tenthousandthings

About

Username
tenthousandthings
Joined
Visits
105
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,144
Badges
1
Posts
677
  • Epic asks Apple to reinstate developer account so it can re-release 'Fortnite' in Korea [u...

    I realize this is just a sort of news-aggregation article, which is fine, thank you, but it would have been very useful for the author (when the update to the article was posted) to have spent the time to find out when the new law does actually go into effect. 

    Then we could have a better sense of just how much of a stunt this request from Epic is, given that they just have to wait until the law goes into effect to see what they’re going to get out of it. It’s a virtual certainty they will move the goalposts as soon as Apple does anything, because this law, as I understand it, doesn’t give Epic (or Sweeney, at least) what it (he) wants.

    The most interesting aspect of it will be to see if Apple implements the compliance worldwide or just in South Korea. If it were me (it is not), I think I’d opt for worldwide, to try to head off a situation where every country has a different set of rules that I have to comply with. So I’ll make this concession now, but fight laws that go beyond it later on. I’d sit down now and decide where I’m going to draw that line going forward. 
    watto_cobra
  • 16-inch MacBook Pro, 14-inch MacBook Pro expected to have same performance

    Thinking about it, I really like the idea that every cycle would have a period where the Air and the iMac 4K (yes, I know it’s actually 4.5K) all are next-generation (M2!), while the Pro machines and the larger iMac (let’s call it 6K) are not.

    Note: As a current M1 mini owner, my fervent desire is that they will kill the M1 mini in favor of a M1X mini going forward, with a new form factor, as rumored. So it would refresh alongside the MBPs and the iMac 6K, rather than the Air and the iMac 4K.
    watto_cobra
  • 16-inch MacBook Pro, 14-inch MacBook Pro expected to have same performance

    sdw2001 said:
    cgWerks said:
    This is an important, newsworthy change, but it’s also common sense. So whether it’s an actual leak or just a good guess, if it’s true, then Apple is probably not unhappy with it at this late stage. It’s a selling point for the Pro Mac form factors — you get the same power no matter the size — a stark contrast to what has come before, in all PCs. Indeed, I’ll go there: “paradigm shift.”

    Combined with the rumored Pro Mac mini, it’s all good. Three form factors, all with the same “M1X” SoC specs.

    Probably also an M1X iMac line, with options for more unified memory than you can get in the mobile/mini form factors.

    The next step would be to do the same with an iMac Pro and the modular Mac Pro — both with the same “M1Z” SoC specs. 
    Agreed, I think we're going to see essentially 3 'platforms' with some variants going forward. And, you're right that it is kind of a 'duh' thing, but it is important to state as it is so foreign a concept for anyone who isn't following all this really closely.

    Consumer (ie. M1)
    Prosumer (ie. M1X)
    Pro (? M1Z ?)

    They might have a bit different characteristics based on binning (ie. 7 vs 8 core GPU) or maybe options like 16 or 32 core GPU or RAM amounts, depending possibly on design and cooling capabilities. But, in general, those 3 categories of chips.

    sdw2001 said:
    I would also think the 16" will have SOME performance improvement options.  
    Probably a binning difference, or more RAM, or possibly higher core counts if cooling is greater for the 16" design, would be my guess. They might be the exact same though too. The screen size really *should* be the differentiator. Kind of like iPhones and iPads too, form-factor *should* be driven by use-case, not bigger or smaller is lower or higher end with increasingly more features.

    If I do a lot of flying, for example, I might want the smaller machine, even if I'm a more Pro user with $ billions in my bank account. This whole idea of the big machine (or small) being the top model has been rather ridiculous if you ask me.

    blastdoor said:
    I hope you're wrong about not updating every year, though. The competition between AMD and Intel in the PC space (and maybe eventually Windows ARM SOCs from Qualcomm and Nvidia) looks to be pretty fierce for a while. If Apple only updates every two years they could end up with about 6 months out of every 2 years where they are trailing the PC guys. I want total domination, dammit! 
    Yeah, same here. But, unfortunately, companies that have a big advantage often seem to 'pace' out that lead to stay just enough out ahead, but not too far. Hopefully Apple is different, but that has been my experience over the years.

    That's a reasonable point, though I don't think it's "ridiculous" for the larger model to have more capability at least available.  I think that the larger screen lends itself to more resource-intensive tasks, such as video editing and even gaming.  I certainly see your point though.  As a longtime "big screen" user, 14" might be big enough that I'd choose the portability if I could get sufficient performance.  
    Well, one thing that obviously requires meaningful amounts of additional physical space is Unified Memory, so it seems possible that the 16” could support more memory than the 14” …

    Likewise for a larger iMac versus the smaller iMac, which is practically a mobile device in its current, super-thin iteration. I kind of think maybe the M1 for the 24” is going to stay that way (i.e., its refresh will be for M2, and so on), while the 30” [?] iMac will always be M1X+ and support more memory than the smaller one.
    watto_cobra
  • 16-inch MacBook Pro, 14-inch MacBook Pro expected to have same performance

    crowley said:
    mattinoz said:
    tht said:
    blastdoor said:
    Eric_WVGG said:
    Hard disagree. All signs point to the 14” model having the new “square sides, small bezels” design language of the iPhones, iPads and rumored Watch 7. That means the 14” MacBook Pro will be the same size as the 13” MacBook Pro, just with a bigger screen crammed inside. 

    What reason does the 13 have to exist after that? Would it be redesigned to a smaller form factor like the old 12” MacBook (which could handily fit a 13” screen with smaller bezels)? What’s the point when the Air is far better suited for that slot?

    nah, the 13” is getting phased out for sure. It has no reason to exist.

    Although the 14 and 16 are almost certain to have identical CPUs, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 16 has an option for more GPU cores, those screens are understandably popular with video professionals. But that would just be a marketing call, not a hardware/cooling limitation like the Intel and PPC eras.
    Reviewing this:

    https://www.apple.com/mac/compare/

    for the air and 13” pro makes me wonder if maybe you’re right. But it also makes me wonder why the 13” pro exists at all. Why does it make sense for it to exist today but not after the 14” is released? The redundancy already exists, and the 14” will be more different from the 13” pro than the Air is from the 13” pro.

    Maybe the explanation for the 13” pro is COVID supply chain disruption?
    I don’t see what’s so mysterious. It is just transitional, you can get it with either Apple or Intel silicon. That won’t be true for the new models. 

    I imagine the 11” Air will return with the next generation of Apple Silicon:

    M2 MacBook Air 11” and 13”
    M2 Mac mini
    M2 iMac 24”

    M2X MacBook Pro 14” and 16”
    M2X Mac mini Pro
    M2X iMac 30”

    M2Z iMac Pro 30”
    M2Z Mac Pro

    I also think this won’t be an annual upgrade cycle like the A series. Maybe every two years? 
    Really hope that the 11" nor the 12" Mac laptop does not come back. If Apple is going to serve a niche, they should go bigger. My wishful thinking laptop lineup with a dash of Apple features per dollar in Spring of 2022 would be:

    $1000 MBA13 with M1, LCD, 8 GPU core model, LCD, 8 GB RAM, 256, 2-port
    $1100 MBA13 with M2, miniLED, 8 GB, 256 GB storage, 2-port
    $1300 MBA13 with M2, miniLED, 8 GB, 256 GB storage, 2-port
    $1500 MBA14 with M2, miniLED, 8 GB, 512 GB storage, 2-port
    $1800 MBA14 with M2, miniLED, 16 GB, 512 GB storage, 2-port
    $2000 MBP14 with M1X, miniLED, 16 GB, 512 GB storage, 4-port
    $2200 MBP14 with M1X, miniLED, 16 GB, 1 TB storage, 4-port
    $2400 MBP16 with M1X, miniLED, 16 GB, 512 GB storage, 3 TB/USBC, 1 HDMI, 1 SD
    $2800 MBP16 with M1X, miniLED, 32 GB, 1 TB storage, 3 TB/USBC, 1 HDMI, 1 SD

    All the more reason M1X naming seems to make no sense. M2 less powerful model than the M1X. 
    The M2 will likely be better than the M1 at compute tasks, but less capable in the GPU. 

    The M# just represent the generation, not a technical comparison. For a technical comparison you’d need the number of CPU cores, the clock speed (power and perform any), the number of GPU cores and their clock speed and the amount of RAM and it’s clock speed, and anything else comparers would find useful.  Stick all that in the product name and you have something very unwieldy. 

    It’s just a product name.

    Building on what Crowley has said, while it’s not perfectly analogous, think of it as being something like the Intel “tick-tock” clock model of processor development (or, better, their current three-step model that adds a final “optimization” stage), just less confusing because Apple won’t be marketing each movement as a new generation with meaningless code names. Instead, it will be M1 (tick), M1X (tock), M1Z (“optimization”); M2 (tick), M2X (tock), M2Z (“optimization”); and so on. 

    Thinking of it like this also goes a long way toward allaying fears of the two-year cycle for this that I guessed at above. Apple’s clock would likely be moving faster than Intel’s has in the past. It will be interesting to see what Anandtech and the like have to say (not to mention Apple itself, of course) about the “M1X” (or whatever) when it comes out…
    watto_cobra
  • 16-inch MacBook Pro, 14-inch MacBook Pro expected to have same performance

    blastdoor said:
    Eric_WVGG said:
    Hard disagree. All signs point to the 14” model having the new “square sides, small bezels” design language of the iPhones, iPads and rumored Watch 7. That means the 14” MacBook Pro will be the same size as the 13” MacBook Pro, just with a bigger screen crammed inside. 

    What reason does the 13 have to exist after that? Would it be redesigned to a smaller form factor like the old 12” MacBook (which could handily fit a 13” screen with smaller bezels)? What’s the point when the Air is far better suited for that slot?

    nah, the 13” is getting phased out for sure. It has no reason to exist.

    Although the 14 and 16 are almost certain to have identical CPUs, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 16 has an option for more GPU cores, those screens are understandably popular with video professionals. But that would just be a marketing call, not a hardware/cooling limitation like the Intel and PPC eras.
    Reviewing this:

    https://www.apple.com/mac/compare/

    for the air and 13” pro makes me wonder if maybe you’re right. But it also makes me wonder why the 13” pro exists at all. Why does it make sense for it to exist today but not after the 14” is released? The redundancy already exists, and the 14” will be more different from the 13” pro than the Air is from the 13” pro.

    Maybe the explanation for the 13” pro is COVID supply chain disruption?
    I don’t see what’s so mysterious. It is just transitional, you can get it with either Apple or Intel silicon. That won’t be true for the new models. 

    I imagine the 11” Air will return with the next generation of Apple Silicon:

    M2 MacBook Air 11” and 13”
    M2 Mac mini
    M2 iMac 24”

    M2X MacBook Pro 14” and 16”
    M2X Mac mini Pro
    M2X iMac 30”

    M2Z iMac Pro 30”
    M2Z Mac Pro

    I also think this won’t be an annual upgrade cycle like the A series. Maybe every two years? 
    watto_cobra