Marco Arment

They're basically saying like the Mac Studio is the biggest, highest end desktop we're ever going to need.

It's like saying the trash can is the highest end desktop we're ever going to need.

And the market said no to the trash can.

The market said, Apple, we don't like your trash can.

It's bad.

You're not able to update it.

You need to do something about that.

At least Apple's able to update the Mac Studios.

But I think the market will not push back against the Mac Studio the same way they did about the trash can because we're in a different time now.

And as you noted, Apple has so thoroughly abandoned and screwed over the market that would buy a $7,000 expandable computer that it will be a long time before they're receptive to anything that Apple introduces.

But I still say, essentially, a bigger Mac Studio... I'm not saying it has to be a tower, but for the people who would buy a Mac Studio...

Would you buy one that has two times the computation capability that is also twice as large?

A lot of people would say yes.

They would say, give me twice as much RAM.

Give me twice as much GPU.

Give me twice as much CPU so I can run my local models that are twice as big or whatever future computations we need.

I don't think Apple has anything like that planned, but that's what I'm looking forward to sometime before I die.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it, though, because I think you still want to make the most power efficient thing possible because think of how much more computation you can do within a given power envelope.

That's the beauty of the Ultra and even the Max, for that matter.

The computation that is done in the M-whatever-Max chips, CPU and GPU, compared to the heat that is dissipated is amazing when you compare it to...