129 pointsby thm6 hours ago22 comments
  • Grombobulous6 hours ago
    I’m curious to know if these local AI setups are legitimately useful compared to cloud. I’ve struggled a lot to get something useful out of the hardware I have.

    I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me.

    Any tips anyone might have are appreciated! I’d love to be local first and would be willing to buy hardware to get there.

    • mcotton41 minutes ago
      A simple example.

      I have an older M2 Mac mini that does the OCR and visual description of all my screenshots. Screenshots are stored on my NAS.

      I like to screenshot things as a quick way to remember. They are things that I would not be comfortable sending a cloud provider (customer data, prototype screenshots, bank dispute details).

      It runs Qwen3.5:9b and glm5.2-ocr with Ollama and uses about 10GB of RAM. It automatically releases the models from RAM after 5 minutes of inactivity so it is pretty seamless to leave running in the background.

      All the details are stored in a simple webapp with a SQLite db that I can search through.

      • jwx4818 minutes ago
        What is your M2's total memory? I find this application really interesting.
      • tiahura8 minutes ago
        A new base model mac mini is $900. That is 45 month of Gemini. Gemini 4.7 Flash will give better OCR results that Qwen or GLM w/ 10GB.
        • Jeremy10266 minutes ago
          That doesn't help with the not wanting to send confidential information to a cloud though. No amount of cost savings can negate that.
        • nrmitchi6 minutes ago
          ...

          > They are things that I would not be comfortable sending a cloud provider

          It's also an old machine that the commenter already has; it's intellectually dishonest to compare it to the price of a brand new, 4-iteration-newer machine.

    • Aurornis5 hours ago
      > it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me.

      The $20/month subs are much stronger than the local models you can run, even with how far local models have advanced lately.

      The appeal of local models is that the data never leaves your network so you can feel safer putting sensitive content into it. It also feels “free” to use when you’ve already paid for the hardware.

      But it doesn’t perform better and if you do the math you’re probably not saving money either. It’s helpful for things that you can’t or don’t want to outsource to a 3rd party.

      • pizza23427 minutes ago
        There are a few use cases that are (somewhat) surprisingly unsuited for cloud providers:

        - translations: cloud providers can bowdlerize (censor) bad words/content; also, if you want to do a translation for personal use of copyrighted materials, cloud providers may block it

        - image generation: generating drawings with a style that even just resembles a copyrighted one (ie. Disney) may be blocked by cloud providers - for example, generating old cartoons style with GPT may not be possible.

      • seanmcdirmid5 hours ago
        Uncensored models are also popular reasons, although it’s more of a niche.
        • xnx5 hours ago
          Aren't those also commonly available from cloud providers?
          • digitalsushi5 hours ago
            i'd say 'with' instead of 'from', the cloud provider rents you the hardware, what you run on it, is whatever you show up with
      • tiahura7 minutes ago
        Banks, Biglaw, and the Pentagon all do it in the cloud. What could an individual be working on that is so secretive?
        • mbreese2 minutes ago
          Those companies also have data sharing/use agreements that they can get from Cloud AI providers due to their size and spend. The secrecy and data protection is largely what they are paying for. Those types of agreements just aren’t available to individual customers. It’s only when you’re spending $$$ that it becomes worth it for the provider.
      • varispeedan hour ago
        I don't think it is really about "sensitive", but basically about any content you put in. Why would you give corporations your reasoning (data on how you interact with AI, how you "talk" etc.).

        All of this is private, but not necessarily sensitive. You never know what is happening with this data. They might say they don't log it or don't sell it, then few years later you'll find it all online or read a book that has a story eerily similar to what you chatted about with GPT a year ago.

      • BurningFrog5 hours ago
        It also takes some load off the AI data centers.

        IDK if that might be a concern for Apple or their AI partners.

        • Scene_Cast23 hours ago
          It worsens the supply crunch, no? A unit you use sparingly vs that memory going into a GPU that serves many more people.
          • maherbeg12 minutes ago
            Those will use different wafers, so unless that memory is allocated for unified memory vs gpu HBM it won't make a difference.
        • articulatepang4 hours ago
          Surely this is not something that motivates the vast majority of people using local LLMs.
    • drusepthan hour ago
      A huge benefit of local setups at our studio is that a lot of our software can't run headless, so when we're having agents work in Blender or in Unity etc with MCP that'd otherwise eat up our normal computer use. (Try to have two people try to work in the same Unity editor at once... then try ten!)

      We also built some QA agents that are always playing our games from the same builds a player would and flagging things to fix/improve; that alone needs the game focused and front-and-center so it can properly screen-capture for deciding what inputs to take next (and for screenshots/replays), which also means we can't really do any hands-on work at all on the machine when it's running.

      Having a separate (and tiny) machine for all of this has been great. We don't bother with local models because, you're right, the $20/month sub is way better than anything that can run on small consumer hardware atm.

      • tylerflickan hour ago
        > A huge benefit of local setups at our studio is that a lot of our software can't run headless, so when we're having agents work in Blender or in Unity etc with MCP that'd otherwise eat up our normal computer use

        I'm curious about your setup. I've been tinkering with the idea of setting up Blender (cli use) in a container to allow agents to verify the scripts they are generating compile at a minimum. One thing I've found extremely helpful was generating a RAG of the current version of Blender.

        For anyone wondering, I'm running Gemma4 26b A4B on a mini PC with 32 GB of DD4 and a Vega 7 iGPU (llama.cpp w/ Vulkan).

    • codazoda10 minutes ago
      In my experience they work well for some jobs.

      I recently built a minimal Dark Software Factory out of an N150 Mini PC. It uses three models; Sonnit, Sol, and Gemma.

      But, I have a LOT of instructions about how I prefer the software it builds. Gemma doesn’t handle all my instructions very well. But it’s close!

      I’m running gemma-4-12b because I have limited RAM and larger models were too slow.

      I do two types of jobs: planning and prototyping. It has done fine at some of my planning rounds.

      I still consider it experimental and don’t use it a lot but I think we’re getting there.

    • TechSquidTV26 minutes ago
      In my limited experience, not quite yet but we are damn close. Qwen 3.8 27b is it. If I could run this as a decent speed, I would no longer need cloud models at all. I'm actually currently trying it out in the cloud to pay for the inference speed but the model is fully runnable at home.

      I realistically costs $5-10k to replicate a ChatGPT like agent. And it doesn't scale.

      That's still really close. And models and quantization etc keep improving.

      I'm absolutely positive that I'll be switching to mostly local AI in the next 5 years.

      • cyanydeez11 minutes ago
        Qwen 3.8 at 27b, 4bit MTP, Full context, in 72GB blackwell is 2-3x agents.

        If you have a real product and can actually sell it, youre taking a largish risk relying on the cloud.

        From model changes, alignment, to enshittification and the natural cognitive offloading, you could be one day removed and ROI tanked.

        Think of AI like a mafia boss who helpfully supports you untill they need a favor. Thats all cloud AI is in America.

    • jasode5 hours ago
      >I realize I’m somewhat limited (16GB RTX 9070), but still, it seems really far off from the kind of experience even a basic $20/month subscription gets me.

      I just ordered a new Mac Studio M5 Max 128GB $5899 ($6400 with tax) to be able to run the bigger "consumer size" models in the 70B parameter range (~96 GB). That said, I have no illusions that this expensive setup with a Qwen Flash coding LLM will be comparable to a $20/month subscription. Even upgrading to an even more expensive Mac Ultra 256GB for $10000 to hold a bigger model still won't be comparable. Apple hasn't shipped my Mac yet and I'm still considering cancelling it and downgrading to a smaller 64GB RAM config ($4299) to save $1600.

      Why did I initially spend the extra $1600 if I knew ahead of time that it wasn't as good as cloud AI? Because I thought I could use some local LLM for the easy tasks or when I hit cloud rate limits. No issues with privacy so that wasn't part of the motivation at all. I just wanted some local AI capability to augment a subscription. I've not totally convinced myself of the cost/benefit of this.

      Based on today's consumer hardware landscape, you're paying very high prices for crippled capability compared to the cloud AI subscriptions. We're also in a transition period where the next iteration of hardware improvements have some compelling features for local AI. Apple's upcoming M7 (2027 or 2028) is anticipated to have better GPU and neural engine to help with prefill TTFT. AMD Strix Halo is about to release 192GB system which is a big upgrade to their current 128GB ai pc. Maybe apply my $1600 savings towards those newer products. Those future products will still be very expensive but maybe the cost/benefit will be better.

      • pizza23411 minutes ago
        > Why did I initially spend the extra $1600 if I knew ahead of time that it wasn't as good as cloud AI? Because I thought I could use some local LLM for the easy tasks or when I hit cloud rate limits.

        The maths don't check. With Deepseek Flash one goes a very long way with 1600$ - even 10$/month, for easy jobs, are more than 13 years, and at a higher quality.

      • bertmuthalalyan hour ago
        Local LLMs are improving for fixed hardware, though - a 30b parameter model now is markedly better on the same hardware than one from a year ago.
      • adastra22an hour ago
        Serious question: why not run DGX Spark or Framework Desktop, at 30%-50% lower cost?
        • jnwatson24 minutes ago
          M5 Ultra has 4-5x the memory bandwidth of both. 1.2 TB/s memory bandwidth opens up good performance on relatively large models.
    • gcoakes37 minutes ago
      I have a RX 9070 also. I run llama-swap with a fill-in-middle 7B model, local 9B model, and it proxies up to OpenRouter for the bigger stuff. I think that's where the sweet spot is right now.

      I've spent $2 in the last 2 weeks on OpenRouter. I've been trying to only use the medium sized models that I would otherwise be able to run on a nice local setup. That nice local setup would cost ~$4k. I don't know what the operating cost would be, but I would be concerned that my home electricity would cost more than at a datacenter. It just doesn't make sense right now except for privacy reasons.

      I'm probably going to hoarde open weights models in the ~31B range until memory costs fall in a few years. Then, I'll buy some hardware to run at home just so I feel more sovereign over my stack regardless the cost/token speed.

      • BatFastard26 minutes ago
        I made the same choice, aside from privacy concerns, you can not locally host a cost competitive model.

        But I am looking forward to lower hardware costs!

    • spacephysics40 minutes ago
      Also, the $20/month subscriptions are HEAVILY subsidized, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison really
    • D13Fd5 hours ago
      I’ve been running DeepSeek 4 Flash, Qwen 27B and Qwen 9B on local hardware. They work well for coding and document review tasks. I think Qwen 9B local on a 5090 might be legitimately helpful for small task agents in omp, since it is ridiculously fast. But my motivation is that I have data that I unfortunately can’t share with 3rd parties.

      I have been eyeing a 512 GB Mac 5 Ultra to run full DS4 pro locally, which I expect would be pretty amazing as far as quality/recall. The only downside is that the speed is a lot slower than something like 27B on the 5090.

    • anslopican hour ago
      You have good enough hardware to run good models comparable with Gemini and ChatGPT.

      What they are doing that you might not be is context caching, retaining a user profile about you in vector db, and adhering to strict output templates - often invoking multiple different prompts to assemble the end response to the user.

      You’ll notice the mainstream ones always kinda answer in the same way. They are also able to mix code and images with text (multi-modality) because they are breaking down and routing your prompt to different models then assembling a result.

      That’s all just software, has nothing to do with the model.

      More people imo should be experimenting with it rather than chasing better models. This area is where all the differentiation is happening in the services, and what gives an AI provider like Gemini or Vidu or Singify an edge over running the equivalent locally

      • adastra22an hour ago
        That’s… not how any of this works. Five paragraphs and literally every one is wrong.
      • hhhan hour ago
        this is insanely misleading, you can't run anything close to current chatgpt or gemini on local hardware
        • sharms8 minutes ago
          I am running GLM 5.3 across 2x DGX Sparks and was doing comparisons and it absolutely can beat Gemini. Yesterday it corrected a poor Fable 5 response even
        • colingauvinan hour ago
          GLM 5.3 Flash? Qwen 3.8 Flash Next? I believe those both are as good as the best Gemini, competitive with Terra.
          • notnullorvoid29 minutes ago
            Yes they are quite good, but are not able to run on a 16GB RX 9070.

            Quantized Qwen 3.8 Flash Next could maybe run eventually on that card with a highly optimized inference engine that dynamically caches the hottest layer experts. Even then you run into some hard limits.

      • throwaway314155an hour ago
        > You have good enough hardware to run good models comparable with Gemini and ChatGPT.

        That is at best misleading and at worst outright misinformation.

        • amazingamazingan hour ago
          If you have 2TB of VRAM you can’t run one of the big models which are comparable?
          • adastra2212 minutes ago
            The post was replying to someone with 16GB. (And also: no, even the best open weight models are not as good as what you can use on your ChatGPT subscription. They’ve gotten a lot better, but not that much better.)
      • chisan hour ago
        what are you smoking
    • paxys5 hours ago
      Local setups aren't going to make sense purely from a cost perspective, and definitely not when you are buying Apple hardware. AI subscriptions are too highly subsidized right now.
      • apparentan hour ago
        > AI subscriptions are too highly subsidized right now

        I've been running into annoying limits with Claude recently. It gives me like 5 questions over the course of 15 mins and then tells me to wait 5 hours. When companies can change things up to make the base subscription nearly useless (the last question always gets messed up, too), then you realize the value of owning your own infrastructure.

        • adastra22an hour ago
          On the $200/mo plan I have never hit a five hour limit, and I struggle to use my full credits each week.

          $200/month is vastly cheaper than owning and operating comparable hardware.

          • 0x4572 minutes ago
            > On the $200/mo plan I have never hit a five hour limit, and I struggle to use my full credits each week.

            I started tasking fable with huge projects over the weekend and now I hit at very least fable limit by monday.

          • apparent16 minutes ago
            You're right that $200/mo is much cheaper than comparable infrastructure. OTOH, you don't get to have a computer that can also be used for other applications, or which works when the internet is down. Also, you remain tethered to whatever pricing the AI companies want to charge. If AI pricing goes like Uber/Lyft did when the VC cash ran out, then we'll be paying much more in a few years' time. We could look back and think "I wish I'd bought my own setup back in 2026" if it's going to be inevitable.

            And all this before you get into privacy/security/compliance stuff.

      • monatron5 hours ago
        I think your last point is exactly why I'm so interested in local models. The current landscape doesn't feel sustainable. The last few months we've seen the big providers (OpenAI, Anthropic) start to play with usage limits, resets, banked resets, pulling models, etc. I think local models are close to the point where, with a sufficiently well-architected harness, you can get results that are on par with the experience you'd have with cloud inference. It is nice to know that I have hardware under my desk that I control with open weight models that I can interact with on my terms.
        • htrp5 hours ago
          yes, you have to unfortunately adopt a 2025 mindset when working with smaller local models because that's where they are compared to the frontier.
        • julianlam5 hours ago
          > local models are close to the point where, with a sufficiently well-architected harness, you can get results that are on par with the experience you'd have with cloud inference

          In my opinion, 98% of the work most devs would send to an AI can be capably achieved with a local model and a frontier-level model is overkill.

          The goalpost moving feeds right into Anthropic and OpenAI's interests.

      • 5 hours ago
        undefined
    • inventor77775 hours ago
      One use case I find cost effective is using it as a voice assistant for Home Assistant. API pricing on models is very weird compared to the normal chats, so I use Qwen/GPT-OSS on my Mac Studio via llama.cpp server.
    • rc15 hours ago
      The article implies the demand is for running locally. I’m not convinced, at least with a mac minis. Most people I know and myself buy the mini as it is always on, easy to setup, and isolated from my main computer which is a laptop. The mini is driving the use of the $20/month subscriptions.
      • julianlam5 hours ago
        As a thin client to access cloud models this is an astounding waste of money.
      • cyclopeanutopiaan hour ago
        Why not use rpi then?
        • adastra2229 minutes ago
          In my case, I dev on macOS. The env the agent runs in is the same as my dev laptop, configured and in sync. Has access to all the same tools and environment as I would on my laptop.
        • happyopossuman hour ago
          Easy integration with iCloud, mac native screen sharing/remote access, iMessage support, and a huge corpus of widely-adopted agents to pick from?
    • julianlam5 hours ago
      16GB VRAM could load a small quantised qwen 27B model but it would be a ways away from a frontier cloud model.

      Though keep in mind not being beholden to shenanigans from said cloud companies (and interference from government entities!) is definitely worth something intangible.

    • gchamonlive5 hours ago
      I think 24gb is the bare minimum for a local qwen3.8 based setup. I've used qwen3.6 and it's not as straightforward as "can it replace <insert the most cost-effective cloud solution today>"

      Local llms don't suffer from cloud availability issues. Anyone that used Google models know that sometimes they just don't have capacity whatsoever, at least that was the state of things some months back when I used them. Just bear in mind if needed, cloud providers will prioritise API and corporate customers over subscriptions if availability degrades more.

      Also they don't have the same guardrails as the other models, so for hacking, reverse engineering and black coding (piracy etc...) these local models might be the only options.

    • N1ckFG3 hours ago
      In my experience so far, separately from privacy concerns there's a specific use case where cheap local shines--when unlimited shots on /goal with a dumber model is better than limited time with a smarter model. This looks less like the assisted-coding scenario that's commonly brought up as a good local scenario, because if you're searching for a fast and accurate solution to a single blocking problem, the bare minimum for a model that can do that is a 24GB dGPU or a 64GB Mac. Instead, this looks more like a Hermes agent on an Raspberry Pi driving OpenCode on an old gaming computer with just enough RAM and VRAM to handle an MoE, churning out something overnight that would quickly exhaust the subscription plans, like a knowledge graph for a large document corpus.
    • adamtaylor_135 hours ago
      The principle of KISS keeps coming to mind when I consider local computing. I'm looking forward to the day we can just run Opus-level models at 100 tok/sec on consumer hardware.

      But currently it's really hard to beat anything offered by the cloud companies. And the cost and complexity of setting it all up, just to barely (if at all) touch on Opus-level intelligence makes it seem like we're not quite there for the common man (enthusiasts are a different story.)

      I am very excited for open source local models, and we're nearly there, but it's still too complex and expensive to be my daily driver (yet).

    • fisle5 hours ago
      Could you elaborate on your experience with local models on your card? I've been thinking of upgrading to 9070 XT, and was thinking the 16GB would be okay-ish to at least run something usable locally, no?
      • fancyfredbot5 hours ago
        Usable certainly. But my impression is that useful models still need a bit more than 16GB. Something like Qwen 3.8 27B is useful but squeezing it into 16GB requires fairly aggressive quantisation which will make it unreliable (e.g it'll get stuck in loops) and won't leave enough space for a long context (which qwen 3.8 really likes)
      • Grombobulous4 hours ago
        I’m the parent of this thread, the person with the with the RX 9070.

        My understanding would be that if you’re interested in this sort of card for AI that you should go with the AI PRO R9700, which is basically the professional version of the RX 9070XT but with 32GB of memory.

        It’s significantly more money but not crazy like a 5090.

        I just happen to have the 9070XT primarily for gaming purposes.

        I’m not quite sure how to describe my experience using it other than “rudimentary,” and a lot of that is on me for not really understanding the best way to set it up.

      • villish5 hours ago
        If you have been using cloud hosted models, you will be severely disappointed with what you’d be able to run on 16GB VRAM. You will spend most of your time fighting with the model to fix its mistakes.
    • spacedcowboy5 hours ago
      I was getting semi-useful results from a 128GB M4 Max. That was a few months ago, and the models have improved (quite a bit) since then, but now I'm happy to send my $20/month to get Claude code.

      It's still frustrating as hell to come down in the morning, having given it a list of tasks to do overnight, with tests to pass before they're "done" and find that it worked for about 20 minutes after I went to bed, and decided that it would stop at "3am" (it wasn't) and "not do significant work this at this late hour". Like WTF ? You're an LLM. You don't sleep.

      Bloody training data full of humans demanding sleep. I tells ya...

      • scrumper5 hours ago
        > "not do significant work this at this late hour"

        Is this Claude code? Or your local? I assume Claude? I'm more than a little staggered by this, like, it makes no sense! It doesn't even serve Anthropic's interests (surely better for them if it burns your token quota so you have to buy more the next morning.) The LLM just... decided? I'd be so mad.

        WTF indeed. Can one even file bugs?

        • xienze5 hours ago
          > It doesn't even serve Anthropic's interests (surely better for them if it burns your token quota so you have to buy more the next morning.)

          Parent mentioned their $20/month subscription. It's definitely in Anthropic's interests for you to not use it.

      • xienze5 hours ago
        > I went to bed, and decided that it would stop at "3am" (it wasn't) and "not do significant work this at this late hour". Like WTF ? You're an LLM. You don't sleep.

        I think that's Anthropic trying to get you to not extract as much value out of that subsidized subscription as possible.

    • iLoveOncallan hour ago
      I might be wrong but subscription models don't give you API access. I'm only interested in API access when it comes to personal use, so local models running for free makes sense for me.

      That said I have an RTX 5090, not a Mac Mini, so it's not exactly the same level of performance... The latest open models run at 200 tpm at around 30B params.

      • DaSHacka27 minutes ago
        Only Anthropic does that AFAIK, at least I can use my $20/month Codex and Kimi subscriptions in pi.
    • tristor5 hours ago
      I've been experimenting with local models on an M5 Max MBP w/ 128GB of RAM since March of this year. Generally I've had very good results. Where things were lacking initially was with tool calling and the need to rely on tool calling for functionality like web search, which is otherwise well integrated in the cloud models. There is also a lot more work required on the harness side, however at this point (August 2026) there is not only much better tool calling in local models, but community supported projects have built good harnesses. Pi.dev and OpenCode + a SOTA local model is /very/ /very/ capable these days. Using LM Studio's built-in chat with a decent system prompt and proper tuning with local models is /very/ capable these days. Cloud models are still better, but it's the "harness" (not in the desktop app, but in the backend) that makes it so for the most part.
    • xienze5 hours ago
      IMO local models require a substantial amount of prompt+harness engineering to get in the neighborhood of what you'd get from a cloud model. Which isn't a bad thing, you'll learn a whole lot about how these things work.

      What you'll learn pretty quickly from said engineering is that there's a lot more to a good LLM than just the weights themselves. You need a good search provider (also self-hostable, but sounds easier than it really is). You need (well, it's debatable) a memory system. You need a good system for up-to-date library references like a Context7 (also self-hostable but the options are surprisingly not that good). You need a good set of specialized subagents that can perform various tasks well -- for the sake of "doing things well" but also managing context efficiently.

      When you've got all that, local models can be _extremely_ useful. But there's one other important thing and that's decent hardware, unfortunately. A lot of people try out local models using small consumer GPUs or Macs and are rightfully unimpressed with the performance. And if the performance doesn't get them, usually they have expectations that they'll perform at Claude levels out of the box. Getting in that neighborhood, like I said, definitely requires some work.

      • Grombobulous4 hours ago
        What you’re describing is exactly what I’ve experienced in my time testing out this stuff locally, and I had a hard time figuring out what exactly to blame.

        I keep hoping that one day some comment is going to paste a link to some kind of idiot-proof guide or piece of software that’s “90% as good as Claude but running local.”

        And by 90% I don’t mean that the model is 90% as good or runs 90% as fast, more like all the other stuff you mentioned is set up out of the box.

    • epolanski5 hours ago
      I have multiple 48GB friends that successfully run smaller quantized models for general assistance + light editing (coding, spreadsheets, etc), that don't require very heavy models.

      So yes, they are genuinely very useful, but they are not yet a full replacement unless you have more powerful hardware and or don't need more intelligent ai.

    • ivewonyoung4 hours ago
      > 16GB RTX 9070

      What's an RTX 9070? Do you mean the RX 9070 or RTX 5070?

  • setgree6 hours ago
    It's fun to see that even an extremely large company can find unexpected product market fit [0]. Per this article, "The company reportedly did not possess an engineering team dedicated to business customers or staff focused on developer relations, and lacked an enterprise AI strategy." That sounds insane in retrospect, but I think there's just inherent uncertainty in what people actually need and will use things for.

    [0]https://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part4.html: "In a great market—a market with lots of real potential customers—the market pulls product out of the startup... The product doesn’t need to be great; it just has to basically work."

    • yardie5 hours ago
      You should listen to the podcast Acquired, specifically Nvidia and then Jensen Huang. They basically lucked into AI. Some researcher was using Nvidia gaming cards, and reached out to them about questions on CUDA. That email eventually turned them into a trillion dollar question.
      • caycep35 minutes ago
        to their credit, there was a lot of work behind "luck". Jensen showed up in person in 2017 in NEURIPS and he and likely a lot of his top brass basically sat down and read the entire conference proceedings/abstracts; there was likely a lot of work behind the scenes to behind the ML research pivot.
        • adastra2225 minutes ago
          Yeah, The NVIDIA Way goes into a lot of detail on how and why the pivot from graphics to AI happened. This is a prime example of “you make your own luck.” Jensen engineered an organization that was primed to recognize and pounce on the next big thing, and it ended up being AI. But they saw it coming WAY in advance (like 2011/2012, not 2017) because they were explicitly on the lookout.
    • DannyBee5 hours ago
      It's also fun to see how many people here believed this was all some clear deliberate strategy in the first place rather than an accident.
    • SaltyBackendGuy5 hours ago
      Maybe a bit of hindsight bias / the outside view here, but I feel like they're completely asleep if they didn't anticipate strong demand for this specific use case.
      • articulatepang4 hours ago
        I think a reasonable story could have been told that goes like this: local models aren’t as good as frontier models with a $20/month subscription, and the hardware costs a lot. So only a few enthusiasts will buy Apple machines for this purpose.

        This story turned out to be false but I think smart, reasonable people a couple years ago could have believed it with conviction. It doesn’t really seem like “completely asleep” to me.

      • adjejmxbdjdn5 hours ago
        I don’t understand how that’s possible. They should have had a better idea of what was happening in the memory markets than pretty much any other entity.
        • Nevermark5 hours ago
          Their universal RAM strategy is so obviously helpful for AI. (1) GPU/NPU <--> CPU RAM copies eliminated. (2) All (most) RAM available for GPU/Neural, when local models are typically kneecapped by limited GPU RAM sizes vs. the much larger RAM options for M/Max/Pro/Ultras.

          They have been taking NPU's seriously on their phones, tablets and laptops since the M1.

          Then they enabled fully-connected RDMA for 4 x 512GB MacStudio's = 2TB RAM. Perfect for a large Mixture-of-Experts model.

          It would be very strange if they didn't notice their product line had landed in a new sweet spot.

          • pizzafeelsright5 hours ago
            I am curious about the corporate disconnect from the frontline to the generals.

            While the company I am in is embracing AI the disconnect and delay between what is available and possible versus what is approved and permitted is a three month window. The State employees I speak to are just now getting around to writing their usage policies for internal AI usage.

          • bigyabai2 hours ago
            FWIW, the reported reason for OpenAI buying Macs has nothing to do with the memory by the sounds of it. Every single outlet I can find reporting on this seems to repeat that the intended use case is for agentic workloads and generating training data for reinforcement learning. They don't appear to be doing inference nor any sort of training AFAICT.
            • Nevermarkan hour ago
              For OpenAI, their data center archipelago is their own "local" and "personalized" AI.
    • xattt5 hours ago
      Was this the case in the past?

      My vibes were that Apple wound down the “actual work” side of their operations (including machines like Xserve), because Ives couldn’t handle the unsexiness and unpredictability of business requirements in hardware.

      He was self-indulgent and only wanted to work on things that “vibed” with him, rather than what the customers needed. It’s easy to be creative when you get to do what you want to do, it’s hard when you have hard constraints.

      • tonyedgecombe5 hours ago
        I think Jobs was quite sceptical about courting enterprises. Personally this is one of the reasons I choose Apple over Microsoft.
    • 1over1375 hours ago
      No ‘staff focused on developer relations’ is entirely unsurprising based on what I see from the outside.
  • AdmiralAsshat5 hours ago
    Mac Mini's were really nice HTPC candidates, too, before the AI boom. Like all things genuinely useful and affordable, they were snatched from the hands of normal consumers by a bunch of schmucks chasing the latest gold rush.
    • procgen29 minutes ago
      Our Blessed Homeland / Their Barbarous Wastes
    • scrumper5 hours ago
      I need a new little Mac for my music studio, currently an M2 MacBook Pro. I thought I'd be fun to experiment with some local models as well. Well, let's price up an M5 Pro. $3,019 with 64GB RAM and a 1TB HD. Three thousand American dollars for a Mac Mini. Beefy spec for sure but not comically so.

      Frankly even the entry price is a bit high - I remember buying one for my son a few years ago (M1 mini) and it was a few hundred; now we're up to $900 for the base model.

  • paxys6 hours ago
    I really hope with Ternus taking the helm Apple starts to remember that it has products outside of iPhone.
    • catoc4 hours ago
      I wish they would stop with the new-iPhone-every-year nonsense and refocus on quality, fix some bugs… but yeah, not gonna happen
      • stetrainan hour ago
        At this point it's basically like car models years. They rev them annually and make a few improvements but they're actually going longer between major redesigns. If they didn't bump the numbers every year people walking into stores would be worried about paying lots of money for an old phone that will soon be replaced by a much newer model.
      • Sir_Twistan hour ago
        I feel like iOS 27 is a step in this direction, in terms of sanding off the rough edges of iOS 26.
  • Scubabear685 hours ago
    Not just the high end stuff. The Neo is sold out until late September on the budget end, it seems like it is a smash for HS and college kids.

    I hope Apple can take all this cash and do some stability releases like they used to do, bugs around things like Family Sharing, the painful "update" to Settings App, etc could all use a lot of love.

  • ChrisMarshallNY23 minutes ago
    Sounds like people want those bespoke servers that Apple has been rumored to have developed.
  • imagetican hour ago
    No they weren’t.
    • stetrainan hour ago
      The part where people starting buying Mac minis just to run OpenClaw was a pretty sudden movement in the market. These computers aren't powerful enough to run big local LLMs but are still being purchased for AI workflows.

      A year ago you could get an M4 Mac mini for $399 on sale and now the same one used goes for over $700. The general AI RAM/SSD spike is part of that but there was also a huge demand spike for small, powerful, desktop machines that could be easily configured with these workflow tools.

  • ceejayoz6 hours ago
    Time to bring back the Xserves, I guess.
  • Xeoncross5 hours ago
    If I had to pick a product, I'd say an affordable 32GB mac would be the sweet spot for running local models that function well like Qwen 3.8.

    It's true, most people don't run models, but being the default platform for running open weights seems like it has plenty of advantages right now. Just like sales benefited from developers defaulting to MacOS for most open source languages like Ruby, Go, Rust, and TypeScript.

    • shagie10 minutes ago
      > If I had to pick a product, I'd say an affordable 32GB mac would be the sweet spot for running local models that function well like Qwen 3.8.

      https://www.canirun.ai (five months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47363754 377 comments)

    • mirekrusin5 hours ago
      32GB is not enough, it's unified/shared memory, you need to have space for usual system and user apps/services.

      64GB+ or dedicated 48GB (2x24 on GPUs) is IMHO absolute minimum.

    • tristor5 hours ago
      > If I had to pick a product, I'd say an affordable 32GB mac would be the sweet spot for running local models that function well like Qwen 3.8.

      32GB is not enough RAM. I don't even own a device with less than 36GB at this point, and that device I only have because my employer is being cheap. 64GB is a reasonable starting point for running local LLMs + normal tasks. 128GB let's you really run most smaller models like Qwen 27B and 35BA3B with good context. Even Qwen3.8-Flash-Next runs in 128GB with a 4-bit quant.

      32GB would be limited to running models like Gemma4 12B and smaller dense Qwen versions like 9B unless you were using very small quants which damages quality of response.

      • Xeoncross2 hours ago
        You are mistaken. I'm running Qwen 3.7 28B 4bit (MLX) with a 200k context window and everything total is 32GB RSS.

        Is this the best? No. That's why I said the sweet spot. Getting from 16GB macs to 32GB is perhaps possible. Jumping to 64GB or 128GB as the default is simply unreasonable right now.

        • Foobar856815 minutes ago
          Memory used : 38GB, and I haven't even started a LLM nor podman, I always fight with memory when using LLM on my mac with 48gb.

          And I don't remember to have been able to have pushed to 200k context Qwen 3.6. 3.8 is running on my RTX 5090.

        • e28eta37 minutes ago
          I have a similar machine, and briefly poked at running a local LLM, but got discouraged after a couple days. The quality, responsiveness, and impact on the rest of the system didn’t seem worth it to me.

          What sorts of things are you doing with the local LLM? Anything interactive? Should I take another look?

        • tristor20 minutes ago
          I assume you mean Qwen 3.8-27B? Yes, you can run this in 32GB of RAM, but it's very context limited. With KV cache compression and other techniques, it's better now than in the past, but I'd still want more RAM, personally.
  • compounding_it6 hours ago
    More customers is generally a good problem to have in most businesses. Just that the situation is very paradoxical given the supply shortages.
  • jmyeet40 minutes ago
    So for people who don't understand, there are two markets for Apple hardware in this space:

    1. Running an agent like OpenClaude. The $599 Mac Mini was an insanely good deal for this. I happened to buy a M5 Pro Mac Mini for $999 last year for other reasons. The equivalent is now almost $2000; and

    2. Hardware for running inference on local models. This to me is the far more interesting market because Apple has a real opportunity to disrupt NVidia's stranglehold on the market.

    With current architecture, the largest model you can reasonbly run is the amount of memory on the GPU and is a function of the quantization (eg int4, int8, fp8, fp16, etc) available and the number of parameters. NVidia aggressively segments the market. The most VRAM on a "consumer" card is 32GB on the 5090, which allows you to run ~31B parameter models.

    In comparison, the RTX 6000 Pro has only slightly more CUDA units than a 5090 but has 80GB of VRAM. A few months ago they were $10-11k. Now they're ~$16k.

    Macs use a shared memory architecture. Apple has previously sold Mac Studios with up to 512GB of RAM. Almost all of that memory can be used to hold much larger models without taking a penalty for interconnections between different GPUs or machines. Plus Apple interconnects between computers are actually relatively good by chaining TB5. It's still slow but it's about the best non-enterprise option available.

    But the previous Mac Studios just didn't have the raw FLOPS and memory bandwidth. The M5 Ultras are up to 1.2TB/s of memory bandwidth. M3 Ultra had ~900GB/s. RTX 5090s and RTX 6000 Pros are 1.8TB/s. The current best HBM3 NVidia DC GPUs are at 3.2TB/s IIRC. But the M5 Ultra has a claimed ~4.5x the FLOPS of the M3 Ultra.

    We don't have our hands on these yet but it probably means they are going to be much closer to a 5090. I expect ~50% of a 5090's inference speed. That may sound bad but it's actually really good because a 256/512GB Mac Studio can probably locally run the best Flash models. With NVidia hardware you'll need to spend many tens of thousands for that.

    We'll see what the inference speed is but I expect it to be usable. DeepSeek v4 Flash, for example, will be entirely runnable. We're not at DeepSeek v4 Pro local yet.

  • an hour ago
    undefined
  • wseqyrkuan hour ago
    is this a manufactured demand meme
  • comrade12346 hours ago
    I wish they sold something that could go in a colo - redundant power supplies, lights out management, etc. you know they have them internally...
  • evanjrowley2 hours ago
    I imagine Apple could also grow their business in the EU by marketing to companies who want powerful AI features but can't leverage 3rd party AI services due to GDPR. If only they could come up with iOS, App Store, and developer policies that respect the sovereignty of the EU.
  • Whatarethese4 hours ago
    There are so many used M4 Mac Minis for sale on marketplace for $600+ now that the people I guess got bored of the local models and decided to see if they could make their money back as they probably bought them when they were $399 on sale earlier this year. I lowball them every time.
    • mixdupan hour ago
      When the M6 Minis were announced I pre-ordered and Apple gave me $480 trade-in on my entry level M4 Mini that I paid $499 for about 14 months ago
    • chung8123an hour ago
      Have you been successful with the lowball offers? That would help indicate where the supply/demand for them are.
  • jshier5 hours ago
    Now if only they hadn't discontinued the Mac Pro. Could be quite the AI machine with multiple compute GPUs at higher bandwidth than an external Thunderbolt enclosure.
  • hzwanip6 hours ago
    Off guard? :'D
  • martythemaniak5 hours ago
    This may sound a little wacky, but one potential use case I'm considering is robotics. Say you want to use a fine-tuned mid-size VLM model right on the robot. You pretty much have to use the Jetson line, which has a great ecosystem and everything (depth cameras, lidar, SLAM, small segmentation models, etc) runs on it, but it's gets very expensive very fast if you want to run LLMs on it. The Jetson Thor lines are 3-5k depending on memory etc.

    One very efficient option today is to have the cheapest Jetson (Orin Nano) run the classical robotics stack, then have a base mac mini run nothing but the VLM. The Mac mini is considerably cheaper and faster at these workloads than the mid-range Jetsons.

    I think this wonky situation is because Apple us under immense consumer pressure to absorb the ridiculous memory prices, while the Jetson is aimed at "business" and much more likely to fluctuate with the market. Last year I bought a Jetson Orin Nano 8GB for $375CAD, today that official nVidia Amazon page is out of stock and other sellers have it listed for $900-$1100CAD. Absolutely bonkers pricing.

  • api5 hours ago
    Apple has a huge opportunity here to lead the market for machines to run local models if they step into it. Their stuff is already better than what nVidia is offering with stuff like the DGX Spark.

    It's a niche market but it's a market that overlaps heavily with professionals in the AI space and lead developers, so it's a market that gets them customers in those roles.

    If I were running Apple I'd call the RAM price bubble for what it is and temporarily eat some margin to offer machines with more RAM than competitors, especially these models that are great for edge AI, and capture market share.

    • bigyabai2 hours ago
      Apple doesn't design GPUs on-par with Nvidia's efficiency yet. They need an architectural overhaul to be a serious competitor, which is what I'm expecting is queued up for M7.

      Nvidia has CUDA, AMD has CDNA, and Apple has... compute shaders, I guess?

      • nicce34 minutes ago
        > Apple doesn't design GPUs on-par with Nvidia's efficiency yet

        How much it matters in inference? Most GPUs have enough computing for that and the bottleneck is the RAM speed and size. And M5 Ultra is becoming to challenge this.

  • taskoutputs2k6 hours ago
    just a real bummer that they raised the prices so much
    • VCFundedGenYer5 hours ago
      I don't know if you're young, or new to this industry, or what, but take a look around - the prices went up across the board. It's not just Apple.
    • snarkyturtle6 hours ago
      It definitely puts it out of the range of every day users but a non-insignificant proportion of people who use it for ai have become multi-millionaires because of ai. So there's definitely no shortage of people who have no problem paying those high prices.
      • bigyabai2 hours ago
        > but a non-insignificant proportion of people who use it for ai have become multi-millionaires because of ai

        I can't even name one person who fits this mold, let alone a non-insignificant proportion of people. Who are you thinking of?

      • noman-land6 hours ago
        Citation needed.
    • lenerdenator6 hours ago
      Please address all complaints to the Office of CEO, Open AI, 123 Main Street, San Francisco, California, U.S.A., 94158.

      Your letter will help feed the boiler that heats the building and is much appreciated.

    • AlexandrB6 hours ago
      I suspect it can't be helped at this point. RAM is the new gold. Valve even had to increase the price for a 4 year old piece of hardware[1].

      [1] https://tech-insider.org/ca/steam-deck-price-increase-2026/

  • jmclnx5 hours ago
    I am missing something in the article. From what I am reading, AI companies are so desperate for memory they are buying Apple Systems and other hardware and striping them for RAM and maybe other components.

    Is that what others read ?

    • Leftium5 hours ago
      Apple hardware uses a unified architecture. That means the CPU and RAM are integrated together: it is very difficult/impossible to strip the RAM from these systems.

      This unified architecture makes Apple hardware very good for AI work, where latency between RAM and CPU is very important

      Even the SSDs (which are normally more strippable) use a proprietary hardware form factor.

      I think the article mentioned the real draw:

      > Apple noticeably promoted the ability to link multiple Mac Studios together into a single, more capable system for running large frontier AI models, a feature aimed at business and developer customers rather than everyday consumers.

      (Couldn't read the source cited, might have more info: The Information)