I’m not going to debate this to death but “many people believe” a lot of things.
The anti-semetic origins of that term are apparently not backed much if any actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyster#Etymology
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.
Several macOS Monterey Features Unavailable on Intel-Based Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The anti-semetic origins of that term are apparently not backed much if any actual evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyster#Etymology
I am entirely OK with that and I think almost every Apple customer for the last 40 years don't really care about this.
We care about the machines, the software and the services doing what we want in a convenient way for a price we think is reasonable for the value it provides.
No principles, no using technology to its fullest potential, no hunt for new features.
Ehh, yes I did, as that was the newest Mac mini Apple sold at the time. Not my problem that Apple keeps machines in the cold for 2 years, and then decide to f... them over, by limiting their capabilities. I have a Macbook air from 2014 that is still being updated, so my reasoning for expecting a brand new Mac mini to be updated fully a couple of more years is not exactly asking too much.
Except Apple’s not “limiting their capabilities”, these are new features. You’d have a stronger argument if Apple were cutting features that Intel Macs already had (while retaining those features for Apple Silicon Macs). You’ve never been under any guarantee that you’d get every single new software feature on any given supported Mac, especially if you didn’t own the most recent model. Apple generally tries to provide its new features to as many supported Macs as possible, within reason, but there’s no guarantee your device will make the cut for every single new feature.
And you've got every feature available on Big Sur, which was the operating that became available when it was still the most recent. Correct?
I meant that when I buy the latest Mac mini at the time, and then no more than 6 months later it doesn’t support all features in an upcoming OS, I feel cheated given the usual track record of my previous Macs being fully supported for years after their release.
Correct, but my previous Macs were fully supported by numerous OS updates for years. Even if you look at my mini’s 2018 model tag, usually it would still be fully supported a couple of years more from now.
Yeah, okay, doesn’t really change my point if it is 6 or 11 months. Ahh, well, guess that is what happens when you buy a new Mac in a transition period. I feel worse for all the Mac Pro buyers, not able to take full advantage of their Intel monster.
that lack of a 3d interactive globe must be killing them.
Agree! For example- Zoom can do blurred background on an iNtel Mac. No technical reason Apple couldn’t do same. This is manipulation in my opinion.
It is fully supported. If you mean “it should receive all new features that new macs get, for years to come, even after an architecture transition” that has never been the case with Apple.
For what purpose? Anyone using Zoom will be using it the same regardless of what device they buy.
I think you missed my point - just that there is no technical reason why Apples FaceTime should not be able to do background blur on an intel Mac. If Zoom can do it then FaceTime should be able to also. That's all I'm saying.
And, I guess there’s no technical reason for someone that wants blurry video on an Intel Mac NOT to use Zoom.
There’s probably a very good technological and financial reason, the code that supports it probably targets the M1 chip’s image accelerator. In order to provide a comparable experience on Intel, Apple would have to port the existing M1 code to general purpose Intel CPU cores and integrated GPUs. You’ve got real time edge detection going on, as well as real time image filtering at 60+ FPS (potentially over 120 for a ProMotion display). While a Mac Pro could probably handle it, it likely wouldn’t be able to do so in an energy efficient way. And it’s very unlikely that Apple’s entry level non-retina 21.7” iMac from 2017 that they were selling right up to the introduction of the M1 iMac could handle it in any quality in real time with its Intel integrated graphics and dual-core 2.3GHz i5 processor.
I find that Zoom’s background features really don’t work well, unless you have a green screen or a camera with depth features that can expose them to Zoom. Zoom’s approach to background blur depends on having an environment designed to be suitable for teleconferencing, while Apple’s approach to background blur and related features is designed to work in most environments. Zoom may also be doing some cloud processing on the image that Apple does on-device, so it’s not an apples to apples comparison. So you can’t just say “Zoom can do it on Intel, there’s no technical reason Apple can’t,” because you don’t know if they’re doing it the same way or make the same trade offs. Zoom’s approach is designed to be able to work on older commodity computers and likely sacrifices quality of effect for compatibility with older devices, while Apple’s approach likely prioritizes quality of effect over compatibility and clearly depends on the M1 chipset that’ll eventually disperse through the whole Mac product lineup.
Maybe apple doesn’t want to do a ****** job like zoom, where when you move your head an inch your face disappears?
I am afraid your reply denote a big lack of knowledge of nowadays programmation workflow. Although M1 is a different platform, including some dedicated frameworks or libraries, it is now common to write one source code and compile to different architectures then, activating some functions where available. M1 is really powerful but not so much compared to a Ryzen sometimes, and this is still first generation of it. Moreover, it is obvious Apple is leaded by a pure mercantil spirit, privacy protection for instance is just one of its selling arguments. They are insanely wealthy and has enough resources to adapt some source code. It's not about resources, it's just about money. To get more and more, slow down previous devices, increase the grip on everything, like alternative cables and so on. That's a shame their products are pretty good given their spirit sucks.
I am afraid your reply denote a big lack of knowledge of nowadays programmation workflow. If you think that any issue or feature lacking is merely the result of lack of money, you have no idea what you’re talking about. There are so many other aspects playing here, and a lot of them are technical in nature, not commercial.