11 ms·

The out-of-stock $6000 M3 Ultra Mac Studios with 800GB+ memory bandwidth are going for $24,000 on eBay, so yes definitely

cactusplant7374 2mo ago
How much did Apple sell them for?
JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
Let me clarify, I think Apple could sell a device at the scale Apple sells at around the $10 to 25 thousand price point. Like, take out the price sheets for the Apple Car. Then sell me an AI tower at those price points.
- testing22321 2mo ago
  I’m still disappointed they didn’t make a Mac Pro with 4 or 8 or 16 or 32 ultra M chips for something insane
- fy20 2mo ago
  In 2010 one of the standard configurations for the Mac Pro was $4,999. Once you customised ram, storage, peripherals and software it could easily end up above $15,000, or $23k today accounting for inflation. Apple hardware is one thing that has actually got cheaper over time. https://www.macworld.com/article/209019/macguide2010.html https://www.macworld.com/article/209019/macguide2010.html
- bigyabai 2mo ago
  Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume. Those Macbook Neo users would be very reliant on Apple intelligence, enough maybe to pay for a service with it. I think Apple's much happier going this path.
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume If it's an "or," absolutely. But if it's an or, they should be prioritising Macbooks over the Mac Mini Doug Brooks is discussing. When we breach the "and" of memory supply sufficient to allow for more Mac minis (and Mac Studios), I think it would make sense to consider relaunching Xserve (with new branding, of course) as a consumer/small business product.
    - LastTrain 2mo ago
      If we reach the and, then they can no longer demand the price
    - bigyabai 2mo ago
      Memory supply isn't what held back XServe. We wouldn't need XServe if Apple treated the Mac like a regular computer and supported usable, first-class headless workflows and eGPUs. The writing has been on the wall since 2019. Apple doesn't like the old way of computing, their goal is to expand the ecosystem by prioritizing install-base and then pushing first-party service offerings like they did with the iPhone. And like they did with the iPhone, Apple is great at ignoring power users to focus on features that make them more money. You may be waiting a few decades for this type of product, memory supply be damned.
  - jiqiren 2mo ago
    When I was at Apple we never wanted or. We wanted all. If that push to use Chinese memory works out it will be great for us and Apple.
    - bigyabai 2mo ago
      Apple sure doesn't act like it. The Mac is still a minority market share of PCs, and their entrants into spaces like AR do nothing to compete with incumbents. Now that the Mac Pro is depreciated, Apple's plan to pivot to service offerings seems set in stone. That's the "want it all" attitude they've adopted with the App Store.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- eitally 2mo ago
  I think so, too, and I think it'll end up being a race between Apple & NVIDIA (or NVIDIA partners) to see who realizes this first. It would probably be easier for Apple to do it because it wouldn't require a form factor adjustment [over the Mac Studio they already have]. That said, NVIDIA already offers chipsets for both the lower end (DGX Spark with Vera + GB10, at roughly the $4500 price point) and higher end (DGX Station with Vera + GB300, for $85-100k). The DGX Station is equivalent to ~5-6 RTX6000 GPUs attached to a mid-range CPU server, but far more than most individual developers would want or need. I've heard through the grapevine that NVIDIA's received consistent feedback that they need something like a "GB20" that slots above the Spark/GB10 and can simultaneously run larger models for inference while hosting a dev environment on the same box. You can daisy-chain Sparks just like you can daisy-chain Mac Minis, but you're still constrained on model performance based on what a single device can accommodate.
  - bigyabai 2mo ago
    Form factor is the easy part - both Nvidia and Apple are experienced SOC designers. The hard part is the GPU architecture. Apple Silicon was designed with a laser focus on raster efficiency (similar to AMD's GPUs) which makes a lot of sense for highly mobile hardware, but is a crippling mistake for high-performance compute. Apple's largest Ultra chips are hamstrung with SOC-tier GPU performance, their highest-end desktops are outperformed by Nvidia's laptop offerings. Apple has to find a way to scale upwards without imposing too much architectural strain on their cheaper hardware like the iPhone and Macbook. Nvidia has already solved this issue; full CUDA compute stacks are usable on extremely cheap GPUs like the Nintendo Switch's Tegra SOC, or the Mac Mini-sized Jetson boards. In terms of "who needs to redesign more to address the market", Apple has a lot of technical debt to unearth before they catch up to Nvidia. And if they do catch up, Nvidia will still support Linux and other differentiating features that Apple refuses to implement. It definitely feels like Nvidia is closer to a winner with the Spark than Apple is with the Mini or Studio.
thephyber 2mo ago
I don’t think we should use current prices as landmarks for large scale demand. That Studio’s current prices is inflated because of a (presumably) short term supply crunch, not because the average user is willing to pay $24k for a home AI inference device. It assumes that RAM remains supply constrained and that none of the existing RAM contracts are cut short. But Meta and xAI putting A TON of AI compute onto the market. OpenAI and Anthropic are raising the costs of inference (by reducing how much inference users get via subscriptions). And we haven’t seen Oracle / CoreWeave struggle to pay their debts yet, but they will be selling assets once they get close to that point.
- uejfiweun 2mo ago
  What makes you think the supply crunch is short-term?
  - msdz 2mo ago
    Unless the raw materials have an inherent limit on mining/production due to the amount present on the planet, why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Edit: Okay, this doesn’t mean that that’s actually possible in the short-term, so I think you’re right. But that means as the silver lining, in the medium term horizon there’ll be enough supply again? :’)
    - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
      > why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Memory is a cyclical market that has historically rewarded conservatism [1]. Counterpoint: there is enough demand from enough capital-rich customers that they may be willing to shoulder the capital risk. [1] https://www.ldeepai.com/tech-hub/dram-industry-consolidation-three-survivors-memory-scale/#:~:text=The%20DRAM%20industry,memory%20inevitably%20consolidates https://www.ldeepai.com/tech-hub/dram-industry-consolidation... Sorry for the slop link, it has a good chart from a solid source
      - msdz 2mo ago
moritzwarhier 2mo ago
Not the same issue, but makes me nostalgic for these simpler times: https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/
api 2mo ago
I’m sure that hasn’t gone unnoticed.
trebligdivad 2mo ago
Yeh I don't know why the emphasise the 'neural engine' - it's their stonking RAM bandwidth that just blows everything else out of the water.

cactusplant7374 2mo ago

How much did Apple sell them for?

JumpCrisscross 2mo ago

Let me clarify, I think Apple could sell a device at the scale Apple sells at around the $10 to 25 thousand price point. Like, take out the price sheets for the Apple Car. Then sell me an AI tower at those price points.

testing22321 2mo ago
I’m still disappointed they didn’t make a Mac Pro with 4 or 8 or 16 or 32 ultra M chips for something insane
fy20 2mo ago
In 2010 one of the standard configurations for the Mac Pro was $4,999. Once you customised ram, storage, peripherals and software it could easily end up above $15,000, or $23k today accounting for inflation. Apple hardware is one thing that has actually got cheaper over time. https://www.macworld.com/article/209019/macguide2010.html https://www.macworld.com/article/209019/macguide2010.html
bigyabai 2mo ago
Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume. Those Macbook Neo users would be very reliant on Apple intelligence, enough maybe to pay for a service with it. I think Apple's much happier going this path.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume If it's an "or," absolutely. But if it's an or, they should be prioritising Macbooks over the Mac Mini Doug Brooks is discussing. When we breach the "and" of memory supply sufficient to allow for more Mac minis (and Mac Studios), I think it would make sense to consider relaunching Xserve (with new branding, of course) as a consumer/small business product.
  - LastTrain 2mo ago
    If we reach the and, then they can no longer demand the price
  - bigyabai 2mo ago
    Memory supply isn't what held back XServe. We wouldn't need XServe if Apple treated the Mac like a regular computer and supported usable, first-class headless workflows and eGPUs. The writing has been on the wall since 2019. Apple doesn't like the old way of computing, their goal is to expand the ecosystem by prioritizing install-base and then pushing first-party service offerings like they did with the iPhone. And like they did with the iPhone, Apple is great at ignoring power users to focus on features that make them more money. You may be waiting a few decades for this type of product, memory supply be damned.
- jiqiren 2mo ago
  When I was at Apple we never wanted or. We wanted all. If that push to use Chinese memory works out it will be great for us and Apple.
  - bigyabai 2mo ago
    Apple sure doesn't act like it. The Mac is still a minority market share of PCs, and their entrants into spaces like AR do nothing to compete with incumbents. Now that the Mac Pro is depreciated, Apple's plan to pivot to service offerings seems set in stone. That's the "want it all" attitude they've adopted with the App Store.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
eitally 2mo ago
I think so, too, and I think it'll end up being a race between Apple & NVIDIA (or NVIDIA partners) to see who realizes this first. It would probably be easier for Apple to do it because it wouldn't require a form factor adjustment [over the Mac Studio they already have]. That said, NVIDIA already offers chipsets for both the lower end (DGX Spark with Vera + GB10, at roughly the $4500 price point) and higher end (DGX Station with Vera + GB300, for $85-100k). The DGX Station is equivalent to ~5-6 RTX6000 GPUs attached to a mid-range CPU server, but far more than most individual developers would want or need. I've heard through the grapevine that NVIDIA's received consistent feedback that they need something like a "GB20" that slots above the Spark/GB10 and can simultaneously run larger models for inference while hosting a dev environment on the same box. You can daisy-chain Sparks just like you can daisy-chain Mac Minis, but you're still constrained on model performance based on what a single device can accommodate.
- bigyabai 2mo ago
  Form factor is the easy part - both Nvidia and Apple are experienced SOC designers. The hard part is the GPU architecture. Apple Silicon was designed with a laser focus on raster efficiency (similar to AMD's GPUs) which makes a lot of sense for highly mobile hardware, but is a crippling mistake for high-performance compute. Apple's largest Ultra chips are hamstrung with SOC-tier GPU performance, their highest-end desktops are outperformed by Nvidia's laptop offerings. Apple has to find a way to scale upwards without imposing too much architectural strain on their cheaper hardware like the iPhone and Macbook. Nvidia has already solved this issue; full CUDA compute stacks are usable on extremely cheap GPUs like the Nintendo Switch's Tegra SOC, or the Mac Mini-sized Jetson boards. In terms of "who needs to redesign more to address the market", Apple has a lot of technical debt to unearth before they catch up to Nvidia. And if they do catch up, Nvidia will still support Linux and other differentiating features that Apple refuses to implement. It definitely feels like Nvidia is closer to a winner with the Spark than Apple is with the Mini or Studio.

thephyber 2mo ago

I don’t think we should use current prices as landmarks for large scale demand. That Studio’s current prices is inflated because of a (presumably) short term supply crunch, not because the average user is willing to pay $24k for a home AI inference device. It assumes that RAM remains supply constrained and that none of the existing RAM contracts are cut short. But Meta and xAI putting A TON of AI compute onto the market. OpenAI and Anthropic are raising the costs of inference (by reducing how much inference users get via subscriptions). And we haven’t seen Oracle / CoreWeave struggle to pay their debts yet, but they will be selling assets once they get close to that point.

uejfiweun 2mo ago
What makes you think the supply crunch is short-term?
- msdz 2mo ago
  Unless the raw materials have an inherent limit on mining/production due to the amount present on the planet, why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Edit: Okay, this doesn’t mean that that’s actually possible in the short-term, so I think you’re right. But that means as the silver lining, in the medium term horizon there’ll be enough supply again? :’)
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Memory is a cyclical market that has historically rewarded conservatism [1]. Counterpoint: there is enough demand from enough capital-rich customers that they may be willing to shoulder the capital risk. [1] https://www.ldeepai.com/tech-hub/dram-industry-consolidation-three-survivors-memory-scale/#:~:text=The%20DRAM%20industry,memory%20inevitably%20consolidates https://www.ldeepai.com/tech-hub/dram-industry-consolidation... Sorry for the slop link, it has a good chart from a solid source
    - msdz 2mo ago

moritzwarhier 2mo ago

Not the same issue, but makes me nostalgic for these simpler times: https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/

api 2mo ago

I’m sure that hasn’t gone unnoticed.

trebligdivad 2mo ago

Yeh I don't know why the emphasise the 'neural engine' - it's their stonking RAM bandwidth that just blows everything else out of the water.