neilm

AppleInsider said:

Despite the differences in features and pricing, all three iPads are around the same size and weight.

Hedware said:

How’s this for an nonsensical statement “ There's certainly a case to be made for Apple to add a new 27-inch iMac to its lineup, but it wouldn't have met the need of many users that the Mac Studio caters to.”

Ok there’s some (no evidence for many) that want something like the Mac Studio and its component style. But the history of strong sales of the integrated 27” iMac makes a strong case for a demand for a M1 27” iMac and probably a higher demand than for Mac Studio. The business market was a strong buyer of 27” iMacs for its appearance and easy upkeep and no cables. Apple writers seem to be ignorant of business when they make statements such as the foregoing one. 

There's still a big hole in Apple's lineup, but it's now a different hole.

We have a small fleet of 27" 5K iMacs used as graphic design workstations. Each of these cost in total about $3 grand plus/minus, configured with either 32GB or 40GB RAM and a 512GB SSD. Replacing any of these with a 32GB/512GB Mac Studio Max, a Studio Display, plus keyboard and mouse, will now run about $4 grand. Yes, performance would be substantially improved, however because for 2D graphics work (mostly Adobe CC apps) we're really not performance constrained, there would be no payback from the faster, but much more expensive Studio Max. (Note that the M1 Mac Mini isn't an option due to its 16GB RAM limitation.)

We also have an iMac Pro 10-core Xeon W with 64GB/1TB for which we paid about $7500 in 2019. It's used for video editing. If I had to replace this with a 64GB/1TB Mac Studio Ultra and Studio Display, plus keyboard and mouse, it would come in at under $6 grand. So in this case I'd be paying way less and getting substantially higher performance for video tasks that will benefit from that.

Marvin said:

rob53 said:

Marvin said:

stuartf said:

Except…

John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago

It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design

Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:



The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.

This isn't what I've seen from people on youtube. There isn't an UltraFusion connector to tie into the vertical area you're showing and simply rotating them doesn't work either. What I've seen is two stacked Ultras with a double height connector in the middle so connection lengths are minimal. The only way they get the bus speed is to keep the UltraFusion as short as possible. They've also talked about how the Ultra's UltraFusion connection is added once the Maxes have been created and tested. The Ultra is only created when two Maxes test 100% side by side, then the 10K connections are made.The good Maxes next to bad Maxes are cut out and used in MBPs while some of the bad Maxes can still be used as binned or have some parts cut off and used as a Pro. Apple is trying to maximize chip production. Putting two Ultras together like you're suggesting means very few Duo Ultras can be produced from a single platter. It would make more sense to create Ultras, test them, cut them out then stack them together. 

I don't want to violate copyrighted images so check out max tech, Apple's M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro, 7:34 mark.

If they can do stacking with the UltraFusion, that would be good.

lmasanti said:

Before this kind of ‘future predictions’ I use to remember the Arthur Clarke's Third Law of Predicting the future: “If you advance too far, it is like magic!”

maclin3 said:

StrangeDays said:

Apple’s is $300 more but is smaller, lighter, way more attractive, and has tons of added features, from speakers to the camera to Center Stage, brightness, etc. Seems like the value proposition is there. 

Older LG has camera and speakers. But why is this comparison even relevant if the LG is discontinued? What are the similar AND available alternatives to the studio display when purchasing a Mac Studio or Mini?