6 ms·

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. Th

by _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
      What you describe is only considered by a vanishingly small number of their customers. The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. You could be right about range confusion, but I doubt it simply because, like everything else, Apple is so disciplined about market research. Time will tell
      - matwood 3y ago
        > The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. Or more than 1 external display. The vast majority own none or a single. Few people have multiples, and those people are generally enthusiasts who will also tend to pay more.
        Tool_of_Society 3y ago
        I'm curious where people are getting this data point?
        matwood 3y ago
        Fair point. It's a bit anecdotal and things I've read over the years. Multi-monitor was growing quickly for desktops until the big wide screens came out. Then it seemed to slow. As many people shifted to laptops, the one larger monitor seemed to be more common or no monitor at all. There's also the challenge of defining multi-monitor as I use 3, but one of those is my laptop. In that sense nearly everyone can run 2 screens. I'd love to see some modern stats that take into account these nuances.
  - freeAgent 3y ago
    You can say, "it's a business decision," about nearly anything that a business does. That's not really an argument for or against something.
  - mmcnl 3y ago
    Ofcourse it's a business decision but it's one a lot of people disagree with. How can you keep repeating 99.9% of the customers don't care when it's one of the most repeated complaints on places like this over and over again? It's a stupid decision that doesn't make sense.
    - willseth 3y ago
      Hi, in case you forgot, you’re on an HN forum. That’s why 99.999% of people do not care about most things people here care about. Get some perspective.
wubrr 3y ago
Engineering tradeoffs to support something intel/amd PCs have supported for 15+ years? Maybe apple is just shit at engineering?
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  Intel/AMD chips don't approach the efficiency of what Apple makes.
  - jamespo 3y ago
    I don't understand this pretence that the vast majority of the time laptops are plugged into the power anyway.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      There's always one reason after another. "It won't fit", you say sure it can, others do it, "Well, they don't do it efficiently", you say okay, how many times are you driving multiple monitors (most of which support power delivery these days) on battery, then it'll be "Apple just understands this better".
      - shepherdjerred 3y ago
        You're effectively saying that you want Apple to design a chip without any compromises in features, cost, performance, or efficiency. Apple sure could design a chip that drives more monitors, but maybe they decided that making the chip x% more performance/efficient, or having y feature was more important. Or, maybe this really truly is trivial and they decided to segment their chips by not including this feature. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
    - tcmart14 3y ago
      Perhaps because until recently, battery life has sucked? I used to plug in my laptops all the time. Now with the M1, it only gets plugged in to charge, then I don't plug it in until I charge it again. I have been enjoying sitting on my couch when I want to, to get work done rather than at my desk.

by _ph_ 3y ago

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
    What you describe is only considered by a vanishingly small number of their customers. The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. You could be right about range confusion, but I doubt it simply because, like everything else, Apple is so disciplined about market research. Time will tell
    - matwood 3y ago
      > The vast majority don’t care or even own an external display. Or more than 1 external display. The vast majority own none or a single. Few people have multiples, and those people are generally enthusiasts who will also tend to pay more.
      - Tool_of_Society 3y ago
        I'm curious where people are getting this data point?
        matwood 3y ago
        Fair point. It's a bit anecdotal and things I've read over the years. Multi-monitor was growing quickly for desktops until the big wide screens came out. Then it seemed to slow. As many people shifted to laptops, the one larger monitor seemed to be more common or no monitor at all. There's also the challenge of defining multi-monitor as I use 3, but one of those is my laptop. In that sense nearly everyone can run 2 screens. I'd love to see some modern stats that take into account these nuances.
- freeAgent 3y ago
  You can say, "it's a business decision," about nearly anything that a business does. That's not really an argument for or against something.
- mmcnl 3y ago
  Ofcourse it's a business decision but it's one a lot of people disagree with. How can you keep repeating 99.9% of the customers don't care when it's one of the most repeated complaints on places like this over and over again? It's a stupid decision that doesn't make sense.
  - willseth 3y ago
    Hi, in case you forgot, you’re on an HN forum. That’s why 99.999% of people do not care about most things people here care about. Get some perspective.

wubrr 3y ago

Engineering tradeoffs to support something intel/amd PCs have supported for 15+ years? Maybe apple is just shit at engineering?

shepherdjerred 3y ago
Intel/AMD chips don't approach the efficiency of what Apple makes.
- jamespo 3y ago
  I don't understand this pretence that the vast majority of the time laptops are plugged into the power anyway.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    There's always one reason after another. "It won't fit", you say sure it can, others do it, "Well, they don't do it efficiently", you say okay, how many times are you driving multiple monitors (most of which support power delivery these days) on battery, then it'll be "Apple just understands this better".
    - shepherdjerred 3y ago
      You're effectively saying that you want Apple to design a chip without any compromises in features, cost, performance, or efficiency. Apple sure could design a chip that drives more monitors, but maybe they decided that making the chip x% more performance/efficient, or having y feature was more important. Or, maybe this really truly is trivial and they decided to segment their chips by not including this feature. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  - tcmart14 3y ago
    Perhaps because until recently, battery life has sucked? I used to plug in my laptops all the time. Now with the M1, it only gets plugged in to charge, then I don't plug it in until I charge it again. I have been enjoying sitting on my couch when I want to, to get work done rather than at my desk.