• hamhead@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just want them to “innovate” their way into supporting an actual number of monitors that makes sense.

    • Fun_Description6544@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do it to „upsell“ you towards M3 Pro. There is no other reason why a powerful chip like M3 should not support 2, 3 or even 4 external displays.

      • Slitted@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also because the base M1/2/3 chips find their way to the iPad lineup as well, where there’s already limited use for even 1 external display.

      • NihlusKryik@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Its a hardware limitation, so you are essentially claiming that Apple, at the design phase, explicitly scoped a limitation of external displays?

      • ThePegasi@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whilst this is definitely true, wouldn’t the absence of necessary I/O hardware also cut costs on the chip?

        • Fun_Description6544@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, they can cut costs on the chip and the I/O hardware if I remember correctly. Anyways, these costs are minimal compared to the enormous overall prices of these machines. It just seems like a silly idea to cut costs in an area where even 500$ Windows laptops offer a good functionality.

      • Alternative_Log3012@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Facts

        (There’s actually a good technical reason as to why this is the case, to an extent, but the answer ultimately comes down to the fact Apple is being cheap)

        • kyo20@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s the technical rationale? Is it related to heat and efficiency?

    • Put_It_All_On_Blck@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even Intel’s cheapest CPUs have IGPs that support 3 external monitors at 4k, you just need to make sure it has the ports to do it (like 1x thunderbolt 4 + 1x HDMI or Display port).

      Like you can get <$500 PC laptops that do 3 external displays. Apple has no excuse beyond segmentation, forcing people to buy a more expensive ‘Pro’ CPU.

    • jimbo831@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only Apple has the courage to sell you a “Pro” laptop for $1600 that doesn’t support more than one external display!

      • KagakuNinja@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not everyone uses 2+ monitors, and then you would be demanding 4/8K at 120hz. These chips require making trade-offs.

        My personal laptop is used stand-alone, for work I’m a caveman with a single monitor. If you need multiple monitors, then don’t buy the base MBP.