Several macOS Monterey Features Unavailable on Intel-Based Macs (macrumors.com) 141
Several of macOS Monterey's features won't be available to users with an Intel-powered Macs. On the macOS Monterey features page, fine print indicates that the following features require a Mac with the M1 chip, including any MacBook Air, 13-inch MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and iMac model released since November 2020:
1. Portrait Mode blurred backgrounds in FaceTime videos
2. Live Text for copying and pasting, looking up, or translating text within photos
3. An interactive 3D globe of Earth in the Maps app
4. More detailed maps in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and London in the Maps app
5. Text-to-speech in more languages, including Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish
6. On-device keyboard dictation that performs all processing completely offline
7. Unlimited keyboard dictation (previously limited to 60 seconds per instance)
2. Live Text for copying and pasting, looking up, or translating text within photos
3. An interactive 3D globe of Earth in the Maps app
4. More detailed maps in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and London in the Maps app
5. Text-to-speech in more languages, including Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish
6. On-device keyboard dictation that performs all processing completely offline
7. Unlimited keyboard dictation (previously limited to 60 seconds per instance)
Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:5, Insightful)
There - you have Apples policies right there - buy a new mac or fuck you.
Map detail and 3d maps tied to ARM instead of Intel as well? There's absolutely no reason for that - get lost apple.
Re: (Score:2)
There - you have Apples policies right there - buy a new mac or fuck you.
Map detail and 3d maps tied to ARM instead of Intel as well? There's absolutely no reason for that - get lost apple.
Does Apple owe you or anyone additional features for free? Honestly, this is silly. It's as if you bought a gasoline car and then the next year the auto-maker came out with the same car model as an electric self-driving car. The automaker agrees to upgrade the software in your old model car to enable self driving for free, but cannot upgrade the powertrain to electric. You have to buy a new car for that. Should you complain? I honestly don't think so.
Actually (Score:2)
It's buy a new Mac or continue to do what you are doing now plus some (not all) new whizzy things all for the upgrade price of exactly Zero Dollars. Exactly the same situation as my Raspberry Pi OS and core software.
Re: Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:2)
This type of comment is why /. Is still great.
Ars and Reddit are simply bending over to apple heavy handed tactics.
These artificial limitations are simply that, to force the rabid cult members to buy a new mac.
By the way, do you want to see how far gone Ars is into apples ass?
Don't write the words âoerabid cult members âoe since that is apparently a good reason to ban people.
Re: (Score:2)
These artificial limitations are simply that, to force the rabid cult members to buy a new mac.
And how exactly does it force you to buy a new Mc?
I'm sitting here on my 2014 MacBook Air, and no ne is holding me a gun on my had and is forcing me to buy anything ...
Re: (Score:2)
These artificial limitations are simply that, to force the rabid cult members to buy a new mac.
And how exactly does it force you to buy a new Mc?
I'm sitting here on my 2014 MacBook Air, and no ne is holding me a gun on my had and is forcing me to buy anything ...
Thats the problem with people.
You need to differentiate between the rabid followers that will defend apple actions and go out and buy a new Mac because "reasons" and then are the ones that have one, realize is a bullshit money grab action on Apples part, call them out and continue using their current devices.
So up to you to decide were you fall on those descriptions.
Re:Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually there was a lot of ppl who did.
Re: (Score:3)
You all didn't get this upset when DirectX 12 was limited to Windows 10. [lifewire.com]
I mean, if you want to get technical, all these features are, in fact, limited to the latest version of macOS. It's just that moving to that version is a free upgrade, assuming you have a Mac.
But even then, Apple is dropping support for older Macs with this release. (They don't always, and the list of Macs they're dropping is fairly arbitrary. There doesn't appear to be a technical reason for it.)
But limiting DirectX 12 to Windows 10 vaguely makes sense - DirectX is a low-level hardware interface and requir
Re:Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:4, Informative)
> But limiting DirectX 12 to Windows 10 vaguely makes sense
Bullshit. Blizzard got Microsoft to backport DirectX 12 to Windows 7 [blizzard.com] proving it was never a technical decision but a political one.
Just like MS refusing to support Direct X 5.0 on Windows NT 4.0 (there was an unofficial beta version that showed it was possible.)
> It came off as just an attempt to force people off Windows 7.
Because it was.
Gee, forced Windows 7 "upgrades" to Windows 10 whether the customer wanted it or not, is not "just an attempt" -- it WAS the attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It also was a political decision to declare that Windows 7 and 8 were obsolete even though they were in much wider use than Windows 10 was. Restricting to Windows 10 was intenionally done to try and increase the lackluster adoption rates.
Re: (Score:2)
People were still using XP well into the 7 era and MS didn't want to repeat the experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Then Microsoft needs to create new products that have significant features that customers want. Don't just keep pushing out Windows ME and Windows Vista and assume all the customers will dutifully buy them to benefit the corporations. Give the customers value and they will want to buy it.
For me, I got Windows 8 Pro for $15 then eventually (last year) migrated to Windows 10. Still trying to decide if I actually got my money's worth or not.
Re:Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dropping older Macs from support by the latest and greatest OS is not arbitrary. There is more to a Mac than the CPU and the RAM. My 2019 intel mini has a T1 chip for security and other features that its 2014 predecessor does not have.
And the operating system mostly doesn't care. It's not like you can drop support for non-T1 mass storage devices, or else your external hard drives would stop working. So there would be no obvious code savings from not supporting pre-T1 Macs, unless maybe they could eventually save a small bit of code in the crypto library.
Both have Intel I7 4 cores with 32gb RAM, but not the same generation.
And maybe you get to drop a few errata workarounds in the kernel.
Also, the 2019 Mac has Thunderbolt 3 and USB4 support as does my 2020 M1 mini, but the 2020 M1 mini runs my Intel programs and graphics faster than the 2019 Intel mini.
The i7 Intel Mini can handle 4K streaming in OBS. The M1 in emulation mode can't. So it's very much a YMMV.
M1 includes a lot more than the CPU and RAM on just the 1 chip. Its graphics processing is way more powerful and capable than what is built into the Intel chips.
The base mo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When do people want an OS upgrade for new features? Most the people I know want the upgrade for the security updates and that is it. I would be quite happy running OS X 10.5 if I could get the system security holes patched and proper TLS encryption in Safari. I don't use any of the new OS X features and I'm not sure I have in the last decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"And the operating system mostly doesn't care" completely misses the point. People want the operating system upgrade for the additional features it supports, not because of the kernel. All these features which comprise the "user experience" are implemented in some combination of code and hardware. If the hardware isn't there then there is more code to write. Software implementation usually cannot keep up with a hardware implementation. A feature that depends on Bluetooth 5.0 capabilities cannot be implemented using Bluetooth 4.x hardware.
Not entirely true. People also want operating system upgrades because they fix bugs and security issues. At some point, you stop getting security updates for older operating systems, so there can be advantages to upgrading even if you get no features. Also, the vast majority of features aren't hardware-dependent. :-)
If you don't have a Secure Enclave built into your chip, an emulation cannot duplicate it. You would only get the appearance of comparable capability, but you would not get the security improvement and Apple would have to write and maintain a stack of code that duplicates what the chip does.
Apple actually does maintain a stack of code that duplicates most of what the chip does. It's called the keychain. Secure enclave can't really replace that functionality, but the reverse is
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely true. People also want operating system upgrades because they fix bugs and security issues.
Most people do not want upgrades at all. I personally find it absurd that Apple hands out completely new OSes all the time.
I usually use an external disk to boot from if I want a newer OS, and don't upgrade the old one.
I know exactly what the secure enclave does. It can be and almost certainly is used for strong DRM. ...
In theroy
You stick a key into the secure enclave, then pass your encrypted data into
Re: (Score:2)
You stick a key into the secure enclave, then pass your encrypted data into it, and it gets decrypted on the way to the screen. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that in the latest machines, there might even be a pure encrypted path such that decrypted video data isn't even visible to the process playing the encrypted stream, but I could be remembering wrong. And that has nothing to do with DRM, ooops.
??? You do understand what DRM is, right? It's a mechanism for making it possible to play a video (or audio) stream without making it possible to copy it. So what I described is literally *exactly* DRM.
The key difference between the secure enclave and the keychain is that the key never leaves the secure enclave. It lets you do private key crypto without the app having access to the private key. And that's what makes it ideal for DRM.
To do DRM with the secure enclave, you start by creating a public-priv
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why you nitpick about Frames per second in streaming when the GPU is not the bottle beck, but your ISP is.
Regarding your idea about the build in on board GPU: that is just nonsense. They work fine.
Because it's the right way to write software. You don't write everything in assembly language; you use a bloody compiler so that you can generate code for whatever CPU you want.
Yes, and the older Mac models lack a CPU capable of running that code: as your parent pointed out perfectly clearly.
Re: (Score:3)
> And the operating system mostly doesn't care. It's not like you can drop support for non-T1 mass storage devices, or else your external hard drives would stop working. So there would be no obvious code savings from not supporting pre-T1 Macs, unless maybe they could eventually save a small bit of code in the crypto library.
Yes, but there _are_ features that T1-based macs have not had which were released in 10.15 and 11.0.
I only see one, and that's "Hey Siri". I'm sure they're offloading the work onto the T2 chip because Hey Siri requires a CPU to be doing work continuously in the background, and it would suck your battery life dry if they did that with an Intel core (and the T1 chip probably doesn't share a bus with the audio hardware). That's a very specialized edge case. :-)
And there _will_ be core functionality eventually which requires a M1-based mac as a minimum, at which point macOS 16 (or whatever it is) will drop intel support completely.
Eventually, they'll drop it because it takes too much effort to keep maintaining it. At this point, it's highly unlikely that there will ever be co
Re: (Score:2)
There is more to a Mac than the CPU and the RAM.
Mac people have been saying that for 30 years, even after switching to bog standard 32-bit x86 PC hardware. Remember Apple's ad campaign, "What's an x86 CPU doing in a Mac? More than it's ever done in a PC."
Face it, Apple drops support for the same reason as any other company. It's cheap, and the community tolerates it.
Re:Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of these things rely on AI/ML technologies, which brings the Neural Engine on Apple Silicon into play in order to do the required processing in real time. (Speech translation, Natural Language Processing, object detection, etc.)
So without the NE you're going to have to do this stuff a different way, which means that someone is going to have to back port the code. So with Apple migrating to Apple Silicon and away from Intel, does it make sense for them to spend time and money back-porting code on hardware that might not be up to the task? Or have the same developers working on new features?
Apple moved to Apple Silicon for a reason, and that reason was largely to get access to all of those hardware-accelerated features that could differentiate Apple's "PC's" from PC's. This is the start of that trend.
Re: (Score:2)
The point some are missing in both the Apple and Microsoft case is that there was a public perception that the reasons both were doing what they were was for less that honest reasons. Not technical reasons. They're a "bad company" reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno why anyone is surprised. That's capitalism.
Mac abandoned 68k. Mac abandoned PPC. Mac abandoned x86. Mac will abandon aarch64 when and if there is ever a business case to migrate to Risc-V.
If anyone wanted longevity they'd run Debian. Until I recycled it at the beginning of this year, my computer happily ran the latest OS on a 2003 era 32 bit Athlon XP.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone is surprised. I'm not too jaded to think they're not worth criticizing anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I criticize Apple, Microsoft and Google all the time.
But it's a losing battle.
My 79 year old mother recently suggested she throw out her Samsung and get an iPhone/iPad so I wouldn't have to offer tech support over the phone during lockdown because none of her friends in the retirement community village use Android. I advised that the 2 interfaces are functionally equivalent and she'd have the trouble of having to learn a whole new environment. She opined that everyone she knows says that Apple equipment
Re: Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:2)
Its insane, really.
This happened to me for calling them out on Ars.
https://imgur.com/gallery/qVUb... [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Its insane, really.
It may well be. It might not be. It might be more nuanced. I really do not know. I do not care about Apple one iota.
This happened to me for calling them out on Ars.
Well deserved. Your fault.
Calling people "rabid cult members" is not calling anyone out. You probably think it is, but that is your problem and you need to deal with it if you want to be taken seriously and not end up banned from more places.
Note: The people you are trying to call out may very well be acting like rabid cult members and your end goal may very well be the right one. Your problem is that you are using the wrong means to achieve it.
In short: Tweak your approach or you will continue to fail.
Even though harsh and you are responding lacking more info, I appreciate the advice.
That said, that was not directed at one individual, but to the collective that falls under that and second, the suggested approach was how I started talking and the results were the same, the rabid ones dont accept the fact that their beloved products are not perfect and people have different needs.
Re:Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:5, Interesting)
So landscape mode blurred backgrounds works fine on x86, but portrait mode blurred backgrounds requires the Neural Engine?
And every other device seems to be able to do portrait mode blurred backgrounds just fine without a Neural Engine anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple moved to Apple Silicon for a reason, and that reason was largely to get access to all of those hardware-accelerated features that could differentiate Apple's "PC's" from PC's. This is the start of that trend.
And every other company provides software fallback for those features. I applaud Apple's attempt to hardware accelerate the world. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call them out for expecting users to shell out for a very expensive upgrade to do things their current hardware is *MORE* than capable of.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not delude yourself into thinking Apple is any different to Microsoft or Google. Yes some people "love" a company and fall into thinking that a for-profit company actually *cares* about them
Of course they do. Haven't you seen an Apple church [imgur.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Given that none of these really sound like killer features, in fact they seem pretty random, I doubt there is some sinister plan to ruin older macs or force people to upgrade... just not wanting to put in the extra energy to support them.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how much of it is 'technical limitation' vs 'not wanting to implement the feature twice', esp if all these features are dependent on a new system library that has ARM specific assembly in it and they just don't want to implement that upstream dependency twice.
You would not implement it twice. You'd implement it once, and compile the program down to different bytecode or asm for either the neural engine, the GPU, or the CPU. Hardware independence is literally the whole point of using a high-level API like Core ML, TensorFlow, OpenCL, OpenGL, etc. instead of writing lower-level code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a lot of people were incredibly peeved by DX12's Win10-only availability actually.
Re: (Score:2)
You all didn't get this upset when DirectX 12 was limited to Windows 10. [lifewire.com] Apple does something similar, get out the pitchforks.
This isn't about Apple not backporting features to a previous version of macOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pay up for new kit or get less mac. (Score:2)
Shh, don't let facts get in the way of a zealots strawman
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft tied the update to a *FREE* software upgrade, not a $1500 hardware upgrade. Also worth noting is that MS ensured DirectX 9-12 works just fine on their ARM version of Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
MS: If you want DirectX 12, you need Windows 10 because DX12 uses features and functions new as of Windows 10. You can run Windows 10 and thus DirectX 12 on any machine that will run Windows 10.
Apple: You can run the new macOS Monterey on all our supported hardware, but unless you have an older machine you won't be able to use these specific features, not because there is a technical reasons but because we want to force you to buy a new machine that uses the chip we made.
That is the real difference, the difference you are ignoring because you appear to be an Apple fanboi
Re: (Score:2)
You can upgrade your computer with an older Windows version to Windows 10. It doesn't even cost anything. Your existing computer might or might not have a DirectX 12 capable GPU, but if it does your new Windows 10 installation will use that capability.
You can't upgrade your older Mac to an M1 chip. False equivalence.
Re: (Score:2)
Well since we're talking about platforms not vendors it's equally important to point out that your argument is:
a) a strawman, and
b) Microsoft put actual effort into ensuring that Directx 9 through to 12 work on the ARM platform.
Shocking, but not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple went down this path because Intel wouldn't make the processors Apple wanted. So, here we are.
I have an Intel Mac. No skin off my hide. Those are not exactly make or break features.
Re:Shocking, but not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
But none of them are features that should require the M1 chip. Well, maybe. They're also all iOS features, so it's possible that Apple is literally taking the iOS code and running it on macOS and that's why you can't use them on Intel Macs.
1. Portrait Mode blurred backgrounds in FaceTime videos
OK, I suppose it's possible that Intel's GPU isn't up for this, and they don't want to force the main GPU on for such a task because it wastes power. So maybe justified.
2. Live Text for copying and pasting, looking up, or translating text within photos
Probably uses the AI co-processor features that Apple has for their custom chips, since it was originally intended for use on iOS.
3. An interactive 3D globe of Earth in the Maps app
Um, nope, no way to justify this.
4. More detailed maps in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and London in the Maps app
Or this.
5. Text-to-speech in more languages, including Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish
Or this.
6. On-device keyboard dictation that performs all processing completely offline
Well, again, this may require the AI co-processor stuff, so I'll give them a pass on just this, I suppose.
7. Unlimited keyboard dictation (previously limited to 60 seconds per instance)
And again, no way to justify this. At least on technical grounds.
All of these things can certainly be done on Intel Macs. I'll grant them not doing background blurring as a "power consumption thing" but the items that may require the AI co-processor can definitely be done in software on an Intel Mac. They just don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
"1. Portrait Mode blurred backgrounds in FaceTime videos
OK, I suppose it's possible that Intel's GPU isn't up for this, and they don't want to force the main GPU on for such a task because it wastes power. So maybe justified."
Unlikely. More likely is that Apple uses a library for which there is no Intel version and they don't want to create one. Intel's GPU not up to the job but the M1's is? Haha. Who says it even needs the GPU?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not in this case.
There are phone apps which can do frame rate background segmentation on midrange Android devices on the CPU. All you need is a decent SGEMM which apple already provide for Intel and have for years. As CNNs go, it's an easy task. And there are plenty of BSD licensed libraries which will use GPUs for acceleration.
This is just Apple being dicks.
Re: (Score:2)
More like it requires the Apple ISP (image signal processor) in the M1 chip (and in iOS). Intel chip of course does not have the ISP.
It's likely a feature of the camera itself which on the M1 is a standard smartphone like camera, but on the Intel Mac is a USB camera.
Re: (Score:2)
More like it requires the Apple ISP (image signal processor) in the M1 chip (and in iOS). Intel chip of course does not have the ISP.
It's likely a feature of the camera itself which on the M1 is a standard smartphone like camera, but on the Intel Mac is a USB camera.
If that were the case, I'd expect it to be supported on T2-based Intel Macs, too, given that the T2 chip also contains image processing hardware and was likely designed at the same time as the CPU in the iPhone X, which supports FaceTime effects. The Neural Engine seems like a more likely guess to me. But who knows.
Either way, it really doesn't make sense to me that they'd implement something that trivial so close to the hardware. That's about like implementing a modern word processor in assembly languag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1. Portrait Mode blurred backgrounds in FaceTime videos
OK, I suppose it's possible that Intel's GPU isn't up for this, and they don't want to force the main GPU on for such a task because it wastes power. So maybe justified.
Come on, Zoom does this just fine on an Intel mac.
Re: Shocking, but not surprising (Score:2)
Microsoft Teams can, as long as you have an Intel CPU with AVX2, or AMD Zen 2 or newer which came out in 2019.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shocking, but not surprising (Score:5, Funny)
5. Text-to-speech in more languages, including Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish
Or this.
Have You ever tried speaking Finnish? I’m surprised it doesn’t take a beowulf cluster to do that...
Re: (Score:3)
On the cööntrrääry, with ällmööst eevery öther leetter wriitten wtiice, I woulld sääy Suomi hääs a lööt öf reeduundanccy buiillt-iin. Yoou cään drrööp häällf the leetterrs and stiill määkke seensse öf iit.
Re: (Score:2)
But none of them are features that should require the M1 chip. Well, maybe. They're also all iOS features, so it's possible that Apple is literally taking the iOS code and running it on macOS and that's why you can't use them on Intel Macs.
1. Portrait Mode blurred backgrounds in FaceTime videos
OK, I suppose it's possible that Intel's GPU isn't up for this, and they don't want to force the main GPU on for such a task because it wastes power. So maybe justified.
This is the least justified of all of them. If you search the web, you'll find implementations of this feature running in TensorFlow.js. In a browser. No GPU needed, much less a separate tensor processor. In the worst case, you might have to train a smaller model and get slightly worse results, but realistically, this is a piece of cake.
Re: (Score:2)
"No?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google has been doing on-device speech to text / dictation for a few years on normal ARM CPUs.
Intel's GPUs are more than up to the task. Other apps like Zoom do it without issue. Also the way it works is similar to one stage of video encoding (motion estimation) which again Intel GPUs are more than adequate for.
Re: (Score:2)
Background blurring is certainly possible on an Intel Mac. Both Teams and Zoom have this feature. Zoom even manages to do it without melting the circuit board into a pile of slag.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an Intel Mac. No skin off my hide. Those are not exactly make or break features.
Yet ...
Re: (Score:2)
Just like when IBM didnt make the CPUs apple wanted.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple to Intel Mac owners: Fuck You!
Boiling the frog (Score:2)
> I have an Intel Mac. No skin off my hide. Those are not exactly make or break features.
They'll get there
Re: Boiling the frog (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ll be sure for an upgrade by then. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an Intel Mac.
No. According to Apple you have a festering sore that needs to be treated. Sooner than you think.
No skin off my hide. Those are not exactly make or break features.
Not broken enough to convince you? Give it another update or two.
Death By 1,000 Cuts, is pleasing to them. Like Calligraphy. Guessing that was a Jobs thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Now Apple is in a bind to it's shareholders and the image of the M1 processors.
Anyone who was holding out on buying a Mac most likely bought a shiny new Mac in the last year so they aren't in any hurry to go buy yet another new computer in less then a year. This means most potential buyers of a n
Re: (Score:2)
In my case the feature they need to get me to buy an Apple silicon based Mac is 64Gb RAM. I'm hoping they delay it for a year because my current MBP is still pretty new and it's hard to justify replacing it right now.
Re: (Score:2)
No skin off my hide. Those are not exactly make or break features.
Don't worry, Apple will keep trying until they find something you care about.
Re: Shocking, but not surprising (Score:3)
Apple has already said they will happily support running 3rd party OS's on M1 macs. Why the trolling?
And fanboys (Score:3, Insightful)
are going to defend the move in 3... 2... 1...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually happened, as you were typing this message.
That's legitimately impressive.
Re:And fanboys (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter what people write, they're always shoved into "Apple fanboy" or "Apple hater" boxes, it doesn't even matter if they use Apple gear or not.
"This is amazing" says someone with a Linux PC and an Android phone - labelled as an Apple fanboy.
"This is so freaking stupid" says someone with an iMac, MacBook Pro, iPad and iPhone - labelled as an Apple hater.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I believe he really was against DRM. After all, it was just a lot of pointless work and liabilities for Apple. Dropping DRM meant more profits.
The funniest part of it all is when he got the labels to agree to drop the DRM and increase the quality from 128kbps to 256kbps at the same time. I have no idea how he was able to get the labels to ever agree to that. For Apple though, it meant all the iPods were now basically half the capacity, pushing people to buy the biggest capacity models and more incentives fo
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care what architecture people like, but I do care about accurate information.
When people say it's impossible/unrealistic for certain features to exist on certain hardware for totally bullshit marketing reasons, that's reason to get upset.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can all agree things like "blurring the background on video chat", for example, are things that don't need to be limited to their M1 processor, it's a gimmick to try and get people to upgrade to their latest offerring.
More than that, when just about every other video chat platform has that feature already (on computers that are up to 12 years old), and Apple's platform is playing catch-up, limiting it to the latest hardware makes it look like their engineers don't know how to write efficient code.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can all agree things like "blurring the background on video chat", for example, are things that don't need to be limited to their M1 processor, it's a gimmick to try and get people to upgrade to their latest offerring.
More than that, when just about every other video chat platform has that feature already (on computers that are up to 12 years old), and Apple's platform is playing catch-up, limiting it to the latest hardware makes it look like their engineers don't know how to write efficient code.
Efficient? *roflshnart* Have you seen their competition?
https://www.reddit.com/r/k12sy... [reddit.com]
Maybe Apple plans on _actually_ implementing it efficiently. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can all agree things like "blurring the background on video chat", for example, are things that don't need to be limited to their M1 processor, it's a gimmick to try and get people to upgrade to their latest offerring.
More than that, when just about every other video chat platform has that feature already (on computers that are up to 12 years old), and Apple's platform is playing catch-up, limiting it to the latest hardware makes it look like their engineers don't know how to write efficient code.
Efficient? *roflshnart* Have you seen their competition? https://www.reddit.com/r/k12sy... [reddit.com]
Maybe Apple plans on _actually_ implementing it efficiently. Duh.
Expecting JavaScript code to be as efficient as native code is simply unrealistic. Apple's implementation is native code. It should be able to do everything that the competing platforms can do with far less CPU. If it can't, then something is wrong.
Obsolete in 3.. (Score:2)
How fu***ng sad (Score:2)
Who cares?
It does the job
Final Straws (Score:2)
Dear Apple,
I see you've allowed Corrupt Greed to take over the sales meetings again. Fuck You Very Much for that. I hope you feel this pain in the most unexpected ways, because you have no justified reason to pull this kind of shit as a way to guilt consumers into buying your overpriced hardware.
Sincerely,
- Apple customer, 1984 - today.
Re: (Score:2)
It took you 37 years to realize? Jeez.
Re: (Score:2)
It took you 37 years to realize? Jeez.
The last hardware I purchased was a 2012 Mac Mini that I upgraded myself with an SSD and RAM. Those upgrade days, are long gone.
I received a much newer MBP as a gift, but you're right. They actually lost me as a customer when they removed all DIY upgrade paths and started financially raping people for said soldered upgrades. No thanks. I can't justify that kind of premium for CandyBSD.
I hope between this and their (now) infamous 30% developer tax, that they get burned hard.
So, in other words.... (Score:4, Informative)
It's not really worth bothering to upgrade to Monterey if you have an Intel Mac. Gotcha.
Honestly, I wish that I would have stuck with Mojave (10.14). I lost access to a ton of older 32 bit Mac apps and games when I "upgraded" to Catalina.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you downgrade back to Mojave?
Re: (Score:2)
Back compact (Score:2)
Apple somehow manages to provide years of support, while actually pushing people to abandon perfectly fine devices at the same time.
(Okay, sure bring the mod hammer...) One thing Microsoft does well is supporting their sh-t forever. And, they also get to *reduce* resource usage of their OS over time. Yes, sure running ads in the start menu is not forgivable, I am just focusing on the back compat aspect.
However Apple abandons everything in about two OS iterations. Even if the device is *technically* supporte
If you have Mac money this doesnt't matter. (Score:3)
One only NEEDS a specific PC to run software to make a profit. Other use is toy use (like gaming on Windows boxes).
Considered as a tool for work Macs are cheap compared to what a tradesman invests in their typical kit but this idea is a hard sell to buyers too invested in one model instead of planning for OS diversity from the start. If a grand or two hurts in the first world then it's not a tool but an option no matter how much affection you have for it.
The market rewards Apple therefore its choices are correct for Apple. If they're less correct for you, buy another machine or run an OS that doesn't shit all over your freedoms. You knew what you signed up for (if this is still a tech site).
"Freedom of choice means you have some work to do."
Re: (Score:2)
If they're less correct for you, buy another machine or run an OS that doesn't shit all over your freedoms.
That is exactly what I did. From 2005 until 2013, I had a decent amount of Apple kit. The pressure to buy the new stuff was stronger than my need to buy the new stuff, so I exited the Apple ecosystem. My money is not theirs, it is mine and I chose to keep it.
Only one feature restricted to M1 Macs (Score:2)