Devious marketing of M2

[Luposian]

Basically what their marketing translates to is just how bad the old Intel Mac Mini was. Let's put it this way : it sucked.

A LOT.​

I actually feel bad for anyone who purchased one since the M1 came out. It was almost criminal to sell a machine like this, especially for such a high price point.

Aaaaaand... when the first Intel Macs came out, the same could be said about the PowerPC Macs made a couple years earlier. Technology, regardless of what brand or model, will always improve. But, you know what? My M1 Mac Mini can NOT do what I am using my Power Mac G4 Quicksilver for, to this day. Making MIDIs, with iPiano. iPiano is obsolete, unsupported, and forgotten. Only runs (best) in Panther. Runs (glitched) in Tiger. Won't run at all in Leopard. The hardware is literally USELESS for going online with today. I could play the games I used to back in the day (ah, American McGee's Alice and Bungie's Oni! Fond memories!) or other software of the time, but compared to today's hardware... it's like comparing a Macintosh 128K to a Mac Quadra! But my M1 Mac Mini cannot run PowerPC software, so I keep my G4 QuickSilver for making music. Hundreds of songs that are in the free iOS game "Lava Crew".

 

[TechnoMonk]

Yep. I am done with PCs with my 3080 Ti and 10th gen i9. Things are just getting hotter and more expensive. I am not dealing with water cooling and Noctua can only keep things cool for so long. I am already pushing 1000 watts with my current setup, let alone the newer hotter chips and 40 series requiring more than my 3080 Ti did.

And the funny thing is? Part of my workflow is SO MUCH FASTER on even the base M1 Mac mini its ridiculous. M* processors are more than just CPU core and speeds. Yes the media encoders are a great benefit to me and it allows a base $799 system to beat out my $4,000 PC custom built. Benchmarks, however tell a different story which is why I don't like people relying so heavily on benchmarks lately.

Try pushing 1600 W PS with 4090. My M1 Max keeps chugging along quietly with out much heat. I had to undervolt 4090 to 70% and Underclock by 20%. I had to replace my 1300 W PS when I upgraded from 3090.
Apple needs to invest in the conversion libraries and tools for running Cuda platform. .

 

[TechnoMonk]

Not true, poor people yearn for status symbols and are more likely Apple customers. Whereas rich people like to think they are super smart because they bought a cheap Windows PC. All the unemployed I know are iPhone Pro users.

Shots fired... Its usually the other way. Successful people look for value not neccesarily cheapest price. Bums on the other hand live in green bubble.

 

[Gudi]

Shots fired... Its usually the other way. Successful people look for value not neccesarily cheapest price. Bums on the other hand live in green bubble.

And I agree, Macs offer the most value for the money. But most people are stupid and do not know that Macs are much much better, that's why Windows holds a 75% market share. It's not poor people in the 3rd World, who buy Windows PCs. It's gullible people in the rich West, who made Elon Musk... I mean, Bill Gates the richest man in the world at some point in time.

It's still a slow growth for macOS.​

 

[Joe Dohn]

And I agree, Macs offer the most value for the money.

If a device doesn't do what you need from it, it doesn't offer any value to you. And there positively are cases where MacOS is NOT the answer because it lacks something important the user needs.

 

[MayaUser]

It seems the scaling on gpu side is improved...in real apps the M2 Max gpu is at the same level or even higher than Mac Studio M1 Ultra

 

[Gudi]

If a device doesn't do what you need from it, it doesn't offer any value to you. And there positively are cases where MacOS is NOT the answer because it lacks something important the user needs.

Nah, I don't buy that nonsense anymore! Macs are Turing-complete general-purpose computers, there's an app for everything. And if there's not, than you can literally Xcode it yourself. One Turing machine can simulate every other Turing machine. A Mac can emulate a Super Nintendo, a PlayStation or a freaking Windows Vista PC, if you want to lose your mind. Don't tell me it lacks anything important.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Nah, I don't buy that nonsense anymore! Macs are Turing-complete general-purpose computers, there's an app for everything. And if there's not, than you can literally Xcode it yourself. One Turing machine can simulate every other Turing machine. A Mac can emulate a Super Nintendo, a PlayStation or a freaking Windows Vista PC, if you want to lose your mind. Don't tell me it lacks anything important.

There ISN'T an app for everything. That's exactly the problem.

Don't even get me started on the incorrect assumption that users can code whatever is not available on a PC.
True, technically it IS possible, but no one is going to code a Photoshop clone or a missing driver out of the blue because of the sheer complexity those tasks require.

Also, there is a flaw on your reasoning that being turing-complete equals the device can do anything in practice. It can't.
Or else we could just use a SEGA Genesis or a graph calculator for all our tasks instead of a Mac, because they're turing complete.

 

[Gudi]

Don't even get me started on the incorrect assumption that users can code whatever is not available on a PC.
True, technically it IS possible, but no one is going to code a Photoshop clone or a missing driver out of the blue because of the sheer complexity those tasks require.

There are several exquisite Photoshop clones for Mac to chose from, as well as the original Adobe Photoshop itself runs natively on Apple Silicon M1. In February 1990 Photoshop 1.0 was released exclusively for Apple Macintosh. The Windows version is a hacky software port, which frankly doesn't run very well.

Also, there is a flaw on your reasoning that being turing-complete equals the device can do anything in practice. It can't. Or else we could just use a SEGA Genesis or a graph calculator for all our tasks instead of a Mac, because they're Turing complete.

Yes we can. It just takes more time. A quick enough computer can emulate every slower computer completely without exception.

 

[Joe Dohn]

There are several exquisite Photoshop clones for Mac to chose from, as well as the original Adobe Photoshop itself runs natively on Apple Silicon M1. In February 1990 Photoshop 1.0 was released exclusively for Apple Macintosh. The Windows version is a hacky software port, which frankly doesn't run very well.

That's not the point. You know well that the average user CANNOT generate a Photoshop clone that easily.
If we all were equally capable to generate our own software, we wouldn't be paying Microsoft, Apple or Adobe for that, would we?

Yes we can. It just takes more time.

Obviously in theory, but not in practice. No one is going to wait months for a task that is achieved in a few seconds with a modern computer.

 

[Gudi]

That's not the point.

Yeah, because you're moving the goalpost. I said there is an app for everything and if there isn't, it can be programmed. Lo and behold! Photoshop and many better alternatives already exist. The average user doesn't need to program a clone himself.

You know well that the average user CANNOT generate a Photoshop clone that easily.

Not on Windows, because Apple's AppKit and UIKit frameworks don't exist in Visual Studio. Therefor a Windows clone of Adobe Photoshop will never look and feel like the original Mac app. But in Xcode you can program a better Photoshop and many people did.

If we all were equally capable to generate our own software, we wouldn't be paying Microsoft, Apple or Adobe for that, would we?

Of course I'm not paying Adobe with a monthly subscription! I switched to Pixelmator Pro a long time ago. And yes, I'm (indirectly) paying for Apple's hardware-subsidized software development.

Obviously in theory, but not in practice. No one is going to wait months for a task that is achieved in a few seconds with a modern computer.

We're still on the thread which laments the fact that the new Mac mini is up to 5× faster than the best-selling "modern" Windows desktop of the last 12 months? Show me someone who actually complains that Photoshop is not running fast enough on his M-series Mac!

 

[Joe Dohn]

Yeah, because you're moving the goalpost. I said there is an app for everything and if there isn't, it can be programmed. Lo and behold! Photoshop and many better alternatives already exist. The average user doesn't need to program a clone himself.

I'm not. Your original argument literally was:

Nah, I don't buy that nonsense anymore! Macs are Turing-complete general-purpose computers, there's an app for everything. And if there's not, than you can literally Xcode it yourself.

You specifically said "YOU can literally Xcode it yourself". You didn't word it as "companies can code whatever alternatives are missing for that platform".

But neither is true in practice, of course. In theory, Nothing is holding back Apple hardware from having AAA games. All the hardware is there. Heck, the SWITCH has AAA games, so Apple Silicon can pull this out to.

But guess why we DON'T have games? Because AAA developers don't feel compelled to develop for Apple.

Sure, USERS can developer AAA games in theory, but they don't have the money OR the skills for that in practice.

So, your argument doesn't hold no matter how we interpret it. Because development is not easy to do.

Of course I'm not paying Adobe! I switched to Pixelmator Pro a long time ago.

That's not relevant. The relevant point is that pulling out an acceptable clone for complex software like that is not easy. Adobe was obviously just an example, but it could have been MS Office, Blender or Autocad.

We're still on the thread which laments the fact that the new Mac mini is up to 5× faster than the best-selling "modern" Windows desktop of the last 12 months?

I get it that you want to defend Apple, but where did you come up with the 5x times faster?
It's more power efficient on average, but no one here is defending Apple Silicon is faster on absolute terms, much less 5x faster.

Because if you don't care about power efficiency, you could just plug a bunch of 4090 Nvidia cards for rendering, and that will blow Apple Silicon out of the water in absolute terms.

 

[Gudi]

I'm not. Your original argument literally was: You specifically said "YOU can literally Xcode it yourself". You didn't word it as "companies can code whatever alternatives are missing for that platform".

Yes, you! Photoshop 1.0 was programmed by Thomas Knoll and later with his brother John Knoll.

But neither is true in practice, of course. In theory, Nothing is holding back Apple hardware from having AAA games. All the hardware is there. Heck, the SWITCH has AAA games, so Apple Silicon can pull this out to.

Exactly, nobody is holding you back from programming triple-A games for the Mac. The hardware and software is more than capable enough. Most people are just too greedy and go after the 75% Windows market share for as long as it still exists.

That's not relevant. The relevant point is that pulling out an acceptable clone for complex software like that is not easy. Adobe was obviously just an example, but it could have been MS Office, Blender or Autocad.

Blender is an OpenSource C++ app available for all platforms. MS Office and AutoCAD have macOS versions. I need more examples before we start to port an app, which already exists on the Mac.

I get it that you want to defend Apple, but where did you come up with the 5x times faster?

First post, second sentence.

It's more power efficient on average, but no one here is defending Apple Silicon is faster on absolute terms, much less 5x faster.

Yes, that's what this "devious marketing" claim is all about. Up to 5× faster.

Because if you don't care about power efficiency, you could just plug a bunch of 4090 Nvidia cards for rendering, and that will blow Apple Silicon out of the water in absolute terms.

And nobody cares! We're comparing the new Mac mini versus the best-selling Windows desktop PC over the last 12 months. Are you getting it?

 

[Joe Dohn]

Yes, you! Photoshop 1.0 was programmed by Thomas Knoll and later with his brother John Knoll.

There's just no comparison from Photoshop 1.0, which could draw a bunch of lines, to the current version, which integrates AI and 3D capabilities. It's infinitely more complex, and you can't get average Joe to replicate it.

Exactly, nobody is holding you back from programming triple-A games for the Mac. The hardware and software is more than capable enough. Most people are just too greedy and go after the 75% Windows market share for as long as it still exists.

Have you seen how much of a large budget making an AAA game takes? It's called "triple A" exactly because it's complex and costly to make! You'll need at least a bunch of artists (including for concept art), voice acting, motion capture artists... on average, it costs $ 80 million to make: https://rocketbrush.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-develop-a-game#:~:text=AAA games are the big,and its level of complexity.

You have to be very detached from reality to think average Joe has this sort of budget.

Blender is an OpenSource C++ app available for all platforms. MS Office and AutoCAD have macOS versions. I need more examples before we start to port an app, which already exists on the Mac.

But that's all irrelevant, dude. I was arguing on the time, money and complexity that developing all that software takes. Those programs – even Blender – have entire teams working on them. Why else do you think Apple poured money on Blender development so it would support Metal? Because it's not an easy task!

 

[Gudi]

There's just no comparison from Photoshop 1.0, which could draw a bunch of lines, to the current version, which integrates AI and 3D capabilities. It's infinitely more complex, and you can't get average Joe to replicate it.

Isn't it nice of Adobe that they took on the hassle to replicate the entire Adobe suite for the dying Windows platform?

Have you seen how much of a large budget making an AAA game takes? It's called "triple A" exactly because it's complex and costly to make!

Have you seen how many more iPhones are sold than all PCs (not jus gaming PCs) combined? With iPads and Macs running the same M1 chip and the same Metal engine, Apple is doomed to become the largest and most profitable gaming platform. Angry Birds and Candy Crush will just become the new triple-A studios.

You have to be very detached from reality to think average Joe has this sort of budget.

Average Joe has to start small and grow big. Just like from Steve Jobs' parents' garage to the largest tech company in history of mankind.

But that's all irrelevant, dude. I was arguing on the time, money and complexity that developing all that software takes. Those programs – even Blender – have entire teams working on them. Why else do you think Apple poured money on Blender development so it would support Metal? Because it's not an easy task!

Zero time and money, because Photoshop existed on the Macintosh first. Apple were the first with a personal computer with a desktop and a mouse, with a smartphone, with a tablet, with a watch. Microsoft is playing catchup and they never quite get it. Go buy a Zune! Or a Surface. However they name their latest copy.

 

[Joe Dohn]

But that's all irrelevant, dude. I was arguing on the time, money and complexity that developing all that software takes. Those programs – even Blender – have entire teams working on them. Why else do you think Apple poured money on Blender development so it would support Metal? Because it's not an easy task!

Zero time and money, because Photoshop existed on the Macintosh first. Apple were the first with a personal computer with a desktop and a mouse, with a smartphone, with a tablet, with a watch. Microsoft is playing catchup and they never quite get it. Go buy a Zune! Or a Surface. However they name their latest copy.

I'm sorry, what? I wasn't even talking about Photoshop in that paragraph, but Blender. The point being Apple had to pour extra money to support Metal right after the Mx architecture so Blender would support the Metal backend. I think you mixed things up here.

Have you seen how many more iPhones are sold than all PCs (not jus gaming PCs) combined? With iPads and Macs running the same M1 chip and the same Metal engine, Apple is doomed to become the largest and most profitable gaming platform. Angry Birds and Candy Crush will just become the new triple-A studios.

You mean Rovio Entertainment and King.com, right?
Either way, I don't think you're taking up the argument seriously at this point, so I'm refraining from further comments.

 

[QuantumOfSouls]

Show me someone who actually complains that Photoshop is not running fast enough on his M-series Mac!

Photoshop is not running fast enough on my M-series Mac.

It's also easy to crash the program using neural filters, or using a neural filter on a smart object and then resizing it.

 

[Bodhitree]

Isn’t marketing always devious?

 

[Gudi]

Photoshop is not running fast enough on my M-series Mac.

Which M-chip and which Intel Mac do you compare the performance with?

 

[Gudi]

The point being Apple had to pour extra money to support Metal right after the Mx architecture so Blender would support the Metal backend. I think you mixed things up here.

Extra money compared to what? Being stuck on x86 OpenGL forever? Windows ARM transition failed precisely because nobody recompiled their apps for Surface RT. Sticking to horse and carriage is of course cheaper than buying a Model-T. The point you seem determined to overlook is that Blender does natively support Metal and that Photoshop does natively run on Apple Silicon. That's what we call a successful transition, something Windows users never experienced in their lifetime.

Either way, I don't think you're taking up the argument seriously at this point, so I'm refraining from further comments.

I don't, but maybe you can wave the white flag for me and surrender in the name of Apple Silicon to the glorious PC graphics master race with their non-retina ultrawide curved displays. Let's forget that the Mac is historically famous for being a superior graphics platform.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Extra money compared to what? Being stuck on x86 OpenGL forever? Windows ARM transition failed precisely because nobody recompiled their apps for Surface RT. Sticking to horse and carriage is of course cheaper than buying a Model-T. The point you seem determined to overlook is that Blender does natively support Metal and that Photoshop does natively run on Apple Silicon. That's what we call a successful transition, something Windows users never experienced in their lifetime.

I don't, but maybe you can wave the white flag for me and surrender in the name of Apple Silicon to the glorious PC graphics master race with their non-retina ultrawide curved displays. Let's forget that the Mac is historically famous for being a superior graphics platform.

This is pointless on your part. For the most part, Mac software is better or on par with Windows PCs. Some things, in reality, end up far better in the Mac world. Scrivener just feels better in Mac than windows. Vellum doesn’t even exist in Windows. Try finding an Alfred or Devonthink equivalent for Windows.

That said, it isn’t all sunshine and rainbows. AAA gaming is a complete disaster on Mac. Fifteen years ago, you could get most games and know they would run on a Mac. Now? nothing I play is on a mac. So I have a gaming PC with a 3060Ti in it. This is true period. I don’t care why Apple decided to ignore all the other industry standards and assume everyone would just adopt Metal. I don’t care, I just have to admit that mac gaming isn’t a priority and move on.

 

[Gudi]

I don’t care why Apple decided to ignore all the other industry standards and assume everyone would just adopt Metal.

Because Metal is far superior. It follows the same RISC-approach for GPU instructions as ARM did for CPU cores. The result is a much better performance per watt. That's what you want in battery-powered devices like smartphones, tablets and laptops.

Here listen again:

 

[leman]

Because Metal is far superior. It follows the same RISC-approach for GPU instructions as ARM did for CPU cores.

What? Nothing you just wrote makes any sense.

The result is a much better performance per watt.

No, the fact that Apple designs their GPUs for low power consumption results in much better performance per watt. What does that have to do with Metal?

 

[Gudi]

What? Nothing you just wrote makes any sense. ... No, the fact that Apple designs their GPUs for low power consumption results in much better performance per watt. What does that have to do with Metal?

Will you always scream "No!" when I mention RISC or are you going to use your brain just for once? What did Apple say, when they introduced Metal? That it's "closer to the metal" than OpenGL, which means it's easier to implement on silicon, because the instruction set is reduced to the core of what you really need to describe graphical calculations. Apple didn't create something proprietary for the sake of being incompatible to so-called industry standards. Metal is faster and more efficient at lower energy consumption. It's the exact same story as you already ignored with ARM for CPU performance, when you told me that RISC was a thing of the 80s and has nothing to do with Apple Silicon performance.

 

[leman]

Will you always scream "No!" when I mention RISC or are you going to use your brain just for once?

Maybe it's because I just might be a little bit knowledgeable about these things? What you are writing are platitudes found on user forums quoting long outdated books and wisdoms about CPU design. None of this stuff has been relevant for the last two decades.

What did Apple say, when they introduced Metal? That it's "closer to the metal" than OpenGL, which means it's easier to implement on silicon, because the instruction set is reduced to the core of what you really need to describe graphical calculations. Apple didn't create something proprietary for the sake of being incompatible to so-called industry standards. Metal is faster and more efficient at lower energy consumption.

Nobody is talking about OpenGL. Current industry standard for graphics is Vulkan.

It's the exact same story as you already ignored with ARM for CPU performance, when you told me that RISC was a thing of the 80s and has nothing to do with Apple Silicon performance.

Happy that you are paying attention! No, RISC has very little to do with Apple Silicon performance, although the modern ARM 64-bit ISA (which RISC purists criticise because it's instructions are too CISC-like apaprently) does make these things easier.

BTW, as a former active member of the OpenGL community who has been following these things very closely for many many years I have my own theories why we ended up with the current API fragmentation. Short version is: committees suck.