WEBVTT

00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:05.839
some of you felt that i was being dismissive of apple during our apple

00:00:03.520 --> 00:00:11.120
silicon reaction video and i can understand why my skepticism of apple's

00:00:08.720 --> 00:00:16.800
vague and optimistic performance claims didn't exactly scream enthusiastic

00:00:14.400 --> 00:00:20.560
but make no mistake now that it's in my hands i am

00:00:18.160 --> 00:00:25.439
super enthusiastic and the mac mini represents not just the least expensive

00:00:22.960 --> 00:00:30.400
way to bring an apple silicon m1 soc into your life but also the most

00:00:27.680 --> 00:00:34.559
performant thanks to its form factor and its cooling so let's take the apple

00:00:32.320 --> 00:00:39.280
silicon m1 or as i like to call it the sm1 for a cruise and see if it's

00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:44.079
seaworthy today's video is brought to you by ridge wallet ridge wallet wants to redefine

00:00:42.559 --> 00:00:47.840
the wallet with its compact frame and rfid blocking plates check out how they

00:00:46.079 --> 00:00:53.879
can keep your wallet bulge down and use offer code Linus to get 10 off and free

00:00:50.320 --> 00:00:53.879
worldwide shipping

00:01:00.399 --> 00:01:06.000
apple's not known for reinventing the wheel often and in the mac mini's case

00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:08.320
the wheel is very much the same as it's always been

00:01:07.200 --> 00:01:12.159
square at least on the outside there is one

00:01:10.560 --> 00:01:16.000
telltale feature that lets you know that you're looking at an m1 equipped mini

00:01:14.400 --> 00:01:21.280
and that's the fact that there are only two type c ports on the rear which are

00:01:17.920 --> 00:01:22.880
capable of Thunderbolt 3 or because

00:01:21.280 --> 00:01:29.119
Thunderbolt is actually an Intel trademark more accurately usb 4. so the

00:01:26.720 --> 00:01:32.159
functionality is all the same mostly

00:01:30.159 --> 00:01:37.360
but it's got a different name now that Intel released the spec to the usb if

00:01:34.960 --> 00:01:42.320
that's totally not confusing at all thanks Intel whatever we call them both

00:01:39.920 --> 00:01:46.880
Thunderbolt and usb type-c hubs worked just fine on the new ports including

00:01:44.320 --> 00:01:52.079
devices like 10 gigabit network adapters and display hubs although the latter has

00:01:49.600 --> 00:01:57.520
a limitation where you can only expand past two displays via display link

00:01:54.720 --> 00:02:02.560
adapters which are basically software driven displays running over usb with

00:02:00.079 --> 00:02:06.079
performance that's exactly as good as software driven sounds

00:02:04.479 --> 00:02:11.280
now if you were hoping to run an external GPU to fix that

00:02:08.560 --> 00:02:15.440
no luck we hooked up a razer core x just to see but it wouldn't detect the GPU

00:02:13.760 --> 00:02:20.879
inside and Anthony thinks this is probably to do with differences in how

00:02:17.440 --> 00:02:22.720
x86 and ARM address displays so it's

00:02:20.879 --> 00:02:28.480
possible that this will change in the future with either mac optimized gpus or

00:02:26.560 --> 00:02:35.120
some tweaks to next generation m-series socs but for now nada so that's bad news

00:02:32.400 --> 00:02:39.519
for battle station enthusiasts who love walls of monitors but the silver lining

00:02:37.760 --> 00:02:44.160
is that at least it's possible to go beyond two displays even if it will take

00:02:41.920 --> 00:02:46.400
up more of your precious usb ports to do so

00:02:44.959 --> 00:02:50.720
there are some other workarounds for multiple monitor setups of course like

00:02:48.319 --> 00:02:55.519
running with an ipad in sidecar mode or by using airplay and a displayport

00:02:52.720 --> 00:02:59.440
multi-stream transport hub may also work but those haven't been relevant for a

00:02:57.280 --> 00:03:02.400
long time and we didn't have one on hand to test with

00:03:00.640 --> 00:03:06.879
this lack of external expansion presumably because of the limited i on

00:03:04.319 --> 00:03:11.680
the m1 soc probably won't be a big deal for most people but because only one of

00:03:10.080 --> 00:03:15.760
the usb4 ports can be used for displayport at a time and you're stuck

00:03:13.840 --> 00:03:19.840
with gigabit Ethernet out of the box until the rumored 10 gig versions show

00:03:17.680 --> 00:03:23.440
up it's pretty easy to see how a power user could overload it if you want two

00:03:21.760 --> 00:03:28.319
displays a connection to a high-speed network storage device a card reader and

00:03:25.840 --> 00:03:32.959
a usb keyboard or something you've exhausted your expansion options unless

00:03:30.319 --> 00:03:37.760
you resort to hubs thankfully the mac mini does have bluetooth 5.0 as well as

00:03:35.280 --> 00:03:41.200
wi-fi 6 making its wireless connectivity at least as good as wired for the

00:03:39.440 --> 00:03:44.480
typical desktop user now i've already taken apart our mac

00:03:42.959 --> 00:03:48.080
mini on our ShortCircuit unboxing channel but in case you missed it

00:03:46.239 --> 00:03:52.959
there's no internal expansion either despite the presence of the same access

00:03:50.560 --> 00:03:58.480
hatch as previous generations and it really is a shame because the pcb and

00:03:55.440 --> 00:04:00.720
especially the soc are comically small

00:03:58.480 --> 00:04:05.519
for the enclosure that they're in and compatibility permitting apple could

00:04:02.640 --> 00:04:10.000
have easily thrown in a storage bay or made the thing quite a lot smaller

00:04:07.200 --> 00:04:15.040
without sacrificing any more usability which brings us neatly into what it's

00:04:11.680 --> 00:04:16.320
like to use the mac mini fundamentally

00:04:15.040 --> 00:04:20.239
nothing has changed over the last generation plug-in power keyboard mouse

00:04:18.400 --> 00:04:24.800
monitor press go however there are some things that are

00:04:22.720 --> 00:04:30.000
very different one of the big ones is the ability to run not just Intel

00:04:26.800 --> 00:04:32.639
applications via rosetta 2 but also ipad

00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:36.000
and iphone apps installing iOS apps is as simple as firing up the app store

00:04:34.560 --> 00:04:41.680
searching for the app you want then choosing iphone and ipad apps on the sub

00:04:38.560 --> 00:04:42.880
header iOS apps installed this way just

00:04:41.680 --> 00:04:48.000
work but there's a big asterisk while you may

00:04:45.919 --> 00:04:52.880
seemingly get full mouse control over them a resizable window and the ability

00:04:50.800 --> 00:04:57.440
for files to import and export to regular folders

00:04:54.400 --> 00:04:58.400
using these apps is a little bit cludgy

00:04:57.440 --> 00:05:03.440
for now because your mouse is emulating a finger

00:05:01.120 --> 00:05:08.400
you need to long press to get context menus click and drag isn't quite the

00:05:05.520 --> 00:05:13.600
same resizing window panes just isn't a thing and gestures are unfortunately

00:05:11.199 --> 00:05:17.360
awkwardly handled by keystrokes or by pretending the touchpad on a

00:05:15.199 --> 00:05:20.400
macbook or magic trackpad are touch screens

00:05:18.479 --> 00:05:25.120
this clunkiness makes lumafusion for example much less intuitive to use than

00:05:22.880 --> 00:05:29.280
it appears you want to be able to click and drag stuff around on the timeline

00:05:26.960 --> 00:05:32.960
but you have to click and hold none of the tools have tool tips and you can't

00:05:31.280 --> 00:05:37.440
rearrange the workspace beyond what the app's presets allow

00:05:34.560 --> 00:05:41.919
to be clear this is certainly way better than not having access to a mobile app

00:05:39.759 --> 00:05:46.639
that you really like on the desktop but it clearly has a generation or two

00:05:44.160 --> 00:05:51.840
to go before it has that characteristic apple polish and anyway why use

00:05:48.880 --> 00:05:58.080
lumafusion when adobe exists right this is where rosetta 2 comes in and

00:05:53.919 --> 00:05:59.919
shockingly it just works a window will

00:05:58.080 --> 00:06:03.520
pop up and ask to install rosetta the first time you run an Intel app and

00:06:01.680 --> 00:06:07.600
after that it's totally invisible to the user that is assuming that they don't

00:06:05.360 --> 00:06:12.319
run any comparative benchmarks which is surprisingly easy to do you can choose

00:06:10.160 --> 00:06:16.960
to run any universal binary app including even built-in apps like safari

00:06:14.720 --> 00:06:21.919
by going to get info and then ticking open using rosetta this is a really

00:06:19.600 --> 00:06:26.400
useful feature not just for performance comparisons but also for testing or

00:06:24.319 --> 00:06:31.440
accessing features that are only present in the Intel versions of some apps you

00:06:29.039 --> 00:06:35.199
can also run terminal apps in rosetta by adding this prefix to whatever command

00:06:33.600 --> 00:06:39.280
you're trying to run something that you'll have to do for homebrew for now

00:06:37.360 --> 00:06:43.039
but macports has a native version already if that works for you

00:06:41.360 --> 00:06:47.360
and if you're ever curious what architecture an app is using activity

00:06:45.440 --> 00:06:52.319
monitor has a new architecture column showing you exactly that neat but you'll

00:06:50.240 --> 00:06:56.560
quickly notice that just having an Intel app running can have a performance

00:06:54.000 --> 00:07:00.639
penalty now we're looking at only one to two percent CPU wasted by having

00:06:58.479 --> 00:07:04.160
creative cloud background apps running but if you're running a macbook and

00:07:02.560 --> 00:07:07.759
battery life is a concern it's just something that you should keep an eye on

00:07:06.160 --> 00:07:11.759
rosetta provides us with some interesting opportunities here not only

00:07:09.840 --> 00:07:18.080
can we run macOS applications written for Intel cpus we can also run Windows

00:07:15.120 --> 00:07:22.720
applications by using crossover office it does have the same limitations as

00:07:20.160 --> 00:07:27.039
wine does on Linux meaning that things like the Windows version of microsoft

00:07:24.560 --> 00:07:30.960
office won't run because of its always on drm

00:07:28.319 --> 00:07:34.800
but if your application runs this might save your butt now that running Windows

00:07:32.720 --> 00:07:37.599
directly in bootcamp isn't really a thing anymore

00:07:35.919 --> 00:07:41.520
ah bootcamp it's unclear as of the time of writing

00:07:39.520 --> 00:07:47.360
whether parallel's upcoming support for m1 will enable x86 Windows somehow

00:07:44.800 --> 00:07:52.560
through rosetta 2 or if we're just going to be stuck with macOS Linux and

00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:56.160
Windows for ARM the last of which assuming that you actually wanted to use

00:07:54.400 --> 00:08:00.240
it you still can't even officially download or license for anything but a

00:07:58.400 --> 00:08:03.599
pre-built Windows machine running an ARM CPU

00:08:01.599 --> 00:08:07.599
we also found some mac programs that failed to run of course but in our

00:08:05.360 --> 00:08:11.520
experience so far this has been for obvious reasons

00:08:09.120 --> 00:08:16.400
max fan control for example relies on the system management controller found

00:08:13.360 --> 00:08:18.720
in Intel max and while system monitor

00:08:16.400 --> 00:08:23.280
apps might run they might not know what sensors to look at until they've been

00:08:20.479 --> 00:08:27.520
updated specifically for apple silicon also don't expect an apple silicon

00:08:25.120 --> 00:08:33.760
version of Intel power gadget anytime soon as for the system itself at first

00:08:30.080 --> 00:08:35.680
blush it is just ridiculously responsive

00:08:33.760 --> 00:08:38.560
like all those videos of people launching every app on the dock and the

00:08:37.440 --> 00:08:44.240
thing just doing it that's the real deal the sheer level of

00:08:42.080 --> 00:08:49.040
optimization in macOS big sur is such that even if you were to fire up prime95

00:08:46.800 --> 00:08:53.279
and let it rip you would barely even notice it in the ui

00:08:51.120 --> 00:08:59.120
in fact doing so doesn't even make the fan ramp up it keeps cruising along at

00:08:55.600 --> 00:09:01.120
its 1700 RPM idle state and good luck

00:08:59.120 --> 00:09:04.800
hearing it over the ambient noise but wait a minute if this thing doesn't

00:09:03.120 --> 00:09:09.040
break a sweat how will we sell all our sweatbands on lttstore.com yeah we snuck

00:09:07.600 --> 00:09:12.800
that in there temperature sensors weren't in the usual

00:09:10.959 --> 00:09:16.800
spots on the m1 based mac mini so it wasn't until third-party utility eye

00:09:14.800 --> 00:09:20.640
statistica was updated for the m1 that we were able to get actual readings

00:09:18.720 --> 00:09:23.760
we're glad to have them but without logging functionality we're going to

00:09:21.920 --> 00:09:28.640
have to make do with numbers rather than charts while idling we were sitting at under 30

00:09:26.800 --> 00:09:33.279
degrees and when we hit it with a full prime 95 load things get really

00:09:30.800 --> 00:09:37.600
interesting without the fan ramping up whatsoever this thing is hovering in the

00:09:35.360 --> 00:09:42.240
low 70s at worst in fact if we look at the total system

00:09:39.760 --> 00:09:46.160
power our mac mini hovers around 30 watts at its maximum load which is

00:09:44.320 --> 00:09:51.760
ridiculous given spoiler alert just how fast it is

00:09:49.440 --> 00:09:54.800
now speed is where things are going to get contentious

00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:59.279
i called out apple's marketing on performance and apple fans came crawling

00:09:57.279 --> 00:10:05.600
out of every corner to tell me how wrong i was and how revolutionary it was

00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:07.760
before they'd seen any real numbers

00:10:05.600 --> 00:10:12.640
but you won't get any apology from me and here's why apple's marketing was

00:10:10.320 --> 00:10:16.640
and they know it in the short time since the announcement apple has

00:10:14.480 --> 00:10:21.519
already softened their position from world's fastest CPU core to

00:10:19.120 --> 00:10:25.760
the world's fastest CPU core in low power silicon

00:10:23.279 --> 00:10:31.279
which is fine and more in line with what we expected and more in line with what

00:10:28.720 --> 00:10:36.399
we got so tell you what don't take my word for it take apple's word for it you

00:10:34.160 --> 00:10:40.240
guys are good at that or if you do want my word for it keep on

00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:45.519
watching we're going to be comparing our m1 equipped mac mini to its spec out

00:10:42.320 --> 00:10:48.880
Intel counterpart along with our 27 inch

00:10:45.519 --> 00:10:51.360
a ryzen-based desktop pc and the fanless

00:10:48.880 --> 00:10:55.680
m1 macbook air get subscribed by the way so you don't miss our review of the air

00:10:53.040 --> 00:10:58.320
alongside the pro because that is going to be a tougher decision than you might

00:10:57.279 --> 00:11:02.880
think compared to the 2020 imac with the core

00:11:00.640 --> 00:11:08.000
i9 we are sitting at about half of the cinebench multithreaded score

00:11:04.880 --> 00:11:10.079
but the m1 chip is much faster than the

00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:15.839
core i7 in our previous generation mac mini and remember that's a configuration

00:11:12.240 --> 00:11:17.200
that costs 400 more that's especially

00:11:15.839 --> 00:11:22.240
impressive when you consider that this is a CPU with no hyper threading and

00:11:20.399 --> 00:11:26.640
with fewer cores as for single threaded performance even

00:11:24.640 --> 00:11:30.880
the lowly macbook air which is the slowest of the three new m1 machines

00:11:28.880 --> 00:11:36.720
nearly meets the performance of a desktop verizon 5000 and completely

00:11:34.160 --> 00:11:40.560
embarrasses the core i9 imac this shows that if apple had included

00:11:38.640 --> 00:11:46.720
eight performance cores in the mac mini instead of just four the m1 could have

00:11:42.880 --> 00:11:48.880
met or beaten the core i9's 20 threads

00:11:46.720 --> 00:11:52.880
in multi-threaded performance at the cost of maybe having to ramp up the fan

00:11:51.519 --> 00:11:59.519
just to smidge this is huge also huge is compilation performance at

00:11:57.360 --> 00:12:04.480
half the compile time in this xcode test project it absolutely crushed the

00:12:01.839 --> 00:12:09.120
Intel-based mac mini and once again the macbook air isn't far off either

00:12:07.279 --> 00:12:13.440
primarily because this is a shorter compile test than we would usually run

00:12:11.040 --> 00:12:18.639
due to some early teething issues with compiling firefox or chromium on apple

00:12:15.920 --> 00:12:23.200
silicon video transcoding is a bit hit or miss depending on what you're doing

00:12:20.240 --> 00:12:27.360
if you're using your CPU to encode h.264 our m1 mini handily beats its

00:12:24.880 --> 00:12:32.160
predecessor but shows its lack of threads compared to our imac if we use

00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:37.839
hardware encoding though the m1 equipped mac mini smokes our i7 mini and even

00:12:34.959 --> 00:12:43.680
draws near the performance of the imac not too shabby when we switch over to

00:12:40.000 --> 00:12:46.880
h.265 things get even more dramatic i

00:12:43.680 --> 00:12:48.720
mean yes CPU encoding is much much

00:12:46.880 --> 00:12:54.639
slower than the competition but look at that hardware accelerated

00:12:50.959 --> 00:12:57.399
encoding m1 is significantly faster not

00:12:54.639 --> 00:13:01.600
only than the imac but then its own h.264 encoder

00:12:59.600 --> 00:13:05.920
and while it's not quite nbank level performance it's clear that apple's

00:13:03.600 --> 00:13:10.800
prioritization of hevc performance on their mobile devices is now paying off

00:13:08.399 --> 00:13:13.680
in spades here on the desktop we tried to get some deep learning tests

00:13:12.399 --> 00:13:17.600
going to give the neural engine a workout but unfortunately the apple

00:13:15.600 --> 00:13:21.279
silicon optimized tensorflow package refused to run on most of the models

00:13:19.519 --> 00:13:25.440
that we threw at it this isn't too surprising given that its version alpha

00:13:23.519 --> 00:13:29.360
zero but it's still disappointing because it could have given us a taste

00:13:27.040 --> 00:13:34.000
of one of the big advantages that the m1 is supposed to bring to the party

00:13:31.600 --> 00:13:39.760
performance in rosetta 2 as has been widely reported by now is really solid

00:13:37.279 --> 00:13:45.200
in our testing it's at about two-thirds to three-quarters of full speed with

00:13:42.880 --> 00:13:49.839
blender putting the m1 equipped max at well under half the speed of our 27-inch

00:13:47.279 --> 00:13:53.360
imac but within spinning distance of the Intel mac mini

00:13:51.360 --> 00:13:57.600
and while blender isn't yet available for apple silicon if we assume that it

00:13:55.440 --> 00:14:02.720
scales the way cinebench does we could expect to shave nearly two minutes off

00:13:59.760 --> 00:14:06.880
the bmw render time GPU focus tests don't show much disadvantage at all with

00:14:04.720 --> 00:14:11.279
rosetta which is pretty sick and the integrated m1 GPU course reached nearly

00:14:09.279 --> 00:14:18.959
half the performance of the dedicated Radeon 5700 xt in our 27-inch imac that

00:14:15.600 --> 00:14:21.360
is much faster than the uhd graphics in

00:14:18.959 --> 00:14:25.680
our Intel mac mini the adobe suite particularly premiere pro looks like a

00:14:23.600 --> 00:14:30.720
poor fit for apple silicon at first glance but there's more to the story

00:14:28.160 --> 00:14:35.040
here considering the core i7 based mac mini scored worse

00:14:32.399 --> 00:14:39.839
and very close in photoshop means that once these apps are updated for m1 the

00:14:37.519 --> 00:14:44.160
new macs should completely dominate anything in their power class and

00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:46.959
probably price class too that's a new one

00:14:45.519 --> 00:14:50.800
so then wait why doesn't rosetta suck as much as

00:14:48.959 --> 00:14:54.720
other x86 emulators that we've seen in the past like

00:14:52.720 --> 00:14:58.800
microsoft's for example apparently this is mostly down to

00:14:56.399 --> 00:15:03.519
hardware tweaks made in silicon to accelerate common x86 load store

00:15:01.120 --> 00:15:08.399
instructions essentially apple silicon can take x86 like instructions and

00:15:06.079 --> 00:15:13.120
process them directly rather than having to fully translate to ARM as of right

00:15:10.880 --> 00:15:19.440
now the only armed CPU that has the ability to run x86 programs like this is

00:15:16.399 --> 00:15:21.519
the m1 so sorry microsoft

00:15:19.440 --> 00:15:24.079
Windows for ARM devices are still going to suck

00:15:22.880 --> 00:15:27.839
of course that's not all it wouldn't be an LTT

00:15:26.079 --> 00:15:32.160
video without trying to play games on it would it most games available on macOS

00:15:30.240 --> 00:15:36.639
still only have Intel versions running under rosetta and we're getting between

00:15:33.839 --> 00:15:39.839
30 to 60 FPS in the mac ported tomb raiders

00:15:37.600 --> 00:15:43.920
cs go unfortunately wouldn't load for us it just hung on the title screen and hey

00:15:42.560 --> 00:15:47.760
if you're wondering whether rocket league will run through crossover you're

00:15:45.839 --> 00:15:52.320
in luck as long as you're okay with a low frame rate and some flickering

00:15:50.399 --> 00:15:56.720
but while those games are running in rosetta there is actually one game that

00:15:55.040 --> 00:16:01.680
has been updated for apple silicon giving us a glimpse into the future

00:15:59.040 --> 00:16:05.600
world of warcraft shadowlands now i'll admit that this is not a game that we've

00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:09.920
even considered using for our benchmarking suite because there's such

00:16:07.600 --> 00:16:13.600
a variety of locales and assets that there's just no way to do it

00:16:11.279 --> 00:16:18.720
consistently also there's no canned benchmark so take this with a grain of

00:16:15.759 --> 00:16:23.440
salt and uh wait there's no where's the graph

00:16:20.160 --> 00:16:25.920
alrighty no graph so at 1080p using the

00:16:23.440 --> 00:16:34.639
recommended quality level of five the game appears to run at a solid 60 FPS

00:16:29.040 --> 00:16:37.279
yep 60fps and no more i guess vsync is

00:16:34.639 --> 00:16:39.839
locked on cause the toggle's broken oh well

00:16:38.160 --> 00:16:44.959
it's still really cool to see that it runs pretty okay aside from some minor

00:16:42.800 --> 00:16:48.720
graphical glitches due to upscaling from 1080p to native resolution

00:16:47.519 --> 00:16:52.480
so then mac mini or more accurately

00:16:51.120 --> 00:16:55.680
m1 does it live up to the expectations that

00:16:54.240 --> 00:17:01.920
apple set for us i guess that really depends on whether you're more of a spirit of the law or

00:16:59.920 --> 00:17:06.079
letter of the law kind of character for my part i still take issue with the

00:17:04.079 --> 00:17:10.959
overly vague promises that apple made about the performance of their first

00:17:07.919 --> 00:17:12.640
desktop silicon and the most frustrating

00:17:10.959 --> 00:17:18.240
thing about the situation is how completely unnecessary it was if apple

00:17:15.600 --> 00:17:24.160
had just come out on stage and said hey we've got x86 emulation that's between

00:17:20.720 --> 00:17:26.880
50 to 75 of native performance i would

00:17:24.160 --> 00:17:32.960
have been absolutely blown away and i probably still would have been skeptical

00:17:28.799 --> 00:17:34.799
x86 emulation on Windows is balls slow

00:17:32.960 --> 00:17:39.200
not to mention that it still doesn't support 64-bit apps which apple has

00:17:37.039 --> 00:17:44.160
handily taken care of here the problem for me is that they decided to hold back

00:17:41.440 --> 00:17:48.640
on specifics and from my experience the less concrete data a company is willing

00:17:46.160 --> 00:17:51.760
to give the less confident they appear in their product

00:17:50.160 --> 00:17:56.480
and so that quite unfairly painted a picture that

00:17:53.679 --> 00:17:59.520
was simultaneously unrealistically rosy for the apple fans who take their claims

00:17:58.160 --> 00:18:03.440
at face value and far too bleak for those whose bs

00:18:01.840 --> 00:18:07.280
detectors wouldn't stop going off throughout the entire announcement

00:18:05.600 --> 00:18:13.200
at the end of the day though what apple has with the 2020 mac mini is a good

00:18:10.160 --> 00:18:16.400
product it's affordable it's powerful

00:18:13.200 --> 00:18:18.960
it's quiet it sips power and it is a

00:18:16.400 --> 00:18:23.840
great way for let's say a developer who missed out on the transition kit to get

00:18:20.960 --> 00:18:28.240
into the ecosystem and start coding it's not what i want it lacks far too

00:18:26.320 --> 00:18:30.880
much in expansion and especially in high speed connectivity to be very useful for

00:18:30.080 --> 00:18:37.679
me but that's not to say that it can't ever be as i already said in my coverage of

00:18:35.280 --> 00:18:43.280
the announcement the m1 is just the first step into a bold new world where

00:18:39.919 --> 00:18:45.280
apple is for the first time ever fully

00:18:43.280 --> 00:18:49.360
vertically integrated on the mac they have complete control over their own

00:18:47.039 --> 00:18:52.640
destiny with only commodity parts like RAM

00:18:50.240 --> 00:18:56.880
nand flash and display panel sourced from third parties

00:18:54.400 --> 00:19:00.559
i absolutely cannot wait to see what 2021 brings

00:18:58.480 --> 00:19:04.400
does anyone else think that the naming is because they're going to be putting

00:19:02.160 --> 00:19:07.600
the screws to Intel you know m1 m2 m4 just bigger and bigger

00:19:06.640 --> 00:19:12.640
screws anyone bueller

00:19:10.480 --> 00:19:17.440
bueller sponsor oh yeah sponsor blinkist takes

00:19:15.679 --> 00:19:20.960
the best insights and most important information from thousands of

00:19:19.039 --> 00:19:25.520
non-fiction books and condenses them into just 15 minutes you can either read

00:19:23.840 --> 00:19:30.720
or listen from the app and you'd be amazed how much you can learn in just 15

00:19:28.400 --> 00:19:34.240
minutes offline downloads are available and they're perfect for traveling during

00:19:32.320 --> 00:19:38.000
commutes and some of their most popular titles include the ai economy which is a

00:19:36.400 --> 00:19:43.280
book that discusses the rise of artificial intelligence and how it's going to affect our jobs investments and

00:19:41.280 --> 00:19:46.720
lifestyle and what to do when machines do everything which explains how

00:19:45.039 --> 00:19:51.200
automation can be incorporated into current business models and what to

00:19:48.640 --> 00:19:55.200
expect as whole industries adopt this new wave of automation it's available on

00:19:53.679 --> 00:19:59.200
the google play store and apple's app store and the first 100 of you to go to

00:19:57.120 --> 00:20:04.559
blinkist.com Linus tech tips are going to get unlimited access for one week to

00:20:01.200 --> 00:20:06.400
try it out and 25 off also they now have

00:20:04.559 --> 00:20:11.280
full length audio books premium subscribers get special pricing up to 65

00:20:09.200 --> 00:20:14.240
off the regular retail price so don't wait

00:20:12.480 --> 00:20:17.919
thanks for watching guys if you enjoyed this video maybe go check out our

00:20:15.760 --> 00:20:21.679
reaction to the apple m1 announcement to get a little more context for why we

00:20:19.919 --> 00:20:26.240
felt this launch might not be all sunshine and rainbows like apple claimed