Sometimes Apple’s one-hour recorded events feel a bit like compressed archives, with lots of stuff to unpack. And several past events over the last few years have always contained some controversial element that made me write paragraphs and paragraphs of ranting criticism (the terrible keyboards that plagued Mac laptops for four years; the first appearance of a notch with the iPhone X, the unnecessarily thin design of the M1 24-inch iMac, the second appearance of a notch but this time on the new 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pros, etc.). But this ‘Peek Performance’ event was the first in a long time where I felt there was nothing ‘wrong’ or controversial — for me, at least.
Apple TV+
I’m sure there are going to be great films and series in there. That all-encompassing trailer montage was so packed it ended up not telling me anything or piquing my interest particularly (save maybe for Macbeth). And when you mention sports, especially baseball, I just tune out. Sorry, baseball fans, nothing personal.
The third-generation iPhone SE
Awarded the title of The Meh Phone basically by all tech YouTubers, this is actually my favourite iPhone at the moment. The design is still the same as the second-generation iPhone SE and as the older iPhone 8, and I frankly don’t get the hate. This is not the iPhone line where Apple is innovative. This is the iPhone line where Apple is price competitive. And where Apple still pleases people who love the smaller size and the conservative design. Like yours truly.
I’m still using an iPhone 8 as my main phone, and in 2020 I was very close to get a second-generation iPhone SE, but it still felt too early to upgrade, and even today the iPhone 8 is plenty for my needs. If you don’t rely on an iPhone for your photography, and just use it for taking quick snaps, then you wonder hard why you should invest so much money on a flagship iPhone whose camera array and video/photo features are essentially what makes it a flagship.
I very much appreciate that Apple is still using the design of the iPhone 8 for the SE line. I don’t care for FaceID and much prefer TouchID for authentication, and I very much enjoy an iPhone without a notch. So, since it now has an A15 Bionic chip, 5G connectivity, a better camera, a slightly better battery, and will be supported for many years, it’s extremely likely that the iPhone SE 3 will be my next phone.
The speed-bumped iPad Air
The new iPad Air is essentially the same as the previous iPad Air, but it’s now equipped with an M1 chip, just like the more expensive iPad Pro. If you’re in the market for an iPad right now, then it’s hard not to consider this new fifth-generation iPad Air. It’s still $599 in its base configuration (64 GB of storage, Wi-Fi only), while the base 11-inch iPad Pro (128 GB, Wi-Fi only) is $799. And as I’m reading the feature comparison between these two devices on Apple’s site, there are only a handful of features the iPad Air lacks compared to the Pro:
- It only has one back camera module, and the front camera lacks TrueDepth technology
- It doesn’t have ProMotion
- Its 5G connectivity doesn’t support mmWave
- It’s only available in two storage capacities, 64 and 256 GB
- Maximum brightness is 500 nits (versus the 600 of the iPad Pro)
- It’s only available with 8 GB of RAM (no 16 GB RAM option)
- It doesn’t feature ‘Audio zoom’ (whatever that is) and Stereo recording
- Its USB‑C connector doesn’t support Thunderbolt/USB 4
- Its front camera neither supports Portrait mode with advanced bokeh and Depth Control, nor Portrait Lighting
- It doesn’t feature FaceID (has TouchID instead)
- It has two speakers versus the four speakers in the iPad Pro
It looks like a long list at first glance, but I’m sure many people will be fine with the iPad Air’s camera system, its ‘simple’ USB‑C connector, and its 8 GB of RAM.
Above I said that this iPad Air, when compared with the iPad Pro, is a good deal right now, because if you look at the game Apple is playing with chips, devices, and performance, it’s clear that when the company introduces the next-generation iPad Pro it will feature an even faster processor.
But still, as I wrote on Twitter, I wonder what they’re going to do with the next iPad Pro. An even faster chip? Do we need even faster iPads for what they do? Then I added: I’m waiting for the moment where you’ll go to an Apple Store, choose a chip, then the shape of the device you want the chip in. Because the shape will be the only differentiating thing. I was being a little hyperbolic here, but the fact is that Apple chips across their iOS and Mac lineups are delivering a degree of speed and performance which is very rapidly reaching a point where it can only be measured and differentiated using specific benchmark tools. In sci-fi terminology, it’s like being on a ship that is always travelling at faster-than-light velocity.
And just as I was mulling over these thoughts, Apple introduced the new M1 Ultra chip, which is essentially two M1 Pro Max SoCs fused together. Just going over its specifications, the projected performance is basically unfathomable. In everyday use, you essentially interact with a computing environment where everything is instant.
But this is the hardware side. On the software side, we have the current iterations of iOS and Mac OS. And frankly, iPadOS doesn’t even know where to begin harnessing that sheer hardware power. Many videographers could easily edit their stuff just using an iPad Pro or even this new iPad Air… but there is no Final Cut Pro for iPadOS. You’re stuck with iMovie. It’s a bit like having a PlayStation 5 where you can basically play only Pong and other old Atari 2600 games.
At least nobody on stage said that annoying phrase Apple executives have often recycled, that goes like, We can’t wait to see what you’ll create with this device. Because by now the retort — from developers and users alike — comes easily: We could do a lot more stuff if you were less capricious with your App Store rejections…
The Mac Studio
I didn’t really heed rumours of a new desktop Mac that wasn’t the iMac or the Mac mini, perhaps because rumours of such a Mac have been spreading for several years and nothing had materialised. If I hadn’t seen a last-minute news article hinting at this new Mac with the working name ‘Mac Studio’, the reveal yesterday would have really caught me by surprise.
But hey, it’s here, it materialised. Like Marques Brownlee, I too was wondering if we should consider the Mac Studio a ‘mini Mac Pro’ or a ‘Pro Mac mini’, but since John Ternus (Apple’s Senior VP of Hardware Engineering) at the very end of his segment hinted that there’s still one Mac — a new Mac Pro — before the Apple Silicon transition is complete, I guess that that means the Mac Studio is indeed a Pro Mac mini.
I like everything about the Mac Studio, from its form factor to the abundance of ports (including two USB‑A ports!), from its performance to its price — yes, even the higher-tier configuration starting at $3,999 seems a good value considering the beyond-astounding performance afforded by the new M1 Ultra chip.
Like what I was saying about the iPhone 8 earlier, my current Mac setup is still serving my needs quite well, and for now there’s nothing that’s pressing me for an upgrade. My desktop Mac is a 2017 21.5‑inch 4K iMac, and when I’m out and about I’ll either take my 2015 13-inch retina MacBook Pro or the 2013 11-inch MacBook Air. The Mac Studio is absolutely overkill for my needs and workflows, for which the current M1 Mac mini or 24-inch iMac would probably suffice. But since I don’t upgrade Macs frequently, when I do I tend to look for a machine with a certain amount of future-proofing, so that it can last me many years. Given its specifications, the Mac Studio is the perfect candidate, even in its entry-level configuration. And when the need for an Apple Silicon Mac laptop arises down the road, I can always get a second-hand M1 MacBook Air.
But back to what John Ternus said:
And they [the Mac Studio and Studio Display] join the rest of our incredible Mac lineup with Apple Silicon, making our transition nearly complete, with just one more product to go — Mac Pro. But that is for another day.
This made me wonder. If the only Mac left to complete the architecture transition is the Mac Pro, what about the 27-inch iMac/iMac Pro?
On the one hand, if Apple sees the Mac Studio + the 27-inch Studio Display as the natural replacement for what were the 27-inch iMac and the 27-inch iMac Pro, then it’s kind of weird that the M1 iMac is referred to as the 24-inch iMac. It could be to still differentiate it from the previous 21.5- and 27-inch Intel models, but all these iMacs, including the iMac Pro, are unavailable for purchase on Apple’s website. Concretely, the 24-inch iMac is the only iMac you can buy today.
On the other hand, it could be safe to assume that Apple may consider a 27-inch Apple Silicon iMac as a variant of the 24-inch. Since I believe that with the M1 24-inch iMac they’ve painted themselves into yet another corner, design-wise, I’m starting to think that yes, a new 27-inch iMac might appear, but it won’t be an iMac Pro replacement. The Mac Studio is the iMac Pro replacement. The 27-inch iMac that might appear will essentially be a bigger iMac, maybe with a faster ’M’ chip, and that’s it.
Why did I say that Apple has painted itself into another corner, design-wise? Because when you produce an incredibly thin 24-inch iMac, chances are that a 27-inch variant will have to be equally thin and retain the same form factor and design choices, for consistency. And space inside that 24-inch iMac is at a premium. Sure, a 27-inch chassis is bigger, but not by that much. So the question is: can a new 27-inch iMac offer pro performance and capabilities in a shape as thin as the 24-inch iMac? I’m not sure, especially from a thermal standpoint.
So, to sum up — For now my theory is that yes, we may see a new 27-inch iMac someday, but it won’t be an iMac Pro, just a prosumer, better version of the current M1 24-inch model. The Mac Studio is the new iMac Pro. And its base configuration, with a base configuration of the Studio Display, ends up costing less than what the base iMac Pro cost in 2017.
Studio Display
Putting aside the esoteric beast that is the 2019 Pro Display XDR, the 27-inch 5K Apple Studio Display presented yesterday is the first affordable standalone display Apple has produced since the Thunderbolt Display in 2011, eleven years ago. After the Mac Studio, it was another nice surprise.
If you want the specs dump, here they are. The details that most stood out for me were the presence of an A13 Bionic chip inside, which allows the display to have a high-quality 12-megapixel ultrawide camera with the Centre Stage feature, a speaker system that supports Spatial Audio, and “Hey Siri”. Another interesting thing is that the Studio Display is equipped with three USB‑C ports and one Thunderbolt 3 port that is capable of charging any connected MacBook and also fast-charge the 14-inch MacBook Pro.
One slightly puzzling detail for me are the stand options. You can order the display with the ‘default’ option of a tilt-adjustable stand, or you can opt for a tilt- and height-adjustable stand, or you can choose not to have a stand and order the Studio Display with just a VESA mount if you plan to use it with a monitor arm.
Now, the tilt- and height-adjustable stand works in a similar way as the stand of the Pro Display XDR, and choosing this option at purchase will increase the price of the Studio Display by $400. I understand that it’s a more complex piece of machinery than the regular tilt-adjustable stand, but if you’re looking for a better and more flexible tilt and height adjustability, a more pragmatic option could be to choose the VESA mount configuration at no additional cost, and hook the Studio Display to a monitor arm. There are decent arms that cost less than $400.
I think that, all in all, this is a good display that importantly fills a void in this space that was being felt by an increasing number of users. Not that the LG UltraFine 5K Display was a bad solution, but it seems that the $300 you pay extra for the Studio Display are well spent, given its features and the integration you have with a first-party product. Its base price of $1,599 doesn’t seem that expensive, and as they were presenting it yesterday I honestly thought the starting price would be more like $1,899.
However, as I was watching Dave Lee’s video about his first impressions of the Mac Studio and Studio Display, he had this to say about the Display in his conclusion:
So, this display is 60 Hz, there’s no ProMotion, it’s not mini-LED, it’s got no HDR, it can’t get super bright like the XDR Display that can hit 1000 nits sustained — 1600 at the top end. This is a 600-nits panel; I don’t know if it can go higher, but that’s the listed [value] 600 nits. And that means no real HDR. And on a creative display — like they’re showing in the marketing materials where they got people making movies on this thing — I felt like they would have gone brighter with this panel. […]
A 60 Hz panel, with no HDR, no FaceID, for $1,600 without even height adjustability… hmmm, that’s steep.
Given that Dave is a creative who works with video at a professional level, he’s certainly more qualified than I am to make this kind of observation and he may have a point here. Of course Apple had to make some compromises, as it wouldn’t have been possible to have a $1,600 27-inch display with the same characteristics as the Pro Display XDR, and I suspect the Studio Display will be ‘good enough’ for photo/video professionals who don’t need the high-end Pro Display XDR.
One last thing
It felt a bit strange that Apple didn’t say a word about the war in Ukraine. Maybe it was too late to add a recorded statement, but a mention of their support could have been inserted as an intro or outro slide. Just a thought.