> Apple's Mac mini and Mac Studio have become the machines of choice for running AI agents, according to Doug Brooks, Apple's senior product manager of Apple silicon.
This is mostly an US phenomenon, no Mac mini nor Mac Studio around here.
Only Thinkpads and Macbooks laptops talking to hyperscalers.
The only Mac minis in office are first generation, nowadays powering marketing displays on meeting rooms.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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? :’)
Thanks for the link (and underlying thoughts), I really hadn’t considered that.
So essentially, due to technological progress and other factors inducing price collapses (or at least cycles), you can’t start stockpiling insane amounts of finished-product semiconductor, which means you can’t scale production at current technology levels to infinity either?
I heard that China was spinning up DDR5 (but not HBM?) production in the next couple of years, with the hope of outcompeting Korea and Taiwan in the mid to long term.
If demand doesn't fall down or current manufacturers supply go up, somebody (presumably in China) will spin up fabs. Apple wanted to use blacklisted Chinese RAM already.
> cannot imagine a personal computing usage which can justify a 10k machine
For me, the privacy pitch wins. I have a friend visiting, however, who spends like $2,400 with Anthropic every year. That's a solid ROI even if the thing becomes obsolete after a couple years. (I'm still on my 2020 MacBook Pro. I love it and will be sad when I have to replace it.)
If I had the capital I’d make an household inference appliance.
No peripherals except Ethernet, integrated compute (cpu+gpu+mem) and secondary storage (+mobo, psu). No accoutrements, just the minimum amount of hardware to run a model as a utility.
Even the appliance faceplate would be a display showing stats like an old HiFi stereo.
Edit: something like a series of modules consisting of a RISC-V CPU + Vortex GPGPU + memory
Running models on-device on a Mac is immensely annoying though. Figuring out what will work out of BF16, FP8, BF16+FP8, NVFP4, INT8, GGUF ... the list goes on ... is 'non-obvious' at best. Apple do little to support with tooling. There's MLX, but unless you're happy to transform a model to that format yourself you'll be lagging a long way behind.
Apps like LMStudio, Ollama, Draw Things, etc do a great job of simplifying it but it's still a pain.
For some models like the popular coding and chat models, things move faster. For things like images, voice, sound etc they definitely lag a long way behind.
It’s not for the AI inference, it’s for the tool calls and desktop GUI app workloads and browser. There aren’t any on-device models capable enough of real work that can run on lower end Mac Minis. But for running a few browsers and GUI apps, you’re much better off buying a Mac Mini than paying for a more expensive and worse-performing container in the cloud. Browsers were not designed to run in Linux containers but they run optimally on baremetal desktop OSes. An M4 Mac Mini beats the single core performance of any VM you might rent in the cloud, in terms of raw compute per dollar (Geekbench scores).
You think Apple is a saint, but they have a completely locked down mobile computing/phone platform. Why the trust in them doing what is best for the user?
Being a Mac switcher since 2003 I am as much of a fanboy as anybody else but this quote from the article caught my attention, and smells like PR.
> Many AI tools are also Mac-first or Mac-only
I fail to recall AI tools Mac-only general purpose AI or agentic tools. Most of the claws, harnesses, studios and inference engines seem to be multiplatform. You can say you can run then in a Mac with a nicer UI wrapper or whatever, but "Mac-first" or "Mac-only"?
My guess is the OS. People who want a server often enough want to choose the OS, Apple wants to supply the OS and the hardware together so they're not blamed every time the two turn out to be incompatible, as happened the other way round in the 90s.
Target audience - B2B. There are multiple videos of Steve Jobs saying that he hates B2B, because the people using the devices are not the ones making the purchasing decision. It is pretty much against Apples DNA, and all their B2B they have today is a means for them to sell more B2C.
Oh please the neural engine is mostly useless for LLMs. Siri in iOS 27 is laughably pathetic and slow compared to GPT Live DESPITE sending personal context to their (attested) cloud to execute anything but the most basic queries. Still years behind.
I think the relevant comparison is the developer beta, which has access to the Gemini-powered Siri that will roll out publicly later this year. From the reviews I've seen, Apple won't be "years behind" (which surely they were) for long.
> "The speed of AI development right now is just crazy," Brooks said. "I can't imagine where we're going to be a year from now, three months from now, or even a month from now," he added.
I don't think I'm taking this out of context when I say this is unintentionally correct. Apple still doesn't know what to do about AI.
Luckily, it doesn't matter because it's a solution in search of a problem. Most consumers aren't using AI apart from google search.
Everyone else is using it as a content scraper and praying nobody will step in to end the piracy/fraud.
The new Siri isnt that exciting at least on my iPhone 15 Pro Max. I know it's beta but it's sluggish and often says try again. I watched many videos on Youtube saying its amazing but maybe not so much on older phones? Also, I need a Siri I can talk in an unfettered manner from my lock screen while Im driving without having to unlock the screen. Probably a big ask for Siri to know my voice via voice fingerprint allowing unfettered access from my lock screen.
Others running the beta now on newer iPhones and enjoying it more so?
I use it on my 15 pro max. It's a major improvement, but I still don't use siri much. It's gone from murderously infuriating to passably usable. I still use gpt for any sort of exploratory conversations. I haven't bothered trying to use siri for that because to me that's not what siri is for.
Although given how effed up the voice for chatgpt is now with the latest updates I might talk with siri more.
Because I use carplay in tandem with my phone where the map is on the carplay screen and turn by turn directions are on my phone, it's always unlocked so I haven't run into whatever lock screen issue you brought up.
> The new Siri isnt that exciting at least on my iPhone 15 Pro Max
On my Pro 16 it has its ups and downs - I still can't get it to "play my running playlist on shuffle" whilst running (this is the only thing I used Siri for before the beta and it would improve my life immeasurably if it worked). But it responds to things like "how long will it take to drive to the AirBnb booking in my inbox", and "when is X playing a concert in Y - add a calendar entry with details" perfectly.
This is a beta and I have hopes, but I can imagine it will run better on a 17 and later
> Luckily, it doesn't matter because it's a solution in search of a problem. Most consumers aren't using AI apart from google search.
This is... a view.
Maybe I live in a strange sphere of strange ("normie"-ish) people, but the people around me are for sure using AI. Mostly chatgpt to be fair. They use it to compare products that they intend to buy, identify plants in nature, create travel plans, find interesting places to visit nearby, give movie suggestions based on what they have previously enjoyed and so on and so forth. AI is becoming a very integrated part of their reality. To "google" something and digging through the search results manually is very rapidly being replaced by asking chatgpt, for better or worse.
Chatgpt is so damn good for cooking it is unbelievable. It will learn your family's tastes over time, you can tell it what pantry staples you keep is stock, and you can take any recipe you find online and ask for stuff like "find a way to make this preparable in 45 minutes instead of 2 hours, what trade offs will I be making?"
I agree! I think it's because there's so much cooking material in its training data. I wonder what proportion of the internet is food blogs and recipes... Probably a lot!
This is true but I can do the same on free ChatGPT without even logging in. I wouldn't pay $5 a month for that functionality, much less $20 (or >$1000 to be able to run it at home).
SOTA AI for "serious" work is in a different position, used by fewer people but with big pockets and sometimes a pathological dependence on it.
Nobody does what to do, they are just throwing trillions at it betting they’ll figure out.
If they don’t they’ll be screwed, if they do Apple will quickly catch up with a better and more refined product, as they’ve always done.
Ok, I didn’t want to take the bait but this one’s just too much.
> “He also described a shift toward running AI locally rather than in the cloud – a move motivated by privacy, security, and the rising cost of inference as agents consume more tokens.”
Classic Apple. No more just beating the “security and privacy” drum, now its “tokens are expensive!”
<neanderthal voice/> Cloud scary. Cloud expensive. Mac good. Buy Mac!
> “He also singled out what he calls ‘transparent AI’ on iPhone and iPad, referring to features scattered throughout the operating system and third-party apps that work quietly without announcing themselves as AI.”
<neanderthal voice/> Apple use AI, Apple just not say it. Apple smart, not lagging behind industry! Buy iPhone!
How about you invest in developing your own models, correctly? And provide a secure and private inference cloud service on your fancy Apple silicon? And integrate that into your platform so Siri gets smarter without you farming queries out to Google Gemini? Bill me for it in iCloud+ I’ll probably pay for those tokens.
But why should apple invest in developing their own models? Why would it be correct?
Or phrase it in a very similar ask, why don't they invest in power plants? The model space is truly crowded, what do they gain or recover suppose they are SOTA? Across the Pacific they are pumping out free models that are only 6-12 months behind. What business sense does it make for Apple to develop their own models?
They don’t believe in this model and never had. You sound like the people who screamed that Apple was dying because they were not making a netbook style Mac in 2009.
Apple is the only big tech company with a non existent financial exposure to the current capex bubble.
Let big dogs bark at the moon. They are the loud ones, at least until the moon implodes.
> Apple's Mac mini and Mac Studio have become the machines of choice for running AI agents, according to Doug Brooks, Apple's senior product manager of Apple silicon.
This is mostly an US phenomenon, no Mac mini nor Mac Studio around here.
Only Thinkpads and Macbooks laptops talking to hyperscalers.
The only Mac minis in office are first generation, nowadays powering marketing displays on meeting rooms.
Apple could probably sell a machine starting at $10,000 if they architected it as the sole place one’s Private Cloud Compute [1] ran.
It would need a path to a $2,500 machine, I think. But this is a niche I don’t think another consumer-facing brand could do like Apple.
[1] https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/
The out-of-stock $6000 M3 Ultra Mac Studios with 800GB+ memory bandwidth are going for $24,000 on eBay, so yes definitely
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.
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
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
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.
> 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.
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.
What makes you think the supply crunch is short-term?
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? :’)
> 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... Sorry for the slop link, it has a good chart from a solid source
Thanks for the link (and underlying thoughts), I really hadn’t considered that.
So essentially, due to technological progress and other factors inducing price collapses (or at least cycles), you can’t start stockpiling insane amounts of finished-product semiconductor, which means you can’t scale production at current technology levels to infinity either?
I heard that China was spinning up DDR5 (but not HBM?) production in the next couple of years, with the hope of outcompeting Korea and Taiwan in the mid to long term.
If demand doesn't fall down or current manufacturers supply go up, somebody (presumably in China) will spin up fabs. Apple wanted to use blacklisted Chinese RAM already.
Not the same issue, but makes me nostalgic for these simpler times:
https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/
100%
But that would be more for enterprise usage. I cannot imagine a personal computing usage which can justify a 10k machine.
> cannot imagine a personal computing usage which can justify a 10k machine
For me, the privacy pitch wins. I have a friend visiting, however, who spends like $2,400 with Anthropic every year. That's a solid ROI even if the thing becomes obsolete after a couple years. (I'm still on my 2020 MacBook Pro. I love it and will be sad when I have to replace it.)
If I had the capital I’d make an household inference appliance.
No peripherals except Ethernet, integrated compute (cpu+gpu+mem) and secondary storage (+mobo, psu). No accoutrements, just the minimum amount of hardware to run a model as a utility.
Even the appliance faceplate would be a display showing stats like an old HiFi stereo.
Edit: something like a series of modules consisting of a RISC-V CPU + Vortex GPGPU + memory
You're describing the mac mini/studio with some facelift.
Yeah but like running linux hopefully
Absolutely, but not under the control of Apple.
build a Xeon / epyc 4u server. 12 channel ram.
Is that the nvidia spark?
Yes, and a lot of others.
A bit too expensive for a home appliance though, isn't it?
Isn't that what what George Hotz is doing over at tiny? https://tinycorp.myshopify.com/
Yes, but for inference. 45k is so far out of the budget of a professional unless you earn ridiculous money and have no dependents.
Running models on-device on a Mac is immensely annoying though. Figuring out what will work out of BF16, FP8, BF16+FP8, NVFP4, INT8, GGUF ... the list goes on ... is 'non-obvious' at best. Apple do little to support with tooling. There's MLX, but unless you're happy to transform a model to that format yourself you'll be lagging a long way behind.
Apps like LMStudio, Ollama, Draw Things, etc do a great job of simplifying it but it's still a pain.
I dunno I use LMStudio pretty regularly and the MLX folks and the community usually have MLX versions of new model releases up within a day or two.
For some models like the popular coding and chat models, things move faster. For things like images, voice, sound etc they definitely lag a long way behind.
& they clearly delineate all the models that’ll work on your exact machine (but guardrails can be disabled in settings)
It’s not for the AI inference, it’s for the tool calls and desktop GUI app workloads and browser. There aren’t any on-device models capable enough of real work that can run on lower end Mac Minis. But for running a few browsers and GUI apps, you’re much better off buying a Mac Mini than paying for a more expensive and worse-performing container in the cloud. Browsers were not designed to run in Linux containers but they run optimally on baremetal desktop OSes. An M4 Mac Mini beats the single core performance of any VM you might rent in the cloud, in terms of raw compute per dollar (Geekbench scores).
At their original price points, a set of four were a great solution for my requirements in tokens/second/$.
This is a paraphrase of https://www.thedeepview.com/articles/how-apple-s-decade-long...
Apple doesn’t have an ads business, and it is inevitable that Google/openai/Anthropic are going to seek to monetise consumer ai via ads.
So the ad free Apple on device experience will be welcome.
What does this mean? Apple ads bring in 8 billion revenue a year.
They aren’t as aggressive and focus on the customer experience more than others, 8bn isn’t a lot for a company with their reach.
For example Apple radio is a free product with no ads, Apple TV and Apple Music don’t have an ads supported tier.
You think Apple is a saint, but they have a completely locked down mobile computing/phone platform. Why the trust in them doing what is best for the user?
Being a Mac switcher since 2003 I am as much of a fanboy as anybody else but this quote from the article caught my attention, and smells like PR.
> Many AI tools are also Mac-first or Mac-only
I fail to recall AI tools Mac-only general purpose AI or agentic tools. Most of the claws, harnesses, studios and inference engines seem to be multiplatform. You can say you can run then in a Mac with a nicer UI wrapper or whatever, but "Mac-first" or "Mac-only"?
one. apfel.
I don’t understand why they are not reintroducing the Apple Xserve?
My guess is the OS. People who want a server often enough want to choose the OS, Apple wants to supply the OS and the hardware together so they're not blamed every time the two turn out to be incompatible, as happened the other way round in the 90s.
Target audience - B2B. There are multiple videos of Steve Jobs saying that he hates B2B, because the people using the devices are not the ones making the purchasing decision. It is pretty much against Apples DNA, and all their B2B they have today is a means for them to sell more B2C.
Oh please the neural engine is mostly useless for LLMs. Siri in iOS 27 is laughably pathetic and slow compared to GPT Live DESPITE sending personal context to their (attested) cloud to execute anything but the most basic queries. Still years behind.
I think the relevant comparison is the developer beta, which has access to the Gemini-powered Siri that will roll out publicly later this year. From the reviews I've seen, Apple won't be "years behind" (which surely they were) for long.
> "The speed of AI development right now is just crazy," Brooks said. "I can't imagine where we're going to be a year from now, three months from now, or even a month from now," he added.
I don't think I'm taking this out of context when I say this is unintentionally correct. Apple still doesn't know what to do about AI.
Luckily, it doesn't matter because it's a solution in search of a problem. Most consumers aren't using AI apart from google search.
Everyone else is using it as a content scraper and praying nobody will step in to end the piracy/fraud.
The new Siri isnt that exciting at least on my iPhone 15 Pro Max. I know it's beta but it's sluggish and often says try again. I watched many videos on Youtube saying its amazing but maybe not so much on older phones? Also, I need a Siri I can talk in an unfettered manner from my lock screen while Im driving without having to unlock the screen. Probably a big ask for Siri to know my voice via voice fingerprint allowing unfettered access from my lock screen.
Others running the beta now on newer iPhones and enjoying it more so?
The best models for new Siri, on device, requires the iPhone 17 Pro, so your experience on a 15 is going to be degraded.
I use it on my 15 pro max. It's a major improvement, but I still don't use siri much. It's gone from murderously infuriating to passably usable. I still use gpt for any sort of exploratory conversations. I haven't bothered trying to use siri for that because to me that's not what siri is for.
Although given how effed up the voice for chatgpt is now with the latest updates I might talk with siri more.
Because I use carplay in tandem with my phone where the map is on the carplay screen and turn by turn directions are on my phone, it's always unlocked so I haven't run into whatever lock screen issue you brought up.
> The new Siri isnt that exciting at least on my iPhone 15 Pro Max
On my Pro 16 it has its ups and downs - I still can't get it to "play my running playlist on shuffle" whilst running (this is the only thing I used Siri for before the beta and it would improve my life immeasurably if it worked). But it responds to things like "how long will it take to drive to the AirBnb booking in my inbox", and "when is X playing a concert in Y - add a calendar entry with details" perfectly.
This is a beta and I have hopes, but I can imagine it will run better on a 17 and later
> Luckily, it doesn't matter because it's a solution in search of a problem. Most consumers aren't using AI apart from google search.
This is... a view.
Maybe I live in a strange sphere of strange ("normie"-ish) people, but the people around me are for sure using AI. Mostly chatgpt to be fair. They use it to compare products that they intend to buy, identify plants in nature, create travel plans, find interesting places to visit nearby, give movie suggestions based on what they have previously enjoyed and so on and so forth. AI is becoming a very integrated part of their reality. To "google" something and digging through the search results manually is very rapidly being replaced by asking chatgpt, for better or worse.
Chatgpt is so damn good for cooking it is unbelievable. It will learn your family's tastes over time, you can tell it what pantry staples you keep is stock, and you can take any recipe you find online and ask for stuff like "find a way to make this preparable in 45 minutes instead of 2 hours, what trade offs will I be making?"
I agree! I think it's because there's so much cooking material in its training data. I wonder what proportion of the internet is food blogs and recipes... Probably a lot!
This is true but I can do the same on free ChatGPT without even logging in. I wouldn't pay $5 a month for that functionality, much less $20 (or >$1000 to be able to run it at home).
SOTA AI for "serious" work is in a different position, used by fewer people but with big pockets and sometimes a pathological dependence on it.
Nobody does what to do, they are just throwing trillions at it betting they’ll figure out. If they don’t they’ll be screwed, if they do Apple will quickly catch up with a better and more refined product, as they’ve always done.
Ok, I didn’t want to take the bait but this one’s just too much.
> “He also described a shift toward running AI locally rather than in the cloud – a move motivated by privacy, security, and the rising cost of inference as agents consume more tokens.”
Classic Apple. No more just beating the “security and privacy” drum, now its “tokens are expensive!”
<neanderthal voice/> Cloud scary. Cloud expensive. Mac good. Buy Mac!
> “He also singled out what he calls ‘transparent AI’ on iPhone and iPad, referring to features scattered throughout the operating system and third-party apps that work quietly without announcing themselves as AI.”
<neanderthal voice/> Apple use AI, Apple just not say it. Apple smart, not lagging behind industry! Buy iPhone!
How about you invest in developing your own models, correctly? And provide a secure and private inference cloud service on your fancy Apple silicon? And integrate that into your platform so Siri gets smarter without you farming queries out to Google Gemini? Bill me for it in iCloud+ I’ll probably pay for those tokens.
Was that so hard?
But why should apple invest in developing their own models? Why would it be correct?
Or phrase it in a very similar ask, why don't they invest in power plants? The model space is truly crowded, what do they gain or recover suppose they are SOTA? Across the Pacific they are pumping out free models that are only 6-12 months behind. What business sense does it make for Apple to develop their own models?
apple has invested in training models
https://machinelearning.apple.com/research/introducing-third...
they just suck
They don’t believe in this model and never had. You sound like the people who screamed that Apple was dying because they were not making a netbook style Mac in 2009. Apple is the only big tech company with a non existent financial exposure to the current capex bubble. Let big dogs bark at the moon. They are the loud ones, at least until the moon implodes.