Has Apple lost their mind? March 8th Event Disappointment

[jmho]

They are creative computers not gaming computers. If you want to game you need a windows computer. Where you can have your RTX and the os that the majority of games are written for.

Raytracing is game-changing for 3D creative work (i.e. the people who have been doing raytracing non-stop for the past 40+ years). It's still mostly a gimmick in gaming.

This myth that RTX is a gaming feature needs to die.

The M1 Ultra is in such a strange position, where it can probably beat a 3090 in "gaming" workloads (that barely exist on macOS and that people buying a studio won't care about), but because it doesn't have raytracing cores it probably can't even beat a gaming laptop in Blender benchmarks.

The M1 Ultra is still probably a very capable machine for 3D creative work, but the fact that it doesn't have raytracing hardware is a huge minus for people who want to use it for professional 3D work.

 

[SergueiTemp]

I feel like Mac is becoming a niche product overall. Like it was before 2005. I'm not counting iPhones, which are obviously still massive, but Mac... I haven't seen anything interesting in years. The only thing they are constantly talking about is staggering performance, but as a general user I don't care about that. What I see is uglier and uglier designs and a complete lack of innovations, also the OS is becoming worse and worse on architectural level. When was the last time you were really excited about Mac OS feature? I'm thinking Core Audio/Image/Video. APFS was too-minor of a step for the time and lacks development. Swift is a joke. God save Apple.

 

[MajorFubar]

The only thing I was slightly irked about is the Max Studio is probably a bit over specified for my needs, but the Mini is under specified. I get that there probably isn't enough of an airgap to justify a higher-spec Mini Pro or a lower-spec Studio Pro while the Studio Max exists. But as a consequence I've had to buy an over-spec'd machine, which technically should probably last me a lifetime because I will never need more power, but it will still be obsoleted within 6/7 years due to advancement in technologies yet to appear, so it doesn't really make sense to buy an over-specified machine unless you have deep pockets or it's not you funding the purchase (business) because you'll still need to replace it.

 

[crazy dave]

The only thing I was slightly irked about is the Max Studio is probably a bit over specified for my needs, but the Mini is under specified. I get that there probably isn't enough of an airgap to justify a higher-spec Mini Pro or a lower-spec Studio Pro while the Studio Max exists. But as a consequence I've had to buy an over-spec'd machine, which technically should probably last me a lifetime because I will never need more power, but it will still be obsoleted within 6/7 years due to advancement in technologies yet to appear, so it doesn't really make sense to buy an over-specified machine unless you have deep pockets or it's not you funding the purchase (business) because you'll still need to replace it.

If you look at Apple’s store front they are still selling high end Intel Mac minis indicating Apple doesn’t feel that those have been replaced yet. The latest rumor is that the in-between device will debut with the M2 series chips this year as an M2 Pro in the mini. Not sure why the M1 Pro wasn’t added to the current mini. Maybe it still will be.

 

[crazy dave]

I feel like Mac is becoming a niche product overall. Like it was before 2005. I'm not counting iPhones, which are obviously still massive, but Mac... I haven't seen anything interesting in years. The only thing they are constantly talking about is staggering performance, but as a general user I don't care about that. What I see is uglier and uglier designs and a complete lack of innovations, also the OS is becoming worse and worse on architectural level. When was the last time you were really excited about Mac OS feature? I'm thinking Core Audio/Image/Video. APFS was too-minor of a step for the time and lacks development. Swift is a joke. God save Apple.

Couldn’t disagree more (and Apple’s Mac sales are up relative to the industry not down) but to each his own.

 

[crazy dave]

Raytracing is game-changing for 3D creative work (i.e. the people who have been doing raytracing non-stop for the past 40+ years). It's still mostly a gimmick in gaming.

This myth that RTX is a gaming feature needs to die.

The M1 Ultra is in such a strange position, where it can probably beat a 3090 in "gaming" workloads (that barely exist on macOS and that people buying a studio won't care about), but because it doesn't have raytracing cores it probably can't even beat a gaming laptop in Blender benchmarks.

The M1 Ultra is still probably a very capable machine for 3D creative work, but the fact that it doesn't have raytracing hardware is a huge minus for people who want to use it for professional 3D work.

Same with tensor cores and machine learning. Very likely to get ray tracing in the next 1-2 generations though I’d say given Apple’s moves.

 

[crazy dave]

For the MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro, and even the Mac mini? Absolutely, the M1 is a step change in what's possible in those form factors. It's a lot less clear cut with the 27" iMac though. With a big desktop like that perf/watt is less of a factor, and the desktop class CPUs used can keep up with M1 performance, while in graphics I believe I'm right in saying the base 27" (Radeon Pro 5300) outperforms the M1, and obviously goes much higher from there. Bear in mind even a mac mini ($699) plus Studio display ($1,599) plus mouse and keyboard ($300) comes in at $2,600, that's already a jump over the $1,799 entry level 27" iMac, the $1,999 mid tier 27" iMac (which gets you 512GB storage into the bargain) or even the $2,299 top stock configuration with the Radeon Pro 5500XT graphics/ 8GB VRAM.

Again, this is less about the entry level, and more about Apple squeezing out the good value products in the middle. The 27" iMac was probably about the last one of those standing, and now it's gone too, so your choice is now whittled down to that good but still entry level M1 experience, or ponying up a stack more for Apple's high end stuff.

A lot of reviewers gave the iMac short shrift because it was an AIO and they didn’t account for the fact that screen is much of what you paid for and taking that into account made it a pretty good deal … unless you didn’t need that screen.

Truthfully I think most of the pricing here is pretty reasonable relative to PC OEM competition (especially with a smallish form factor) - I’ve priced out a few and generally Apple compares well.

But I agree that there are gaps in the current lineup and the removal of the 27” consumer iMac was surprising even if it does eventually get resurrected as an iMac Pro with a higher base starting price and performance.

 

[SergueiTemp]

Couldn’t disagree more (and Apple’s Mac sales are up relative to the industry not down) but to each his own.

Why are you even using sales dynamics as an argument? People are buying because there's no alternative and the industry is stagnant (at best), not because they are inspired by the product.

 

[elptdbi3lYI]

I feel like Mac is becoming a niche product overall. Like it was before 2005. I'm not counting iPhones, which are obviously still massive, but Mac... I haven't seen anything interesting in years. The only thing they are constantly talking about is staggering performance, but as a general user I don't care about that. What I see is uglier and uglier designs and a complete lack of innovations, also the OS is becoming worse and worse on architectural level. When was the last time you were really excited about Mac OS feature? I'm thinking Core Audio/Image/Video. APFS was too-minor of a step for the time and lacks development. Swift is a joke. God save Apple.

Don't see anything wrong with Swift, did you mean garbage that is SwiftUI?

 

[crazy dave]

Why are you even using sales dynamics as an argument? People are buying because there's no alternative and the industry is stagnant (at best), not because they are inspired by the product.

You said “I feel like Mac is becoming a niche product overall. Like it was before 2005.” That’s very clearly not true. ?‍♂️ I’m not quite sure where the 2005 comes from.

At any rate, there are plenty of alternatives to Apple and Macs. You might not like them either, but they most definitely exist.

Make no mistake there are things I like, things I don’t like about Apple’s products. But overall they’re pushing the boundaries on the Mac more now than they have in a long time.

 

[MajorFubar]

I feel like Mac is becoming a niche product overall. Like it was before 2005. I'm not counting iPhones, which are obviously still massive, but Mac... I haven't seen anything interesting in years. The only thing they are constantly talking about is staggering performance, but as a general user I don't care about that. What I see is uglier and uglier designs and a complete lack of innovations, also the OS is becoming worse and worse on architectural level. When was the last time you were really excited about Mac OS feature? I'm thinking Core Audio/Image/Video. APFS was too-minor of a step for the time and lacks development. Swift is a joke. God save Apple.

So let's pretend I'm an undercover Apple insider (because let's be honest this site is going to have at least one), what in your opinion should we have launched? It better be good...not another thin pretty laptop shaped like a wedge of cheese with a crap keyboard, one port, throttled performance and poor battery life...we tried that and it didn't go well. Any ideas, if our current alternative options don't suit you?

 

[Mity]

The problem is that Apple, and most other computer companies for that matter, as well as most technical people start quoting performance numbers in units that don’t mean anything to your average user.

That is true when you talk about obscure details but I never mentioned any. All I said was that it was overkill and I think I'm right. Are there some people who want a fully spec'd machine so they can have bragging rights? Yes. Do they comprise the vast majority? No. Look at the starting price of a Studio with an M1 Ultra: 4,000 USD. Most people are going to look at that price and think, "Do I really need this?"

And most users know from experience what they need. For example, I know that on an Intel machine I need at least 32GB of RAM. This is because I have one large 4K display (sometimes two) and multiple programs and windows open. 16GB isn't enough and I know this from trial and error. From my experience with Apple Silicon, I know I only need half of that RAM. And I'm willing to bet you that 90% of users don't need more than two 5K displays.

So, who needs an M1 Ultra with a 20 Core CPU, 48/64 Core GPU, 64GB-128GB of RAM and the ability to drive four 6K XDR displays and one 4K TV? The answer is, a very niche audience, as I stated in my original post. Most people are waiting for a revised Mac Mini with better I/O made possible by an M1 Pro / M2. The M1 has proven to be more than capable for most people.

 

[MajorFubar]

I’m not quite sure where the 2005 comes from.

Probably referencing the transition from Motorola to Intel.

 

[thettareddast]

Why are you even using sales dynamics as an argument? People are buying because there's no alternative and the industry is stagnant (at best), not because they are inspired by the product.

You said the product is niche. If the product is niche, then it would not have the market reach. Sales proves that it does.

There are real world constraints to making stuff. You can't perpetually make the most groundbreaking, inspiring stuff year after. And even if you could, but nobody wants to buy it, then there's no incentive or resource ($) to put into making the next great groundbreaking, inspiring stuff.

 

[No_comment]

A Studio display and an M1 Mac mini aren't less affordable than the lower speed 2020 Intel 27" iMacs. Except for the RAM of course.

So, you think that it´s totally ok for a display to be more expensive than the computer? And for all of those consumers out there wanting to buy a Mac but are on a tight budget but still want Apple only products because of integration reasons and so on - they should happily pay the amount for the Studio Display? Do you have comission on Apple displays or what?

 

[crazy dave]

Probably referencing the transition from Motorola to Intel.

Yeah probably but that doesn't track as Apple began digging the Mac out of the niche hole before that.

 

[ascender]

Serious question, who’s using these things? I can’t find any business online that uses MacOS as its primary ecosystem let alone one that would need this much computing power. Most corporations that do require this type of computing use Windows.

Apple always shows us music artist, photographers, designers, etc using $10K setup but why on earth would any of these people need this? And if you’re an indie developer or solo artist you probably can’t afford it.

Apple’s hardware is at the point they need to focus on software that can actually take advantage of their devices.

If I want an Apple desktop with 32GB RAM, reasonable processing power, the capability to drive multiple monitors and just generally do a bit of everything, the entry-level Studio machine makes a lot of sense.

• Mac Pro is too large, too expensive and over-powered for me.
• Mac Mini and iMac are underpowered.
• I don't want to just use a laptop in clamshell mode.

A £2000 Mac Studio looks like it will do everything I could ever need from a computer for the foreseeable future. As someone who is self employed and works for multiple clients, doing project management consultancy, I don't think that's a bad price for my main work machine.

A lot of businesses don't use macOS as their primary end user platform, but so many are now embracing BYOD, often thanks to M365 and Google apps in the cloud. So I can have web apps for clients or Citrix sessions to clients and it doesn't matter that I'm using a Mac.

 

[MayaUser]

Apple lost their mind in a good way, by moving out and forward from the others, old tech, x86 bringing such an impressive performance per watt

 

[satchmo]

Serious question, who’s using these things? I can’t find any business online that uses MacOS as its primary ecosystem let alone one that would need this much computing power. Most corporations that do require this type of computing use Windows.

Apple always shows us music artist, photographers, designers, etc using $10K setup but why on earth would any of these people need this? And if you’re an indie developer or solo artist you probably can’t afford it.

Apple’s hardware is at the point they need to focus on software that can actually take advantage of their devices.

Serious question, what specific software do you find lacking?

As far as business who use MacOS, there are plenty. Just because you can’t find any, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Usually small to medium size businesses. Even some corporations. But certainly Windows rule the enterprises market. Apple’s worldwide market share is still only around 10%

Why would artists need an improved setup? The same reason why anyone else would…to improve efficiency, allow them to try new ideas faster, and innovate.

I’m not sure where you are finding fault with Apple. Every time some here says, God help Apple or Apple is doomed, they only go on to have record profits.

 

[EdT]

That is true when you talk about obscure details but I never mentioned any. All I said was that it was overkill and I think I'm right. Are there some people who want a fully spec'd machine so they can have bragging rights? Yes. Do they comprise the vast majority? No. Look at the starting price of a Studio with an M1 Ultra: 4,000 USD. Most people are going to look at that price and think, "Do I really need this?"

And most users know from experience what they need. For example, I know that on an Intel machine I need at least 32GB of RAM. This is because I have one large 4K display (sometimes two) and multiple programs and windows open. 16GB isn't enough and I know this from trial and error. From my experience with Apple Silicon, I know I only need half of that RAM. And I'm willing to bet you that 90% of users don't need more than two 5K displays.

So, who needs an M1 Ultra with a 20 Core CPU, 48/64 Core GPU, 64GB-128GB of RAM and the ability to drive four 6K XDR displays and one 4K TV? The answer is, a very niche audience, as I stated in my original post. Most people are waiting for a revised Mac Mini with better I/O made possible by an M1 Pro / M2. The M1 has proven to be more than capable for most people.

But even in your examples you are quoting your experience, which a lot of people aren’t going to have. Most people wouldn’t know how much RAM they need for a Windows machine with 2 monitors, using your example, and they don’t know who to ask to find out. I don’t think you are wrong in your assessment, I think a lot of people, maybe a majority, don’t honestly know so they buy the most expensive version that they can and specifically in Apples case they then complain about how expensive an Apple computer is, when they would have been perfectly happy with one costing less. The same thing does happen with Wintel computers, just not as frequently anymore. You can buy them at Best Buy or Target or Walmart and pay somewhere around $800 and get an ok amount of memory and an ok processor and at least for a year or three the computer won’t seem slow. But they aren’t usually doing anything extravagant with it. But is an iMac Studio supposed to be more or less powerful than an iMac Pro? How would a new customer know? M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, M1 Ultra, Apple has a history of blurring performance categories with their naming.

 

[MajorFubar]

Seems from some of the responses here Apple are damned if they innovate and damned if they don't. I know which I prefer and I have voted with my feet by ordering a Studio Max.

 

[Doug183]

Arguing over specs and prices for computers in 2022 seems pointless. Like arguing if a dump trunk or a Prius is better. For daily commutes the Prius is great. For 10 tons of dirt removal, use the Dump Truck. The focus should be over your time and the cost of the machine that speeds up that time. There seems to be 3 or 4 segments computers do work:

1) General office work or Internet Browsing / Streaming video. ($600-$2000)

1a) Portable versions of the above
($1000-$2400)

2) Mathematical / or Visual rendering.
($800-$4000)

3) Super reliable Math / Rendering. Like through hours and hours of computing.
($3000-$6000)

4) Then Super Computer stuff.

Check in with your tasks and find the lowest price point that works. Only upgrade when the upgrade saves you enough time to justify the new price.

Seems like most of the stress here is trying to squeak a few more ounces of getting the biggest bang for your buck. I respect not wanting to get taking advantage of. But in a few months there will be new Mac Minis and iMacs, so just chill with the machine you have and wait for those. Don’t worry, Apple will make and sell you one.

As for the the studio… I am interested to see what real world bench marks will be. I used a Mac Bookmpro Max to render a few things in Adobe Premiere and it was quite a bit faster then my I7 fully loaded mini. So if it really speeds stuff up, $3999 is worth the price. My only other ‘worry’ is what will Apple produce at $6000 price point?

 

[JMacHack]

Serious question, who’s using these things? I can’t find any business online that uses MacOS as its primary ecosystem let alone one that would need this much computing power. Most corporations that do require this type of computing use Windows.

Apple always shows us music artist, photographers, designers, etc using $10K setup but why on earth would any of these people need this? And if you’re an indie developer or solo artist you probably can’t afford it.

Apple’s hardware is at the point they need to focus on software that can actually take advantage of their devices.

1. In their marketing they had titles of the people’s companies they worked at. Plenty of well known ones there.

2. Why on earth would any company say on their website what computers they use?

3. Most companies use mixed environments with computers that best suit the job, nobody is a completely Mac or PC business.

If you’d like, I could take a picture of the video editors station at my job, that’s the perfect place that a Mac Studio would fit.

 

[JMacHack]

Seems from some of the responses here Apple are damned if they innovate and damned if they don't. I know which I prefer and I have voted with my feet by ordering a Studio Max.

I’m sure there will be a plethora of happy customers for the Mac Studio, the whiners will just go back to eating crayons.

 

[Andropov]

3. Most companies use mixed environments with computers that best suit the job, nobody is a completely Mac or PC business.

My dentist's office was using G3 and G4 iMacs until about five years ago. Not a single PC. Apparently, the FileMaker version they used for the patient's files only worked on Mac OS 9. They had 40+ of them for sure (iMacs).