• 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.

    • 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?

    • 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.

    • 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?