Apple’s M3 Rumored Performance Scores Beat 12-Core M2 Max In Single-Core Test, Up To 12% Faster Than M2 Pro In Multi-Core

[erek]

Seems like stagnation, 12% isn’t impressive

“The M3 comfortably beats the M2 Pro in both single-core and multi-core tests of Geekbench 6
Also, the same person shared some performance numbers of a prototype version of the A17 Bionic, with the chip claiming to be 43 percent faster than the A16 Bionic in Geekbench 6’s multi-core results. The rumor was quickly debunked, labeling it as a fake. Now, Yuryev sharing some impressive numbers of the M3 require us to treat them with some responsibility, at least until we see commercial units displaying the same results.

With that being said, treat all these latest single-core and multi-core rumors with a pinch of salt, and we will be back with more updates for our readers. TSMC’s 3nm process is supposedly focused more on power savings, but we would still love to see a generation-to-generation performance leap compared to the competition.”

Source: https://wccftech.com/apple-m3-scores-beat-m2-pro-and-m2-max/

 

[Lakados]

Seems like stagnation, 12% isn’t impressive

“The M3 comfortably beats the M2 Pro in both single-core and multi-core tests of Geekbench 6
Also, the same person shared some performance numbers of a prototype version of the A17 Bionic, with the chip claiming to be 43 percent faster than the A16 Bionic in Geekbench 6’s multi-core results. The rumor was quickly debunked, labeling it as a fake. Now, Yuryev sharing some impressive numbers of the M3 require us to treat them with some responsibility, at least until we see commercial units displaying the same results.

With that being said, treat all these latest single-core and multi-core rumors with a pinch of salt, and we will be back with more updates for our readers. TSMC’s 3nm process is supposedly focused more on power savings, but we would still love to see a generation-to-generation performance leap compared to the competition.”

Source: https://wccftech.com/apple-m3-scores-beat-m2-pro-and-m2-max/

That is about the gains from TSMC N4 to N3.

Stagnation is about right, AMD and Apple are both hitting walls with TSMC, both have had an advantage for the past few years because TSMC was so far ahead of Intel and Samsung, but TSMC’s growth has slowed and the Apple and AMD gains have slowed proportionally.

Specialization and the further advancement of specific accelerators are the path forward, be it AVX-512, AV1, Tensor, or what ever fancy name comes up next. The next “BIG” shrink comes around 2nm, so that will net everybody another 10-15% but we are well ahead into the area of diminishing returns and the actual architecture doesn’t have much room left to grow.

 

[LukeTbk]

Is there some M3 versus M2 Pro that could make it more impressive, like was the M2 non pro more ahead of the M1 pro than that ? ( I could be saying nonsense things)

That is about the gains from TSMC N4 to N3.

I feel the m2 pro was still on N5, maybe some fancier one a la Nvidia Lovelace but still "N5P"

 

[Lakados]

Is there some M3 versus M2 Pro that could make it more impressive, like was the M2 non pro more ahead of the M1 pro than that ? ( I could be saying nonsense things)


I feel the m2 pro was still on N5, maybe some fancier one a la Nvidia Lovelace but still "N5P"

There is roughly a 6% density/power/thermal advantage from moving to N4 from N5. N5P has some advantages in Back-End-of-Line (BEOL) over N5. The BEOL process is the second primary stage in chip production and deals with the actual interconnects internal to the silicon, N5P gives marginal improvements over N5, but when dealing with complicated floor plans will result in far higher yields, I recall one article that said there was a ~30% yield improvement for Nvidia moving from N5 to N5P, and while they may have managed to squeeze an additional 6% or so out of the N4 process the higher failure rate would not have justified the performance gains.
TSMC is also splitting the N3 process into the N3B and N3E processes, N3B will be close to the original N3 process with the full density and full layer count and N3E will be relaxed and share the same SRAM bit-cell size as the N5 process which cuts down the EUV exposures by half, so it is unlikely that anybody but Apple will be using N3 in its current form as the cost/benefit does not pan out, as the density improvements barely pass the wafer cost increases. The N3 node is listed as TSMCs weakest cost per transistor improvement in its 50+ year operation.

But yea it released on N5P was only rumours that it was going to be N4 and I get the rumours and the launch details mixed up from time to time. Too many to keep track of and the brain is addled with age.

 

[Aurelius]

Seems like stagnation, 12% isn’t impressive

“The M3 comfortably beats the M2 Pro in both single-core and multi-core tests of Geekbench 6
Also, the same person shared some performance numbers of a prototype version of the A17 Bionic, with the chip claiming to be 43 percent faster than the A16 Bionic in Geekbench 6’s multi-core results. The rumor was quickly debunked, labeling it as a fake. Now, Yuryev sharing some impressive numbers of the M3 require us to treat them with some responsibility, at least until we see commercial units displaying the same results.

With that being said, treat all these latest single-core and multi-core rumors with a pinch of salt, and we will be back with more updates for our readers. TSMC’s 3nm process is supposedly focused more on power savings, but we would still love to see a generation-to-generation performance leap compared to the competition.”

Source: https://wccftech.com/apple-m3-scores-beat-m2-pro-and-m2-max/

If the base M3 is faster than an M2 Pro in both single- and multi-threaded tests, that's actually very impressive — the M1 Pro still tended to edge out the plain M2 in some respects, particularly with multi-core tasks. It means someone's M3 MacBook Air could outrun a base 14-inch MacBook Pro (maybe higher-end models, too) in video editing or other heavy-duty tasks.

And like WCCF says, efficiency may be the biggest deal. If the M3 offers those performance gains and longer battery life, that makes a pretty compelling case. Apple already has a longevity advantage, particularly in terms of performance while on battery (x86 systems still tend to throttle heavily when unplugged). This could help cement that reputation.

 

[LukeTbk]

Or if they keep the ability to use the same wattage, efficiency is almost equal performance in laptops

 

[DukenukemX]

This Apple we talking about, so there's no such thing as leaks, just happy accidents.

 

[erek]

This Apple we talking about, so there's no such thing as leaks, just happy accidents.

Is this one? Also WWDC is coming up and people already suggesting a Mixed Reality Headset is going to be announced

https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...ne_was_left_at_bar_by_apple_software_engineer

 

[Aurelius]

Is this one? Also WWDC is coming up and people already suggesting a Mixed Reality Headset is going to be announced

https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...ne_was_left_at_bar_by_apple_software_engineer

View attachment 560425

Rumors of that headset have been circulating for years — they've been solidifying in recent months, though, and I think a WWDC launch is a real possibility (though I won't be surprised if it doesn't ship until the fall). I could also see Apple launching M3 versions of the MacBook Air and iMac at the event.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

This Apple we talking about, so there's no such thing as leaks, just happy accidents.

Traditionally under the Jobs era this would result in immediate termination. That tradition mostly continues today and everyone working on/with hardware has to have pretty heavy NDA’s signed.

Generally speaking though it’s not internal Apple that leaks. It’s usually suppliers that are leaking information such as iPhone dies (the things that show new phone dimensions for cases) and phone features (suppliers that offer things like display tech etc), WWDC (because of partners), or things of that nature.

Ming-Chi Kuo has been a legendary Apple leaker because he has all the industry contacts with suppliers. And Apple can’t really prevent all the suppliers from leaking otherwise they don’t have anyone to make their devices…

The VR headset thing seems to be unique in that a lot of the internal discussions appear to have leaked. Uncertain if that will also lead to terminations or if it’s possible to verify sources or not.

 

[DukenukemX]

Traditionally under the Jobs era this would result in immediate termination. That tradition mostly continues today and everyone working on/with hardware has to have pretty heavy NDA’s signed.

Generally speaking though it’s not internal Apple that leaks. It’s usually suppliers that are leaking information such as iPhone dies (the things that show new phone dimensions for cases) and phone features (suppliers that offer things like display tech etc), WWDC (because of partners), or things of that nature.

Ming-Chi Kuo has been a legendary Apple leaker because he has all the industry contacts with suppliers. And Apple can’t really prevent all the suppliers from leaking otherwise they don’t have anyone to make their devices…

There's a few problems with this. For one this suggests that Apple has working M3 silicon and is probably ready to release it, when they just released the M2 Pro. Anyone who just bought a M2 Pro based Mac is gonna be pissed. Secondly, it sounds like the M3 is coming out sooner than expected, which suggests that competition from AMD and Intel is pushing them. Finally, this also suggests that TSMC's 3nm production has been working for some time, which is actually impressive.

The VR headset thing seems to be unique in that a lot of the internal discussions appear to have leaked. Uncertain if that will also lead to terminations or if it’s possible to verify sources or not.

The VR headset is stupid because VR hasn't taken off yet in any market, so I don't see why Apple is doing it unless they want to seem like part of the cool kids. Unless Apple is a believer in the Meta Universe, this is mostly a gaming thing. VR Chat is still the main reason why anyone gets a VR headset, and that isn't on Mac.

 

[///AMG]

Honestly yea if the M3 beats a M2 max and comes out in anything less than 6 months im going to be pissed. I just got the new M2 14" macbook pro. The model is literally a month old.

 

[LukeTbk]

The VR headset is stupid because VR hasn't taken off yet in any market, so I don't see why Apple is doing it

Color keyboard less smarthphone were not that big of a deal or dvd less ultra thin laptop before Apple get into it. Waiting that something has taken off and competitor has a moot in it, is not necessarily brilliant and trying to be the first stupid.

There is a significant part of the population that has a little bit of a it is not ready if Apple has yet to do it, it is now ready when Apple do (that is not fully wrong), look how well the latest Sony VR kit seem to be for the price, it is probably close on the hardware size to be ready, with how much those chips can do with little wattage, you can have a full low weight, 100% wireless nice experience.

And to be quite better-able at augmented reality than the competition and be really easy to use out of the box to make a giant screen of your iPhone, interesting apple fitness app, stationary bike would be an easy one to make interesting, but I imagine others.

I'll be honest and have a hard time to imagine it working at least commercially (how, for who, the want to be and look cool Apple crowd does not seem easy to sell VR headset to), but I did not believe much in a long list of their product that became rapidly the norm, they could be the one that make VR happen in the relative mainstream, the only one I think have a shoot.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

There's a few problems with this.

None of your following post addresses anything that I stated, but that's fine, we can talk about your unrelated post.

For one this suggests that Apple has working M3 silicon and is probably ready to release it, when they just released the M2 Pro.

As usual, you haven't been paying attention at all to the Apple market or rumors.

"M2" in its current state wasn't supposed to ever exist. TSMC had problems with their process node and otherwise getting volume production in line. M2 was supposed to be 3nm, but was stuck on 5nm instead. M2 is basically just M1 with some more cache, better latency, better interconnects, and a clock speed bump. It's more or less the same thing with A16 vs A15. A16wasn't supposed to exist either.

Secondly, it sounds like the M3 is coming out sooner than expected, which suggests that competition from AMD and Intel is pushing them. Finally, this also suggests that TSMC's 3nm production has been working for some time, which is actually impressive.

M3 is going to be what "M2" was supposed to be in the first place. It has zero to do with AMD or Intel pushing them. It has to do with them getting back on their intended schedule. It actually allows them to have "more time" before M4 comes out then they would've had before.

The VR headset is stupid because VR hasn't taken off yet in any market, so I don't see why Apple is doing it unless they want to seem like part of the cool kids. Unless Apple is a believer in the Meta Universe, this is mostly a gaming thing. VR Chat is still the main reason why anyone gets a VR headset, and that isn't on Mac.

Apple's target this generation with VR isn't end users. It's developers. They're going to release an ultra high-end set that will cost roughly $3000. Apple also has stated that they are comfortable with taking the long view on VR. They know that any product they release now isn't going to be a big seller. In other words, they're not worried about the stuff you're worried about. They've already thought all that through.

We also don't know what "killer app" they're developing for VR (if any, again with the target initially at devs, the point could be getting devs to build a VR killer app). Part of the discussion is that we know internally they're releasing VR before some of the engineers want to. The engineers wanted to wait for better battery and size technologies to exist to shrink it all down. Cook didn't want to delay Apple's entrance into the VR market any longer. So, this first iteration will have size/weight tradeoffs that through iteration won't exist in the future. And also at some point they will release a user centric model. But it's unknown when that will happen.

Anyone who just bought a M2 Pro based Mac is gonna be pissed.

Honestly yea if the M3 beats a M2 max and comes out in anything less than 6 months im going to be pissed. I just got the new M2 14" macbook pro. The model is literally a month old.

That's the way the cookie crumbles. Though I don't think M3 is coming before September. Some rumors state June, but I find it unlikely.

In May 2019, Apple released a spec bumped 15.4" Macbook Pro, which finally had 8-cores and a 4GB graphics card. It also costed >$4000 to obtain. Then in November of 2019 (the same year 6 months later), they released their major update, the 16" Macbook Pro. For $2200, it's graphics card destroyed the 15.4" Macbook Pro handily. And had twice the vRAM for editing 4k.

How would I know this so well? I'm one of the guys that bought the last 15.4" Macbook Pro's at launch. If you don't like this behavior, don't buy tech. Last time I checked nVidia launched a 3090 Ti, and then 6 months later launched the 4090 that was nearly twice as fast for less money. That's how it goes. There is no future proof, or staying at the top of the stack for any "guaranteed" amount of time, ever.

The only way to "win" is to not play or make enough money that you can buy whatever you want and not care. Or you know, just accept it and not care. The final strat is to only buy used, and only buy one generation older than current tech. But the point is, no matter what you can't prevent this.

 

[DukenukemX]

Color keyboard less smarthphone were not that big of a deal or dvd less ultra thin laptop before Apple get into it.

Thanks Apple? To this day I'm still looking for a slide out keyboard phone that works on T-Mobile. It's 10x better than a touchscreen keyboard for many reasons. Also DVD less laptops are more of a product of the times than Apple. I would argue the DVD format died well over 10 years ago when people found out about DIVX.

I'll be honest and have a hard time to imagine it working at least commercially (how, for who, the want to be and look cool Apple crowd does not seem easy to sell VR headset to), but I did not believe much in a long list of their product that became rapidly the norm, they could be the one that make VR happen in the relative mainstream, the only one I think have a shoot.

VR isn't mainstream because of cost and available software, which Apple is good at neither. If someone made a good VR headset for $200 or less while more games were like Half Life Alyx then it would take off.

"M2" in its current state wasn't supposed to ever exist. TSMC had problems with their process node and otherwise getting volume production in line. M2 was supposed to be 3nm, but was stuck on 5nm instead. M2 is basically just M1 with some more cache, better latency, better interconnects, and a clock speed bump. It's more or less the same thing with A16 vs A15. A16wasn't supposed to exist either.

I've also said this in previous threads.

M3 is going to be what "M2" was supposed to be in the first place. It has zero to do with AMD or Intel pushing them. It has to do with them getting back on their intended schedule. It actually allows them to have "more time" before M4 comes out then they would've had before.

I'm sure Apple wanted to spend money to release the M2 product series which will have a purpose for about 6 months give or take before the M3 is released. It's competition from AMD and Intel who are making bold claims about their products future performance and power consumption. AMD also seems to delaying their mobile 7000 series CPU's as well, probably due to Apple and Intel.

Apple's target this generation with VR isn't end users. It's developers. They're going to release an ultra high-end set that will cost roughly $3000. Apple also has stated that they are comfortable with taking the long view on VR. They know that any product they release now isn't going to be a big seller. In other words, they're not worried about the stuff you're worried about. They've already thought all that through.

What developers? Who's going to make software for Apple?

How would I know this so well? I'm one of the guys that bought the last 15.4" Macbook Pro's at launch. If you don't like this behavior, don't buy tech. Last time I checked nVidia launched a 3090 Ti, and then 6 months later launched the 4090 that was nearly twice as fast for less money. That's how it goes. There is no future proof, or staying at the top of the stack for any "guaranteed" amount of time, ever.

Funny how Apple and Nvidia are both dicks.

The only way to "win" is to not play or make enough money that you can buy whatever you want and not care. Or you know, just accept it and not care. The final strat is to only buy used, and only buy one generation older than current tech. But the point is, no matter what you can't prevent this.

 

[cjcox]

After sending the A17 over to AMD labs for independent testing, they reported a speed increase of 647,812%.

 

[LukeTbk]

Thanks Apple? To this day I'm still looking for a slide out keyboard phone that works on T-Mobile. It's 10x better than a touchscreen keyboard for many reasons. Also DVD less laptops are more of a product of the times than Apple. I would argue the DVD format died well over 10 years ago when people found out about DIVX.

Apple Air was in 2008 and the comments were purely agnostic if it was any good and it felt strange not because of the idea of not being able to watch movies DVD or extract CD so much, but how would you say install an OS on it (we need to go back to an era than using an USB key was not how people did it and people that had grew up in an era where issue that reinstalling-changing your OS was not uncommon to be the answer)?

https://www.maciverse.com/reinstalling-os-x-on-macbook-air.html

I remember than an 4 hours install via Wifi using a network shared dvd driver of another computer felt like a big no not for me (I thought could it become kind of a brick install of a simple format reinstall), the first month it launched, it was bold at the time. People that bought it did it because they were confident with Apple in a way they would have not with Microsoft.

Same could go with the Apple crowd, I had 0 interest to go through the step to use an VR headset on my stationary bike to travel through a nice country road while biking inside that match my Apple Watch heartbeat and so on, confident that with Apple, I will pay a lot of money but save a lot of time and that it will simply work (right or wrong, that a prevalent idea) and once they make it mainstream in the pop-culture and show it work, cheaper similar alternative will pop up (or already existed) will become more popular, like Airpods type earphone, watch and so on.

 

[Lakados]

What developers? Who's going to make software for Apple?

I don’t know about software development but so do know that VR/AR for 3D artists is a big thing and much of the existing offerings are OK at best. The Oculus 2 being the most useful and accessible of the lot, VR and Blender is a pretty big deal, kinda like Apples high end studio display, same market.

 

[DukenukemX]

Apple Air was in 2008 and the comments were purely agnostic if it was any good and it felt strange not because of the idea of not being able to watch movies DVD or extract CD so much, but how would you say install an OS on it (we need to go back to an era than using an USB key was not how people did it and people that had grew up in an era where issue that reinstalling-changing your OS was not uncommon to be the answer)?

https://www.maciverse.com/reinstalling-os-x-on-macbook-air.html

I'm unclear of your question. You asking how people did things without a DVD drive or installed an OS? There are ways but Apple removing functions is just them cutting costs.

I remember than an 4 hours install via Wifi using a network shared dvd driver of another computer felt like a big no not for me (I thought could it become kind of a brick install of a simple format reinstall), the first month it launched, it was bold at the time. People that bought it did it because they were confident with Apple in a way they would have not with Microsoft.

USB DVD drive? USB flash drive?

Same could go with the Apple crowd, I had 0 interest to go through the step to use an VR headset on my stationary bike to travel through a nice country road while biking inside that match my Apple Watch heartbeat and so on, confident that with Apple, I will pay a lot of money but save a lot of time and that it will simply work (right or wrong, that a prevalent idea) and once they make it mainstream in the pop-culture and show it work, cheaper similar alternative will pop up (or already existed) will become more popular, like Airpods type earphone, watch and so on.

VR is a chicken or egg problem, that Apple could never solve. You aren't getting software for VR because not enough people own them. You aren't getting people to buy VR because headsets are expensive. On top of that the library of games for a VR headset is small and usually full of crap. Apple isn't going to have the same level of success as their iPhone where people with maxed out credit cards will still find a way to buy a $1k iPhone.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I've also said this in previous threads.

Okay? So you’re confused about it now?

I'm sure Apple wanted to spend money to release the M2 product series which will have a purpose for about 6 months give or take before the M3 is released. It's competition from AMD and Intel who are making bold claims about their products future performance and power consumption. AMD also seems to delaying their mobile 7000 series CPU's as well, probably due to Apple and Intel.

You give the rest of the field too much credit. Apple is on a yearly development cycle. They want a new product stack every year. That is in stark contrast to whatever Intel and AMD are doing.

That was one of the big reasons to move to ARM. No waiting for Intel to finally developed a product way too slow and late and that has a terrible power envelope.

This cycle is different mostly because of the silicon shortage and issues at TSMC.

Apple ignores what competitors are doing and moves at their own speed.

What developers? Who's going to make software for Apple?

This is such a absurd statement. What developers, who’s going to develop for Linux? I don’t know, whoever wants to? People seemed to figure out cellphones and desktop computers just fine. This statement only makes sense if you hate Apple like you do and you want to hand wave the market.

Funny how Apple and Nvidia are both dicks.

View attachment 560873

Sure. Well that and literally the entire tech industry. That’s just who comes off the top. But you don’t really have anything educated to say here. There is nothing you could actually say to refute the statement. Just a meme.

VR is a chicken or egg problem, that Apple could never solve. You aren't getting software for VR because not enough people own them. You aren't getting people to buy VR because headsets are expensive.

You solve it by building it. That’s like saying Apple could never solve an App Store on a cell phone back in 2007. Again, Apple is taking the long view. All iteration means is that technology improves, becomes smaller, and less expensive. With your mentality it must blow your mind to see cellphones that can do more than landlines.

On top of that the library of games for a VR headset is small and usually full of crap.

VR tech is really early. Your complaining about bad software is like complaining the only game that you can run on your 2004 cellphone is snake while your PC is playing UT2k4.

Apple isn't going to have the same level of success as their iPhone where people with maxed out credit cards will still find a way to buy a $1k iPhone.

Unlike most companies they can take the financial hit and take first mover advantages. It’s still very early days. But who cares anyway right? You should hope they don’t know what they’re doing and just lose a bunch of money based on your position.

What actually annoys you is that they might be right. You and I have zero effect on the outcome of this. So, wait and see if it’s a success in 2033 or not. It’s not like you’d buy an Apple product either way.

To the point though, by its nature VR will always be a niche market, until it isn’t. VR/AR could replace all traditional displays. It could replace cellphones. It could even replace traditional laptops and desktops. All that would be necessary for that to occur is a fast enough system that can fit into small light weight glasses with excellent battery life. Obviously we’re a long way from that future and multiple technologies would have to be made for that to exist. You get there by starting now.

If you can’t imagine that world you can’t make it. The same as the unimaginative people that saw “computers” as always being the size of rooms and thinking the “personal computer market” would never exist.

 

[DukenukemX]

That was one of the big reasons to move to ARM. No waiting for Intel to finally developed a product way too slow and late and that has a terrible power envelope.

Technically it took Apple nearly 3 years to release their 3nm M3. In that span of time a lot has happened to AMD and Intel. They did release the M2, but it's looking like they just farted it out to buy time for the M3.

Apple ignores what competitors are doing and moves at their own speed.

Nobody does that. Any company that does will ultimately fail. Apple caused both AMD and Intel to rethink their products, especially Intel who went big small core design like ARM and is now including video codec encoding and decoding acceleration like Apple, and is definitely thinking about power efficiency with their Meteor Lake. Even AMD who has had good GPU technology and doesn't usually put it in their CPU's, is now putting some beefy graphics in their CPU's to compete with Apple. Apple knows what AMD and Intel are doing because it's very likely both companies go to Apple to show what upcoming products they have to sell to Apple. Don't think Apple doesn't strategize around AMD and Intel because they absolutely do.

This is such a absurd statement. What developers, who’s going to develop for Linux?

You aren't hurting my feelings by stating that. Also you're right as in nobody would develop for Linux. Except for Valve who is all in for Linux, but nobody else would.

I don’t know, whoever wants to? People seemed to figure out cellphones and desktop computers just fine. This statement only makes sense if you hate Apple like you do and you want to hand wave the market.

Apple's GPU tech isn't as good as AMD's or Nvidia's by a large mile plus Apple only uses the Metal API and not Vulkan. Currently Apple is divided by ARM and Intel based Macs, making it harder for developers because they obviously want as many people as possible to use their software. Considering pricing of VR headsets is still an issue, I really doubt Apple will have a cheaper product compared to Index or Quest headsets.

You solve it by building it. That’s like saying Apple could never solve an App Store on a cell phone back in 2007. Again, Apple is taking the long view. All iteration means is that technology improves, becomes smaller, and less expensive. With your mentality it must blow your mind to see cellphones that can do more than landlines.

Smart phones existed before Apple. I would argue the iPhone did more harm than good for the industry, but that's for another time.

What actually annoys you is that they might be right. You and I have zero effect on the outcome of this. So, wait and see if it’s a success in 2033 or not. It’s not like you’d buy an Apple product either way.

I'm bothered that nobody has figured out why VR hasn't taken off yet, and Apple clearly hasn't either.

If you can’t imagine that world you can’t make it. The same as the unimaginative people that saw “computers” as always being the size of rooms and thinking the “personal computer market” would never exist.

You drank way too much of that Apple koolaid. Apple is around 10%-15% of the computer market share, which isn't enough to do jack for VR. In fact it'll just hurt it since Apple doesn't use any industry standards. Anyone getting into VR will probably buy the Oculus Rift S because it's the best price to features, which is still around $500, and that doesn't including the very powerful computer you need.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Technically it took Apple nearly 3 years to release their 3nm M3. In that span of time a lot has happened to AMD and Intel. They did release the M2, but it's looking like they just farted it out to buy time for the M3.

Yes. Though technically M3 isn't out yet and Apple has made zero announcements about it.

Nobody does that. Any company that does will ultimately fail. Apple caused both AMD and Intel to rethink their products, especially Intel who went big small core design like ARM and is now including video codec encoding and decoding acceleration like Apple, and is definitely thinking about power efficiency with their Meteor Lake.

I was stating it in a figurative literal way. Apple of course pays attention to market trends. If they weren't they wouldn't have been looking at VR development for as long as they have.
But it's definitely true that they haven't reacted at all to what their competitors are doing because they offer a fundamentally different experience. To use analogy about specifically the processor space: Apple shares much more in common with Nintendo in terms of the way it does business than with Sony/Microsoft. Sony/Microsoft are fighting over a specific market. Nintendo doesn't even play the game that they're playing.

You can't even begin to discuss things like "ecosystem" if you're stuck in a "raw power" or "processor improvement" discussion. In fact if you look at the entirety of Apples computers while on Intel, they never had a class leading GPU in a laptop ever. Certainly Apple cares about those things, hence why they're a market leader in basically the entire mobile space in terms of wattage to performance whether discussing handhelds or laptops, but they aren't moved by "some rumors" about what AMD 7000 series is doing. If they care so much “now” then why didn’t they put workstation GPU’s in their laptops in the Intel days?

Even if they did care what AMD is doing, it's not like there could be any change to their pipeline. They use fundamentally different architectures. What exactly could they copy? And also, Apple engineering is working at minimum 2 years ahead in the processor space. How exactly could they make a reactionary change inside of 1 year? The answer is they can't. No processor architecture company can. The engineering development pipeline is much too long.

Even AMD who has had good GPU technology and doesn't usually put it in their CPU's, is now putting some beefy graphics in their CPU's to compete with Apple. Apple knows what AMD and Intel are doing because it's very likely both companies go to Apple to show what upcoming products they have to sell to Apple. Don't think Apple doesn't strategize around AMD and Intel because they absolutely do.

Again, I'd say you're crediting Apple too much for AMD's moves. AMD has a vested interest in creating faster APU's, because it lowers the wattage mobile needs and it helps them to take market share from nVidia and Intel. It also helps them make smaller/thinner laptops which are also desirable. I'd say that has very little to do with Apple.

You aren't hurting my feelings by stating that. Also you're right as in nobody would develop for Linux. Except for Valve who is all in for Linux, but nobody else would.

The goal isn't to 'hurt your feelings' it's to make the point that your view on this is incredibly narrow. I don't get annoyed with you because you dislike Apple, that's fine. It's more that you intentionally wear blinders and make factually absurd statements.

There are far more devs working on iOS than Android, especially ones making money. All the major manufacturers are building for metal at this point. AutoCAD and Maya have recently joined the ARM native software club. If you make professional software and you want to make money, making it for Apple makes a lot of sense because Apple makes money.

Apple's GPU tech isn't as good as AMD's or Nvidia's by a large mile plus Apple only uses the Metal API and not Vulkan. Currently Apple is divided by ARM and Intel based Macs, making it harder for developers because they obviously want as many people as possible to use their software. Considering pricing of VR headsets is still an issue, I really doubt Apple will have a cheaper product compared to Index or Quest headsets.

They probably won't. But who cares? Their goal isn't to be mass market. Their goal is to make money. Ferrari doesn't want to be Yugo. Taking a marketing class would help you a lot. Marketing despite peoples incorrect ideas is not advertising. Marketing is the creation of a product or product stack that is designed for a particular market. With marketing you can target mass market, luxury, high volume, low volume, value for money, all of that stuff. We would probably have much faster conversations in general if you'd get it in your head that Apple doesn't care if they sell the most and their goal isn't to be cheapest. They care that they make the most money and they target consumers that are willing to pay their premium.

Smart phones existed before Apple. I would argue the iPhone did more harm than good for the industry, but that's for another time.

Sure, but they obviously came in early days and did it best. For some personal history on me: when the original iPhone and then 3g/3gs came out, I personally was using a Blackberry 8830. It wasn't until the iPhone 4 where I said: 'okay, now this is clearly a better device'. I wasn't sold on iPhone on its inception either. In 2023, that's an entirely different story. I could say that's a very similar position to you and Apple VR.

I'm bothered that nobody has figured out why VR hasn't taken off yet, and Apple clearly hasn't either.

You're making a big assumption here. Even still that's like saying people haven't figured out electric cars either because they don't have a 550 mile range and can't be charged in 5 minutes.
Tech takes time. It took >20 years before the computer became "the personal computer". Your view is so narrow that you can't conceive of the idea that first you build infrastructure with first movers and devs, and then 10 years from now VR is a thing. But in order to make VR a thing 10 years from now investment must happen today.

You drank way too much of that Apple koolaid. Apple is around 10%-15% of the computer market share, which isn't enough to do jack for VR. In fact it'll just hurt it since Apple doesn't use any industry standards. Anyone getting into VR will probably buy the Oculus Rift S because it's the best price to features, which is still around $500, and that doesn't including the very powerful computer you need.

Apple's VR headset won't require a computer. They are one of the few companies that can build a device that is completely self contained and actually have it be fast. They make the fastest ARM processors with excellent battery life, they have worked tirelessly at battery tech, they utilize and understand display technology better than virtually everyone else, and they have the ability to make a software stack unlike anyone else. They also spend a huge amount of time working through things such as ergonomics and general refinement that few other companies do.

This is in stark contrast to a company like HTC with Vive or even Occulus. Apple already has a very highly developed hardware and software stack that deals with all technologies immediately adjacent to VR/AR (including the most sold wearable). No other company is as close to being able to do this. Even Samsung as an example has next to no experience building an operating system or professional apps. Every PC vendor also doesn't make software. Apple is completely unique in this regard. Google which makes software doesn't really make handsets, they use off the shelf parts to build cellphones and PCs. They don't have depth in their hardware development side like Apple does.

Regarding their PC shipment sales, they are number 4 in the world. Behind Dell, HP, and Acer. While PC's in total are greater than Apple, in terms of any given brand and control of the market? By sales volume they are just as big as anyone. And when you look at what is actually making profit, that's Apple. When discussing mobile market share, they have actually beaten Android (meaning all manufacturers combined) in the US, with greater than 50% of smartphone marketshare. Still at roughly 20% globally, but again, who is making money? It's Apple. In fact cellphones that cost >$400, Apple controls more than 60% of that market share globally and the >$1000 "ultra-premium" market they have 78% globally. Again, meaning though "Android Rules" what is actually getting purchased is very cheaply made phones mostly for third world economies. This shows the most relevant part of the market, the market that spends potentially $1500+ on a VR headset would be more likely to be an "Apple buyer" and not an "Android buyer".

You're stuck again thinking Apple has to be Volkswagen when they are actually not trying to sell to everyone. Nor do they need to. You're also stuck thinking that VR is connected to PC, when the future of VR is that it's not. I in fact expressly stated the opposite: a "headset" that looks like a pair of glasses, could replace smartphones, laptops, and displays when the technology exists to do so. The headset itself is the thing. In otherwords VR is a market that exists outside of these current markets. The vision for VR is that it will be disruptive. We specifically won't be operating from the same paradigms as "laptops" and "cellphones" when the tech becomes mature enough. Is Apple anywhere close to that today? No. But again, you have a very short view of this and Apple has a long one. Check back in in 10 years. VR may not be mature in 10 years, but we’ll know by then whether or not “it’s a thing” and also whether or not Apple was successful.

 

[DukenukemX]

Yes. Though technically M3 isn't out yet and Apple has made zero announcements about it.

We know it's coming out this year, which is enough.

But it's definitely true that they haven't reacted at all to what their competitors are doing because they offer a fundamentally different experience.

I'm sure they just came up with the idea of VR alone, and not the many years and dozens of VR headsets. Even the iPod got it's start due to the MP3 player. You know like the iPhone and how SymbianOS and Windows Mobile clearly had no influence to it.

To use analogy about specifically the processor space: Apple shares much more in common with Nintendo in terms of the way it does business than with Sony/Microsoft. Sony/Microsoft are fighting over a specific market. Nintendo doesn't even play the game that they're playing.

Nintendo doesn't want to fight the big dogs that are Sony and Microsoft, while Apple is the big dog. Not similar what so ever.

Certainly Apple cares about those things, hence why they're a market leader in basically the entire mobile space in terms of wattage to performance whether discussing handhelds or laptops, but they aren't moved by "some rumors" about what AMD 7000 series is doing. If they care so much “now” then why didn’t they put workstation GPU’s in their laptops in the Intel days?

Same reason why Intel never made a good GPU until now. They had no foresight.

Even if they did care what AMD is doing, it's not like there could be any change to their pipeline. They use fundamentally different architectures. What exactly could they copy? And also, Apple engineering is working at minimum 2 years ahead in the processor space. How exactly could they make a reactionary change inside of 1 year? The answer is they can't. No processor architecture company can. The engineering development pipeline is much too long.

It's rumored that AMD lowered their GPU clock speed, which is more likely a method to increase battery performance of their up and coming mobile chips. Apple could easily add more cores, considering the rumor of the M3 is beating the M2 Pro in multithreaded performance, which is what sounds like Apple did with the M3 by matching the CPU cores with the M2 Pro.

Again, I'd say you're crediting Apple too much for AMD's moves. AMD has a vested interest in creating faster APU's, because it lowers the wattage mobile needs and it helps them to take market share from nVidia and Intel. It also helps them make smaller/thinner laptops which are also desirable. I'd say that has very little to do with Apple.

Considering that Lisa Su called out Apple on stage, I'd say that Apple had a direct influence. AMD has been shit about putting their latest GPU tech into APU's for some time, and now they did a 180.

The goal isn't to 'hurt your feelings' it's to make the point that your view on this is incredibly narrow. I don't get annoyed with you because you dislike Apple, that's fine. It's more that you intentionally wear blinders and make factually absurd statements.

If I'm agreeing with you then my point isn't as narrow as you think.

There are far more devs working on iOS than Android, especially ones making money.

Any app you can find on iOS you can find on Android, so I really doubt your statement.

All the major manufacturers are building for metal at this point. AutoCAD and Maya have recently joined the ARM native software club. If you make professional software and you want to make money, making it for Apple makes a lot of sense because Apple makes money.

Yes but Apple is assholes for doing this. There is no need for Metal to exist, much like Apple's lightening port. Also, "According to Apple, more than 148,000 applications use Metal directly, and 1.7 million use it through high-level frameworks, as of June 2017." Guess what 1.7 million is through? That's right, MoltenVK.

Sure, but they obviously came in early days and did it best. For some personal history on me: when the original iPhone and then 3g/3gs came out, I personally was using a Blackberry 8830. It wasn't until the iPhone 4 where I said: 'okay, now this is clearly a better device'. I wasn't sold on iPhone on its inception either. In 2023, that's an entirely different story. I could say that's a very similar position to you and Apple VR.

Apple made smartphones mainstream, but in that process they made it worse by standardizing no physical keyboards, no headphone jacks, and no SD card slots. They also standardized a locked in app store with no side loading. That's not 100% the case for all Android phones, but doesn't stop Android phone manufacturers from trying.

You're making a big assumption here. Even still that's like saying people haven't figured out electric cars either because they don't have a 550 mile range and can't be charged in 5 minutes.

The point about electric cards is true as in manufacturers do need more range and quicker charging.

Tech takes time. It took >20 years before the computer became "the personal computer". Your view is so narrow that you can't conceive of the idea that first you build infrastructure with first movers and devs, and then 10 years from now VR is a thing. But in order to make VR a thing 10 years from now investment must happen today.

If Apple were to invest into VR, they'd need to do a lot more than just make a VR headset. Bring the Vulkan API to Mac OSX for starters. Start using GPU's made by AMD and Nvidia instead of their own GPU tech. Allow other companies to make machines with Mac OSX. There's a reason why the PC is always at the forefront of innovation, and that's because it's a very open environment. You aren't going to get the kind of software that PC has with such a little amount of users. Especially when making software for Apple is a huge deviation from making software for Windows.

You're stuck again thinking Apple has to be Volkswagen when they are actually not trying to sell to everyone. Nor do they need to.

You kinda have to as a software company. Apple isn't a software company who's making applications for VR but Apple wants developers and users locked to their platform because they think they have enough market share to do so, when they don't. There's a reason why both Microsoft and Sony put their games on PC, because the sheer amount of users that can buy their products is just too good to ignore. You won't make software for a very limited amount of possible buyers.

Check back in in 10 years. VR may not be mature in 10 years, but we’ll know by then whether or not “it’s a thing” and also whether or not Apple was successful.

VR is mature, it just isn't cost effective. In 10 years Apple will be back to using x86.

 

[Lakados]

Any app you can find on iOS you can find on Android, so I really doubt your statement.

Apple with only 20% of the global mobile market accounts for more than 80% of all mobile spending. Apple mobile users outspend Android users by orders of magnitude.
You release an app on Android to get your revenue from tracking their usage, you put it on Apple and lose that tracking but get it back with the fact they spend money.

Considering that Lisa Su called out Apple on stage, I'd say that Apple had a direct influence. AMD has been shit about putting their latest GPU tech into APU's for some time, and now they did a 180.

This has been less of an issue from AMD not wanting to do it, but more of an issue with TSMC's processes making it not financially viable for the most part. Vega was the last of the GPU designs that used the same manufacturing node process as the CPUs, RDNA onwards changed how they do their back-end layer processing and while they can be mixed and matched it adds cost and increases failure rates dramatically. Based on the Microsoft and Sony chips we know that at launch the failure rates were as high as 50% and recent reports put that down to 30%. RDNA 3 mostly solves this issue by being chiplet based as they can process the silicon separately, the exception to this of course is the 7040 series, which is monolithic, was placed on TSMC N4 for this reason so they could use the same manufacturing process for the entirety of the chip.

VR is mature, it just isn't cost effective. In 10 years Apple will be back to using x86.

I am suspecting that Apple's kit for this will be geared toward artists and designers, the existing kits for those fields are stupidly expensive and moderately uncomfortable, if they do launch their own one to go up against the Oculus series I wouldn't be opposed, between Meta or Apple, Apple is the clearly less invasive entity, and Apple silicon could give a solid run on anything that Meta is using for their stand-alone sets.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I'm sure they just came up with the idea of VR alone, and not the many years and dozens of VR headsets. Even the iPod got it's start due to the MP3 player. You know like the iPhone and how SymbianOS and Windows Mobile clearly had no influence to it.

Some ways yes, a lot of ways no. It's the difference between creating something good vs creating something great. You're obsessed with first. Apple is obsessed with best. With the sales numbers, (which I laid out in the last post), people in general obviously agree with "best" over "first". Considering those two other mobile OS' now have near zero market-share.

Nintendo doesn't want to fight the big dogs that are Sony and Microsoft, while Apple is the big dog. Not similar what so ever.

Very similar. Considering that Nintendo even in recent days has had the highest selling console(s). Microsoft as an example has never been above #2 in any market ever (and they've only ever been #2 in America, pretty much in all other markets Microsoft has always been #3). Sony and Nintendo have continuously ate their lunch in the console space.

You're thinking far too wide. I'm just trying to make an analogy to help describe the situation. But here are some basics: no analogy is perfect. If you want to spend time picking at analogies and then talk about "Windows" and PC gaming, while I'm trying to use the analogy specifically referring to consoles then yeah, you're going to miss the point two out of two times. Nintendo is the big dog in the console space. And they're there because they strategically are doing something different than Microsoft or Sony.

Same reason why Intel never made a good GPU until now. They had no foresight.

This is the most absurd assessment you could've made after the fact. You can't go on and on about how Apple is copying PC vendors and then say they have no foresight. Which is it? Do they do what they want to do; which is to make a machine that is balanced with form factor, battery life, and power or are they copying PC vendors? Because PC vendors all throughout Apple's time on Intel put in workstation class cards, or at least top end gaming graphics cards into laptops. And Apple didn't do it even one time. 10 years of no workstation class or top end gaming cards does not require "foresight".

In context of our conversation and hardware development pipeline: Apple doesn't care about AMD's 7000 series mobile CPU bump. They have their own stuff going on.

It's rumored that AMD lowered their GPU clock speed, which is more likely a method to increase battery performance of their up and coming mobile chips. Apple could easily add more cores, considering the rumor of the M3 is beating the M2 Pro in multithreaded performance, which is what sounds like Apple did with the M3 by matching the CPU cores with the M2 Pro.

At the very least it's obvious the gains from 5nm to 3nm is make a significant bump to speed. Hence the single-core increase.

However, this all still rumorsville at this point. It's kind of pointless to comment on leaks like these when they're completely unverifiable and have been false in the past.

Considering that Lisa Su called out Apple on stage, I'd say that Apple had a direct influence. AMD has been shit about putting their latest GPU tech into APU's for some time, and now they did a 180.

I disagree. It's far more likely that it simply took AMD this long to make a mature product that they could package efficiently. As much as I love AMD and Lisa Su: they probably didn't before now because they couldn't before now.

If I'm agreeing with you then my point isn't as narrow as you think.

Agree to disagree.

Any app you can find on iOS you can find on Android, so I really doubt your statement.

Not remotely true. Just spend time comparing "gaming apps" which you like to talk about endless on PC. Also spend more time looking at paid for apps.
If you want to actually make money as an app dev of any sort, iPhone users spend more: https://www.androidauthority.com/ne...n-in-app-purchases-than-android-users-700983/
And that is also ignoring rampant piracy on Android vs iOS. https://techrrival.com/gaming-android-vs-iphone/

Android is also easier for software pirates since users can easily sideload pirated versions of a game to their devices. One developer complained that after spending a year and a half creating a game, and only charging $0.99 for it, he sold just 200 copies on Android the first day, while 35,000 pirated copies were downloaded the same day.​

There is actually a very large disparity not only in the number of "actual" apps (Apple culls the App Store to get rid of garbage, so just measuring "total number" is less relevant) but also in quality.

Another issue for consumers is the different approach to the marketplace. Apple charges an entry fee for developers to get their products into the app store. Google does not. This means that the Google Play store is full of low-quality offerings, some of which are little more than adware.​

If you watch YouTuber's like MKBHD, he notes that even mainline apps like Instagram work better iPhone because Meta can optimize the camera on iPhone devices much more than the plethora of possible Android cameras, processors, and software stacks that are possible on the Android side. It's also significantly easier to program for iOS in general for the same reason, the target hardware is significantly more uniform. The guy always carries two phones, an Android phone and the latest iPhone. He is an Android apologist through and through and has stated multiple times that he prefers Google, but then also states that he always uses Instagram and most social apps that require a camera on iPhone because the experience is always better.

I say all that to say that even if you can find an analogous app on the Android side (which you may not be necessarily able to do) then often times they perform worse in one way or multiple ways.

Yes but Apple is assholes for doing this. There is no need for Metal to exist, much like Apple's lightening port. Also, "According to Apple, more than 148,000 applications use Metal directly, and 1.7 million use it through high-level frameworks, as of June 2017." Guess what 1.7 million is through? That's right, MoltenVK.

In order for Apple to have full control over their own destiny they need control over the software stack as much as the hardware side. If you want to know why it takes forever on the PC side to have someone create something in hardware and then never see it get utilized in software it's directly for this reason.

Apple can implement an accelerator in hardware, add it to their SDK, and then literally every piece of software that is relevant to run that piece of hardware will work with a minimum of effort. Third parties like Blackmagic Design were able to make brand new hardware like the Apple Afterburner card inside of a week with a single point release. This has repeated with the move to Apple silicon and specialized accelerators such as hardware encode and decode. In the example I gave of Maya and AutoCad becoming ARM native on Apple Silicon, that resulted in a 2.5x speed increase. This is all thanks to Apple's SDK's and native hardware accelerators. The difference in specialized hardware is so great, that a $10,000 Intel Mac Pro can be defeated in most tasks by an M2 Pro Mac Mini that costs less than $2000 in all video editing tasks.

It's impossible to do this on the PC side because everything is a fractured mess. If the biggest trade-off you can come up with is "MoltenVK" exists and makes people's lives easier porting to macOS, I'll take that trade-off over the PC way of doing things 100 out of 100 times. Seems to me like it's working out just fine.

Apple made smartphones mainstream, but in that process they made it worse by standardizing no physical keyboards, no headphone jacks, and no SD card slots. They also standardized a locked in app store with no side loading. That's not 100% the case for all Android phones, but doesn't stop Android phone manufacturers from trying.

They did no such thing. Considering that when they started that had zero percent of the market. You know who decided that? People who bought their phones. If people wanted all of the things you list as the most important then they would've continued to buy Blackberries and ignored iPhone. The market decided what was the most important features. Nothing is stopping you from being a hardware dev though.

If you're this passionate about phone design and you actually believe people want/care about those features you could be the only one in the market with all of them and make a killing. All it would require is the courage of your convictions. I would bet all the money I have though that even if you had billionaire investors to back you and used Android (so not some unknown OS stack) that you'd still fail. The market has spoken and they don't want any of those things or perhaps said more accurately don't care about those things vs the benefits they have with not having those things (ie: trade-offs). And that's probably what bothers you the most.

The point about electric cards is true as in manufacturers do need more range and quicker charging.

Sure. And VR is like electric cars 15 years ago. So it has a long way to even reaching where electric cars are today.

If Apple were to invest into VR, they'd need to do a lot more than just make a VR headset. Bring the Vulkan API to Mac OSX for starters. Start using GPU's made by AMD and Nvidia instead of their own GPU tech. Allow other companies to make machines with Mac OSX. There's a reason why the PC is always at the forefront of innovation, and that's because it's a very open environment. You aren't going to get the kind of software that PC has with such a little amount of users. Especially when making software for Apple is a huge deviation from making software for Windows.

This is an absurd statement. They're going to do none of these and be fine.

You kinda have to as a software company. Apple isn't a software company who's making applications for VR but Apple wants developers and users locked to their platform because they think they have enough market share to do so, when they don't. There's a reason why both Microsoft and Sony put their games on PC, because the sheer amount of users that can buy their products is just too good to ignore. You won't make software for a very limited amount of possible buyers.

Okay, then they'll fail? Why waste air about it? Seems to me after eating every PC's lunch in terms of market-share and profit they're doing just fine. Considering users actually spend money on Apple platforms (software) vs competitors, devs will do just fine. If devs want to create "multi-platform" VR experiences then they're welcome to do so. No one is stopping them.

VR is mature, it just isn't cost effective.

You can't make that statement and then say this:

I'm bothered that nobody has figured out why VR hasn't taken off yet, and Apple clearly hasn't either.

If no one has figured it out, by definition "it is not mature". So, which is it?

However, until a VR/AR HMD looks visually indistinct from a pair of sunglasses and includes all the processing and battery power necessary to run in and of itself, I would say that "VR is not mature". If you want to disagree with that definition of mature, and you have a different target that's fine. But there is no way you can say: "we're not in early days in VR" and have an actual logical argument to stand on.

In 10 years Apple will be back to using x86.

Unless Apple controls the hardware, no. They want control over their own destiny and want to produce hardware on their own cycles. If Apple moves back to x86 it will be on their own terms. They won't move to Intel or AMD again. Neither of them can be trusted to actually make the products Apple wants in a timely fashion. And also by using either of them they are giving up a large piece of margin that they can be making themselves. Moving to AMD or Intel is just not as profitable as getting 100% of the GPU/CPU profit.

Considering Apple has over 15 years in the processor design space on phones, I think they'll be just fine in the PC space. Even Amazon is powered by ARM. x86 can't get specialized fast enough.

 

[DukenukemX]

This is the most absurd assessment you could've made after the fact. You can't go on and on about how Apple is copying PC vendors and then say they have no foresight. Which is it?

It's clearly both. Apple copies PC, and PC copies Apple. Everyone has foresight and no foresight. The industry isn't clear and linear but does have a tendency to meander.

Do they do what they want to do; which is to make a machine that is balanced with form factor, battery life, and power or are they copying PC vendors? Because PC vendors all throughout Apple's time on Intel put in workstation class cards, or at least top end gaming graphics cards into laptops. And Apple didn't do it even one time. 10 years of no workstation class or top end gaming cards does not require "foresight".

Apple just doesn't want to compete in a market that doesn't want their products. You think the workstation market wants to use Mac OSX with hardware you can only buy from Apple?

Not remotely true. Just spend time comparing "gaming apps" which you like to talk about endless on PC.

Not really, but I'm sure that's a gotcha moment for you.

Also spend more time looking at paid for apps.
If you want to actually make money as an app dev of any sort, iPhone users spend more: https://www.androidauthority.com/ne...n-in-app-purchases-than-android-users-700983/

I don't doubt iOS users spend more money, but any app iOS has is also on Android.

And that is also ignoring rampant piracy on Android vs iOS. https://techrrival.com/gaming-android-vs-iphone/

Who cares? There's also rampant piracy on Windows for the same reason but it doesn't effect the market share of Android and Windows, but most likely helps their adoption.

There is actually a very large disparity not only in the number of "actual" apps (Apple culls the App Store to get rid of garbage, so just measuring "total number" is less relevant) but also in quality.

This is why didn't want to get too much into what I think of iPhones because now you're on about App quality. Moving on.

In order for Apple to have full control over their own destiny they need control over the software stack as much as the hardware side. If you want to know why it takes forever on the PC side to have someone create something in hardware and then never see it get utilized in software it's directly for this reason.

You kidding me? Android has had always on display for years, and now iPhones finally have it. Apple has no Ray-Tracing in their hardware, while PC has had it since 2018. Which is why I think VR on Apple is going to be a problem, that and performance.

It's impossible to do this on the PC side because everything is a fractured mess. If the biggest trade-off you can come up with is "MoltenVK" exists and makes people's lives easier porting to macOS, I'll take that trade-off over the PC way of doing things 100 out of 100 times. Seems to me like it's working out just fine.

Nobody ever in the industry who's ever had a proprietary format has succeeded. Even Microsoft with DirectX12 which is widely used, still has to allow for Vulkan or risk problems. How many VR standards will Apple use? Probably none.

Okay, then they'll fail? Why waste air about it?

I'm getting my "told you so" ready. Apparently not many people learn from history, and Apple is clearly at the top.

You can't make that statement and then say this:

If no one has figured it out, by definition "it is not mature". So, which is it?

VR works, but isn't cost effective. What reason do I have to buy a VR headset with controls, for Half Life Alyx and VR Chat? Especially when you consider I need a $500~ headset with a powerful computer for a couple of games. Meanwhile most people still use a 1080p monitor. Nobody is making software because hardly anyone had a headset. That's why it's a chicken or egg issue, and not a design issue.

However, until a VR/AR HMD looks visually indistinct from a pair of sunglasses and includes all the processing and battery power necessary to run in and of itself, I would say that "VR is not mature".

You want Google Glasses because VR headsets aren't meant to be portable. It's nice not to have a wire, but you won't move very far away from your computer. They aren't meant to be see through either, otherwise you'd lose immersion.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I'm not going to respond to most of this, mostly because there is no point. The discussion has run its course and as per usual, nothing was gained.

Apple just doesn't want to compete in a market that doesn't want their products. You think the workstation market wants to use Mac OSX with hardware you can only buy from Apple?

Clearly and obviously yes.
Or are you not aware of the Mac Pro? Are you not aware that people are spending $2000-$4000 on Macbook Pro's with M1/M2 Pro/Max chips? Are you not aware people are buying Mac Studios with Max/Ultra chips spending $2000-$4000+?

Are you also not aware that every major software dev company finds it relevant to spend the time to rewrite their software to be Mac native? Meaning they are making plenty of money from this market, more than enough to make it "worth it".

You have to be in abject denial to be ignoring this. And right now Mac adoption rates relative to PC are going up. And they're one of the few brands not facing attrition in this season where multiple articles state that this is a season in which fewer CPU's and GPU's and laptops for that matter have been sold in 10 years. Even in a record low, Apple is selling hardware. In fact the only negative blip they have had was due to the silicon shortage. They lost money in other words because they couldn't produce this hardware fast enough.

Not really, but I'm sure that's a gotcha moment for you.

I don't doubt iOS users spend more money, but any app iOS has is also on Android.

You're the one that goes on and on that it requires two different programming modes to develop for Mac/PC and in this case iOS and Android. You're kidding yourself if you believe there is an exact 1:1 relationship of apps. There can't be simply due to this exact issue.

Who cares? There's also rampant piracy on Windows for the same reason but it doesn't effect the market share of Android and Windows, but most likely helps their adoption.

The devs. Which is why they don't bother developing paid for apps on Android and continue to do so on iPhone. That was the point. If you want to make money and you're a smart dev, you develop for iOS, not Android. Again meaning there is disparate apps on iOS vs Android.

You kidding me? Android has had always on display for years, and now iPhones finally have it. Apple has no Ray-Tracing in their hardware, while PC has had it since 2018. Which is why I think VR on Apple is going to be a problem, that and performance.

This had no relevance to what I said. Because this has nothing to do with Apple controlling their destiny or not. Controlling their destiny has nothing to do with particular hardware/software that anyone else makes and everything to do with succeeding or failing based on what they want to do.

Though if Apple wants to dedicate massive GPU space to rendering ray-tracing and having perfect support they can far more than their competitors can.

Nobody ever in the industry who's ever had a proprietary format has succeeded. Even Microsoft with DirectX12 which is widely used, still has to allow for Vulkan or risk problems.

Mac has been proprietary for its entire existence. The time in which it spend time on non-proprietary hardware is relatively short. And even then the hardware wasn't actually "open".

How many VR standards will Apple use? Probably none.

How many are there? I know of precisely zero. But feel free to educate me.

I'm getting my "told you so" ready. Apparently not many people learn from history, and Apple is clearly at the top.

Gotta tell you now: no one cares. I don't even mean any disrespect. No one cares what I say either. However I think it's far more likely you're going to be eating your words 10 years on.

VR works, but isn't cost effective. What reason do I have to buy a VR headset with controls, for Half Life Alyx and VR Chat? Especially when you consider I need a $500~ headset with a powerful computer for a couple of games. Meanwhile most people still use a 1080p monitor. Nobody is making software because hardly anyone had a headset. That's why it's a chicken or egg issue, and not a design issue.

Then it's not mature.

You want Google Glasses because

You have no idea what I want. And you can't see any version of devices that haven't been shown to you. You want a faster horse. I want a transformative device.

VR headsets aren't meant to be portable.

Then it's not mature.

It's nice not to have a wire, but you won't move very far away from your computer. They aren't meant to be see through either, otherwise you'd lose immersion.

You only see what's currently available and not what could be. This is why you're not a visionary and why you don't understand VR and also why it could take over standard PC's, laptops, and all displays and become all encompassing as the next "do everything" tech.

Google Glass does not do VR. I am not remotely interested in alpha, at best, hardware that isn't capable of doing anything. My Apple Watch does more than Google glass, while being functionally easier to use and does not look idiotic.

VR is no where close to being mature. If a VR HMD cannot do literally everything a laptop can do including being portable, then it's not mature. Period.

 

[DukenukemX]

Clearly and obviously yes.
Or are you not aware of the Mac Pro? Are you not aware that people are spending $2000-$4000 on Macbook Pro's with M1/M2 Pro/Max chips? Are you not aware people are buying Mac Studios with Max/Ultra chips spending $2000-$4000+?

You may want to hold onto this one. Apple M3 wen?

"Facing "plummeting" Mac sales amid a severe PC market downturn, Apple in January completely suspended production of its custom-designed M2 series processors that power new MacBook Pro and Mac mini models and the latest MacBook Air, according to The Elec."

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/03/apple-stopped-m2-chip-production-1q-2023/

 

[Aurelius]

You may want to hold onto this one. Apple M3 wen?

"Facing "plummeting" Mac sales amid a severe PC market downturn, Apple in January completely suspended production of its custom-designed M2 series processors that power new MacBook Pro and Mac mini models and the latest MacBook Air, according to The Elec."

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/03/apple-stopped-m2-chip-production-1q-2023/

Provided that's accurate, there's an important point you're downplaying: it's a "severe PC market downturn."

Computer sales in general have been in the tank for several months between the lousy world economy and the aftermath of the pandemic-era spike in purchases. Fewer people can afford new computers, and many those that can bought one in the past couple of years. Apple has just managed to suffer relatively little compared to other major vendors — it saw shipments drop 10 percent, but Dell lost 37 percent and Lenovo gave up almost 29 percent. Apple actually gained market share that quarter, and in 2022 as a whole.

That's not to say it's all sunshine and roses, but the rumored production shutdown may just reflect the one-two combo of a lousy PC market and gearing up for M3 in mid-year.

 

[cjcox]

Apple ignores what competitors are doing and moves at their own speed.

I was thinking more like Apple ignores what the consumer wants and moves at their own speed. Perhaps a corollary?

But there's a corporate side here too.

The company I work at was an all Mac shop (emphasis), everything from the desktop to the servers, to iPads controlling all devices in conference rooms, etc...

Remember, I said "was"..... Apple doesn't support their corporate "base". Zero interest. We gave them our "love", they handed us a rotten core.

 

[Lakados]

You may want to hold onto this one. Apple M3 wen?

"Facing "plummeting" Mac sales amid a severe PC market downturn, Apple in January completely suspended production of its custom-designed M2 series processors that power new MacBook Pro and Mac mini models and the latest MacBook Air, according to The Elec."

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/04/03/apple-stopped-m2-chip-production-1q-2023/

That doesn't quite say what you think it does, they shut it down for Jan and Feb to start it back up in March because with sales down across the board they are running a tight ship, there is very little large consumer or corporate spending that happens from Jan-April, especially in the current market.
Broadcom, and Qualcomm, cut back orders on chips for everything, Intel slowed production, AMD and Nvidia both found ways to decrease their TSMC time. Everybody slowed or shut down during that time, focusing on Apple alone here is fun and all but they simply did what everybody else was doing and is still doing.
Desktop sales are at historic lows, mobile sales are down to some 2018 numbers, and the mass panic buying during the 2020-2022 years of "There's a shortage! if we don't get one now we might not get one for a long time", has resulted in a saturated market.
The sales spikes seen during that time are not sustainable, and as many on this forum will point out hardware has a much longer shelf life now than ever before, for what most people do anything with 8GB ram and some form of solid-state storage from 2016 onwards is still more than enough.
If you want to know the reason most PC sales are even happening right now is not that people are unhappy with their current machines it's because they are seeing notifications that their current PC does not meet windows 11 requirements, that warning message right there is responsible for almost half of OEM PC sales right now, it's great for the consumer (because hardware lasts and is usable longer) but terrible for the market which is sustained by volume which is falling.

 

[cdoublejj]

There is no future proof, or staying at the top of the stack for any "guaranteed" amount of time, ever.

There is with Cat cabling and network gear though! The average product life time is in years not months though.

Thanks Apple? To this day I'm still looking for a slide out keyboard phone that works on T-Mobile. It's 10x better than a touchscreen keyboard for many reasons. Also DVD less laptops are more of a product of the times than Apple. I would argue the DVD format died well over 10 years ago when people found out about DIVX.

https://fxtec.com/

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I was thinking more like Apple ignores what the consumer wants and moves at their own speed. Perhaps a corollary?

For better or worse, Apple’s believes they know what the consumer wants more than the consumer. I think that’s functionally different than ignoring them.

More often than not, they’re right. When they get something wrong it’s far easier to focus on whatever that XYZ thing is and not the myriad of thousands of decisions they got right.

But there's a corporate side here too.

The company I work at was an all Mac shop (emphasis), everything from the desktop to the servers, to iPads controlling all devices in conference rooms, etc...

Remember, I said "was"..... Apple doesn't support their corporate "base". Zero interest. We gave them our "love", they handed us a rotten core.

There is some truth here. But from all the people I know that run Mac either in the corporate setting or education setting, for the most part deployment of Macs gives them less headaches because users in general can’t run into software problems nearly as often.

Usually the problems are related to back ends. A friend of mine would talk about specific deployment software breaking every time there was an update.

Like all things, use case. Use the right tool for the job. I think certain industries could operate with a fully Mac shop. Most education/corporate probably cannot. Again, in all the settings where I know operators are deploying Macs in those settings, they're doing both and their back ends contain both.

 

[Lakados]

There is with Cat cabling and network gear though! The average product life time is in years not months though.

Yeah, any Networking infrastructure that goes in is expected to last decades, my top of rack is pushing 13 years and going strong, this is the norm, not the exception when dealing with that sort of equipment, and HPE still actively supports it, though I get a lot of sales calls asking me to buy new stuff now so in talks with Aruba because I really want Clear Pass, lots of tech doesn't need to change for the sake of change, but if I never have to see another Mitel SX-200 I will be a happy man.

 

[cjcox]

Apple users upon finding out that 1 year mandatory hardware replacement isn't done at their company.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Apple users upon finding out that 1 year mandatory hardware replacement isn't done at their company.

View attachment 561613

I think you’d have to be crazy to do 1 year cycles. Most I see is generally 3 years. 5 years is also kind of a stretch, but doable if you’re buying top end machines and want to max the life out of them.

The Mac Pro as an example is on its 4th year. If people bought a $20k machine, they’ll definitely be able to squeeze their money out of it over 5 years if they’d like.

 

[cjcox]

I think you’d have to be crazy to do 1 year cycles. Most I see is generally 3 years. 5 years is also kind of a stretch, but doable if you’re buying top end machines and want to max the life out of them. The Mac Pro as an example is on its 4th year. If people bought at $20k machine, they’ll definitely be able to squeeze their money out of it over 5 years if they’d like.

Are you actually suggesting it's normal (today, not 25 years ago) to have a 3 year hardware lifecycle? Meanwhile, here on Earth....

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Are you actually suggesting it's normal (today, not 25 years ago) to have a 3 year hardware lifecycle? Meanwhile, here on Earth....

In corporate and education? Yes. And that replacement cycle is happening regardless of if we’re referring to PC or Mac.

My reference points may be minimal, but I have a friend that works in a "top ten" Southern California University and they deploy new hardware every three years. Technically they replace hardware every year, but it's rolling so that it doesn't all happen at once. And yes this means every employee that needs hardware, every classroom, every lab. Just as one example.

Last time I checked, they're still on Earth.

 

[Twisted Kidney]

Apple is the best ever at releasing new shit every year and giving their customers absolutely no reason to buy it.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Are you actually suggesting it's normal (today, not 25 years ago) to have a 3 year hardware lifecycle? Meanwhile, here on Earth....

MSP's and the OEM's push it like the world is going to end... I have seen clients pallet 100's of thousands worth of 3 year old server to the recyclers "just cause" (and no, they couldnt give it to me due to company policy blah blah blah" Heck, i didnt want the drives, just give me everything else!