[reactordev]

Apple does not compete on checkboxes. If they deemed is necessary to remove, there’s a reason. Not saying I agree, just that’s how they operate. If there isn’t a need to support 3 displays then they won’t, regardless if the “competition” did it years prior.

[ffgjgf1]

> there’s a reason. Not saying I agree, just that’s how they operate.

Almost always it’s maximizing profit margins rather than anything else.

[fsckboy]

>there’s a reason

they operate 100% on profitability, not what's technically feasible. They are extremely focused on making money. Yes, there is a reason after all.

[reactordev]

Exactly my point. It’s technically feasible to do many things. Apple will do what Apple does. Try to upsell you into the higher tier hardware.

[d3w4s9]

If that were true Apple would have stopped bragging about battery life.

[nerdbert]

The longer battery life is genuinely useful to a wide range of people in a way that being able to connect 38 external monitors is not.

I recently went on a 5-day trip and forgot to bring the charger for my M2. The first day I thought I'd have to rush around and find one. By the fourth day I still had 8% and then finally realized I could charge it via USB-C instead of magsafe.

[ffgjgf1]

> connect 38 external monitors

Just 2 would be enough. Which seems like a basic feature their competitors are are capable of supporting for a very low costs.

They in fact are competing on checkboxes, specifically they are probably using this limitation to upsell theirs more expensive models.

[reactordev]

Can you not connect 2 monitors on a Mac?

[ffgjgf1]

Not on those with a non-pro M chip.

[nerdbert]

Even if you use one of those Thunderbolt/USB-C expansion dongles?