Anyone else feel that Apple nailed it with the new Apple Silicon machines?

[leman]

It seems the new security features inside the M1 will make it extremely difficult to install unsigned apps.

This was known and openly documented by Apple in June. Yes, Apple Silicon Mac require all code to be signed. I disagree that this makes the system more locked-in though. Everything you build on your machine is signed automatically, so open-source stuff etc. is not threatened at all. If you want to distribute, you will have to get a developer account, which is what people already do. So really the only affected devs are those who distribute unsigned apps (which are a security risk anyway).

What I definitely agree with is that Apple should offer free access to signing certificates. Aka. Developer Program lite. No support, no access to preview software, just a certificate linked to a developer identity. This should make things easier for open source developers and the like who might be more adverse to paying $99 for the developer access.

 

[JosepPont]

I was one that post a (few) negative coment(s). I was so frustrated because no news, no M1 and any Intel, camera, GPU or any upgrade to the 16"MBP. It was the great forgotten machine in a Mac event that took very long time from last one. Not only 16", which is my goal, also iMac or Mac Pro, no mentions for them.


After read your post I understand that maybe you're right, they prefer start with lower end to allow developers work on apps and programs that the prosfessionals will want running in the higher end machines. I agree with your point.


Meanwhile I'm still working in a toshiba with a lower end i5 gen 2 waiting for spend 4-4.5K for a 16"MBP. I'll never spend that amount of money with a machine that is a year old and, especially, if it will be replaced, supposedly, in a few months. Nobody or very few people will spend 6000K in this times of changes with the constantly fear to be outdated in two year at most.

 

[thenewperson]

The 13” MacBook Pro did come in 32GB of RAM. Now it’s half that.

The model it replaced also maxed out at 16GB (and 2TB SSD). It's really only the Mac mini that lost out.

 

[bobmans]

The model it replaced also maxed out at 16GB (and 2TB SSD). It's really only the Mac mini that lost out.

*for now.
Probably their mid-range chipset will replace the current high-end Intel Mac Mini that’s still for sale and won’t have any shortcomings that the M1 based Mac Mini has. I’m 100% sure that once all Macs have been transitioned to Apple Silicon that there will be options for everyone. M1 is only their first chipset out of a whole family

 

[thenewperson]

*for now.
Probably their mid-range chipset will replace the current high-end Intel Mac Mini that’s still for sale and won’t have any shortcomings that the M1 based Mac Mini has. I’m 100% sure that once all Macs have been transitioned to Apple Silicon that there will be options for everyone. M1 is only their first chipset out of a whole family

Indeed. There's clearly another shoe waiting to drop wrt the 4-port 13", higher-end Mac minis, and maybe even 16" MBP.

 

[thenewperson]

What I definitely agree with is that Apple should offer free access to signing certificates. Aka. Developer Program lite. No support, no access to preview software, just a certificate linked to a developer identity. This should make things easier for open source developers and the like who might be more adverse to paying $99 for the developer access.

Or at the very least a nominal fee, like $1 or $5, if they're doing the whole 'we only charge to weed out the bad actors who aren't serious' thing. Charging devs for distributing software outside their app stores is silly.

 

[taldo]

The more i try to analyze what Apple said this chip can do, especially regarding the vague tests they did and comparing it to the Mac entry level specs, the more i think it’s a marketing success rather than a real chip technology breakthrough.

i’m a Mac fan all day long, but in the past few years the mac prices, especially wheb comparing them to their entry level counterparts was almost absurd. A macbook air with a pretty lousy i3 intel chip would cost as much as a high end i7 equipped machine would.

Moreover,
The macbook air with M1 costs 999$ for the base model.
A quick search in Amazon can get u for the same amount of 999$ a New Asus zenbook 13.3 with the latest intel Tiger Lake i7 quad core chip.

when u compare the M1 to the newest intel architecture, the performance diff is not big if any (i saw some geekbench 5 scores for the tiger lake chip at above 1700 - but i’m not an expert for those..), and when taking into account the fact that Apple
Used a much better manufacturing technology, this major leap forward as they say it is maybe is a major leap to the mac (and basically until now the base models were so highly overpriced it’s a joke..), but it’s not a revolution like they are presenting it...

 

[dsmush]

I hope you end up realizing your post is filled with nonsense? Apple didn't have to release ANY Macs this year with Apple silicon. And what a silly thing to say about the lineup being half-baked. That's all we've seen with Apple's competitors this entire year. Half-baked crap from Samsung and Lenovo with foldable over-priced junk that was truly rushed out to upstage Apple. No real innovations that consumers truly need. Apple did a fantastic release of their first ARM processors. I think you're in the wrong forum buddy. You need to go to Dellrumors since they are the ones who release super innovative stuff that Apple could only dream of doing, such as....using the latest Intel processors. OH WAIT, that's Intel's usual half-baked innovation. LOL.

Calm down iCultist I'm a Mac and Windows user, I just don't agree with the direction they are heading personally. Apple are making their laptops highly restrictive in terms of software compatibility and wanting to control everything you run on the machine you purchased from them (essentially a laptop version of an iPad), this is not so bad on mobile devices but for laptops this is going too far.
I no longer consider the Macbook Pro to be a professional device either.

 

[cknlol]

ARM is the way to go - just not for me right now. I do not have the power to adapt software being used by my customers just because I've changed my laptop. However, I am fairly certain all the first-mover bugs, issues and whatnot will be resolved by the next generation release. For now, hot having Bootcamp is something I personally cannot afford.

 

[Black Belt]

The release schedule was fine but the presentation was very slipshod with ridiculous and meaningless graphs. After working on the chip for so long you’d think they could actually have real benchmarks.

 

[Zazoh]

The more i try to analyze what Apple said this chip can do, especially regarding the vague tests they did and comparing it to the Mac entry level specs, the more i think it’s a marketing success rather than a real chip technology breakthrough.

i’m a Mac fan all day long, but in the past few years the mac prices, especially wheb comparing them to their entry level counterparts was almost absurd. A macbook air with a pretty lousy i3 intel chip would cost as much as a high end i7 equipped machine would.

Moreover,
The macbook air with M1 costs 999$ for the base model.
A quick search in Amazon can get u for the same amount of 999$ a New Asus zenbook 13.3 with the latest intel Tiger Lake i7 quad core chip.

when u compare the M1 to the newest intel architecture, the performance diff is not big if any (i saw some geekbench 5 scores for the tiger lake chip at above 1700 - but i’m not an expert for those..), and when taking into account the fact that Apple
Used a much better manufacturing technology, this major leap forward as they say it is maybe is a major leap to the mac (and basically until now the base models were so highly overpriced it’s a joke..), but it’s not a revolution like they are presenting it...

The difference is quite huge, one has a 20hr battery and supports apple software. To your point, the revolution is for apple, and financial. In the portable world though, a long battery more than double competitors and fanless (quiet), are what the average consumer seeks.

Also, you just opened the Mac to millions more software developers by offering iOS apps running on a Mac. We don't know how NICE this will be, but there is opportunity.

 

[ssgbryan]

No one has suggested multicore performance doesn't matter. Rather they've correctly pointed out that contrary to what you said, single-core performance is also still crucial, both in itself and in how it affects multicore performance. We're nowhere close to being past the days where it matters.

I must be in a different field then.

In the 3d art world - even the free software is heavily multithreaded.

 

[ssgbryan]

If you're actually doing 3D work at any level of competence, you'll know that these machines are not for you, you won't order one, and won't be frustrated or have any complaints about their potential inadequacies. So that's a bit of a non-issue.

You can say that about the entire Apple hardware stack.

As a 3d artist, there is a reason I (along with a LOT of folks) have dumped Apple.

 

[ssgbryan]

nailed it? If what they say is true I think they completely dismantled Intel and AMD. The numbers are ludicrous

What numbers? 3x better than a 4c/4t quad core that is already 2 generation back?

16gb of ram? Sure, good enough for Candy Crush. Not so for anything that actually does something.

And it isn't even 16 gb of ram, because that is shared with the GPU.

And will be running software in emulation via Rosetta 2.

 

[Phil77354]

If this is what Apple can pull off for these first series of Mac Apple Silicon chips, the future is very exciting. I am eagerly anticipating the first M series iMac next year. If my 2013 MBP wasn't running so well right now, I would not hesitate to buy a M1 Air.

I agree. I'm looking forward to the 27" iMac with Mx chip, if not in 2021 then 2022 works fine for me. No way I would buy another Intel Mac after seeing what the impact of these new chips will be.

 

[warp9]

Okay, but first who is buying an i3 that realistically uses After Effect and doesn’t have a need for a better cpu elsewhere? It just seems like such a small, almost nonexistent user base.

I would say almost nobody. If you're going to spend money on 64GB ram, it doesn't make sense to skimp elsewhere. I just wanted to point out that the configuration is not unreasonable and does make sense.

But also in my experience after effects uses multiple threads - I literally just used it and had activity monitor open. It was using all 6 cores on my i7 mini.

The nature of compositing and image applications is single-threaded, meaning, no parallel processes going on. The multi-core activity is due to individual processes making cpu core affinity decisions at runtime. Core 0 runs the main app, core 1 runs a gaussian blur, core 2 preps the next frame, etc.

These are all still single threads, they are just being actively managed in a way that may or may not be helpful. If you run it on a dual-cpu 48-core xeon pc, the threads will usually cap out around 10 or 12. A raytraced render on the other hand will fully utilize all cores to 100%.

What this means in real life is, if your needs are compositing or image manipulation, focus on clock speed. Whatever cpu you choose will still have multiple cores for lessening the burden on core 0, but it won't focus on brute force core count like what's needed for 3d work.

 

[rtkeeling]

Apple 2020 year end is really one more thing. They didn't cringe here.

Suddenly there old lines are new again.

I see it somewhat metaphorically. The hope and dreams that existed back n the 80's if you owned an Amiga are fully realised again with this a technical milestone kind of home coming. Did you know Jobs turned up the Amga chip set, but here we are, Apple now control the whole show.

This is like full circle moment, no one on the market has an Amiga (I understand you might want to call it the Amiga-BBC-Acorn moment since it's RISC) except Apple.

No on has a product like this (that I can think of) let alone produce line like this, that is any way comparable.

I like making predictions and this is one I've held for a few years but see how all the parts are even closer.

Apple is developing it's silicon now across it's entire range, what they learned in the iPhone now comes back to us all, into the watch, now in to the mac.

NEXT

AR/VR, no one will he an M1VR chip or M1AR chip like Apple is most probably working on.

Then they tackle the screen perforamnce/manufacturing limits and push that out of the park because they have the scale.

That's the next one more thing Apples iPhone + watch know how will fold into the = VR next move.

+ devices beyond VR.

Apple chips in machines you build. Robots. Spacehships.

WTF not!?

Apple SPACE....

I dunno if anyone noticed the part forming together was a good old wink and nod to STNG / Starwars ship warping into or out of position, for a big battle scene or escape.

I see what you're saying. With the whole computer being Apple's and no third-party hardware, they can really make it solid. I'm sure you will recall the great Amiga demo scene (which still exists by the way) and how much programmers were able to do there. I see the same thing happening with the M1. I can see a gaming resurgence on the Mac now as well. The M1 presents a console-like platform of known hardware that can be developed against to wring the most out of it. There is a lot more potential with Apple Silicon now than the event let on. It's more than just faster cooler chips.

 

[tdar]

The release schedule was fine but the presentation was very slipshod with ridiculous and meaningless graphs. After working on the chip for so long you’d think they could actually have real benchmarks.

Apple NEVER has benchmarks. Apple does not design for a spec Sheet. At Apple ,they design for experiences.

 

[Cassandle]

16gb of ram? Sure, good enough for Candy Crush. Not so for anything that actually does something.

Statements like this are ridiculous. 16GB is plenty for the average user. Which is who these devices are aimed at.

I've never had more than 8GB on my Mac and I use it daily for work. I've also never played Candy Crush.

If the 27" iMac comes maxed out with 16GB of RAM, then sure, complain. But it won't.

 

[tdar]

What numbers? 3x better than a 4c/4t quad core that is already 2 generation back?

16gb of ram? Sure, good enough for Candy Crush. Not so for anything that actually does something.

And it isn't even 16 gb of ram, because that is shared with the GPU.

And will be running software in emulation via Rosetta 2.

Way more complicated than that.
We see benchmarks that show the power of this platform. But it's a totally different platform. It works differently. So you can't take your Intel based knowledge and try to apply it.
Developers are already moving. All the Affinity apps are ready now. I get your skeptical, give it some time.

 

[MacBH928]

What numbers? 3x better than a 4c/4t quad core that is already 2 generation back?

16gb of ram? Sure, good enough for Candy Crush. Not so for anything that actually does something.

And it isn't even 16 gb of ram, because that is shared with the GPU.

And will be running software in emulation via Rosetta 2.

This is their "entry" model, the weakest spec. Compare that with AMD's and Intel's weakest spec. People keep thinking the introduced models are made to create the next Marvel movie special effects in 8K.

 

[Jimmy James]

Right? I am really confused about what some people are thinking. We get a $999 entry-level passively cooled laptop that has basically the same peak single-core CPU performance as an $799 CPU from AMD (one that is hailed as the most revolutionary x86 CPU ever made), and people are dissapointed?

This site has taught me the extent to which people care about superficial appearances and bathe in ignorance.

 

[Sanpete]

In the 3d art world - even the free software is heavily multithreaded.

Which, again, doesn't conflict with what others have been telling you. Single-core performance is still crucial. As was pointed out before, even many multi-threaded programs do quite a lot in single-core operations, and multicore operations are constrained by single-core speeds.

 

[Frank Philips]

This was known and openly documented by Apple in June. Yes, Apple Silicon Mac require all code to be signed. I disagree that this makes the system more locked-in though. Everything you build on your machine is signed automatically, so open-source stuff etc. is not threatened at all. If you want to distribute, you will have to get a developer account, which is what people already do. So really the only affected devs are those who distribute unsigned apps (which are a security risk anyway).

What I definitely agree with is that Apple should offer free access to signing certificates. Aka. Developer Program lite. No support, no access to preview software, just a certificate linked to a developer identity. This should make things easier for open source developers and the like who might be more adverse to paying $99 for the developer access.

Is there any documentation about what code they may accept or not?

For example, you mention open source developers. Can anyone risk getting an app denied if it needs a lib/dependency that Apple reject for whatever reason?

Sorry, not a developer myself, so it's a bit hard to translate my thoughts to developer/coder speech.
I just know, being a Linux user and having a look at the console when I install/update apps, that the list of dependencies can be daunting, even for a small footprint software.

 

[leman]

Is there any documentation about what code they may accept or not?

For example, you mention open source developers. Can anyone risk getting an app denied if it needs a lib/dependency that Apple reject for whatever reason?

Sorry, not a developer myself, so it's a bit hard to translate my thoughts to developer/coder speech.
I just know, being a Linux user and having a look at the console when I install/update apps, that the list of dependencies can be daunting, even for a small footprint software.

Code signing is just about verifying that the application comes from a know source. It’s like a web site certificate, it allows the OS to check whether the contents have been tampered with (e.g. by a virus). The only restriction is that if you want to distribute Apple wants your app to undergo automatic notarization, which scans your code to check if it contains known malware etc. But they cannot reject your software just because they dint like it. If you want to distribute though one of Apple marketplaces, that’s a different issue, since then you are subject to Apples review process.