back
7 comments
Sure, but it's also not really out of scale with the cost of a shop tool in other trades.

If you're a professional that's confident in a positive return on the investment (optimal or not), or just a hobbyist with the luxury budget for a "shop" that cost is well within norms.

That's not everybody, of course, but it's not some inconceivable fantasy. A lot of people in the tech community here on HN, specifically, end up with pretty high discretionary budgets that they pour into stuff like this.

But you can get that return from a paid service too, in fact it'll be better. So just comparing costs, what's the annualized ROI on the Mac Studio assuming it means you avoid paying $240/y for Claude? Cause I can always set aside the Mac's price in some investments and pay for Claude out of that.
Same with many and their shop tools in other trades.

Most hobbyists and many professionals could end up far ahead financially by leveraging makerspaces, tool rentals, and co-op shops or even by hiring out a professional to prep certain intermediates for them, but they get psychological value -- as well as flexibility, reliability, and resale opportunity -- from having their own well-outfitted shop.

And they can afford that premium, so they do. At the scale of individuals and small shops, not everything that matters gets captured in financial models.

Yeah but the local model doesn't have those advantages for the coding use cases, at least not yet. In theory you could post-train one on your codebase or something, but nobody cares to do that when any vanilla coding agent service can read and understand the whole thing better than a locally tuned free model. I was already being very generous towards the Mac in pretending it does the same thing as the paid service.

Aside, physical tools tend to be financially advantageous to own if you're going to use them a lot. Even if the owner were targeting 0 profit, they'd have to charge more to factor in the cost of dealing with customers and increased risk of wear/damage by users who don't care as much.

The shifting sands of commercial models or pay-per-use managed models are just really not appealing to a lot of people.

Most come with huge privacy concerns, total costs and availability are impossible to forecast very far out, and the specific behavior of frontier models in particular is not something anybody can rely on as those are subscription products that are subject behavior on their publisher's whims (whether from changing system prompts, new "safeguards", retired models, forced "updates", new regulations, etc).

It's quite hard to put a price on all that, and as more people find local models productive enough or develop curiosity to explore models, training, or harness-crafting in their own ways, the marginal cost of buying some shop hardware just sort of disappears into the budget noise for plenty enough people.

Hosted is still much cheaper and you get a better model. Some day I imagine the gap will close but it hasn't yet.
A Strix Halo with similar RAM is considerably cheaper. Still not cheap, mind, but performance is OK (not great) and it will run more or less the same models.
At least for me, it's been pretty great, but I bought my system when it was $1800, now looks like the same system is $2700 and out of stock. I still haven't quite been able to run 120B parameter models under Windows, but for Qwen Coder 30B, it works pretty darn well for my at home needs.
Yeah, they have gone up a lot since I bought mine too. I did get Qwen3.5-122b running on all-GPU (on a 128GB machine) under a minimal Arch Linux setup (I do my GUI work on a much cheaper box). It worked, but Qwen3.6-35b is performing almost as well and a lot faster.

Still cheaper than a new Mac. Maybe not cheaper than a used one.

I've certainly thought about just moving the box to Linux, but it took far to long personally to get everything running under AMD and it works 'well enough' that I don't want to make the switch. I tried playing with GAIA on it, felt a bit limited, and now have Hermes up and running, and that seems to work quite well. All the tools are changing so quickly, it's sometimes difficult to settle in on 'what's best', so I certainly can understand folks that just want to pay for a AI subscription and be done with it.
No need. You can run the Gemma 4 and Qwen3.5 MoE models with as little as 12 GB of VRAM at 30-40 tps (Q4/Q5), and they both blow GPT-4o and DeepSeek R1 out of the water.
Pros buy their own tools. This is why working for yourself is better than working for a corpo, you get to choose your weapon.
That's daft mate
Is it? When you're inside the fence you get some IT cast off from the last guy that was cleaned up and re-spywared from 2-3y ago (sometimes worse!). As a hired gun (data science/engineer), I have an m3 128gb 1tb all sliders to the right MacBook Pro that works great, no spyware, rocket fast, trains/runs small models. With Apple 0%, paid in a year. I generally can name my price so it pays for itself.

If you're riding it every day, every little speed up counts. I don't wait on GitHub actions or external systems for my crunching. For that I have my local slurm cluster of mini PCs, 64 cpus and counting!

I assure you there is a better world outside of the fence, I am unlikely to return.

I'm curious the last time you touched reality
Not really sure what you're getting at there, I was a hired gun for about a year, founded a company and am having a great time.

Last time I was at a corporate gig, I got a 2+ year old base model MacBook Pro to do a data science. 16gb of ram is fun and all, but when you're using R you're going to have a bad time.

During my hired gun period I worked with two organizations that used gitlab, and they're doing just fine. One place I had no problem using their cloud for bigger runs, the other had a permission system that was pissing me off so I solved my own problem and billed them enough it didn't matter anyhow. Like I said, having extra cpus for big R runs you don't have to ask anyone for has a value all its own.

Happy computing!

He is using a 2022 M2, which you can get that for about $2k used. That is beyond reasonable.
Global Affordability Estimate:

Top 10% of global earners (~800M people) can afford a $2,000 device without major financial strain.

Top 25% (~2B people) could afford it with some budget adjustments.

Bottom 50% (~4B people) would find it prohibitively expensive.

So for a SV top income, maybe that might look more like the weekly pet brushing budget, but for most people out there this is not that much of a no-brainer.

The maths changes if you're working for yourself. Because I live in Europe, I've ended up working as a contractor due to the lack of a legal entity in my country. While that mostly sucked for a bunch of reasons, I was able to get a 64Gb Mac M2 a few years back with approximately a 52% discount, which was kinda nice.
If you're working for yourself paying monthly is exactly the same as amortising an asset. Personally I'd rather my business just pay $100 a month than have to deal with additional hardware and software maintenance while using a depreciating asset that is break-even after 3-5 years depending on the spec.
Bottom 50% aren't paying for Claude either, probably also don't own PCs or write code
Yes, because the bottom 50%, mostly impoverished or near impoverished folks were spending money on Claude Code subscriptions instead /s
2K is 10 years of a Claude Pro subscription, which also gives you better models...
She
AI and budgets don't mix well at the moment
Yeah, I never had a computer that cost north of $800 until recently. While that is far from the typical HN user's budget, my bet is that it is much closer to average.

Besides those with effectively unlimited budgets for their personal compute, local models are still a long ways off.

Though, that shouldn't be conflated with the value of open-source models, which can be used by cloud providers to significantly reduce cost of intelligence.

> Yeah, I never had a computer that cost north of $800 until recently. While that is far from the typical HN user's budget, my bet is that it is much closer to average.

There are segments, everything from "Average person in world" to "Average creative professional using computers for work" and more on HN, with a wide range of costs for the hardware. HN probably skews towards the latter rather than the former, probably sitting with enterprise hardware next to them basically for fun, hard to make wider conclusions from what people here have or not.

If we define "typical" as the median HN budget, it's probably about the same as yours. Maybe the answer would have been different 10 or 20 years ago, but the era of truly needing a big budget PC has been over for a while.

It's just for gaming and AI now. Maybe not even gaming as much anymore.

Consider the perspective of someone who has a practically unlimited budget for PCs, doesn't game much anymore, and doesn't need AI to do their job. It's just part of getting older, and there are plenty of people in their late 30s and older on here.