Recent comments in /f/gadgets

podaypodayson t1_itkwq4l wrote

I can’t believe you’re actually this daft.

• People who buy insulin do so in order to not die

• People who buy Apple products do so because they feel like it

If you think Apple products are too expensive, simply don’t buy them, and their pricing structure has no effect on your life. It’s pretty cool how easy it is!

5

Nytonial t1_itkul08 wrote

The issue is apple sets examples and pushes stupid design choices into the industry.

I complain because if apple fans stopped just accepting single usb ports, no expandable storage on iPhones and removal of basic features to charge more to users it wouldn't be so prevalent across the rest of the industry. I'm equally critical of Samsung and many pc manufacturers for example.

If people are valuing brushed aluminium and a high pixel count over actual computing ability AT AN EXTRA PREMIUM PRICE, yeah I'm going to ridicule it

−6

Nytonial t1_itku879 wrote

"designed for specialised tasks" is that a fancy way of saying browsing Facebook? Since anything else would cook them down to 1ghz speeds.

While I agree m1 is a big change and actually incredible development, nothing about intel Mac's was workstation class without excessive gatekeeping mentality.

−9

PhysicsMan12 t1_itkttwb wrote

Maybe you should go watch some reviews benchmarking Apple silicon before you write this stuff. Apple silicon is absolutely incredible is many workloads. The performance per watt is out of this world (in many tasks) And the flat out performance (in many tasks) is just plain superb. Go watch some reviews/benchmarking videos.

4

yabaitanidehyousu t1_itktew4 wrote

Non-pro here.

I think they would have to be daft to force customers to move away from (end support for) their existing GPU dependencies (and investments), but then again, Apple is more focused on partner solutions, and they are in a position to support all major software vendors to switching their Metal implementations to any Apple Silicon based implementation.

Apple aims to make a workstation for high-brand software workflows and that is what they will do.

However, I think they have a long way to go to make a compelling ecosystem for high-end development. It’s already very restrictive with only one (edit: non-Apple) choice (AMD), and making that completely closed to Apple’s fledgling ecosystem is not attractive to me as a potential investment.

1

benanderson89 t1_itkqkww wrote

They've always been workstation grade hardware because they've been designed for specialised tasks with certifications from software vendors and optimised for a strict subset of tasks. The previous intel systems had dedicated hardware for video (EG the T2 chip in many models doubled as a transcode processor), ECC Graphics RAM and were highly optimised 2D Image and Audio processing. Current ARM systems are highly optimised for high memory throughput applications and multi-processing (and the genius NUMA implementation in the M1 Max Ultra is a legitimately innovative piece of technology; the interconnect between the two domains being as fast as local node memory is a stunning achievement).

The reason Apple sell so many systems to business is because they're a good buy for business and price and feature competitive with other *nix systems like the Dell Precision, Lenovo ThinkPad or HP Z. Not checked the pricing on the IBM Power systems recently but I imagine those are going to be astronomically priced by comparison.

6

benanderson89 t1_itkpoi0 wrote

No?

The MacBook Pro and MacPro are some of the more affordable workstation systems available. These aren't generic "gaming" PCs. A business after a high availability, certified, high stress and purpose designed computer aren't going to slam a 3080 in a Corsair case and call it a day; they're spending £50k on a MacPro for multimedia production or £100k on a Dell Precision for Engineering and simulation, because systems like this are designed to do very specific tasks reliably and consistently.

10