robaba

tenthousandthings said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

Allow me to add that I don’t quite get the argument that it has to be M2 — I gather there is a technical reason for it, but I think that’s hard to say without knowing a lot more than we do. I find the idea that Apple would design this entire M1 line but not account for the Mac Pro to be absurd. 

In terms of naming, I don’t think they will call it the Ultra Pro or Ultra+, they will all be Ultra, just with different core counts. Basically an Ultra is 2 or 4 Max fused together. 

It’s pretty clear that they are finished with the M1. Will people please stop making new M1 chips up? They may use two or even four M1 Ultra chips. They may change their concept of introducing more powerful chips over the year, and have an M2 Ultra for the Mac Pro. We don’t know. But they won’t have a four chip Ultra. John made that pretty clear.

John was introducing the UltraFusion process when he said that. That process may also allow them to connect two Ultras together, much like what you’re suggesting when you say they may use multiple M1 Ultras in the Mac Pro. It’s a plausible technical solution to the problem. That’s the whole point of the “chiplet” approach. I think you’re getting hung up on semantics, although I’ll concede that it was not a live event and everything said was carefully reviewed.

It isn’t hard to imagine how John would introduce the idea, “UltraFusion not only allows us to fuse two M1 Max together and create the M1 Ultra, but it also allows us to connect two M1 Ultras together …”

Look, he made it pretty clear that the Ultra was the last M1 chip. I don’t know why people insist that isn’t true. He didn’t say it had anything to do with Ultra /fusion, or anything else, just that the Ultra was the last. Earlier on, when they announced the Pro and Max versions, they could have said that too, and then popped out the Ultra with the UF connect, and acted as though it was just the same chip.

but they didn’t. And like it or not, that means something. What would have wrong with not saying anything? It’s not semantics. Semantics is something that’s interpretable. A definitive statement is just that.

the other thing thats] you guys are forgetting is that the cost of making these chips increases more than the added area because of increased defects and the risk of unusable chips. The greater percentage of wafer area a chip takes up, the more the cost. It’s a $1,000 upgrade to go from a 48 core Ultra to the 64 core version. And the cheapest Ultra costs more than twice what the Max version costs. So, even if they would do it, this new chip would likely cost at least three times as much. Maybe more. would that be worth it? I’m not so sure.

The good thing is we’ll know soon enough. There’s no way this uncertainty is prolonged past WWDC. 

But reading your last paragraph here makes me think you haven’t looked at the mock-up I’ve been referring to, in conjunction with the patent about this packaging tech Apple filed in January. It’s two Ultras stacked on top of each other (back-to-back)—doing so doesn’t change anything about the wafer layout for making the Max/Ultra. That’s why, no matter how it works, it can’t be considered a new chip. Because it’s not. The Max Tech video that someone pointed to is goofy YouTube sensationalism, but the reading of the patent seems accurate. 

Stabitha_Christie said:

cropr said:

waveparticle said:

Apple is perfectly entitled to collect the commission. Without Jobs invented the iPhone there is no developer app ecosystem. Developers need to thank Apple providing this opportunity to get rich quickly. 

Do you realize that according to marketing research 90% of the apps are not profitable for the developer?   The only one who is getting rich quickly, is Apple

I think that number is probably a little misleading. For example I have an app for my bank on my phone. My bank makes nothing off the app, it is free and has on IAP but while they don't make a profit off of the app they are still a profitable entity. I personally have a host of apps like this on my phone. They are free apps with no IAP but they are linked to something else that is profitable (Garmin, Slack, Philips Hue, ecobee, United Airlines, Avis, various hotels, USA Triathlon, local rail). So yeah a ton of apps don't make a profit or even generate revenue in app but it doesn't mean the developer doesn't make money. 

Japhey said:

robaba said:

Absolutely no usecase at 2,000$

That’s a weird thing to say. You can go out right now and buy a $300 laptop, yet no one would ever say a $2000 MacBook Pro has no use case. We don’t even know what these are going to do, or how much they’re going to cost. So far, all we have are speculations disguised as “insider knowledge”.