million
• CBS Mornings: 2.3 million 
• PBS NewsHour: 3 million
• Good Morning America: 4 million
• iJustine: 7 million
• ESPN: 8.4 million
• SnoopDoggTV: 8.4 million
• Vogue: 11.6 million
• Beyoncé: 24.4 million
  
• Billie Eilish: 45.5 million
• Taylor Swift: 46.3 million

She reaches a larger audience than Rene, 21x more people. Justine is not quite rockstar status but she's a hell of a lot closer than Rene.

Justine isn't some flash-in-the-pan influencer who hatched last year. She's been doing this for almost 15 years, lifecasting long before YouTube started streaming live video.

Ritchie didn't even start blogging until 2008, a year after Justine had started lifecasting in 2007.

So she's the veteran in this matchup.

Apple is deliberately sensible in rolling out the red carpet for her and giving her special access to their facilities and executives. They want people to sign up for Apple Fitness and more people are going to learn about it from her rather than Rene.

Rene Ritchie is a tech writer who focuses on Apple. iJustine is a lifestyle vlogger who doesn't focus on one corporation.

My guess is that Apple executives are aware that many of iJustine's followers are Android users and I'm sure there's some hope that some of them might switch to iPhone/Apple Watch if they can see the benefits and advantages of something like Apple Fitness.

13485 said:

mike1 said:

Any idea if these will just be rebroadcasts of the regional feeds? If so, home or away team or both options?

That's a very good question. I haven't heard of Apple hiring any broadcast team or camera crews, so I would think rebroadcast. 

Here's what the AI article says: "It is believed that Apple paid around $85 million as part of a $115 million deal between it, NBC Sports, and the MLB."

That means that it will be NBC's national broadcast teams calling these games. NBC has the leverage to pick which games they broadcast on a Friday night. They aren't going to show Pittsburgh at Arizona or Texas at Baltimore.

This isn't an Apple TV+ exclusive. They are streaming what is available as an existing OTA terrestrial broadcast (a.k.a. rabbit ears antenna) via local NBC affiliates. They have simply paid for the rights to digitally stream these specific games to certain markets.

This is a good example of why they are often referred to as ANALysts.

Let's see now...

Apple just launched a BRAND NEW MAC PRODUCT that has undoubtedly been in development for YEARS with dozens (hundreds?) of prototype designs, all of which got nixed save the ONE winning design that is essentially a tall Mac mini. Basically Apple could have made the Mac Studio any shape they wanted including a circular trashcan, a cube, or a mini tower like the last AirPort Extreme and yet they chose the tall Mac mini. Did they simply not think outside the box?

Gee, perhaps crazy to imagine this but maybe Apple thinks this basic Mac mini design is pretty good.

I really wish AppleInsider (and other Mac sites) would track the accuracy of ANALysts like Starmine or sports analytics. Use something like OPS or WAR.

Hell, there should be a Fantasy ANALysts League. Bet money on the accuracy of these jokers. LOL, Gene Munster...

  

Let's also point out that the Mac mini has a big datacenter presence. There are tons of commercial grade accessories (like rackmount adapters, VESA mounts, etc.) for the current Mac mini form factor. Apple doesn't gain anything from making a future Mac mini 8" square or 7.5" square versus the existing 7.7" square.

dk49 said:

Why doesn't this need 370W power supply if its peak performance can be achieved at 100W?

PC power supplies are typically the most efficient between oh, let's say 30-70% load (about 110-260 watts for this unit).

In the Mac Studio the same power supply supports both the M1 Max and the M1 Ultra, the latter which will draw more power. Don't forget that there are different GPU configurations (number of cores). There are also other transistors that draw power both in the package (e.g., unified memory, the interconnect) as well as elsewhere in system (e.g., NAND flash storage, connectivity, Bluetooth and wireless radios, etc.). And there are the mechanical components (two blowers) that also draw current.

This PSU is specced out to support the maximum configuration (M1 Ultra, 128GB memory, maxed GPU, 8TB SSD, all six TB4 ports running at full speed) not the entry-level offering or something in the middle. Unlike a typical PC chassis, you can't just swap out a 650W ATX PSU with a 1200W replacement on a Mac Studio.

From a cost and supply standpoint, it's probably easier for Apple to simply design one PSU rather than have multiple PSUs with different capacities. I'm sure they tried a bunch of different PSUs while prototyping.

Consumer semiconductors also have a sweet spot. The performance-to-watt curve typically isn't a straight line. At the top end of the curve, you can increase the power but only reap modest gains with today's silicon. Gone are the days of overclocking CPUs and GPUs for massive gains. Today's chip designers are putting most of that headroom in the chip's boost design. There's very little improvement to be gained from Joe Consumer.

PSUs lose efficiency at really low loads and really high loads. If a hypothetical system maxes out at 198 W sustained, you don't want to put in a 200 W PSU. That's a 99% load; you lose efficiency and there's no headroom for short term boosts of power.

dewme said:

DAalseth said:

An amazing system. I can’t justify spending money on that much power, but I’m glad we finally have the really powerful headless Mac we’ve wanted for decades. 

I’m really curious though as to what’s inside the box. I’m very interested when iFixit does a teardown.

I’d imagine the primary contributor to the additional height versus a Mac mini is the cooling tower needed for the M1 Ultra. 

No need to speculate. Just look at the photo on the product page:



From top to bottom: cooling system (two side by side blowers), motherboard, power supply.

The cooling system was described during today's presentation. Air is sucked in through the vents in the base. The back grille is the exhaust.

The Mac Studio's power supply is beefier than the Mac mini's since the M1 Max/Ultra draws more current than the vanilla M1.