tht

Yup. Looks like iPad Pro OLED models will move up by $200. 

Draco said:

tht said:

Draco said:

This woman's mere existence on the payroll proves that Apple is wasting money on these efforts which are nothing more than virtue signaling. "Carbon emissions" go hand-in-hand with a productive, developed economy; those who obsess over carbon emissions would have us living in the stone age. No thanks. 

You have to remember that this notion of carbon emissions going hand-in-hand with economic development is flat out false. Carbon neutral means that method of production of energy comes from carbon neutral energy sources, rather than fossil fuels. 

If carbon-neutral sources were more economical than "renewables" like wind and solar, we'd be using them already, and China wouldn't be building 7 new coal plants every week. The only way renewables can compete is if carbon taxes or other government "thumb on the scale" schemes are put in place to shift the economics of fossil fuels. "Climate change" is a false externality created by those who've been trying to get rid of fossil fuels for as long as I can remember--which is almost 60 years. 

We are using renewables, but it takes decades for market penetration to go from near zero to greater than 90%. The majority of power generation being added to grids in most places are renewables. The USA is currently at about 20% to 25% renewables and the vast majority of new power generation is renewables. Similar story elsewhere in the world. This is how Apple can have achieve their Apple 2030 "carbon neutral" goal.

It's not a homogenous world and there are many who prefer it not to happen. Texas citizens just voted to "approve" subsidizing the building of natural gas plants. The language for the proposition was basically a lie, and my bet is 90% of the voters did not know what they were voting for. With its approval, Texas will provide natural gas plant companies low interest loans - that they don't have to pay back - and grants, to build more gas plants. It's just a subsidy the Texas gov't is giving to natural gas company owners. Whether more will be built, who knows. Even with that, renewable power capacity additions in Texas will be 3x that of natural gas. There will probably be more grid battery capacity additions than new natural gas plants capacity in ERCOT.

China and India having milquetoast unambitious transition plans is a problem, but they know more than most that they have to switch if they care about their future at all. Why aren't they moving faster? Well, there are some entities that don't care, some that are beholden to fossil fuel companies, some that it is manageable, hence they continue to build coal plants, even when it costs them more. They will turn the corner soon.

Even Germany, who are as pro-renewable as possible, made a worst possible decision by shutting down nuclear power plants and restarting coal plants. Who knows what is wrong with Japan.

So, fits and starts. Lots of fighting, but the economics for renewable power is now inevitable. Solar+battery will be pretty much it after a while. They have an economies of scale advantage that they can ride, driving down prices further. Another 10x drop in costs may even be possible.

Draco said:

This woman's mere existence on the payroll proves that Apple is wasting money on these efforts which are nothing more than virtue signaling. "Carbon emissions" go hand-in-hand with a productive, developed economy; those who obsess over carbon emissions would have us living in the stone age. No thanks. 

Like with everything else, there is always some small niche of people who promulgate some unsavory ideas, like living without A/C or not traveling/flying or moving out to an Amish like commune. Though I've heard some Amish are using solar and wind to provide electricity.

You have to remember that this notion of carbon emissions going hand-in-hand with economic development is flat out false. Carbon neutral means that method of production of energy comes from carbon neutral energy sources, rather than fossil fuels. So, there really isn't a change in how you live. A few plus and minuses here and there, but really no change on personal level. Society and world wide, there will be huge benefits, and that would spread across everyone in small ways.

There will be a big change in who gets the money. Fossil fuel companies lose and renewable energy companies win. Like when the iPhone was announced in 2007, everyone could see that the smartphone incumbents at the time (Nokia, RIM, Palm, Sony, LG, MS) needed to change, and change immediately as development times were about 3 years minimum. Virtually all these companies didn't want to believe and continued apace. They didn't want to change.

It is the same with fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything in there power, and they have a lot given that "petrol state" is in our vocabulary, to prevent the change. So, this notion that we need fossil fuels to industrialize or develop an economy just plays into that, but it is definitely wrong. We will continue apace with technological and economic development with renewables.

blastdoor said:

I'm curious to see what the cost will be to upgrade a Mac mini from M3 to M3 Pro, holding all else as constant as possible. Right now, the cost of going from M2 to M2 Pro is $300. Since the performance gain of going from M3 to M3 Pro is smaller than the gain in going from M2 to M2 Pro, the cost of the upgrade should be less, too.  

You just look at the M3 MBP14 to M3 Pro MBP14 price delta. It's $200 to go from an 4+4+10 M3 MBP14 16/512 to a 5+6+14 M3 Pro MBP14 18/512. And the price to go from binned to full 6+6+18 M3 Pro is another $200.

It's $300 to go from a 4+4+10 M2 Mac mini 16/512 to a 6+4+16 M2 Pro 16/512, and another $300 to go to the full 8+4+19 M2 Pro Mac mini 16/512.

So, theoretically, a 5+6+14 M3 Pro Mac mini 18/512 could start at $1200, with the full M3 Pro at $1400.

canukstorm said:

Xed said:

blastdoor said:

Meteor lake is supposed to launch in December. It will be very interesting to see how the m3 lineup compares. I wonder if meteor lake comparisons are one reason Apple is launching pro and max now

I've fallen out of following Intel's releases. Is Meteor Lake suppose to come close to Apple's performance-per-watt?

I don't think anyone outside of Intel knows.  The chip launches in December but systems using this chip won't go on sale until 2024

It will not be as energy efficient as Apple Silicon.

Meteor Lake is fabbed on Intel 7nm while Apple Silicon is on TSMC 3nm. That's too big of a fab advantage. Intel will do what they have been doing. Their high end laptop chips will consume 70 to 100 Watts for about 1 to 2 minutes than go down to 45 to 55 Watts depending on model. Mid-range Meteor Lake laptop chips will probably be 25 to 35 Watts sustained. It will have pretty good performance, probably class leading, but will pay for it with more heat, more noise and less runtime.

Meteor Lake is also a multi-chip package with silicon bridges between them. This will consume more power over the monolithic chip design Apple is expected to use for the M3 generation. So, the idle power consumption will be interesting to see with Meteor Lake. It's architecture will allow Intel to scale their packages in multiple axes though. Very flexible.