Has Apple lost their mind? March 8th Event Disappointment

[dysamoria]

I've read 7.5 pages of comments so far, and I see that the people talking about the Mac Studio's performance and "value proposition" are making the same mistakes:

1. We don't know if the performance claims are based on HOURS of peak usage (and therefore the machine does not suffer throttling), or just a few minutes of peak usage (before thermal throttling starts to set in). Apple wont tell us. But you know what kind of language is NOT on the Mac Studio marketing pages at Apple.com? The language found on the Mac Pro marketing pages that talk about getting peak performance ALL DAY LONG. HINT HINT, people.

2. Having to buy the top end Mac Studio M1 Ultra, just to get more than 64GB of RAM, is NOT cost effective, and therefore sabotages the value notion for many people. If you don't know for sure how long you need to keep this machine (for me, it's likely a decade; longer if I'm going to be spending as much as it seems), nor how much RAM and storage you might need in several years (between OS and software "upgrades" that will bloat and slow things), you MUST buy as much as you can afford RIGHT NOW. There's no upgrading later. There's no third-party cheaper RAM or storage to avoid Apple's insane pricing on both.

3. Maintenance: If one component goes bad after your 1 year warranty (or whenever you decide to stop paying for AppleCare insurance), the whole machine is probably junk. Everything is integrated. If there's a defect in RAM, storage, CPU, GPU... it's basically a new board, or a refurbed machine (from someone else's return), and a LOT of money will be demanded for that "repair". That also sabotages the "value" proposition. I mean, yeah, they got the display separated, but the Mac Studio is NOT "modular" by any other metric.

 

[leman]

1. We don't know if the performance claims are based on HOURS of peak usage (and therefore the machine does not suffer throttling), or just a few minutes of peak usage (before thermal throttling starts to set in). Apple wont tell us. But you know what kind of language is NOT on the Mac Studio marketing pages at Apple.com? The language found on the Mac Pro marketing pages that talk about getting peak performance ALL DAY LONG. HINT HINT, people.

Sustained performance of Apple Silicon is a known quantity. There is no way it will throttle. That's not an Nvidia GPU that needs a small diesel generator and a freezer to run properly.

2. Having to buy the top end Mac Studio M1 Ultra, just to get more than 64GB of RAM, is NOT cost effective, and therefore sabotages the value notion for many people.

What do you need more than 64GB of RAM if you don't have the processors to consume that RAM? What is definitely not cost effective is buying up RAM your computer can't effectively use. From technical standpoint, RAM limitations make perfect sense. Ultra gives you more RAM, more bandwidth to use that RAM and more processors that can actually use that RAM.

If you don't know for sure how long you need to keep this machine (for me, it's likely a decade; longer if I'm going to be spending as much as it seems), nor how much RAM and storage you might need in several years (between OS and software "upgrades" that will bloat and slow things), you MUST buy as much as you can afford RIGHT NOW. There's no upgrading later. There's no third-party cheaper RAM or storage to avoid Apple's insane pricing on both.

Ah, the "future proofing" angle again. It is a professional machine. You buy it because you need it NOW, because it makes you money. In ten years it is going to be a paperweight.

3. Maintenance: If one component goes bad after your 1 year warranty (or whenever you decide to stop paying for AppleCare insurance), the whole machine is probably junk. Everything is integrated. If there's a defect in RAM, storage, CPU, GPU... it's basically a new board, or a refurbed machine (from someone else's return), and a LOT of money will be demanded for that "repair". That also sabotages the "value" proposition. I mean, yeah, they got the display separated, but the Mac Studio is NOT "modular" by any other metric.

That's why Apple gives you a subscription based extended warranty. Again, it is a professional product with an unprecedented level of integration. If you buy it, you should have some sort of business and risk management plan.

 

[Mike Boreham]

Another thing I’m not particularly fond of is the unit is obviously designed for the larger CPU. If you’re only interested in the base model then the unit is a little over-engineered.

That has always been true. Every type of computer has to cool the top spec versions so the low spec versions are bound to be "over-engineered".

 

[oz_rkie]

Sustained performance of Apple Silicon is a known quantity. There is no way it will throttle. That's not an Nvidia GPU that needs a small diesel generator and a freezer to run properly.

I like how any sort of hyperbole against apple products have to be immediately defended with arguments that then contain hyperbole about the competition

 

[MayaUser]

Never had any issues with hours combined of under load with the 16" mbp ..and thats a laptop

 

[MayaUser]

I like how any sort of hyperbole against apple products have to be immediately defended with arguments that then contain hyperbole about the competition

of course you like it, i like it...we all like it ,why? because its art. True words never get obsolete and remain forever written

 

[leman]

I like how any sort of hyperbole against apple products have to be immediately defended with arguments that then contain hyperbole about the competition

Ah well, let me have some fun

But no, in all seriousness, if a thin laptop can operate an M1 Max at maximal clocks without throttling, then a small chungus like Studio with it's copper heatsink and huge fans won't have a problem with a 180W Ultra either.

 

[oz_rkie]

Ah well, let me have some fun

But no, in all seriousness, if a thin laptop can operate an M1 Max at maximal clocks without throttling, then a small chungus like Studio with it's copper heatsink and huge fans won't have a problem with a 180W Ultra either.

Yeah, Apple silicon efficiency is unmatched for now, its pretty insane. I wish it was possible to bootcamp windows on the m1, would make it the perfect device (for me).

 

[dysamoria]

Sustained performance of Apple Silicon is a known quantity. There is no way it will throttle.

Where is this data?

What do you need more than 64GB of RAM if you don't have the processors to consume that RAM? What is definitely not cost effective is buying up RAM your computer can't effectively use. From technical standpoint, RAM limitations make perfect sense. Ultra gives you more RAM, more bandwidth to use that RAM and more processors that can actually use that RAM.

What does this part even mean? There's way more to having RAM than bandwidth. FFS, a web browser consumes stupid amounts of memory, and a lot of people leave these things open all day and have way more tabs going than I do.

Then there are the Mac OS memory leaks (right now, my Finder is using 6.7GB; looks like I have to kill/restart it, sigh).

 

[MayaUser]

Then there are the Mac OS memory leaks (right now, my Finder is using 6.7GB; looks like I have to kill/restart it, sigh).

on what system and what OS ?

 

[Andropov]

Fair enough, $700 seems pretty sensible for the computer. by the same logic, the studio display price does seem kinda high!

Relative to the iMac, it is high! Relative to other 5K displays on the market, though... I don't think I'd buy the UltraFine 5K to save $400 vs the Studio Display.

 

[leman]

Where is this data?

There are tons of reviews, owner reports etc. My 16" M1 Max can run 24/7 at max utilisation without throttling, why would you assume that Studio will have any issues? The 16+4 M1 CPU only draws 50-60 watts (with RAM), that's less than a Mac Mini. The 64-core GPU will draw around 80-90 watt at most. Add 20w for RAM at maximal utilisation — that is less combined TDP than even the crappiest PC tower.

What does this part even mean? There's way more to having RAM than bandwidth. FFS, a web browser consumes stupid amounts of memory, and a lot of people leave these things open all day and have way more tabs going than I do.

It means that hardware has limited capability of using RAM efficiently. It doesn't matter how much RAM the browser consumes, as you are only working with a single tab at a time. If you have more RAM than your machine can actually utilise efficiently (via parallel processors and plenty of memory bandwidth), you RAM just ends up being an expensive cache. And with RAM compression and very fast SSDs using RAM as this kind of cache has very little benefit on Apple Silicon Macs.

At the end of the day, this is about problem sizes. If you have a problem that requires 128GB RAM, you probably also want to be able to process this problem in an efficient manner, which means having enough processors and enough bandwidth to feed them. You don't need 64GB RAM to use a browser — you only need enough RAM to fit the single active website.

 

[thettareddast]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that they don't ever show lower class people in any of their product gee-wiz lifestyle advertisements. At least, it doesn't look that way from the stylish and brand new-looking clothing, and the houses, offices/studios, and university-type spaces they show them doing all that gee-wiz lifestyling in. I'd love to be part of the upper-middle-class crowd (I was born into a lower-middle-class family), but I'm just not. I'm on disability and in poverty. I choose Apple products because they're LESS BAD than the competition in general (they've NEVER made a decent mouse), not to make any kind of lifestyle statements or socioeconomic status claims.

In the same thread we have people complaining that Apple products are not groundbreaking and innovative enough, and other people complaining that it doesn't cover the lower economic spectrum.

 

[JouniS]

Where did you see a good quality 5K display for $800? I've looked at bunch of sub $800 4K displays, and they are generally ok, but lack the premium finish, the brightness is meh at best. A comparable Dell display (UP2720Q) is $1500, and it is 4K, low brightness and lacks the videoconferencing setup.

Mind, I don't disagree with you, I also think that something like the Studio Display should not cost more than $999, but the display market is just a total mess ATM. There are just no good products.

I was talking about hypotheticals: what would 5k displays cost if people actually wanted to buy them.

The monitor market is pretty good if your needs are common enough. I bought a ~$400 4k monitor a year ago and use it primarily with my iMac. Because I mostly work with text, I don't see any significant differences in quality between the two displays. I also bought a ~$900 ultrawide gaming monitor, which is great for gaming but looks a bit weird as a general-purpose display. Maybe because of the reflections from the curved surface, or maybe because it's only 1440p.

The thing I can't find in the market is a monitor with multiple USB-C inputs. I have two laptops in addition to the iMac and the gaming PC, but I don't have enough desk space for separate monitors. Monitors usually have one DisplayPort input and two HDMI inputs – and one USB-C input if you're lucky – which makes sharing them between multiple Macs inconvenient. But apparently that's also a niche use case few people care about.

 

[MayaUser]

In the same thread we have people complaining that Apple products are not groundbreaking and innovative enough, and other people complaining that it doesn't cover the lower economic spectrum.

but but but the SE lineup doesnt cover the lower eco spectrum?
but i bet people will complain about that SE are garbage old design etc
I bet an SE mac will come in the years to come..since they are top sellers on Apple other segments like iphone SE, the ipad and apple watch SE

 

[Puonti]

If you have more RAM than your machine can actually utilise efficiently (via parallel processors and plenty of memory bandwidth), you RAM just ends up being an expensive cache. And with RAM compression and very fast SSDs using RAM as this kind of cache has very little benefit on Apple Silicon Macs.

Just to bring a different point of view to this topic - for anyone on a long upgrade cycle, say approaching 10 years, having to constantly rely on swapping to the SSD is probably not a great idea. Especially with these modern Macs where you can't simply pop the hood and replace the SSD, and considering that subscription-based AppleCare is not (yet) available globally.

I (currently) have pretty modest needs for my personal Mac, but I'm still going for 32 Gb of RAM to minimize the need to swap to SSD. Likewise, I have about 220 Gb of data on my current iMac, but I'm still going for the 1 Tb SSD because that gives the SSD's write / wear leveling room to do its thing.

Is this a viable option for everyone? Absolutely not. Does everyone need to do this? No. I'm just pointing out that a ridiculously fast SSD is not a replacement for RAM across all use cases, even if it's perfectly valid for some.

 

[oz_rkie]

Where did you see a good quality 5K display for $800?

This is one where you have to ponder a bit as to why this is the case? A lot of people making this argument are completely missing the point. The reason you can't find competitive 5k displays are because Apple is the only company who has decided 5k displays are worthwhile. And if you think about it, the reason for this is pretty simple, margins . The entire industry has pretty much coalesced on 4k and you can find a ton of very good 4k monitors, high refresh rate, hdr, mini-led etc. you name it and obviously competition drives down the price.

But Apple sells this 5k monitor because they know there is no competition and they can charge ridiculous margins on it and people are sadly falling for this. Sure, it might be a good monitor, but its exorbitantly priced. They have basically plopped some speakers, a webcam and center stage into an 8 yr old monitor and selling it for $1600.

 

[JouniS]

What do you need more than 64GB of RAM if you don't have the processors to consume that RAM? What is definitely not cost effective is buying up RAM your computer can't effectively use. From technical standpoint, RAM limitations make perfect sense. Ultra gives you more RAM, more bandwidth to use that RAM and more processors that can actually use that RAM.

Software development is one example. The gains in convenience and productivity are significant if you can run full-scale tests and debug issues locally instead of using servers and cloud instances. Especially if you are working from home and the only available ISP is not particularly reliable. I've had an iMac with 128 GB RAM for 1.5 years, and the limited memory capacity is the biggest constraint. The i9 is still fast enough, and the 5700 XT is probably way faster than I'm ever going to need on that computer.

At least on the Intel/AMD side, the limited memory capacity is an artificial constraint. If you need more than 128 GB RAM, they want you to buy expensive workstation chips instead of much cheaper but almost as fast consumer chips. AMD had intermediate Threadripper chips with 512 GB RAM limit for a while, but for some reason they are now ignoring them in favor of Ryzens and Threadripper Pros.

 

[Peter_M]

What are you talking about? At apple.no there is a 10 000 NOK difference between a MBP 14" M1 Max 24c and Mac Studio M1 Max 24c. Similar here in Sweden, MBP M1 Max costs 9500 SEK more, and at apple.com MBP M1 Max costs $900 more than the base Mac Studio. Check your numbers before complaining.

My numbers are correct, go to the NORWEGIAN page and do the same specs as I did - boom, there they are. *Then* try to falsely claim I'm making up numbers. Whatever, I have better things to do than partake in pointless drawn-out autistic arguments. The Mac Studio is a great product, with a not-so-great price. That's not a controversial take, but obviously the fanboys are desperate to protect their favorite trillion dollar company from any legitimate criticism.

 

[tearzyo]

I am traveling so I didn’t get to watch the event video but just read the Macrumors live blog (thank you for that) and seen the announcement.

Has Apple lost their damn mind???

So the price of entry for an M1 Ultra chip is $3799 for 512GB SSD drive or $3999 for 1TB

FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS AND YOU GIVE ME A 1TB DRIVE!!! This is 2022 and your high end Mac debuts with a 1TB drive. Are you kidding me???

That is not even counting how overpriced it us to start with … HOLY BATBUCKS

Maxed out build is $7999 !!!

and let’s talk about the dispay you will need … not a 32” … not a 30” but a 27” 5K display for $1600 !!!

Want to adjust the height on that display then add $400 for A STAND. A FOUR HUNDRED DOLLAR MONITOR STAND.

And now I am reading 27” iMac is discontinued.

There is not an instrument made that can measure how disappointing today’s event was for me. My feeling are literally hurt. I feel like an idiot for being an Apple guy for the last 17 years.

The rest of that crap they announced in fancy new colors was total crap too.

Anyone else this upset?

I dont understand why you’d need more than 1TB unless you only work with video editing in raw format. Are you actually storing files on your Mac?

File storage has three options: Cloud, Network storage or thunderbolt raid

I dont understand why people need more storage in the actual computer. The new Mac has a builtin 10Gbe network card, this alone costs around 300$ if you need a good one in your PC.
You can transfer files up to 1250MB/s on this card. Yes, 1.25GB/s.. that should be plenty speed for storing your files elsewhere.

 

[JouniS]

I dont understand why people need more storage in the actual computer. The new Mac has a builtin 10Gbe network card, this alone costs around 300$ if you need a good one in your PC.

Temporary working files. The internal SSD is ~8x faster than what you can reasonably achieve over USB / Ethernet and 2x to 3x faster than Thunderbolt. The big files you are using right now should be on internal storage, while the smaller final products that need to be stored in the long term can go to slower external storage.

The $HOME/scratch directory on my iMac is usually a bit under 1 TB, but that's only because I'm actively removing files I don't expect to need again soon.

 

[darkpaw]

My numbers are correct, go to the NORWEGIAN page and do the same specs as I did - boom, there they are. *Then* try to falsely claim I'm making up numbers. Whatever, I have better things to do than partake in pointless drawn-out autistic arguments. The Mac Studio is a great product, with a not-so-great price. That's not a controversial take, but obviously the fanboys are desperate to protect their favorite trillion dollar company from any legitimate criticism.

I went to the Norwegian page and priced up a MacBook Pro 14" with M1 Max, 32GB RAM and 512GB SSD, and a Mac Studio with the exact same specs. The MacBook Pro is more expensive by 10 000 kr.

Don't get angry, and accuse people of being "autistic" (as if that's meant to be a derogatory word?! For shame!). Explain your points calmly. If people are misunderstanding you, perhaps you should re-phrase your comments?

Look at my previous post on this; I listed the specs of the two machines and provided the prices from Apple's stores in three countries. In every case the Mac Studio is cheaper. So, what are you actually saying?

 

[kc9hzn]

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).

Oh, antiquated versions of FileMaker databases… That’s probably something that keeps more older Macs in business more than anything else. I don’t know what level of backwards compatibility current versions of FileMaker have, but the cost of computer upgrades (for 40+) and licenses for newer versions of FileMaker (at least $80000, assuming $2000 for a computer and FileMaker license) means that cost alone was one reason they held onto those iMacs as long as they did.

 

[kc9hzn]

Either your math is off, or prices are very different in Norway. I was comparing the non-ultra version of Mac Studio, with the most similar type of RAM, storage and CPU in a MacBook Pro 14" model. US prices vs Norwegian prices for Apple products is typically 1$ = 12.5 NOK. Real currency is 1$ = 9 NOK

This is with Trump's China import taxes (still active?), which we don't have. Basically I've cut my Apple purchases in half the last 6-7 years. I can't justify more frequent updates anymore, with Apple's Scrooge McDuck pricing strategy.

Prices in Norway and other parts of Europe tend to be dramatically higher than US prices due to use of VAT. US prices generally don’t include the sales tax, and, besides, VATs do tend to tax more than US style sales tax since they also apply through the supply chain and tend to be in the order of 20%+, while only the highest of US sales taxes exceed 10%. So it’s hard to do price comparisons between the two locales (or between the US and Australia) as a result, it’s not just a matter of plugging figures into a currency converter.

 

[leman]

This is one where you have to ponder a bit as to why this is the case? A lot of people making this argument are completely missing the point. The reason you can't find competitive 5k displays are because Apple is the only company who has decided 5k displays are worthwhile. And if you think about it, the reason for this is pretty simple, margins . The entire industry has pretty much coalesced on 4k and you can find a ton of very good 4k monitors, high refresh rate, hdr, mini-led etc. you name it and obviously competition drives down the price.

But Apple sells this 5k monitor because they know there is no competition and they can charge ridiculous margins on it and people are sadly falling for this. Sure, it might be a good monitor, but its exorbitantly priced. They have basically plopped some speakers, a webcam and center stage into an 8 yr old monitor and selling it for $1600.

I think you are oversimplifying things a bit. „Very good“ 4K displays cost over $1000 and the few miniLED models are well beyond that. As I see it, the problem is simply that costumers don’t want to spend money on quality stuff and therefore manufacturers are cutting corners left and right. We have some $400 4K ASUS and LG monitors and they are not very good. Even the $1200 Dell I use at the office (granted, its two years old now) is merely „OK“. At best comparable with the MBA displays. Apple is one of the few companies who really cares about display quality. but there is not much compromise there.

Software development is one example. The gains in convenience and productivity are significant if you can run full-scale tests and debug issues locally instead of using servers and cloud instances. Especially if you are working from home and the only available ISP is not particularly reliable. I've had an iMac with 128 GB RAM for 1.5 years, and the limited memory capacity is the biggest constraint. The i9 is still fast enough, and the 5700 XT is probably way faster than I'm ever going to need on that computer.

At least on the Intel/AMD side, the limited memory capacity is an artificial constraint. If you need more than 128 GB RAM, they want you to buy expensive workstation chips instead of much cheaper but almost as fast consumer chips. AMD had intermediate Threadripper chips with 512 GB RAM limit for a while, but for some reason they are now ignoring them in favor of Ryzens and Threadripper Pros.

No argument here, but honestly, if you really need more than 64GB to run tests then you probably also want more than 8 CPU cores. As to the rest… Apple never really gave you much configuration freedom and AS is not going to make it better. That is definitely a disadvantage for buying Apple.