You are reading the article Apple Executives Explain Why Mac Studio Is The Closest Thing To The Mythical Xmac updated in December 2023 on the website Kientrucdochoi.com. We hope that the information we have shared is helpful to you. If you find the content interesting and meaningful, please share it with your friends and continue to follow and support us for the latest updates. Suggested January 2024 Apple Executives Explain Why Mac Studio Is The Closest Thing To The Mythical Xmac
Apple executives explain why the new Mac Studio (and the Studio Display, to some extent) may actually fulfill the dream of a modular and powerful yet affordable desktop computer that many professional users have been waiting for for decades.
Matthew Panzarino sits down with Apple execs
TechCrunch editor-in-chief Matthew Panzarino interviewed three senior Apple executives about the role these new products have in the company’s lineup and why the Mac Studio and the Studio Display bridge the gap between the flagship 27-inch iMac (now discontinued) and the overpriced Mac Pro workstation.Oh, Studio Display is just a scaled-up Mac mini
Tom Boger, Apple’s Vice President of Mac and iPad Product Marketing:
We look very much at Mac studio for what it is, a completely new Mac product line. Which is rare. We don’t add product lines to the Mac very often. Our philosophy was not at all to take a Mac mini and scale it up, it was ‘we know we’re working on this M1 chip and we want to bring it to those users who want performance and conductivity and a modular system. And let’s allow it to live right on people’s desks so it’s within easy reach. And that’s what we delivered.
And what about all that performance?It’s the fastest Mac ever, period
The Mac Studio configured with the M1 Ultra chip is faster than a maxed-out configuration of the company’s flagship Mac Pro desktop, it’s the fastest Mac ever.
Xander Soren, Apple’s Director of Product Marketing for Pro Apps::
We’re talking about how many screens you can have of 8K, or that you can do a Dolby Atmos mix in 96k audio, and the performance meter is hitting thirty percent. And the other very consistent thing we’re seeing is that you don’t need a super-expensive facility and long-term rent. We’re seeing incredible productions being done from a desk or the corner of a desk, and it’s pretty inspiring.Why the Mac Studio has USB-A ports
Contrary to popular belief that Apple is a company that doesn’t do any market research, Boger said that Apple’s own research showed that there was still a legacy need for USB-A ports:
We’re trying to give our users that dynamic range of choice. So when deciding on the array of ports and how many and all of that it’s really just talking to lots of customers, serving our customers and seeing how many devices they’re using.
And the USB-A ports is about the fact that people still have some legacy devices they can only connect there and there’s some software that still requires software keys.Apple actually giving people what they want
On a bunch of ports, most on the back but some on the front as well:
We’ve got I/O right on the front and even if you need to get to the back, you just spin it around. It’s relatively light. It’s very small. It fits under most displays at 3.7 inches high. We’re really giving users something they’ve never had before. They’ve always had to trade off. If I wanted a smaller form factor computer, I had to trade off performance. And what we wanted to do was give people something where you don’t have to do that.
Read the full interview at TechCrunch.Does the Mac Studio fulfill the xMac dream?
For decades, pro users wanted a mid-range tower Mac that wasn’t overkill such as the high-priced Mac Pro or impractical like the underpowered iMac all-in-one.
Jason Snell, writing at The Verge (a must-read, for sure!):
Back in the ‘90s and early 2000s, being a Mac nerd meant using a Power Mac. The arrival of the original iMac in 1998 was greeted with enthusiasm by Mac nerds because it meant that Steve Jobs might be able to restore Apple to greatness after it foundered in the mid-’90s—but none of them would ever stoop to using one themselves.
When Jobs returned to Apple, he presided over a dramatic and necessary simplification of the product line. The desktop Power Mac, a go-to model for power users, vanished in 1998. The choices dwindled to the underpowered iMac (and later, the Mac mini) on one end, and the increasingly expensive Power Mac/Mac Pro tower on the other.
In between, at least for Mac power users, was a desert. And rising out of the desert was a glorious mirage: a mythical mid-range Mac minitower like the Power Macs of old. This legendary creature was known as the xMac.
If you’re on Team xMac, you’ve no doubt been yearning to lay your hands on a modular desktop Mac that wasn’t a scaled-up Mac mini. And many folks would say that Apple in 2023 finally fulfilled our collective dream of a portable, powerful and actually affordable Mac desktop with the new Mac Studio + Studio Display combo.
Or did it?
You're reading Apple Executives Explain Why Mac Studio Is The Closest Thing To The Mythical Xmac
Apple Mac Studio teardown: huge M1 Ultra chip and upgradable storage
Apple’s latest is impressive under the hood.
Apple has strolled out their latest chip, the Apple M1 Ultra out to users with the brand-new Mac Studio. While they initially compared the graphics horsepower to that of an RTX 3090, these claims were unfounded. Now, we’ve got our first glimpses of the chip itself, and how big it actually is in comparison to other desktop-class chips, thanks to YouTuber Max Tech, who has disassembled the product to try and see if they can get into Apple’s case, which at first glance, looks like it can’t be pried open. But, all you need to do is leave it up to the Tech Community to find a way.
The Mac Studio itself, revealed at their Peek Performance event is incredibly powerful for the physical footprint it leaves behind, and the actual M1 Ultra SoC, which is essentially two M1 MAX chips fused together. This gives the M1 Ultra twice the amount of theoretical performance, and can only be attained right now in the Mac Studio itself, which retails for a cool $3,999 if you want the brand-new chip. This power-efficient system has some quirks under the hood though, and for professionals wanting outlook at a long-term look at the system, you might want to check out exactly what is going on under the hood of this attractive-looking, small-form-factor desktop machine aimed at content creators and professionals.
Mac Studio teardown
Source: Max Tech
To get into the Apple Mac Studio, you’ll first need to get yourself a spudger and prise the bottom ring off, from there, you’ll need security bits to get into the internal chassis, where you’ll then be able to access the internals of the system itself. It’s likely that doing this will void the warranty in your country, so be sure to know what you’re doing here, especially if you’ve never taken apart consumer electronics before.
Once open, you’ll see exposed antennae that allow for wireless communication, in addition to the speakers. The top portion of the device is a PSU, and you’ll need to remove this part of the system if you’re wanting to gain access to the rest of the system. Removing the PSU is incredibly dangerous, so don’t try that at home, kids. After you manage to get the PSU out you’ll then be able to access the back of the mainboard, with heat pipes and stickers shielding your view of the VRMs and SoC itself.
Curiously, there is an M.2 slot for storage left empty, and you can use the alternative port for extra storage, though you will need a drive that is compatible with the Mac Studio, which remains to be tested for later. From there, it’s an intense disassembly process to get to the rest of the system. We’re not sure why you’d want to venture this deep unless you were doing some significant repair work on the system itself to repair the fans or clean the heatsink.
M1 Ultra chip is almost 3x larger than a Ryzen CPU
Afer removal of the backplate of the mainboard, you’ll be able to see the gigantic M1 Ultra chip, which is one of the biggest (in size) consumer chips we’ve ever seen. However, rather unusually you’ll find that the thermal compound applied on the chip only goes across its centre, due to the thermal solution that Apple has devised, it’ll be incredibly interesting if someone’s going to manage to stuff one of these chips with a desktop PC cooling solution in a skunkworks-style build. It’s almost three times larger than your average Ryzen chip, which is incredibly impressive.
Apple Mac Studio SSD may be user-replaceable
The Apple Mac Studio has an empty NVMe slot on the board, though it’s questionable if the port might actually have room for another SSD, and whether or not that SSD will be user-replaceable, too. But, all signs point to the port allowing you to expand your storage. Until then, confirmation of whether or not this is actually possible will rest with the Mac modding community, who will surely be all-over the Mac Studio, especially because the only way to get an M1 Ultra is in the Mac Studio at the time of writing.
Where else might we see the M1 Ultra?
Due to the size of the chip, we’re pretty positive that we’re not going to be seeing this SoC in a portable machine any time soon, it’ll be incredibly difficult to design around this. But, it may spark hope for those looking for a 27-inch iMac refresh, as that’d be the perfect kind of machine that will be able to handle the size of the chip, thermals, and more for this gargantuan mammoth of an ARM-based workhorse that also promises to be more power-efficient than rival chips on the market, which may threaten any x86 manufacturers who might be wanting to flex their power muscles, as the M1 Ultra brings the core count, speed and versatility, while not being shackled to the older architecture which may not be the way forward for mass-market computing.
This is the endgame for Apple, and its plans to completely disrupt the entire home-computing industry and should put rival chip manufacturers on notice. Should they also move over to ARM? Windows on ARM is currently not a fantastic user experience, so the tried-and-true industry stalwarts might want to wait, or develop their own ARM chips in tandem with Microsoft ensuring that the experience is good over on the OS.
This might be the last M1 variant that we see, as you have to expect that Apple is preparing the next generation of their self-developed silicon. It’s going to be an interesting ride to see whether or not the rest of the industry will respond in kind to this kind of disruption. It’s not a case of if other companies will respond, but when.
Apple hates the Mac Pro, doesn’t it?
Apple’s event on Tuesday was fun. The company offered up a slew of hardware products for consumers to drool over, and it did a fine job of appealing to everyone from mobile customers to computer chúng tôi iPad mini will undoubtedly be a fan favorite, as will the fourth-generation iPad. The new iMac is downright beautiful with a thinness that has yet to be matched. Even the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display, which is admittedly expensive, should attract quite a few customers.
But the only part of the market that Apple didn’t touch at its event was the power segment. Apple had products for mobile customers and casual users. But what about those of us who need power and sophistication?
Apple has once again updated its Mac line without once mentioning the Mac Pro. That computer, which is used heavily in the corporate design world, hasn’t been updated in two years. And so far, it’s as if Apple doesn’t really care. In fact, the company has gone out of its way to ignore the computer while it attempts to wow us with its other products.
I’m starting to wonder if Apple hates the Mac Pro. For months now, we’ve been hearing whispers that a new version of the desktop was in the works, only to be disappointed when it goes missing at Apple’s many press events.
According to some reports earlier this year, Apple executives have promised an update. So far, however, there’s been no public explanation for why the computer has been ignored. I’m not saying that Apple has to update the Mac Pro today (though it would be nice), but I do believe that the company should at least provide an explanation.
[aquote]Should Mac Pro users ditch Apple and go buy a high-end PC?[/aquote]
Right now, there are countless Mac Pro users that are stuck with an obsolete computer, not knowing what they need to do. Should they ditch Apple’s product and go buy a high-end PC? Should they wait Apple out to see if it updates the Mac Pro at some point soon? Apple, for some reason, doesn’t want to provide them with an answer.
Not providing them with an answer is a big mistake. Eventually, designers will need more power, and if Apple doesn’t allay some fears soon, they’ll go elsewhere. And when they go elsewhere, they might never come back.
It’s odd to me that the Mac Mini, a product that was largely ignored by Apple for so long, has received more updates in the past couple of years than the Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is a cheap product that likely has a razor-thin margin. The Mac Pro could be a cash cow for Apple.
And yet, here I sit, writing this on a Mac Pro, wondering why Apple doesn’t see things the way I do. Yes, I know Apple is successful and it has made many smart moves, but this time around, I think it’s making a mistake.
Mac Pro users are arguably Apple’s most loyal and trusted fans. They’re buying the company’s most expensive product, and in the past, acted as evangelists when there weren’t that many products worth drooling over. It’s about time Apple shows those folks some respect and delivers a new Mac Pro.
The Law of Dominance of Traits is one of the fundamental principles of genetics. This law states that one gene of a gene pair will be dominant, while the other will be recessive. This means that only the dominant gene will be expressed in the phenotype, while the recessive gene will remain hidden.
The content discusses the Law of Dominance of Traits is, how it works, and provides examples to help illustrate this concept.Understanding the Law of Dominance of Traits
The Law of Dominance of Traits was first proposed by Gregor Mendel, a scientist, and monk who is considered the father of modern genetics. In his experiments with pea plants, Mendel observed that certain traits, such as flower color or seed shape, were always expressed in the offspring of the pea plants, while others were not.
Through his experiments, Mendel discovered that these traits were controlled by genes, which were passed down from parents to offspring. He also discovered that each gene existed in two forms, or alleles, one dominant and one recessive.
The dominant allele was expressed in the phenotype, while the recessive allele remained hidden. This meant that even if an organism had a recessive allele for a certain trait, it would not be expressed unless it inherited two copies of the recessive allele.
This concept can be illustrated using the example of flower color in pea plants. Mendel observed that some pea plants had purple flowers, while others had white flowers. He hypothesized that there were two alleles for flower color, one for purple and one for white.
When Mendel crossed a purple-flowered plant with a white-flowered plant, he found that all of the offspring had purple flowers. This was because the allele for purple flowers was dominant, and the allele for white flowers was recessive.
However, when Mendel crossed two of these purple-flowered offspring, he found that some of the resulting offspring had white flowers. This was because some of these offspring inherited two copies of the recessive allele for white flowers, while others inherited one dominant allele and one recessive allele for purple flowers.
This example illustrates how the Law of Dominance of Traits works. The dominant allele is expressed in the phenotype, while the recessive allele remains hidden unless an organism inherits two copies of it.Exceptions to the Law of Dominance of Traits
While the Law of Dominance of Traits is a fundamental principle of genetics, there are some exceptions to this law. One of these exceptions is incomplete dominance.
In incomplete dominance, neither allele is completely dominant nor recessive, and the phenotype of the offspring is a blend of the two parental phenotypes. For example, when a red-flowered plant is crossed with a white-flowered plant, the resulting offspring may have pink flowers, which is a blend of the two parental colors.
Another exception to the Law of Dominance of Traits is codominance. In codominance, both alleles are expressed in the phenotype of the offspring. For example, when a black-feathered chicken is crossed with a white-feathered chicken, the resulting offspring may have both black and white feathers.Examples of the Law of Dominance of Traits in Humans
The Law of Dominance of Traits applies not just to pea plants, but also to humans. There are many traits in humans that are controlled by dominant and recessive alleles.
One example is earlobe attachment. The allele for free earlobes is dominant, while the allele for attached earlobes is recessive. This means that an individual with one allele for free earlobes and one allele for attached earlobes will have free earlobes because the allele for free earlobes is dominant.
Another example is tongue-rolling. The ability to roll your tongue is controlled by a dominant allele, while the inability to roll your tongue is controlled by a recessive allele. This means that an individual with one allele for tongue rolling and one allele for not being able to roll their tongue will still be able to roll their tongue because the allele for tongue rolling is dominant.
A third example is Huntington’s disease, a genetic disorder that causes the progressive breakdown of nerve cells in the brain. The allele for Huntington’s disease is dominant, meaning that an individual with just one copy of the gene will develop the disease.Conclusion
The Law of Dominance of Traits is a fundamental principle of genetics that explains how certain traits are expressed in offspring. This law states that one gene of a gene pair will be dominant, while the other will be recessive. This means that only the dominant gene will be expressed in the phenotype, while the recessive gene will remain hidden.
While there are exceptions to this law, such as incomplete dominance and codominance, the Law of Dominance of Traits still provides a useful framework for understanding how genes are passed down from parents to offspring.
By studying the Law of Dominance of Traits and other principles of genetics, scientists can gain a better understanding of how genetic disorders develop and how they can be treated. This knowledge can also help us make informed decisions about our own health and the health of our children.
My first attempt at Jupiter [left] demonstrates why it’s a tricky first target–the brightness of the planet against the darkness of space casts a wide dynamic range for the novice to capture. But it’s possible, as a photo taken with the same camera provided by the SBIG folks shows [right].
Astrophotography is hard. Astronomically hard. Everything has to be perfect. Your telescope, with camera attached, must track your target in precise synchronization with the rotation of the Earth. It can’t shake. It can’t even vibrate. You have to nail your camera’s exposure settings or you’ll be rewarded with an incoherent mess. Your targets are often so dim you can’t even see them until after the image has been made, so focusing is a nightmare.
So why try? Because it makes the entities floating in the vastness of the universe much more real than any Hubble wallpaper on your computer desktop can.
Those images, as spectacular as they are, don’t capture personal experience. Marvelous photos have been made of Yosemite, Monument Valley, and the Grand Canyon, but people still trek to see them in person. Similarly, astronomy—for me—is best experienced first-hand. No shot of Saturn, Jupiter, the Orion Nebula, or the Whirlpool Galaxy from the Hubble can equal–intellectually or emotionally–my own experiences at the eyepiece. The scenes, when delivered by nothing more than a few layers of precision-ground glass, are reality. Saturn is an actual object, floating in the blackness of space. Star clusters sparkle like diamonds on black velvet. Everything has scale, depth, and context. They’re actual things, not abstractions. And far from making me feel like I’m an insignificant little nothing–unlike, say, watching an episode of Entourage–I actually feel like I’m part of something spectacular. Capturing images myself would be an extension of that first-person experience. I want to record these things, and share them, as I see them.
Astrophotography is a black art of the first order, and, frankly, I suck at it. Every one of my previous efforts over the last 10 or so years has ended in frustration, usually after sitting stock-still next to my scope for hours, shivering to death on fantastically cold nights. Fortunately, though, technology may finally be catching up with my own incompetence. The digital revolution swept amateur astrophotography a decade ago, and new cameras are more powerful and much easier to use than they were when CCD’s first crashed in from outer space back then. You can now shoot the universe with everything from consumer DSLR’s to $100 “planet cams” to ultra-sensitive, ultra-expensive CCD cameras that come with cooling fans, cryogenics, and finely tuned sensors. You also have exceptionally capable image-capturing and processing software that allows you to better control the camera and pull out the hidden details in these usually very dark shots. So with this in mind, I decided to finally commit myself to conquering my demon, to making an astro-image truly worth showing off.
My SBIG Camera
I turned to one of the leaders in the astro-photo biz, the Santa Barbara Instrument Group, or SBIG. They sent over an ST-4000XCM, a 4.2 megapixel color camera with an integrated cooling fan–this minimizes visual “noise” in your images that an overheated sensor can cause–and a built-in autoguider. This technology helps compensate for minor errors in your telescope’s alignment, which is critical when you start taking exposures longer than a minute or so. Essentially, the autoguider analyzes the view, locks on to specific stars, and makes constant adjustments to the telescope to keep everything in alignment. You won’t have images with stars burning streaks across the frame–they’ll remain fine points.
My Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope
Having been an avid telescope consumer my entire adult life–I have, like, nine–I had a good head start in terms of the rest of the basic equipment. One of my scopes happens to be great for astrophotography. It’s a computerized, 8-inch aperture Schmidt-Cassegrain from Celestron. (Schmidt-Cassegrains use a combination of mirrors and lenses to cram a lot of focal length and aperture into a compact tube. And the more aperture you have, the more light, and detail, you can bring in.) I’m able to align the motorized mount so that it can track smoothly, and I’ve got the super-sturdy mount option to minimize the shakes.
The Camera Mounted
One my first night, my target was Jupiter, which is positioned nicely in the sky right now–fairly low on the horizon and centered along the ecliptic in the early evening. After spending about an hour installing and experimenting with SBIG’s CCDOPS software, I wired everything up to the scope. The computer recognized the camera and began pulling in data about its temperature and various other parameters that I’ve yet to fully comprehend. Before I attached the camera, I’d centered the scope on the planet, and she looked beautiful through the eyepiece–three moons visible, nice detail in the cloud bands. When I took the eyepiece out and put the camera back in, the image on my laptop showed barely a hint of yellow blob. Since the eyepiece and camera focus at different points, the crisp view was long gone. The CCDOPS software solves this with a Focus function–it takes a steady stream of quick images so you can make adjustments between each shot. Within a few minutes, I was pleased to see a much more defined yellow blob. It was obviously overexposed, but I figured the camera would help me tame the shot in good time.
Finally, I started grabbing images. I tried exposures from 1/30th of a second down to 1/60th and up through a full second. Each time the image came back looking roughly the same. I also tried the software’s Planet Master function, in which the computer takes over and tries to grab the best shots in a rapid sequence. I had no better luck. This, however, I’d anticipated. It was my first night with an extremely sophisticated and complicated camera. I was just going to learn its rough functionality and then dive in with the manual once I’d had some degree of familiarity with it. So I packed it in, sent my shot to Michael Barber, an engineer at SBIG, and cracked open the book. Within a few minutes, Michael got back to me. I’d assumed that my shot was badly out of focus, but I was actually just being too ambitious. “That shot’s actually pretty well focused,” Barber told me. “The problem with planets is the great dynamic range and the brightness. The exposure is too long and the planet is saturated and burned out. You need to shorten the exposure time for Jupiter.”
A glob? No problem–globular clusters are among my favorite sights. These clusters of tens of thousands of stars are fascinating targets. You can stare at M13 in Hercules for hours and watch it unpack more and more individual stars as your eyes adapt to the sight. The next night, I went straight for Hercules.
My Shot of the M13 Cluster
My luck improved. I focused the camera and started experimenting with exposures. I tried three minutes, two minutes, 60 seconds, and 45 seconds. Each time, I got something that actually looked something like my view at the eyepiece. There are clearly still problems with my technique–the image still needs a few focus tweaks, and I suspect that there are settings I’m not familiar with that will help refine my shooting. But it’s my first successful, coherent astrophotograph. It’s a fine image, if I do say so myself–thanks to some contrast adjustments to darken the background–but it’s still a first try from a CCD novice, and it doesn’t quite capture the experience the way I want it to. Plus, I haven’t even scratched the surface of this camera’s capability–there are plenty of other features that can enhance my imaging, and plenty of ways I can tweak the image on the computer to get the best possible results.
Next, after some further schooling, I’ll go back to Jupiter, try M13 again, and then, hopefully, go intergalactic.
Apple’s Mail is a free, native email application that ships with every Mac, making it a solid default choice for most users, especially those using iCloud. However, the Mail app is one of the least innovative Apple-made macOS apps and without a major change in quite some time.
But you can find many alternatives for Apple’s Mail. Many of those can help you become more productive and safer on the Web. Here are five amazing suggestions for you!1. Spark
You can also schedule your emails. Similarly, if you send an email and don’t receive a response, Spark can nudge you with follow-up reminders. This feature alone could be a lifesaver if you depend on email to grow your business and reach new partners and customers.
Many of the features mentioned above come free of charge, and that includes team features. However, to expand Spark’s features and get unlimited resources, you’ll need to pay $7.99 per month (per single active user).
What we like:
As simple or as complex as you need it to be
Highly useful Smart inbox
Supports any email account
Great for small and large teams
What we don’t like:
Not the most private option
Tech support may be slow2. Boxy
In general, the best applications out there (of any kind) get out of your way. They’re not intrusive, and they don’t require you to spend any time learning the ropes. One such application is Boxy (full name – Boxy Suite 2). This Apple Mail alternative for Mac is focused on a single thing – letting you dive into Google services in a familiar way.
Instead of being a completely rebuilt Gmail experience, Boxy is a custom wrapper for Google’s services, styled to match macOS’s modern interface. You can count on interacting with Gmail in the way you did before and choose from standard or minimal Gmail interfaces. There’s a dark mode, quick launcher (great for G-Suite power users), email tracking detection, easy account switching, integrations with other services, a special “Reader Mode,” and plenty more.
Let’s not forget that Boxy isn’t only about Gmail. It works equally well with Calendar, Keep, and Contacts. It also receives regular updates that expand its set of features on a monthly basis. All of that is available for $29/yearly – but you get a two-week trial, which seems like a fair offer.
What we like:
What we don’t like:
Works with Gmail only
Isn’t free but still affordable3. HEY
After that, HEY will put emails into one of three possible places. There’s “The Imbox,” for your important stuff that you need to address as soon as possible. There’s “The Feed,” which organizes your non-urgent mail like newsletters and such. Then there’s “The Paper Trail,” for things you rarely need to see (like receipts). So if you need an Apple Mail alternative for Mac that offers something completely different – you’re looking at it!
HEY also comes with a handy “Reply Later” feature built into the app. (It’s not a clunky workaround, like in Gmail and Outlook.) You’re also free to search for files from a central place, change (rename) email subjects, set up custom reminders, and more. The only catch here: HEY is priced at $99 per year.
What we like:
100 percent unique
Dozens of features you won’t find elsewhere
Advanced email organization
Your privacy is protected (no trackers)
What we don’t like:
You need a new email address4. AirMail
Our list of the best Apple Mail alternatives for Mac wouldn’t be complete without an Apple-centric email client. Many of the apps featured in this article offer apps not only on macOS but also on other platforms. However, AirMail is dedicated only to Apple’s desktop and mobile operating systems.
First, you should know that AirMail is a winner of Apple’s Design Award, which says a lot. Its macOS app is incredibly polished in every single way. It comes as a minimalist solution, but you can turn it into something very powerful since it offers any type of customization. Aside from unmatched customization, you get different kinds of inboxes, actions and rules, plugins that expand AirMail’s functionality, and more.
When compared to Apple’s Mail app, AirMail has a handy widget. You can use it as your inbox to check your mail without disrupting your workflow. You can also snooze email messages, send emails and replies at a later time, and protect your privacy by blocking tracking pixels and prevent images from loading.
Lastly, know that many of AirMail’s features come free of charge. However, to unblock this email app’s capabilities, you’ll need to pay $2.99 per month or $9.99 per year. As you may already guess, we think this is a fantastic deal.
What we like:
Great for preserving your privacy
Works on any Apple device
What we don’t like:
Not the most helpful support team
Not the most useful built-in search functionality5. Postbox
Postbox offers robust tools for more efficient email management and looks much better than Apple Mail. This email client lets you group your emails by topic, which is great with multiple email accounts. You can also divide your tasks into smaller, more manageable chunks for better organization.
Features like the pre-made responses set Postbox part, though it lacks essential features like Send Later and Snooze. The unique feature is the Account Groups, which lets you combine your accounts into a unified box and separates or blends your work in an organized manner. There’s also a Focus Pane from which you can filter emails quickly to find what you want.
A nifty time tracker shows the length of time you took composing emails, and word count is included as well. When you’re ready to hit “Send,” domain fencing checks that you send emails to the appropriate recipients.
Lastly, keep in mind that Postbox has a 30-day free trial and supports the most popular email service providers and protocols like SMTP, POP3, and IMAP. This email app is currently priced at $39.99 per user and brings lifetime licenses (so no subscriptions).
What we like:
What we don’t like:
Very similar to Apple’s Mail in terms of the UI
Comes with a bit of a learning curveConclusion
These are what we have judged to be the five best Apple Mail alternatives for your Mac in 2023! However, while we still have your attention, we’d like to recommend a couple of extra resources.
First, make sure to learn how to change your Mac’s default apps (handy if you plan on changing your Mac’s default email app). You’ll also want to know how to encrypt your emails on macOS.
Isaac is a freelance writer with over a decade of experience covering the latest technological innovations. Mainly focused on Apple-related software and hardware systems, his aspiration is to explore all the ways today’s digital world intertwines with our everyday life.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Our latest tutorials delivered straight to your inbox
Sign up for all newsletters.
Update the detailed information about Apple Executives Explain Why Mac Studio Is The Closest Thing To The Mythical Xmac on the Kientrucdochoi.com website. We hope the article's content will meet your needs, and we will regularly update the information to provide you with the fastest and most accurate information. Have a great day!