5 ms·

And yet it's a dick move from Apple to artificially limit number of external screens supported.

sneak 3y ago
Lots of compromises are made to get the Air to the size, weight, and most importantly, price point (ie sub-$1k) that it is. It is Apple’s best selling computer by quite a bit. They sell metric assloads of the $999 base model each fall when school starts. IMO the $999 one (or $899 with education discount) is literally the best price:perf ratio of any computer available today or at any time in my recent memory. It’s astounding how good it is for that price.
- user_7832 3y ago
  > Lots of compromises are made to get the Air to the size, weight, and most importantly, price point (ie sub-$1k) that it is. > IMO the $999 one (or $899 with education discount) is literally the best price:perf ratio of any computer available today or at any time in my recent memory. It’s astounding how good it is for that price. It is possible for your comment to be correct while the poster above is also correct. The M chips are amazing, but let's not pretend that Apple doesn't knowingly gimp the hardware to upsell the more expensive versions. "But that would make it more expensive." Yes it would... by pennies. It is a bit ridiculous to sell a phone as expensive as the current iphones and limit them to USB 2.
  - sneak 3y ago
    Generally speaking, people don’t use the port on an iPhone for anything other than charging. The fact that it supports USB v-anything is mostly unnecessary cost. If you are thinking in any way whatsoever about the non-wireless data transfer speeds on your phone, you are not the market or user it was designed for. Same goes for external monitors on an MBA.
    - user_7832 3y ago
      I agree that USB isn't commonly used but that's kinda the point - it doesn't hurt apple much to do it (and they're not saving anything remotely significant), but they still do it to force the few who do want to use fast USBs. A more common example where nearly everyone would notice would be the abysmal ram in their phones until very recently.
  - lukas099 3y ago
    > knowingly gimp the hardware to upsell the more expensive versions. I'm skeptical. A ton of money is dumped into optimizing everything and then they just throw it down the drain? That would drive more people to the competition than to higher-priced Macs.
    - user_7832 3y ago
      I meant that bit in general and not specifically for the mac, but for eg they sold iPads with 32gb storage as recently as 2020 iirc. Even now the base level macs have much less ram and storage than similarly priced windows counterparts. I think part of it is just so they can say "macbooks start at $xx!". There are more examples I can't think of right now.
- masklinn 3y ago
  Come off it. - the 14" M3 is $1600, but limited to a single external display, and actually only has two TB ports, it's just sad - the M3 Pro is limited to two external displays, despite an entry price of $2000 $3199 is the baseline to be able to use 3 external displays (although at that price you can plug up to 4).
- MikusR 3y ago
  the 2000 Euro M3 Macbook pro also supports only one external display and is the same size and weight as the ones that support more.
_ph_ 3y ago
They are not artificially limiting the number of external screens. To support more screens, they would have to reserve die area for an additional controller. That could mean a gpu less or something. This is about engineering tradeoffs.
- masklinn 3y ago
  Considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1, I'm sure they could have found some room for a third display controller, or a more capable one (one with MST support for instance), or just a more flexible one. They're selling a $1600 machine which can't drive two external displays, it's sad. Intel's HD Graphics have been doing better since 2012 and they're trash.
  - nomel 3y ago
    > considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1 And that's why everyone loves node shrinks. You can stuff more transistors for the same cost.
  - willseth 3y ago
    It’s a business decision. You don’t think Apple knows the demand for multiple external displays? If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      > It’s a business decision. That doesn't make it less frustrating. > If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it. It's short term thinking, it generates bad feeling of nickel and diming and unnecessary upsells: on M3 you need to pay $2000 to be able to use two external displays, and $3200 for 3, even if you have no need for the rest of the processing power. Not only that but they managed to create more range confusion with the expensive but gimped entry-level 14".
      - willseth 3y ago

Lots of compromises are made to get the Air to the size, weight, and most importantly, price point (ie sub-$1k) that it is. It is Apple’s best selling computer by quite a bit. They sell metric assloads of the $999 base model each fall when school starts. IMO the $999 one (or $899 with education discount) is literally the best price:perf ratio of any computer available today or at any time in my recent memory. It’s astounding how good it is for that price.

user_7832 3y ago
> Lots of compromises are made to get the Air to the size, weight, and most importantly, price point (ie sub-$1k) that it is. > IMO the $999 one (or $899 with education discount) is literally the best price:perf ratio of any computer available today or at any time in my recent memory. It’s astounding how good it is for that price. It is possible for your comment to be correct while the poster above is also correct. The M chips are amazing, but let's not pretend that Apple doesn't knowingly gimp the hardware to upsell the more expensive versions. "But that would make it more expensive." Yes it would... by pennies. It is a bit ridiculous to sell a phone as expensive as the current iphones and limit them to USB 2.
- sneak 3y ago
  Generally speaking, people don’t use the port on an iPhone for anything other than charging. The fact that it supports USB v-anything is mostly unnecessary cost. If you are thinking in any way whatsoever about the non-wireless data transfer speeds on your phone, you are not the market or user it was designed for. Same goes for external monitors on an MBA.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    I agree that USB isn't commonly used but that's kinda the point - it doesn't hurt apple much to do it (and they're not saving anything remotely significant), but they still do it to force the few who do want to use fast USBs. A more common example where nearly everyone would notice would be the abysmal ram in their phones until very recently.
- lukas099 3y ago
  > knowingly gimp the hardware to upsell the more expensive versions. I'm skeptical. A ton of money is dumped into optimizing everything and then they just throw it down the drain? That would drive more people to the competition than to higher-priced Macs.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    I meant that bit in general and not specifically for the mac, but for eg they sold iPads with 32gb storage as recently as 2020 iirc. Even now the base level macs have much less ram and storage than similarly priced windows counterparts. I think part of it is just so they can say "macbooks start at $xx!". There are more examples I can't think of right now.
masklinn 3y ago
Come off it. - the 14" M3 is $1600, but limited to a single external display, and actually only has two TB ports, it's just sad - the M3 Pro is limited to two external displays, despite an entry price of $2000 $3199 is the baseline to be able to use 3 external displays (although at that price you can plug up to 4).
MikusR 3y ago
the 2000 Euro M3 Macbook pro also supports only one external display and is the same size and weight as the ones that support more.

_ph_ 3y ago

They are not artificially limiting the number of external screens. To support more screens, they would have to reserve die area for an additional controller. That could mean a gpu less or something. This is about engineering tradeoffs.

masklinn 3y ago
Considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1, I'm sure they could have found some room for a third display controller, or a more capable one (one with MST support for instance), or just a more flexible one. They're selling a $1600 machine which can't drive two external displays, it's sad. Intel's HD Graphics have been doing better since 2012 and they're trash.
- nomel 3y ago
  > considering the M3 has 55% more transistors than the M1 And that's why everyone loves node shrinks. You can stuff more transistors for the same cost.
- willseth 3y ago
  It’s a business decision. You don’t think Apple knows the demand for multiple external displays? If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    > It’s a business decision. That doesn't make it less frustrating. > If they thought it would sell more Macs, they would do it. It's short term thinking, it generates bad feeling of nickel and diming and unnecessary upsells: on M3 you need to pay $2000 to be able to use two external displays, and $3200 for 3, even if you have no need for the rest of the processing power. Not only that but they managed to create more range confusion with the expensive but gimped entry-level 14".
    - willseth 3y ago