Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 120 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

repoman27

Senior member
Dec 17, 2018
301
410
106
Wasteful? They likely want (or wanted) to add new features to the display as time goes on. What if they added AppleTV to the display? Or some type of low power app sharing type of deal.
Unfortunately the Studio Display doesn't have Ethernet, Wi-Fi, or any other form of network interface, so the Apple TV idea wouldn't really work. Of course a future version of the display could. I kinda think it should have come with a headphone jack, Gigabit Ethernet, and two USB Type-A ports built in. That would have made it a way better docking station for laptops.
 

cherullo

Member
May 19, 2019
29
51
61
But for now, buy an appropriate amount of storage to last you a couple of years.
That's why I don't see myself purchasing Apple products, I'd feel manipulated all the time having to make these decisions.

You see, they developed the SSD this way. There already exists larger, standardized SSDs, but they went out of their way to present you with this situation where the obvious solution is to give them more money.

Maybe I have a twisted perception of reality, maybe it's cynism, but from my point of view they created the problem and they're selling the solution.

It's a much better situation than the rest of the M1 Macs, where it's soldered in.
And this is the psychological cherry on top: by presenting you with another even worse situation, you feel blessed that you can at least pay them for more storage.

None of this is coincidence, none of this was done strictly due to technical reasons.
 

eek2121

Platinum Member
Aug 2, 2005
2,206
2,857
136
Unfortunately the Studio Display doesn't have Ethernet, Wi-Fi, or any other form of network interface, so the Apple TV idea wouldn't really work. Of course a future version of the display could. I kinda think it should have come with a headphone jack, Gigabit Ethernet, and two USB Type-A ports built in. That would have made it a way better docking station for laptops.
That we know of. The few teardowns that have happened of the display have yielded no details.

EDIT: and the Studio display can get some of that stuff from the connected Mac, mind you.

Once again, not saying it is a sure thing, but it seems suspicious.

EDIT: To be clear, some have suggested Apple was 'cramming an iPhone 11' into their studio displays. The logic board/chips in these things are unique. The only other reason I could think of for apple to include 64gb of storage is some type of odd hardware or firmware requirement for a given amount of storage. No, if these things have storage, Apple had a plan for the display, and it was either scrapped or is not finalized yet.

Apple would give anything to find another platform to build out services on. A monitor would seem to be the obvious choice. There are custom 'unique' tools that an app platform could serve, such as hardware information overlays, color calibration (with additional hardware), a curated list of iOS apps for things like music, presentations, etc.
 
Last edited:

Nothingness

Platinum Member
Jul 3, 2013
2,194
455
136
None of this is coincidence, none of this was done strictly due to technical reasons.
And you say this because you know how macOS interacts with Apple's proprietary firmware and controller? Or are you just one of those Apple haters who think Apple does things only to earn money?
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
6,107
3,767
106
Or are you just one of those Apple haters who think Apple does things only to earn money?
I think most people will agree that Apple's whole business model reflects their penchant for filling their coffers. How else does a company end up with $100 billion in cash? That's not merely success. It's charging way more than their cost. They can easily slash a third off their regular prices and still make a handsome profit. But they won't. That's not what Steve Jobs taught them to do.
 

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,653
3,503
136
The M1 Macs do treat internal storage quite differently than Intel Macs, and the boot process has changed quite a bit, so that may also be a factor here.

Thanks.

Excellent link for explaining how it works.
 

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,051
2,833
136
And you say this because you know how macOS interacts with Apple's proprietary firmware and controller? Or are you just one of those Apple haters who think Apple does things only to earn money?
In this exact spirit you could try to explain us all, how their award-winning display stander specifically interacts with the proprietary Apple display... ...casing. Maybe some of us wouldn't arrive to such conclusions.

Or, of course, you can just stay true to the brand identity and tell me I'm holding it wrong :)
 
Last edited:

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,653
3,503
136
I think most people will agree that Apple's whole business model reflects their penchant for filling their coffers. How else does a company end up with $100 billion in cash? That's not merely success. It's charging way more than their cost. They can easily slash a third off their regular prices and still make a handsome profit. But they won't. That's not what Steve Jobs taught them to do.
That's a ridiculously naive, and titled view.

Every successful company is charging way more than their cost. That is the point of "for profit" business. What do think an acceptable profit margin is?

Most companies selling products that aren't strictly commodity have margins like Apple, or higher. These are publicly traded companies you can look it up. For 2021:

Apple Gross Margins: 43%

Micron Gross Margins: 41% (note many consider RAM chips a commodity).
AMD Gross Margins: 48%
TSMC Gross Margins: 52%
Microsoft Gross Margins: 69%

Wow, Apple profit margins are totally out of line...

Oh, Wait, they aren't. This is just what a reasonable profit margin looks like for a successful business.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
6,107
3,767
106
Wow, Apple profit margins are totally out of line...

Oh, Wait, they aren't. This is just what a reasonable profit margin looks like for a successful business.
Most other companies are making their profits from enterprise sales. Apple makes it from individuals by affecting them with their reality distortion field marketing tactics. This is the main reason that Apple cannot compete with the x86 market. They had to carve out their own niche because no sensible person with a normal income would pay for their products. Then the iPod and iPhones coupled with the App Store launched them into the mainstream. And then some sensible people also started paying the Apple tax because either Apple had a patent on something or they couldn't live without something in Apple's walled garden.
 

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,653
3,503
136
Most other companies are making their profits from enterprise sales. Apple makes it from individuals by affecting them with their reality distortion field marketing tactics. This is the main reason that Apple cannot compete with the x86 market. They had to carve out their own niche because no sensible person with a normal income would pay for their products. Then the iPod and iPhones coupled with the App Store launched them into the mainstream. And then some sensible people also started paying the Apple tax because either Apple had a patent on something or they couldn't live without something in Apple's walled garden.
Try to stick to facts instead of making up evil empire nonsense, and insulting all Apple consumers with "no sensible person with a normal income would pay for their products" nonsense.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
6,107
3,767
106
Try to stick to facts instead of making up evil empire nonsense, and insulting all Apple consumers with "no sensible person with a normal income would pay for their products" nonsense.
Outside of professionals who cannot work without access to the Apple ecosystem, anyone with normal use cases of productivity/internet browsing paying the Apple tax for whatever reason (being too lazy to learn Windows/Linux/Android or just trying to look cool to peers) is not sensible. That's my opinion and if it offends you, I'm sorry. Let's agree to disagree.
 

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,653
3,503
136
Outside of professionals who cannot work without access to the Apple ecosystem, anyone with normal use cases of productivity/internet browsing paying the Apple tax for whatever reason (being too lazy to learn Windows/Linux/Android or just trying to look cool to peers) is not sensible. That's my opinion and if it offends you, I'm sorry. Let's agree to disagree.
You are basically just insulting people that you disagree with over their purchasing decisions. Those regular consumers of Apple products, are the majority of households in the USA.

What's laughable is you, calling most of the country "not sensible" for buying Apple products, while you regularly tout snake oil and pseudoscience nonsense in the "Health and Fitness" forum.

An insult from you, is like a badge of honor.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
6,107
3,767
106
An insult from you, is like a badge of honor.
Shouldn't you be proud of the honor you got from me? :D

Seriously though, Apple is not pro-consumer. Restricting upgradability / charging higher than normal prices for upgrading components / charging almost the device's price for having it repaired outside of warranty (happened to a guy I know with his Macbook) etc. are not practices that any sensible person should be encouraging with their wallet.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
6,107
3,767
106

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
6,107
3,767
106
Well not really. I've never purchased Apple products. I just don't think insulting Apple buyers is a justified position, especially from someone with a history of touting snake oil, it's kind of laughable.
OMG. Much ado about nothing.

You had me convinced that you or a loved one was a devoted Apple fan :eek:
 

repoman27

Senior member
Dec 17, 2018
301
410
106
That we know of. The few teardowns that have happened of the display have yielded no details.

EDIT: and the Studio display can get some of that stuff from the connected Mac, mind you.

Once again, not saying it is a sure thing, but it seems suspicious.

EDIT: To be clear, some have suggested Apple was 'cramming an iPhone 11' into their studio displays. The logic board/chips in these things are unique. The only other reason I could think of for apple to include 64gb of storage is some type of odd hardware or firmware requirement for a given amount of storage. No, if these things have storage, Apple had a plan for the display, and it was either scrapped or is not finalized yet.

Apple would give anything to find another platform to build out services on. A monitor would seem to be the obvious choice. There are custom 'unique' tools that an app platform could serve, such as hardware information overlays, color calibration (with additional hardware), a curated list of iOS apps for things like music, presentations, etc.
We haven't seen the other side of the logic board yet, but I certainly don't see any networking capability hiding in here:



I do see a lot of insanity though. 285 W PSU for a display that only uses 30.7 W. Every component taller than a few mm being inset into a hole in the PCB. Those caps, chokes, and transformers—all designed to be as flat as possible. The PSU is made by Dongguan Solum Electronics Co., Ltd., which seems a bit of an unusual choice, but I guess they've made MacBook power bricks for Apple in the past.

As far as the 64 GB of storage goes, the A13 requires DRAM and NAND to function—they're not optional. The DRAM can be any compatible LPDDR memory, and the NAND just has to have a similarly suitable ONFI NV-DDR interface. But you can't use a partial die, and 64 GB is just a single 512 Gbit die. 256 Gbit TLC dies are definitely still a thing and the spot prices don't seem crazy at the moment, but Apple's contract pricing or supply chain outlook may have inclined them to go with the higher density chip. The price difference between 256 and 512 Gbit dies is currently around $2.05 (and going to 128 Gbit would only save another 20¢). You also have to consider the design life cycle. A typical Apple display might remain on the market, with zero updates, for 6 years, and people tend to hang on to displays for many years after purchase. NAND endurance is directly related to the total number of available cells, and when you have more free space, performance consistency goes up and write amplification goes down. Avoiding potential issues in the long run by over-provisioning a commodity component seems like an easy call.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,372
798
126
A lot of the export tests are dependent upon hardware acceleration. However, it should be noted that the Mac Pro has a dedicated Afterburner hardware accelerator card installed.
 

Attachments

Doug S

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2020
1,432
2,122
106
The display supports 96 Watt power delivery via Thunderbolt, plus there are 3 more USB-C ports at presumably 15 Watts each. So, the ports alone are 140-150 Watts.
Having ports able to deliver power is a good thing in some respects, but it is very wasteful on the power supply side - both in terms of requiring larger power supplies and running them in a far less efficient range most of the time.

I mean theoretically Apple could design the Mini to run under 100 watts total, so it could be powered by Thunderbolt. Only problem is that would compromise its ability to deliver power so that's probably not going to happen.

The latest USB PD spec allows for delivering 240 watts. That will have two effects, 1) we will see even larger power supplies in devices that use a fraction of that power, 2) we will see some Chinese phone announce support for 240 watt fast charging and too many idiots will think that's a feature not a bug.

Maybe this is the sort of thing the EU ought to worry about as far as "e-waste" (i.e. disposing of these larger power supplies down the road) instead of whether iPhones ship with a cable that's got USB-C on one end or two.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,372
798
126
Having ports able to deliver power is a good thing in some respects, but it is very wasteful on the power supply side - both in terms of requiring larger power supplies and running them in a far less efficient range most of the time.

I mean theoretically Apple could design the Mini to run under 100 watts total, so it could be powered by Thunderbolt. Only problem is that would compromise its ability to deliver power so that's probably not going to happen.
No, this feature is key IMO. Many people here think of the display as being built for the Mac Studio or Mac mini, but it's likely that far, far more people will be running this monitor with a MacBook Pro.

Plugging this into the MacBook Pro means you get the secondary display and charging over the same cable.

BTW, the LG monitor this replaces also charges the MBP over Thunderbolt.
 

Doug S

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2020
1,432
2,122
106
The M1 Macs do treat internal storage quite differently than Intel Macs, and the boot process has changed quite a bit, so that may also be a factor here.


I don't think this is as radical as the article suggests. A typical PC has NAND for UEFI and other functions. If that is wiped or (somehow) removed then the PC can't do anything.

Apple is essentially reserving a small part of the on-board NAND to use for similar functions, with the rest visible as its "SSD". The main difference from the PC world is that it is removable, whereas in the PC world it is not. If you (somehow) removed it from your PC or it got erased, then just like a Mac you can't boot from an external drive.

This makes perfect sense, why should Apple have a separate chip for the UEFI/boot functions?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY