Intel to Apple Silicon Transition for Mac Was Announced Five Years Ago

[BNBMS]

From what I've seen, Apple is deevloping its own solution to use in house to drive its AI product; which is a far cry from making servers nd high end workstations for broader sale. Apple apparently is developing a special version of MacOS for them. This allows Apple to tailor the system to their AI needs and is in keeping with Apple's penchant for controlling the entire ecosystem. Apple wants to make their AI solution power how you use your phone, iPad, home automation, etc.

Selling access to their AI solution for iOS/iPad developers would be a path to additional revenue as well; and in keeping with Apple's increasing focus on services.

You already failed to understand the connections between each product. Being able to make servers and super computers mean you can also make high-end desktop and workstation just like Apple silicon is being used for iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and now Mac.

You keep conflating AI with hardware. Apple could buy the hardware easily if they wanted, but if they need expertise they could simply buy a company like Anthromorphic to get talent or simply hire away the talent they wnat. AI is about software, not hardware which is basically a commodity.

Buy what? Nvidia? They CANT. They are still using 5 years old GPU according to internal report thank to Apple CFO. You clearly dont understand how serious this is.

And they do need to be because that is not a market that Apple is interested in.

Tell that to Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro. By your logic, those are not the market that Apple is interested in. Also, how come Apple is now focusing on more GPU intensive software such as AI, 3D, and game? Your logic already failed before you even started.

No, it means Apple is making powerful chips for the markets they care about.

I told you, Apple is also focusing on AI, 3D, and game on Mac. What are you even talking about?

You can do a lot of 3D rendering on existing Macs just fine.

Fine? Tell that to PC with more powerful GPU with multiple slots. Since when FINE is good for Mac? Besides, Mac's GPU performance sucks.

Apple's gaming focus is on handhelds, and just throws a bone to the Mac side by offering a way to port games. They know most game studios aren't going to bring out their games for teh Mac, but if one wants to do so cheaply they have a way.

Doesn't change the fact that Apple IS focusing on gaming.

As for AI, Apple seems to focus on incorporating it into their products rather than building the next OpenAI for general use.

There are several people using Mac for AI due to large memories which only available on Mac unless you are using a server. LLM for example.

I'm not, there are plenty of pro users for whom the exiting product line is just fine. To try to go into very niche markets with entrenched players, operating systems and software with a new product incompatible with what are industry standard tools is a losing game.

Still, you are ignoring pro users who had been just fine until Apple ditched with Apple Silicon.

There jsus isn't enough money to go after small markets; Apple is better off spending R&D on more valuable markets and leaving those markets to teh existing players.

Same for other companies as professional markets never been profitable instead of increasing market share and power.

NO, I understand why Apple is not interested in the high end workstation and server market.

NO, you totally dont understand the demand and need and Apple is just killing it step by step which already disappointed a lot of pro users with Mac Pro. Dont forget that Apple made the worst Mac Pro in 2023.

Clearly, all of your logics are easily failed.

 

[jlc1978]

You already failed to understand the connections between each product. Being able to make servers and super computers mean you can also make high-end desktop and workstation just like Apple silicon is being used for iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and now Mac.

can an wil are two different things. Apple is making specific tools for their use; which is different than going into a broader market like you think they should. If Apple was really serious about high end computing beyond what the Pro and Studio are capable of I think we'd have seen a much more powerful Pro already.

Buy what? Nvidia? They CANT. They are still using 5 years old GPU according to internal report thank to Apple CFO. You clearly dont understand how serious this is.

Again, hardare is not software, and software is what is going to be the key part of AI; and I already gave you one example of a company that Apple could easily buy for their expertise..

Tell that to Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro. By your logic, those are not the market that Apple is interested in. Also, how come Apple is now focusing on more GPU intensive software such as AI, 3D, and game? Your logic already failed before you even started.

None of which requires Apple to make high end workstations to sell.

I told you, Apple is also focusing on AI, 3D, and game on Mac. What are you even talking about?

Applr's Ai seems to be very specifically focused, and looking at an on device and possibly cloud combo that they control end to end. Gaming? Nah, not seriously; and not all 3D needs high end workstations.

Fine? Tell that to PC with more powerful GPU with multiple slots. Since when FINE is good for Mac?

Fine is fine enough for markets they pursue.

Besides, Mac's GPU performance sucks.

In your opinion.

Doesn't change the fact that Apple IS focusing on gaming.

Handheld gamig doesn't require anywhere near the power you seem to think Apple needs to be making.

There are several people using Mac for AI due to large memories which only available on Mac unless you are using a server. LLM for example.

I know. I do.

Still, you are ignoring pro users who had been just fine until Apple ditched with Apple Silicon.

Clealry Apple does not care much about that market.

NO, you totally dont understand the demand and need and Apple is just killing it step by step which already disappointed a lot of pro users with Mac Pro. Dont forget that Apple made the worst Mac Pro in 2023.

Apple appears to understand where the profitable markets for it are and clearly high end computing like you are advocating is not one of them for Apple. If a pro user doesn't find Apple's offerings good enough they need to look elsewhere for porducts that meet their needs.

Just because Apple could make such a product doesn't mean they should; not all customers are profitable enough to be worth chasing.

 

[BNBMS]

can an wil are two different things. Apple is making specific tools for their use; which is different than going into a broader market like you think they should. If Apple was really serious about high end computing beyond what the Pro and Studio are capable of I think we'd have seen a much more powerful Pro already.

I told you, Apple Silicon's limitation is too high that they cant even make more powerful chips for their own.

Again, hardare is not software, and software is what is going to be the key part of AI; and I already gave you one example of a company that Apple could easily buy for their expertise..

And you need hardware to RUN software. Both of them are important and yet, you are ignoring one. Again, you did NOT gave me an example and that only proves my point. Buy what? Nvidia is dominating and yet, Apple can not but theirs and forced to use Google or Microsoft's services. Even then, since it's not Apple Silicon, it only makes it inefficient and cant make their own. Is it really difficult to understand? I also told you that Apple is still using 5 years old GPU.

None of which requires Apple to make high end workstations to sell.

BOTH of them requires high end workstations. I guess you never saw people using it for making movies? 3D, AI, and gaming already require high GPU performance powerful than Ultra chips.

Applr's Ai seems to be very specifically focused, and looking at an on device and possibly cloud combo that they control end to end. Gaming? Nah, not seriously; and not all 3D needs high end workstations.

You are totally ignoring for those people who need high-end desktop and workstation. Saying not all people need it already proves that you are ignoring the demand.

Fine is fine enough for markets they pursue.

That only justifies being falling behind. Why cant you tell me that?

In your opinion.

M3 Ultra is NOT even close to high-end consumer GPU or Nvidia RTX 5090 which is a fact. Additionally, Mac can NOT add more than two GPU and they dont even have server and super computer grade GPU. Mac Pro with M2 Ultra is a joke even to Mac users.

Now, who is telling false information?

Handheld gamig doesn't require anywhere near the power you seem to think Apple needs to be making.

When I said gaming, it's not only a handheld but also desktop or high-end. Tell that to those gaming requires high performance such as Resident Evil series, Cyberpunk 2077, and more.

I know. I do.

You dont after all based on what you are telling me.

Clealry Apple does not care much about that market.

Ignoring made them falling behind the competition. This is why Apple sucks with AI development that they cant even make their own AI properly.

Apple appears to understand where the profitable markets for it are and clearly high end computing like you are advocating is not one of them for Apple. If a pro user doesn't find Apple's offerings good enough they need to look elsewhere for porducts that meet their needs.

Just because Apple could make such a product doesn't mean they should; not all customers are profitable enough to be worth chasing.

Dont forget that Apple WAS focusing on those markets but now, since they cant even make Mac Pro grade chips, they are only shrinking their own markets. Mac is irreplaceable and yet, you are telling me to find other products? Killing products while they are capable is a problem.

All you are saying is just ignoring the demand after all.

 

[jlc1978]

I told you, Apple Silicon's limitation is too high that they cant even make more powerful chips for their own.


And you need hardware to RUN software.

Yes, and as I have said Apple can buy the hardware they need without making their own. Apple appears to be seeing if they can roll their own end to end solution, and depending on the performance needs Apple Silicon may or may not be able to pull it off. If it doesn't Apple can buy hardware that does.

You can already run an AI model that is good for selected tasks on a Mac; Apple may simply not need a general purpose AI to meet their goals for an AI implementation. The seem to be focused on a combination of on device with cloud support for more intensive tasks. That's a different approach than ClaudeAI, ChatGPT, et. al.; and much more privacy focused.

Both of them are important and yet, you are ignoring one. Again, you did NOT gave me an example and that only proves my point.

I gave you one but you seem to miss the whole point.

BOTH of them requires high end workstations. I guess you never saw people using it for making movies? 3D, AI, and gaming already require high GPU performance powerful than Ultra chips.

And there are companies that make them, there is no need for Apple to try to chase that market. Others find Apple's current offerings good enough to do what they need. It's all about where to put resources for the best return.

You are totally ignoring for those people who need high-end desktop and workstation. Saying not all people need it already proves that you are ignoring the demand.

No, I'm saying there are already companies making those products and it is not a market worth pursuing for Apple.

When I said gaming, it's not only a handheld but also desktop or high-end. Tell that to those gaming requires high performance such as Resident Evil series, Cyberpunk 2077, and more.

They are not Apple's target market.

They will buy a gaming rig, a market that is served by existing companies; Apple does not need to go there and there whole design approach is counter to what is prevalent in that mrket.

Mac is irreplaceable and yet, you are telling me to find other products? Killing products while they are capable is a problem.

This isn't about killing products but focusing in on select markets and not gettinging into niche markets with entrenched competitors. Just because a potential customer exists doesn't mean you need ot build a product for them; sometimes the money spent doing that is better done elsewhere.

All you are saying is just ignoring the demand after all.

Ignoring small niche markets and focus on the broader consumer bse that is the future for them.

You seem fixated on the idea that Apple needs to build and sell high end workstations; I think that is a non-starter for Apple and their ecosystem strategy. The reality is many people find the current Macs powerful enough to do real work, those who don't need to find a solution that meets their needs which isn't a Mac.

 

[dandeco]

The Intel to Apple Silicon transition was great for my former job at that electronics recycling and reselling company. Because then school districts and other educational institutions would send us their older Intel Macs to be refurbished and resold or to be recycled, depending on their operational condition.

One fairly local school district had a LOT of those 2nd-generation MacBook Airs they'd assign to teachers, and so when they upgraded to M1 MacBook Airs they sent us the 2nd-gen ones. And once we'd get the firmware passwords from them and/or the MDM enrollment removed, I'd test and refurbish them so we could re-sell them online cheap. Macs with the T2 chip were actually somewhat easier for us to remove firmware passwords and MDM enrollment from ourselves, via Apple Configurator 2 on a Thunderbolt 3-equipped Mac, but they'd often need to have the Mac OS wiped and installed twice, just to make sure it wasn't still enrolled in a school district, but it'd be worth the results. We had also gotten a few M1 MacBook Airs with broken screens, and those were somewhat easier to wipe and reset.
Too bad I haven't worked for them for nine months now after they began financially suffering, and from what I've seen and heard they haven't improved much. (Still on the lookout for another computer tech job, especially one requiring someone who's cross-platform like me, being proficient in the Mac OS, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS, iOS and Android!)

 

[tubular]

You seem fixated on the idea that Apple needs to build and sell high end workstations; I think that is a non-starter for Apple and their ecosystem strategy. The reality is many people find the current Macs powerful enough to do real work, those who don't need to find a solution that meets their needs which isn't a Mac.

And Apple's decision not to pursue the highest-high-performance part of the market is like a car company deciding they're making so much on their main consumer products they don't need to make F1 race cars too, even if F1 race drivers sneer at the consumer-level cars for not being F1.

 

[BNBMS]

Yes, and as I have said Apple can buy the hardware they need without making their own. Apple appears to be seeing if they can roll their own end to end solution, and depending on the performance needs Apple Silicon may or may not be able to pull it off. If it doesn't Apple can buy hardware that does.

You can already run an AI model that is good for selected tasks on a Mac; Apple may simply not need a general purpose AI to meet their goals for an AI implementation. The seem to be focused on a combination of on device with cloud support for more intensive tasks. That's a different approach than ClaudeAI, ChatGPT, et. al.; and much more privacy focused.

No they can NOT and it only defeats the purpose of making their own chips. If not, how come Apple ditched x86 for when they need to buy others?

I gave you one but you seem to miss the whole point.

And yet, you are telling me that AI dont need hardware while Apple is struggling with lack of hardware for developing AI and their own servers.

And there are companies that make them, there is no need for Apple to try to chase that market. Others find Apple's current offerings good enough to do what they need. It's all about where to put resources for the best return.

Apple made them too. Why do you keep ignoring the fact? If it's good enough, then you are not a professional user.

No, I'm saying there are already companies making those products and it is not a market worth pursuing for Apple.

Tell that to Mac users who need Mac Pro and both FCPX and Logic Pro already prove you false.

They are not Apple's target market.

They will buy a gaming rig, a market that is served by existing companies; Apple does not need to go there and there whole design approach is counter to what is prevalent in that mrket.

In your opinion, not Apple's. Good luck on disagreeing while Apple is literally focusing and investing on 3D, AI, and gaming.

This isn't about killing products but focusing in on select markets and not gettinging into niche markets with entrenched competitors. Just because a potential customer exists doesn't mean you need ot build a product for them; sometimes the money spent doing that is better done elsewhere

Killing and focusing are same terms. The reason why Apple cant focus on high performance desktop and workstation is because Apple Silicon sucks for that and Mac Pro 2023 proves that. If not, how come they cant make Extreme chips or something similar beyond Ultra chips even now? Are you gonna say it's enough and fine? It's a same thing that you are telling editors to use laptop which is enough and fine while high-end desktop or workstation can finish jobs faster.

You sound like Apple CFO who literally said a same thing by using more than 5 years old GPU for developing AI.

Ignoring small niche markets and focus on the broader consumer bse that is the future for them.

You seem fixated on the idea that Apple needs to build and sell high end workstations; I think that is a non-starter for Apple and their ecosystem strategy. The reality is many people find the current Macs powerful enough to do real work, those who don't need to find a solution that meets their needs which isn't a Mac.

Professional market has always been niche. By your logic, Apple shouldn't even make MacBook Pro and Mac Studio. Since when Apple made "powerful-enough" Mac for professionals especially for those of people using Mac Pro?

Literally, you are ignoring the professional markets which is also connected to server and super computer requires high performance chips.

 

[jlc1978]

No they can NOT and it only defeats the purpose of making their own chips. If not, how come Apple ditched x86 for when they need to buy others?

To control the ened to end process; something Apple has always sought to do.

And yet, you are telling me that AI dont need hardware while Apple is struggling with lack of hardware for developing AI and their own servers.

You keep saying that but that is not what I said. I said if Apple needs more powerful chips than what they are working on they can buy them if they want.

Apple made them too. Why do you keep ignoring the fact?

And stopped making them.

If it's good enough, then you are not a professional user.

If your definition of a professional user is one who needs a high end workstation beyond what Apple makes today there are a lot of people who would disagree with you.

Tell that to Mac users who need Mac Pro and both FCPX and Logic Pro already prove you false.

Those who do and are using it to produce things no doubt find them fit for purpose. If not, they use a different solution.

In your opinion, not Apple's. Good luck on disagreeing while Apple is literally focusing and investing on 3D, AI, and gaming.

None of which require them to sell high end workstations.

Professional market has always been niche. By your logic, Apple shouldn't even make MacBook Pro and Mac Studio. Since when Apple made "powerful-enough" Mac for professionals especially for those of people using Mac Pro?

For those that do useful work on them.

Literally, you are ignoring the professional markets which is also connected to server and super computer requires high performance chips.

A very niche part of the professional market which Apple is not end, probably because there simply is not enough of an ROI on making and selling such machines.

As I said before, just becasue a market exists for a product doesn't mean you need to make the product.

 

[BNBMS]

To control the ened to end process; something Apple has always sought to do.

And yet, you are telling me to buy hardwares from others which contradicts your claim.

You keep saying that but that is not what I said. I said if Apple needs more powerful chips than what they are working on they can buy them if they want.

And I said, they cant. It's Apple Silicon chip with pripertary hardware solution. This is why Apple doesn't and cant use Nvidia GPU cause they only want their own solutions. Other than Nvidia, it's just meaningless and that's why they are behind AI competition as they dont have hardware to develop their own.

And stopped making them.

Stopped? Tell that to Mac Pro 2023.

If your definition of a professional user is one who needs a high end workstation beyond what Apple makes today there are a lot of people who would disagree with you.

And yet, you told me that making high-end and workstation computer is meaningless cause Apple doesn't care and yet, they are focusing on many professional markets. Even Mac Studio with M3 Ultra is NOT enough for video and music markets due to limited hardware performance compared to Mac Pro.

Those who do and are using it to produce things no doubt find them fit for purpose. If not, they use a different solution.

Ditching while users keep demanding isn't really right. Why Apple force users to ditch or leave Mac while they can make them? Limiting isn't a great solution especially since they provided before.

None of which require them to sell high end workstations.

ALL of them require for high-end desktop and workstations especially since M3 ultra is not even close to consumer grade RTX 5080 GPU but RTX 5070TI. That's already laughable reality.

For those that do useful work on them.

So you admitted that we do need high-end desktop and workstation for niche market.

A very niche part of the professional market which Apple is not end, probably because there simply is not enough of an ROI on making and selling such machines.


As I said before, just becasue a market exists for a product doesn't mean you need to make the product.

Again, your logic already fail when Apple is already focusing on high GPU intensive markets despite your claim so why do you keep ignoring the fact after all? Apple made Mac Pro for niche markets for a while and now, Apple didnt care to support them which hurt their reputation and limitation. As a result, which related to hardware, Apple is seriously struggling with AI in terms of hardware and software. These issues are all connected each other which is obvious. Also, high-end desktop, workstation, and B2B are still in good business as Apple did before.

Since Apple is focusing only on consumer market, it will be a huge problem based on many cases by ignoring professional and niche markets such as Kodak, Palm, Blackberry, JVC, Yahoo, and more. If you really think Apple should focus only on what they are doing or consumer markets, those examples prove you wrong and professional and niche markets are clearly hard to ignore and now, Apple is paying for their stupid strategy.

Good luck on defending Apple's problem while they keep failing to realize their problems.

 

[tubular]

Good luck on defending Apple's problem while they keep failing to realize their problems.

You're not doing a very good job understanding jlc1978's argument.

Many, many, many people who make their living with Macs -- myself included -- simply don't need RTX-5070-level performance, and are glad that they don't have to pay for it in the form of higher equipment price and much-reduced battery life.

Many, many, many people who play games -- myself included -- don't need RTX-5070-level performance, and are glad they don't have to pay for the electricity it takes to drive one.

Even in places Apple is working, like 3D and VR and games, very few users need it or want to pay for what *you* want to assert is the bare minimum, although it plainly plainly ain't.

Your argument is that if you're a professional you NEED NEED NEEEEEEED X, Y, and Z. Because *some* professionals do. And Apple is dooming itself to inevitable bankruptcy by ... having done the math and seen that the far edges of performance have bad ROI compared against that part of the terrain delivering what most professionals actually *do* need.

It's, frankly, a ridiculous argument.

 

[BNBMS]

You're not doing a very good job understanding jlc1978's argument.

Many, many, many people who make their living with Macs -- myself included -- simply don't need RTX-5070-level performance, and are glad that they don't have to pay for it in the form of higher equipment price and much-reduced battery life.

Many, many, many people who play games -- myself included -- don't need RTX-5070-level performance, and are glad they don't have to pay for the electricity it takes to drive one.

Even in places Apple is working, like 3D and VR and games, very few users need it or want to pay for what *you* want to assert is the bare minimum, although it plainly plainly ain't.

Your argument is that if you're a professional you NEED NEED NEEEEEEED X, Y, and Z. Because *some* professionals do. And Apple is dooming itself to inevitable bankruptcy by ... having done the math and seen that the far edges of performance have bad ROI compared against that part of the terrain delivering what most professionals actually *do* need.

It's, frankly, a ridiculous argument.

Many may dont need RTX 5070 or higher, but SOME people or niche markets NEED more than RTX 5070's performance. Besides, tell that to all Mac Pro users who needed Mac Pro grade performance and hardware on Apple Silicon.

Niche markets are small but doesn't mean Apple can ignore them. Professional markets and any niche markets require high performance has always been niche from the beginning and yet, it's an important business and market. There are many companies doing business for professional and niche market even if it's not that profitable such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and more. I told you, there are several companies who ignored professional markets by focusing only on consumer markets failed and disappeared. Even Apple concerned about focusing solely on iPhone.

In 2015, Apple had internal surveys with Mac Pro 2013 about professional users and it was around 10% based on using professional software. At that time, Apple admitted their failure as the professional market is important for Mac users to keep the ecosystem while expanding the market for their needs.

If you think it's a ridiculous argument, then I truly believe that you dont know how the professional market works after all.



And... since Apple ignored that market by limiting their hardware, they are now struggling with AI development! What a coincidence. This is why making high-end desktop and workstation is important cause those technologies, know-how, and skills are directly related to making servers and super computers. Based on the article from here, Apple CFO told AI teams to just use 5 years old GPU instead of spending money on buying them. Since Apple is using their own chips, they do need their own servers and super computers with Apple Silicon and yet, M2,3 Ultra is the best that they can do.

Do you now see the problem?

 

[tubular]

Well, I can see you're no better at understanding my arguments than jlc1978's arguments.

Enjoy your day.

 

[BNBMS]

Well, I can see you're no better at understanding my arguments than jlc1978's arguments.

Enjoy your day.

I believe you are the one who does not understand the argument.

You literally said many people dont need beyond RTX 5070's performance but why do you keep ignore those some or few people who NEED more performance? If you gonna say it's a niche market, all professional markets has always been niche since the beginning which contradict your argument. Even Nvidia doesn't only sell consumer GPU but also high-end GPU such as RTX 5090. By your logic, Apple should ditch all professional markets which already deosn't make sense at all.

Since Apple is investing high GPU intensive software such as 3D, gaming, and AI, it only proves my point.

 

[jlc1978]

Ditching while users keep demanding isn't really right. Why Apple force users to ditch or leave Mac while they can make them? Limiting isn't a great solution especially since they provided before.

It’s blindingly simple: Apple can make a better return in markets other than high end servers and workstations, so they don’t make them. Those who need them buy something besides a Mac, the rest of us do real work with our Macs as well.
HAND

 

[BNBMS]

It’s blindingly simple: Apple can make a better return in markets other than high end servers and workstations, so they don’t make them. Those who need them buy something besides a Mac, the rest of us do real work with our Macs as well.
HAND

And that's why Apple is behind the competition with AI due to lack of hardware. How many times do I have to say that? Regardless, they'll need to invest and totally related to high-end desktop and workstation market.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

I believe you are the one who does not understand the argument.

You literally said many people dont need beyond RTX 5070's performance but why do you keep ignore those some or few people who NEED more performance? If you gonna say it's a niche market, all professional markets has always been niche since the beginning which contradict your argument. Even Nvidia doesn't only sell consumer GPU but also high-end GPU such as RTX 5090. By your logic, Apple should ditch all professional markets which already deosn't make sense at all.

Since Apple is investing high GPU intensive software such as 3D, gaming, and AI, it only proves my point.

Did I miss some law that states Apple MUST cater to the 0.1% of users who require MAXIMUM GPU performance? And what is your definition of a professional user? It sounds as though you wouldn’t consider me a professional user despite the fact I make my living using my MacBook Pro, because 2D AutoCAD drawings don’t need an RTX5090.

Either English isn’t your first language and something is being lost in translation, or your logic is a bit spotty, as you make some pretty large leaps there.

 

[BNBMS]

Did I miss some law that states Apple MUST cater to the 0.1% of users who require MAXIMUM GPU performance? And what is your definition of a professional user? It sounds as though you wouldn’t consider me a professional user despite the fact I make my living using my MacBook Pro, because 2D AutoCAD drawings don’t need an RTX5090.

Either English isn’t your first language and something is being lost in translation, or your logic is a bit spotty, as you make some pretty large leaps there.

Since when 2D AutoCAD drawing needs high GPU performance? You are ignoring for those professional users who need high performance after all as if gaming with RTX 5090 is totally meaningless. Blocking hardware's potential will only limit Apple Silicon Mac's performance and development of AI server for their own.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

Since when 2D AutoCAD drawing needs high GPU performance? You are ignoring for those professional users who need high performance after all as if gaming with RTX 5090 is totally meaningless. Blocking hardware's potential will only limit Apple Silicon Mac's performance and development of AI server for their own.

That makes no sense at all! You’re the one who claimed professional users need RTX5090 performance, thus 2D AutoCAD work must not be professional work!

What I want to know, and what you have failed to explain, is WHY does Apple NEED to cater to the 0.1% top end? I don’t buy AI as the excuse. Apple has a well thought out plan for LLMs that I actually think is great. This year’s WWDC announcements show a lot of promise, but it’s more nuanced than “chuck a chatbot on it” like everyone else.

Apple like vertical integration, and in-house solutions, but they will buy externally when they need to. Their in-house AI server hardware is for running inferences in Private Cloud Compute. Training foundational models is done on other hardware, leased from Google and Amazon, I believe.

So, apart from bragging rights, why?

 

[BNBMS]

That makes no sense at all! You’re the one who claimed professional users need RTX5090 performance, thus 2D AutoCAD work must not be professional work!

What I want to know, and what you have failed to explain, is WHY does Apple NEED to cater to the 0.1% top end? I don’t buy AI as the excuse. Apple has a well thought out plan for LLMs that I actually think is great. This year’s WWDC announcements show a lot of promise, but it’s more nuanced than “chuck a chatbot on it” like everyone else.

Apple like vertical integration, and in-house solutions, but they will buy externally when they need to. Their in-house AI server hardware is for running inferences in Private Cloud Compute. Training foundational models is done on other hardware, leased from Google and Amazon, I believe.

So, apart from bragging rights, why?

I clearly said for professional users who NEED high performance such as 3D, AI, and gaming. 2D is not even GPU intensive at all and I dont care about it.

Clearly, you failed to be logical after all.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

I clearly said for professional users who NEED high performance such as 3D, AI, and gaming. 2D is not even GPU intensive at all and I dont care about it.

Clearly, you failed to be logical after all.

Ok, so I missed one of your posts in this thread, sorry for that. It still doesn’t change my question. Why does Apple HAVE to cater to the top 0.1%?

 

[BNBMS]

Ok, so I missed one of your posts in this thread, sorry for that. It still doesn’t change my question. Why does Apple HAVE to cater to the top 0.1%?

Where is your proof that it's only 0.1%? This already doesn't make sense and even if so, tell that to other companies focusing on B2B and professional markets such as HP, Google, Microsoft, Dell, and more. If you really think it's all about profits, then you are wrong. It's more about creating ecosystem and development toward hardware and software capability for other fields. Dont forget that all professional markets has always been NICHE from the beginning so catering 0.1% still make sense despite less or no profits.

It's also important to have those markets for hardware to expand markets, hardware development, creating servers and super computers for their own(And they already did with M2 Ultra Mac Studio but limited), do business with companies, and more. Thinking only for profits dont work in professional markets and there are several companies who totally ignored pro markets but consumer markets totally failed. Again, Apple is now focusing on AI, 3D, and gaming which only proves that GPU performance is important more than ever before. For AI, I would say NPU is a lot important but currently, all AI models are running by GPU.

Right now, Apple's hardware performance of GPU is extremely limited as M3 Ultra is only RTX 5070TI's level and it only limits Mac's purposes unlike Intel Mac era. Disney and Pixel used Mac Pro for animations which is a great example.

But most importantly, why would anyone limit the hardware? It only limits or shrinks the market for Mac and it will hurt them badly especially since Mac Pro is also a B2B product. Having an ecosystem is important and Apple is losing a lot of markets for Mac Pro. This also relates to server and super computer for developing AI. Apple cant just make hardware to make their own instead of using 5 years old GPU with less than half budgets thank to Apple CFO. This is why Apple is falling behind with AI development and competition. Buying hardware or services from others? Apple will eventually need their own not just only for AI but also for products.

I am being logical and there are no reasons not to block and limit hardware performance and potential. Yet Some people still trying to justify "It's totally enough or fine" with poor GPU performance of Apple Silicon Mac which I will never understand. If you still dont understand the problem that Apple has, then I only have to say same thing over and over again.

 

[KPOM]

I am being logical and there are no reasons not to block and limit hardware performance and potential. Yet Some people still trying to justify "It's totally enough or fine" with poor GPU performance of Apple Silicon Mac which I will never understand. If you still dont understand the problem that Apple has, then I only have to say same thing over and over again.

Apple being behind on AI has nothing to do with the switch to Apple Silicon. They were caught off guard by the rapid rise of generative AI.

Mac Pro isn’t a priority for Apple. Staying on Intel was never in the cards. The switch to Apple Silicon started in 2008 under Steve Jobs when Apple acquired PA Semi. 5 years later they introduced the iPhone 5S with a “desktop class” 64-bit processor and the writing was on the wall that eventually the Mac would switch over.

 

[BNBMS]

Apple being behind on AI has nothing to do with the switch to Apple Silicon. They were caught off guard by the rapid rise of generative AI.

Oh it does. They ditched Nvidia GPU and therefore, they cant even use their GPU for their own server and super computer which heavily affected their AI development. Besides, they are still using more than 5 year sold GPU instead thanks to Apple CFO.

Mac Pro isn’t a priority for Apple. Staying on Intel was never in the cards. The switch to Apple Silicon started in 2008 under Steve Jobs when Apple acquired PA Semi. 5 years later they introduced the iPhone 5S with a “desktop class” 64-bit processor and the writing was on the wall that eventually the Mac would switch over.

Then make Mac Pro with Apple Silicon, Simple.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

Where is your proof that it's only 0.1%? This already doesn't make sense and even if so, tell that to other companies focusing on B2B and professional markets such as HP, Google, Microsoft, Dell, and more. If you really think it's all about profits, then you are wrong. It's more about creating ecosystem and development toward hardware and software capability for other fields. Dont forget that all professional markets has always been NICHE from the beginning so catering 0.1% still make sense despite less or no profits.

Nobody is saying that no one should cater to that market, it would indeed be a ridiculous assertion!

I know there are many people who would like to see Apple make a high end product, and it is a bit sad to see Apple neglect the Mac Pro, which I have always loved since my Sawtooth G4. I can see good reasons for Apple to stay in that market too, but one of the most profitable companies in the world is hardly going to go bankrupt if they don’t.

It's also important to have those markets for hardware to expand markets, hardware development, creating servers and super computers for their own(And they already did with M2 Ultra Mac Studio but limited), do business with companies, and more. Thinking only for profits dont work in professional markets and there are several companies who totally ignored pro markets but consumer markets totally failed. Again, Apple is now focusing on AI, 3D, and gaming which only proves that GPU performance is important more than ever before. For AI, I would say NPU is a lot important but currently, all AI models are running by GPU.

Right now, Apple's hardware performance of GPU is extremely limited as M3 Ultra is only RTX 5070TI's level and it only limits Mac's purposes unlike Intel Mac era. Disney and Pixel used Mac Pro for animations which is a great example.

But most importantly, why would anyone limit the hardware? It only limits or shrinks the market for Mac and it will hurt them badly especially since Mac Pro is also a B2B product. Having an ecosystem is important and Apple is losing a lot of markets for Mac Pro. This also relates to server and super computer for developing AI. Apple cant just make hardware to make their own instead of using 5 years old GPU with less than half budgets thank to Apple CFO. This is why Apple is falling behind with AI development and competition. Buying hardware or services from others? Apple will eventually need their own not just only for AI but also for

You’re taking one old fact and extrapolating it over the entire company. After that “old GPU” event when LLMs had caught Apple by surprise, they didn’t just continue to struggle to build a foundational model on an old, small array. They have been leasing large arrays of the latest tech to do it.

So what if Apple uses leased Google Tensor and Nvidia clusters run by other companies?

From what I can see, Apple is making their own servers for their cloud based LLM, based on arrays of a modified iPad design, interestingly, to run a secure Private Cloud Compute. Apple is doing some interesting work, and making some cool products (that we don’t always get to see), but all anyone can do is moan about AI.

 

[WeLikeVodka]

And this my friends is why "focusing on the wide audience" turns apple into yet another corporate soulless business. This and the flat design, thin and light nonsense apple helped promoting, like it's one thing to offer such options on the market and it's another thing to make it look like only they are the viable options and everything else is "in the past".

Tbh, reject this thin and light trend, doesn't matter how many buy it, bring back creativity. Realme and others are building smartphones with 7-8000 mAh, while western brands are deciding to make their smartphones and laptops less functional because thinness is more. Then sold out US media will defend these choices even though no one asked for them.

And now we see people defending apple, the same company that pushes apple arcade to make billions out of it, and their decision "not to cater to the top 0.1%", which mind you is probably at least 50x times more, because they make more money this way even though YOU, the consumer, don't reap the benefits. Speaking of which, Apple releasing another product for gamers is philosophically speaking good, because people will remember it for years to come if it's good, it's a nostalgia thing. Just like early tech from the 2000s.

End the thin and light nonsense.