M1 Macs Reviewed

[avg123]

All hail the battery king M1 Macs

 

 

[Video Beagle]

22 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

Linus in the latest WAN

- fails to understand he just can’t be so self-confident to get up and dictate how Apple should ....

Linus fails to understand that Apple deals with Oprah and Bono and Obama. They're not going to waist their time with a youtuber who just sits there and whines about them not respecting him and calling them names. They can deal with the president if they want them.  Linus is very much a big fish in a small pond and rather than figuring out how to thrive in the lake, he's just polluting te water.

[RedRound2]

On 11/21/2020 at 5:15 PM, saltycaramel said:

Linus in the latest WAN

- fails to understand he just can’t be so self-confident to get up and dictate how Apple should structure a fast paced 45min video, and whether they find more fit to use vague performance per watt graphs (personally I find it an ok way to explain AS Macs given how different the architectures are anyway) or go full tech-youtuber with hard numbers, him failing to understand this or disagreeing about how a company should have used those brief 45 minutes doesn’t make it a “dumpster fire”  

- fails to understand Apple is still in a partnership with Intel and still sells a number of Intel Macs, so they can’t poo-poo on Intel too explicitly with direct comparisons (not even those vague numbers-less graphs mentioned Intel, tellingly)

- pretend to not understand that even if one appreciates the iPad, it is clear to anyone that calling a machine that’s supposed to run full bona fide desktop programs (like full Photoshop, perfectly usable at day1, like he would have probably known if he tried it via Rosetta on the DTK that was briefly available to LMG, but he just hedged on “you don’t wanna find out if this works on your work computer”, maybe wait a week and see if it works? ask your source about the DTK?) an “iPad” is a misleading way to belittle it. An iPad can at the same time be a computer and not be a macOS/Windows PC. Like a car is car but it’s no 16-wheeler truck. In that first reaction video he leaned towards these being cars, and made a huge deal of stuff like the missing 10G NIC. And he hedged on these first gen AS Macs being pretty rough (whereas the actual “generation 0” of these is the A12X in 2018, and even the all-new better Macs with FaceID and miniLED displays next year won’t make these necessarily “rough”, just transition machines with the old design). He was wrong or better, since we were all in the dark, leaning in the wrong direction, for clicks and for appeasing the PCMR apple-skeptic audience, nothing more and nothing less, I say this in a totally “chill” manner since he went “chill the F out”. 

It's kind mind boggling how his two remarks, the event and calling it an iPad completely falls apart if he actually think about it for two seconds

 

- Apple's customers are end users - what we would call the general population. They wouldn't be interested in random benchmarks (because most people wouldn't know or understand the the significance of it) or hearing complicated processor names when all most people know is i3, i5 and i7. So it makes no sense to go into deep dive during presentations from event point of view and anyone who would want to deep dive will deep dive regardless if it was covered in the event or not. I don't get why Linus seem to not understand this at all. They've always used multiplications and unlabelled graphs to convey the performance metric

 

- Doesn't he realize that calling it an iPad is same as calling a Desktop 10700K as a tablet chip, just because one of the Surface Pro devices has an i7 configuration? In Apple's case, they even have different names. At this point he's just justifying his remark by "Ohh, but I never said the iPad was bad, yada yada yada"

 

And nobody categorizes a device based on the internals. A Chromebook is a Chromebook because of ChromeOS. Nobody calls it a real laptop just because it shares the same Intel processors as real laptops. iPad is an iPad because of iPadOS. Can it do most things of a what we would traditionally do with a computer - yes, but it still isn't the "computer" we're used to rather a different take on it

[Dracarris]

40 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

- Apple's customers are end users - what we would call the general population. They wouldn't be interested in random benchmarks (because most people wouldn't know or understand the the significance of it) or hearing complicated processor names when all most people know is i3, i5 and i7. So it makes no sense to go into deep dive during presentations from event point of view and anyone who would want to deep dive will deep dive regardless if it was covered in the event or not. I don't get why Linus seem to not understand this at all. They've always used multiplications and unlabelled graphs to convey the performance metric

I think unlabeled graphs and totally obscure baselines/comparison references is a new low. Every person that did not completely fail basic high school math knows how bad unlabeled graph axis are. Either don't show a graph at all, or do it properly. There are numerous examples of how one can show easy-to-grasp but still correct graphs.

[leadeater]

40 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

- Apple's customers are end users - what we would call the general population. They wouldn't be interested in random benchmarks (because most people wouldn't know or understand the the significance of it) or hearing complicated processor names when all most people know is i3, i5 and i7. So it makes no sense to go into deep dive during presentations from event point of view and anyone who would want to deep dive will deep dive regardless if it was covered in the event or not. I don't get why Linus seem to not understand this at all. They've always used multiplications and unlabelled graphs to convey the performance metric

This argument falls apart by the sheer fact that other companies in the consumer electronics space have been able to and have labeled graphs, sometimes they scale them badly sure but at least each axis is labeled and graph data point values given, the bare minimum to be called a graph otherwise it's just a picture.

 

You can't deep dive if the information does not exist. If people are not interested in that information on the graph they can ignore it, it doesn't make the graphs harder to read, not at all.

 

As a side note these bad practices strike right at the hearts of math teachers and teachers in general, it perpetuates improper usage of graphs and people learn from what they see, it actually does teach people incorrectness. Not that marketing graphs have to be always to full mathematical standards but some semblance of effort wouldn't be a miss.

 

Basically you're setting your standards too low, nothing wrong with expecting better, particularly from a multi billion dollar company.

[RedRound2]

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I think unlabeled graphs and totally obscure baselines/comparison references is a new low. Every person that did not completely fail basic high school math knows how bad unlabeled graph axis are. Either don't show a graph at all, or do it properly. There are numerous examples of how one can show easy-to-grasp but still correct graphs.

It wasn't unlabelled. The X and the Y axis was labelled. Just that they never specified what the the exact specification was for the other line they compared to. But for general population, it gives them a relativistic look on what they can expect the performance out of the M1 Mac. As @saltycaramelsaid, they probably couldn't call out Intel because they still work with them 

 

[Dracarris]

1 minute ago, RedRound2 said:

It wasn't unlabelled. The X and the Y axis was perfectly labelled.

 

You CANNOT be possibly serious! If you think this is perfectly labeled, I highly recommend you re-visit high school math class. Sorry, come on! You seriously think because of that single data point on one axis this thing is labeled? Oh come on!

[RedRound2]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

This argument falls apart by the sheer fact that other companies in the consumer electronics space have been able to and have labeled graphs, sometimes they scale them badly sure but at least each axis is labeled and graph data point values given, the bare minimum to be called a graph otherwise it's just a picture.

 

You can't deep dive if the information does not exist. If people are not interested in that information on the graph they can ignore it, it doesn't make the graphs harder to read, not at all.

 

As a side note these bad practices strike right at the hearts of math teachers and teachers in general, it perpetuates improper usage of graphs and people learn from what they see, it actually does teach people incorrectness. Not that marketing graphs have to be always to full mathematical standards but some semblance of effort wouldn't be a miss.

 

Basically you're setting your standards too low, nothing wrong with expecting better, particularly from a multi billion dollar company.

It wasn't unlabelled. The X and the Y labels are there. And they even give you an idea of scale by marking the 10W point from the axis.

 

They never directly compared it with anything else. That was all that was wrong with the presentation. They never called out what they were comparing against. And they never historically have, even with the A series for past 10 years. It's just that we all know the A series is like two years ahead of competition, so we don't care about it. The M1 was new, so people wanted more details

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

It wasn't unlabelled. The X and the Y axis was perfectly labelled. Just that they never specified what the the exact specification was for the other line they compared to. But for general population, it gives them a relativistic look on what they can expect the performance out of the M1 Mac. As @saltycaramelsaid, they probably couldn't call out Intel because they still work with them 

Those are not actually called graph labels, those are the legends. Graph labels are the values of each axis.

 

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/change-axis-labels-in-a-chart-1c32436b-fb12-450b-aefa-cc7e4584456a#:~:text=In a chart you create,data for these axis labels.

 

 

Quote

In a chart you create, axis labels are shown below the horizontal (category, or "X") axis, next to the vertical (value, or "Y") axis, and next to the depth axis (in a 3-D chart). Your chart uses text from its source data for these axis labels.

 

Don't confuse the horizontal axis labels—Qtr 1, Qtr 2, Qtr 3, and Qtr 4, as shown below, with the legend labels below them—East Asia Sales 2009 and East Asia Sales 2010.

 

[Dracarris]

4 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

And they even give you an idea of scale by marking the 10W point from the axis.

The whole idea behind graphs is to display scale, i.e., numeric relationships! Otherwise, we are just dealing with a picture.

[saltycaramel]

Just now, Dracarris said:

You CANNOT be possibly serious! If you think this is perfectly labeled, I highly recommend you re-visit high school math class. Sorry, come on! You seriously think because of that single data point on one axis this thing is labeled? Oh come on!

 

I think it’s an effective way to give a general feeling of what these CPUs are about while encompassing a number of different thermal envelopes and without pinpointing a specific scenario both on the Apple Silicon and on the x86 side.

Plus Linus treating Apple like a scummy sleazy company to be highly doubtful about is out of place given their track record in the CPU space.

[RedRound2]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

You CANNOT be possibly serious! If you think this is perfectly labeled, I highly recommend you re-visit high school math class. Sorry, come on! You seriously think because of that single data point on one axis this thing is labeled? Oh come on!

By perfectly labelled I just meant what those axis represents - which is the case. The graph is meaningless without those and that's what looks like everyone is complaining about

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Those are not actually called graph labels, those are the legends. Graph labels are the values of each axis.

 

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/change-axis-labels-in-a-chart-1c32436b-fb12-450b-aefa-cc7e4584456a#:~:text=In a chart you create,data for these axis labels.

 

 

 

Sure, the grid and the per cm unit wasn't there. But this is a more than good enough simplistic graph for someone to understand what is going on. Everyone was complaining about the lack of hard performance numbers and what they were comparing against (which to me seemed clear it was the previous gen i3 MBA whenever they weren't calling the comparison against the "latest pc"

[Dracarris]

Just now, saltycaramel said:

[..] given their track record in the CPU space.

Yet another reason why they have absolutely zero motivation of being that vague in a keynote about their cool new product.

[Dracarris]

Just now, RedRound2 said:

By perfectly labelled I just meant what those axis represents - which is the case. The graph is meaningless without those and that's what looks like everyone is complaining about

No. People are complaining about the lack of scale (or ticks) on the axis. It is not even clear if the origin in this graph represents (0,0) or some offset in one or both axis.

[RedRound2]

1 minute ago, Dracarris said:

The whole idea behind graphs is to display scale, i.e., numeric relationships! Otherwise, we are just dealing with a picture.

And it all comes back to my initial point. Nobody cares what anyone shows during a presentation. I don't think anyone was expecting them to show 50 graphs of the M1 vs competition. That info was to give a general idea, which it did. Nobody bought it, understandably - but it proved itself after testing in real world.

[Lord Vile]

6 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

You CANNOT be possibly serious! If you think this is perfectly labeled, I highly recommend you re-visit high school math class. Sorry, come on! You seriously think because of that single data point on one axis this thing is labeled? Oh come on!

Graphs are fine. it's just showing a relation to for matketing on Beta at best software. From the figures shown you can't even argue about scale. 

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

No. People are complaining about the lack of scale (or ticks) on the axis. It is not even clear if the origin in this graph represents (0,0) or some offset in one or both axis.

Scale isn't just "ticks" it's a relative performance chart and with them giving 2x and 0.25 with points of reference you can see the scale of the rest of the graph.

[RedRound2]

Just now, Dracarris said:

No. People are complaining about the lack of scale (or ticks) on the axis. It is not even clear if the origin in this graph represents (0,0) or some offset in one or both axis.

But there was a hard comparison at 10W mark. What are you even complaining about? They even showed that it was at 1/4 of the power. That was what was relevant at the keynote.

 

No everyone was complaining about what laptops they were comparing against

[Dracarris]

1 minute ago, RedRound2 said:

But there was a hard comparison at 10W mark. What are you even complaining about?

You need at least two points to establish a valid numerical comparison. Jeez, this discussion is so painful. Without specifying what the origin represents, even relative relationships are meaningless. They could have just shown these relative numbers and leave out the graph altogether. A graph can be insanely valuable if used correctly. In this form, it does not add any value.

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Scale isn't just "ticks" it's a relative performance chart and with them giving 2x and 0.25 with points of reference you can see the scale of the rest of the graph.

Then tell me the power of the "Latest PC laptop chip" at the maximum performance mark. You can't can you? Point of reference with no scale is useless.

 

As a marketing slide it portrays what Apple wanted to show very well, no doubt about that but it does so in a bad manor that is susceptible to being used to deceive because you cannot independently prove or disprove what is being shown, it requires you to trust and thus means you should not because any source of information you cannot verify should not be trusted. That's why people say do not trust first party information like this as it either cannot be verified or presented in a way that may not be properly representative.

 

But really that's not so much the issue, we already know to not just believe marketing slides like this. The issue is if companies are being improper it removes the ability to show that they have been, this allows companies to hide behind obscurity. And even then that type of issue aside like I said earlier we should simply expect better because they can do better. The referenced graph shown so far is definitely the creation of a graphic designer tasked with showing a marketing point rather than for the purpose of displaying and imparting information, whoever did it isn't their fault, they were just doing their job.

[RedRound2]

7 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

You need at least two points to establish a valid numerical comparison. Jeez, this discussion is so painful. Without specifying what the origin represents, even relative relationships are meaningless. They could have just shown these relative numbers and leave out the graph altogether. A graph can be insanely valuable if used correctly. In this form, it does not add any value.

It is generally always assumed that the origin lies at the X and Y intersection. So you do have two datapoint to meaningfully scale the rest of the graph yourself. But who cares is my point.  It was to give a general feel about the performance difference. They said upto 2x performance for the 25% power. That in itself is enough. Further they just made a graph. I don't expect their chips to exactly follow the same curve. And nobody should. Nobody gives such high level detailed graphs and data unless it's some scientific conference. It was to give a general idea, which it did. If they had specified what they were comparing it against - that would've allowed viewers to put hard. numbers on these graphs - like same i3/i5 performance at 25% power - or 2x i3/i5 maximum score

[Blademaster91]

On 11/21/2020 at 5:45 AM, saltycaramel said:

whether they find more fit to use vague performance per watt graphs

There is no point in going into detail then using vague graphs, using a "2X faster" claim is pointless and misleading if it isn't explained what its being compared to.

On 11/21/2020 at 5:45 AM, saltycaramel said:

Apple is still in a partnership with Intel and still sells a number of Intel Macs, so they can’t poo-poo on Intel

Apple making their own CPU then having a vague graph saying their CPU is faster without any clarification what its being compared to, thats apple crapping on intel, and there isn't any point buying an Intel mac because who knows how long apple is going to support x86 macs.

On 11/21/2020 at 5:45 AM, saltycaramel said:

an “iPad” is a misleading way to belittle it.

It's really not, now that apple controls everything down to not allowing dual boot, apple can end support and get their customers to go buy a new one.

On 11/21/2020 at 5:45 AM, saltycaramel said:

huge deal of stuff like the missing 10G NIC

No 10GB NIC is a huge deal to some users, but because its apple there is a double standard of because some users don't need that must mean no one needs to have a 10GB NIC, or upgradable RAM, or an eGPU, or more Thunderbolt ports. And the 10GB NIC dongle is another $150 added to the price if the user does need it.

On 11/21/2020 at 5:45 AM, saltycaramel said:

transition machines with the old design

So basically early adopter machines that lack features the previous Intel macs had, then apple can drop support for those if they wanted to. Linus has a point, look how quickly Apple dropped OS support for the first ipads.

On 11/21/2020 at 5:45 AM, saltycaramel said:

since he went “chill the F out”.

The apple audience seriously does need to calm down, Linus is welcome to his own opinion on this, and he has some great points that people should listen to, if people can't understand that then maybe those people should go watch an apple youtuber that only gives praise and ignores any drawbacks to a product because thats clearly what apple wants because Linus didn't get any early stuff to review.

[RedRound2]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Then tell me the power of the "Latest PC laptop chip" at the maximum performance mark. You can't can you? Point of reference with no scale is useless.

 

As a marketing slide it portrays what Apple wanted to show very well, no doubt about that but it does so in a bad manor that is susceptible to being used to deceive because you cannot independently prove or disprove what is being shown, it requires you to trust and thus means you should not because any source of information you cannot verify should not be trusted. That's why people say do not trust first party information like this as it either cannot be verified or presented in a way that may not be properly representative.

 

But really that's not so much the issue, we already know to not just believe marketing slides like this. The issue is if companies are being improper it removes the ability to show that they have been, this allows companies to hide behind obscurity. And even then that type of issue aside like I said earlier we should simply expect better because they can do better. The referenced graph shown so far is definitely the creation of a graphic designer tasked with showing a marketing point rather than for the purpose of displaying and imparting information, whoever did it isn't their fault, they were just doing their job.

They could've not given any graphs. It wasn't their obligation to. Everyone knows that. If they lie, or don't lie, or straight up not give any metrics - people will still be able to get the same metrics by themselves - including popular influencers like Linus. This is so dumb at this point. You guys are still arguing about presentation graphs when we already have the real world data. Linus's logic was that they would've specified what they were comparing against if they were confident about their chips. Linus thought they weren't confident so he called it a dumpster fire dead on arrival product that would be replaced soon. 

[Spindel]

43 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

I think unlabeled graphs and totally obscure baselines/comparison references is a new low. Every person that did not completely fail basic high school math knows how bad unlabeled graph axis are. Either don't show a graph at all, or do it properly. There are numerous examples of how one can show easy-to-grasp but still correct graphs.

 

34 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This argument falls apart by the sheer fact that other companies in the consumer electronics space have been able to and have labeled graphs, sometimes they scale them badly sure but at least each axis is labeled and graph data point values given, the bare minimum to be called a graph otherwise it's just a picture.

 

You can't deep dive if the information does not exist. If people are not interested in that information on the graph they can ignore it, it doesn't make the graphs harder to read, not at all.

 

As a side note these bad practices strike right at the hearts of math teachers and teachers in general, it perpetuates improper usage of graphs and people learn from what they see, it actually does teach people incorrectness. Not that marketing graphs have to be always to full mathematical standards but some semblance of effort wouldn't be a miss.

 

Basically you're setting your standards too low, nothing wrong with expecting better, particularly from a multi billion dollar company.

 

33 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

It wasn't unlabelled. The X and the Y axis was labelled. Just that they never specified what the the exact specification was for the other line they compared to. But for general population, it gives them a relativistic look on what they can expect the performance out of the M1 Mac. As @saltycaramelsaid, they probably couldn't call out Intel because they still work with them 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

You CANNOT be possibly serious! If you think this is perfectly labeled, I highly recommend you re-visit high school math class. Sorry, come on! You seriously think because of that single data point on one axis this thing is labeled? Oh come on!

 

30 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

It wasn't unlabelled. The X and the Y labels are there. And they even give you an idea of scale by marking the 10W point from the axis.

 

They never directly compared it with anything else. That was all that was wrong with the presentation. They never called out what they were comparing against. And they never historically have, even with the A series for past 10 years. It's just that we all know the A series is like two years ahead of competition, so we don't care about it. The M1 was new, so people wanted more details

 

29 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Those are not actually called graph labels, those are the legends. Graph labels are the values of each axis.

 

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/change-axis-labels-in-a-chart-1c32436b-fb12-450b-aefa-cc7e4584456a#:~:text=In a chart you create,data for these axis labels.

 

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

The whole idea behind graphs is to display scale, i.e., numeric relationships! Otherwise, we are just dealing with a picture.

 

26 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

I think it’s an effective way to give a general feeling of what these CPUs are about while encompassing a number of different thermal envelopes and without pinpointing a specific scenario both on the Apple Silicon and on the x86 side.

Plus Linus treating Apple like a scummy sleazy company to be highly doubtful about is out of place given their track record in the CPU space.

 

25 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

By perfectly labelled I just meant what those axis represents - which is the case. The graph is meaningless without those and that's what looks like everyone is complaining about

Sure, the grid and the per cm unit wasn't there. But this is a more than good enough simplistic graph for someone to understand what is going on. Everyone was complaining about the lack of hard performance numbers and what they were comparing against (which to me seemed clear it was the previous gen i3 MBA whenever they weren't calling the comparison against the "latest pc"

 

24 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

Yet another reason why they have absolutely zero motivation of being that vague in a keynote about their cool new product.

 

23 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

No. People are complaining about the lack of scale (or ticks) on the axis. It is not even clear if the origin in this graph represents (0,0) or some offset in one or both axis.

 

23 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

And it all comes back to my initial point. Nobody cares what anyone shows during a presentation. I don't think anyone was expecting them to show 50 graphs of the M1 vs competition. That info was to give a general idea, which it did. Nobody bought it, understandably - but it proved itself after testing in real world.

 

23 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Graphs are fine. it's just showing a relation to for matketing on Beta at best software. From the figures shown you can't even argue about scale. 

 

21 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Scale isn't just "ticks" it's a relative performance chart and with them giving 2x and 0.25 with points of reference you can see the scale of the rest of the graph.

 

21 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

But there was a hard comparison at 10W mark. What are you even complaining about? They even showed that it was at 1/4 of the power. That was what was relevant at the keynote.

 

No everyone was complaining about what laptops they were comparing against

 

17 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

You need at least two points to establish a valid numerical comparison. Jeez, this discussion is so painful. Without specifying what the origin represents, even relative relationships are meaningless. They could have just shown these relative numbers and leave out the graph altogether. A graph can be insanely valuable if used correctly. In this form, it does not add any value.

 

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Then tell me the power of the "Latest PC laptop chip" at the maximum performance mark. You can't can you? Point of reference with no scale is useless.

 

As a marketing slide it portrays what Apple wanted to show very well, no doubt about that but it does so in a bad manor that is susceptible to being used to deceive because you cannot independently prove or disprove what is being shown, it requires you to trust and thus means you should not because any source of information you cannot verify should not be trusted. That's why people say do not trust first party information like this as it either cannot be verified or presented in a way that may not be properly representative.

 

But really that's not so much the issue, we already know to not just believe marketing slides like this. The issue is if companies are being improper it removes the ability to show that they have been, this allows companies to hide behind obscurity. And even then that type of issue aside like I said earlier we should simply expect better because they can do better. The referenced graph shown so far is definitely the creation of a graphic designer tasked with showing a marketing point rather than for the purpose of displaying and imparting information, whoever did it isn't their fault, they were just doing their job.

 

4 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

It is generally always assumed that the origin lies at the X and Y intersection. So you do have two datapoint to meaningfully scale the rest of the graph yourself. But who cares is my point.  It was to give a general feel about the performance difference. They said upto 2x performance for the 25% power. That in itself is enough. Further they just made a graph. I don't expect their chips to exactly follow the same curve. And nobody should. Nobody gives such high level detailed graphs and data unless it's some scientific conference. It was to give a general idea, which it did. If they had specified what they were comparing it against - that would've allowed viewers to put hard. numbers on these graphs - like same i3/i5 performance at 25% power - or 2x i3/i5 maximum score

 

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

There is no point in going into detail then using vague graphs, using a "2X faster" claim is pointless and misleading if it isn't explained what its being compared to.

Apple making their own CPU then having a vague graph saying their CPU is faster without any clarification what its being compared to, thats apple crapping on intel, and there isn't any point buying an Intel mac because who knows how long apple is going to support x86 macs.

It's really not, now that apple controls everything down to not allowing dual boot, apple can end support and get their customers to go buy a new one.

No 10GB NIC is a huge deal to some users, but because its apple there is a double standard of because some users don't need that must mean no one needs to have a 10GB NIC, or upgradable RAM, or an eGPU, or more Thunderbolt ports. And the 10GB NIC dongle is another $150 added to the price if the user does need it.

So basically early adopter machines that lack features the previous Intel macs had, then apple can drop support for those if they wanted to. Linus has a point, look how quickly Apple dropped OS support for the first ipads.

The apple audience seriously does need to calm down, Linus is welcome to his own opinion on this, and he has some great points that people should listen to, if people can't understand that then maybe those people should go watch an apple youtuber that only gives praise and ignores any drawbacks to a product because thats clearly what apple wants because Linus didn't get any early stuff to review.

Pointless bickering and at this point who cares. 

 

We are comparing the M1 to desktop CPUs in performance.

Apple won no matter what you think about the presentation.  

[fred82]

On 11/22/2020 at 4:59 AM, Video Beagle said:

Linus fails to understand that Apple deals with Oprah and Bono and Obama. They're not going to waist their time with a youtuber who just sits there and whines about them not respecting him and calling them names. They can deal with the president if they want them.  Linus is very much a big fish in a small pond and rather than figuring out how to thrive in the lake, he's just polluting te water.

no need for immature and hatred comment towards Linus

this topic sadly represents what our society becomes: immature, haters, people who think they know everything by watching a video or reading wikipedia

we forgot modesty, doubt, being wise and respecting other opinions

 

so let's keep on the topic with respect