HouseLannister
macrumors 68040
At those prices, they should run Crysis.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Apple Studio Displays Double Internal Storage to 128GB
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The answer is in the story:
"With A-series chips, the Studio Displays run an iOS-based operating system, which is what the internal storage space is used for. The A19 and A19 Pro handle camera processing for the Center Stage camera, color calibration, USB and Thunderbolt device management, spatial audio, and more.
Storage space is necessary for the existing software, downloading new firmware updates over time, and perhaps for diagnostics, but the storage is not used for user-facing features.
Storage space is necessary for the existing software, downloading new firmware updates over time, and perhaps for diagnostics, but the storage is not used for user-facing features."
From looking at all the posts here, it seems many people haven't read the story.
I used to get a couple extra years out of an iMac thanks to target display mode. Now they are just worthless paperweights.
Probably binned. But it doesn't make any sense to me for Apple to say they have the A19 in them. Say nothing and throw whatever you have that meets the requirements. what a waste
The original Homepod had an old A-series, but the current Homepod are taking Apple Watch S-chips.
( the general A-series has a 'hand me down' path of several products. AppleTV , basic, entry iPad , Pragmatically also the iPhone so sold for 2+ more years in fewer configurations to 'soak up' old chips. )
Now that the Axx Pro chip is a separate , larger die that has been lacking of lots of alternatives. iPad Mini doesn't update often. The MacBook Neo will soak up a much larger volume. The 'A Pro' the one that hasn't made much sense where the iPhone Pro was tossed as a product every year. The SoC was custom to that then also tossing it in the 'trash can'.
'Smart use' when RAM and NAND are in short supply probably is not as applicable. The RAM/NAND was being put to productive use then maybe. But this seems an allocations because the iPhone usage was fixed. So. the deployment in the Studio is locked into same levels when mainly just running a stripped down OS with no apps or end user usage.
canadianreader
macrumors 68000
I got my Apple Studio Display XDR today and it is mind blowing at least to say. All this bashing about the price and size. But once you see the display lighten up, it's absolutely stunning.
HDR videos got me speechless. This is the best image quality I ever saw - period.
HDR videos got me speechless. This is the best image quality I ever saw - period.
Last edited:
The answer is literally in this very article you commented on lol. The chip is used for camera processing for center stage, and device management, and Spatial Audio etc. The storage is used for firmware updates. Is it overkill, obviously yes, but obviously it is way cheaper to utilize binned chips in this fashion rather than fabricating a whole new chip for a product that is not gonna sell as many units. They build these A19 chips by the millions and millions for iPhones, and rather than throw away the binned chips, they can put them to use here. This comment section is perfect proof why no one here is qualified to run a company.
KENESS
macrumors 6502
jz0309
macrumors P6
You are making way too much sense here... and as I said above, cost is probably or par or lower
Likely has nothing to do with the OS . It likely has to do with economies of scale. It is iPhone chip so just buying the same RAM and NAND that went into the iPhone these were taken form. Same exact parts. It is as much about being 'easy' (since already validated, sourced, etc.) as much as anything else. If it costs too much... well the monitor's are pricing higher than their peers ... just pass to the cost to the customers.
This was likely done before the RAM/NAND pricing apocalypse. IN that context it is jsut 'extra' waste in costs that Apple passes along. In this context they'll probably have to eat a portion of the 'overkill waste ' here.
Yeah they are just reusing the camera and audio software from the iphone that is already in iOS. ( the vast bulk of iOS they don't need by could be cheaper not to thin it out. )
[ Although odd the 'Desk View' stuff didn't work in the original Studio. ]
No internet...
Also no user/custom data. The image run by all Studio Displays is the same so there are no 'differences' to back up.
One way they will probably lower costs of updates past where iOS would stops is that don't have to worry about security patches if no 3rd party apps and no Internet possible (directly). ( security holes don't matter as much if only Apple apps running... presuming Apple doesn't want to exploit them . )
mansplains
macrumors 68000
Now that they have the display, why not make a 27” iMac Pro XDR? That will sell through the spaceship campus roof.
Again, Read The Fine Article: supply chain and economies of scale.
It's likely the same NAND chip/chips that Apple are buying by the shipload for the A19 iPhone models & can negotiate a low price on. Buying a relatively tiny quantity of smaller chips specifically for the SD could easily end up costing more.
Virtually all high-end monitors have a reasonably powerful processor, because it's simpler and cheaper to implement many features - like re-scaling/resampling input video to match the screen resolution - in software rather than hard-wired hardware. That means flash storage to hold the firmware. Dig around on the manufacturer's website and you'll probably find firmware updates. In the case of the Studio Display that includes software to manage the webcam and spatial audio - software that already exists for the iPhone. So it makes more sense for Apple to use their own, existing A-series chip (which they're already making in huge volumes for the iPhone) running an iOS-like kernel than some third party microcontroller or some tailor-made hardware.
"Economies of scale" are absolutely fundamental to the costs of electronic components, esp. silicon chips. Huge design and tooling-up costs, tiny marginal cost. For iPhone components, the design & tooling has already paid for itself.
JPack
macrumors P6
If that were the case, the current Apple TV and Apple Watch wouldn't start at 64GB.
They don't have networking chips or antennas. It's hard to stream anything without a network.
It’s a shame Apple views the desktop market as such a niche segment, because a larger iMac based on this form factor would slap so hard.
The XDR costs $3299 with effectively no 'value add' processor attached. A Mini-Pro is about $1,300. Even if shave $299 off the XDR and $300 off the Mini that's a base price in the $4K range. That is an iMac Pro price.
The iMac Pro sold a decent amount, but it wasn't through the roof. ( closer to just top 5-15 27" configuration). A $4K price is not going to make the old fans of $1,800 price point happy. ( That is more than a 100% price increase).
Even if Apple lowered costs with limited the performance down to plan Mn it would likely still be in > $3,599 zone which is still at least a 100% price increase over price point old iMac 27" started at.
The likely majority of the crowd hyping for a iMac 27" want the sub. $2,200 priced system. The XDR screen just moves that out of that zone by itself.
P.S. A Max/Ultra in old iMac Pro 27" similar shell would crank prices even higher.
Last edited: