or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro - Page 27

post #1041 of 1290

I actually thought the case design that was Apple's best, believe it not, was the MacII CX. I don't know if people remember that one, but it was a small form factor with a few slots, etc.

 

Obviously, an updated version would be TOTALLY cool, just make it out of aluminum, they could probably take out a little in the height, and then stuff some fast SSD, Thunderbolt 2, etc. etc.  it would be a great ProTools box, etc. with a couple of internal PCI slots.  I doubt they would do that, but it would be cool if they did.  They could easily stuff a high end i5 or i7, 32GB of RAM, Fusion drive, SSD drive, plenty o ports.  Otherwise, just make it a spotless design that's twice the height of the current MacMini.

File source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Macintosh_IIcx.jpg

post #1042 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

I think there is a very good likelihood that they'll release a headless iMac.

All they need to do is put the quad that's in the entry 15" MBP in a Mini - the i7-4750HQ. Even if it makes it $899 instead of $799, it's worth the price to get Iris Pro graphics. They can also remove the second HDD bay and offer PCIe storage combined with a single HDD up to 2TB. Some people will just take PCIe storage on its own. The RAM could be soldered on but that might limit them to 8GB due to the physical size so RAM slots would be better in that case to allow up to 16GB cost-effectively. When DDR4 arrives, they can solder it on.

The fan and PSU are almost the full height of the Mini so there's not much room to change the form factor and I don't think they should feel they have to change it. It's a great size, weight and design. If they could make it quieter with asymmetric fan blades and perhaps cool air intakes at the base, that would be an improvement.
post #1043 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


All they need to do is put the quad that's in the entry 15" MBP in a Mini - the i7-4750HQ. Even if it makes it $899 instead of $799, it's worth the price to get Iris Pro graphics. They can also remove the second HDD bay and offer PCIe storage combined with a single HDD up to 2TB. Some people will just take PCIe storage on its own. The RAM could be soldered on but that might limit them to 8GB due to the physical size so RAM slots would be better in that case to allow up to 16GB cost-effectively. When DDR4 arrives, they can solder it on.

 

It isn't entirely unprecedented. The original mini was $499 IIRC. It has seen price increases and increases in capability relative to the rest of the concurrent line. I haven't read enough about DDR4, but it wouldn't surprise me to see SODIMMs go this way for the most part.

post #1044 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

All they need to do is put the quad that's in the entry 15" MBP in a Mini - the i7-4750HQ. Even if it makes it $899 instead of $799, it's worth the price to get Iris Pro graphics. 

 

Not likely.  Who's going to buy a $1299 2.7/3.2 Ghz Core i5 iMac if they can get a 2.0/3.2 Ghz Core i7 Mini for $899?  Before there was the GPU up sell to get the iMac.

 

Even for $999 that's iffy.  All you would be doing is pushing ASPs and Mac profits down.

 

I suspect that none of the Minis get Iris Pro unless it's deliberately gimped to Core i5.

post #1045 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


All they need to do is put the quad that's in the entry 15" MBP in a Mini - the i7-4750HQ. Even if it makes it $899 instead of $799, it's worth the price to get Iris Pro graphics. They can also remove the second HDD bay and offer PCIe storage combined with a single HDD up to 2TB. Some people will just take PCIe storage on its own. The RAM could be soldered on but that might limit them to 8GB due to the physical size so RAM slots would be better in that case to allow up to 16GB cost-effectively. When DDR4 arrives, they can solder it on.

The fan and PSU are almost the full height of the Mini so there's not much room to change the form factor and I don't think they should feel they have to change it. It's a great size, weight and design. If they could make it quieter with asymmetric fan blades and perhaps cool air intakes at the base, that would be an improvement.

 

Sounds like a plan, although I'm not sure why desktops really need soldered RAM.

But Apple would like it.

 

I would think, knowing Apple, that they'd go the route of eliminating the second HD, pulling the power supply out and redesigning it to make it smaller and quieter.

 

Y'know, because it's what Apple does. :)

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #1046 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Not likely.  Who's going to buy a $1299 2.7/3.2 Ghz Core i5 iMac if they can get a 2.0/3.2 Ghz Core i7 Mini for $899?  Before there was the GPU up sell to get the iMac.
This isn't a problem and never has been a problem. People interested in an iMac have zero interest in a headless desktop and vs versa.
Quote:
Even for $999 that's iffy.  All you would be doing is pushing ASPs and Mac profits down.
Given the right desktop solution I'd be willing to pay around $1200. It would have to be a decent configuration and support better than iMac performance.
Quote:
I suspect that none of the Minis get Iris Pro unless it's deliberately gimped to Core i5.

This is the big problem, Apple in the past has deliberately gimped the Mini. However one issue they do have is thermal capacity. That is where a redesigned machine comes in.
post #1047 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

I suspect that none of the Minis get Iris Pro unless it's deliberately gimped to Core i5.

 

You mean dual core? That's how it works with the mobile skus. The hyperthreading enabled/disable thing only applies to the desktop variants. I'm not entirely sure on this one. The mini initially borrowed its hardware configurations from the 13" mbp, but over time it took on more things from the 15" mbp. The 2011 model was gimped on video memory, but its gpu was clocked higher than the lowest 15" from that year which used a 6490m, which was the low end of AMD's lineup at the time. I do think they'll gimp it in some way, but the low end 21" is a poor value. Losing sales to the mini would be partly because it's not a very compelling machine.

post #1048 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

 

A lot of people want something more in the $2000 to $2500 range  for a high end i7 based system because if they want to use a cheaper monitor, it saves money ultimately, OR it's just nicer to replace the base unit rather than the whole thing.

 

I point this out whenever the topic comes up, and no one seems to have a response. The Xeon used in the base model at $3000 costs the same amount as the one they used in the cheese grater at $2500. It has been that way since 2009, and it costs less than any of the other mac pro cpus that preceded it. It costs marginally less than a high end i7. It also costs less than several of the mobile cpus used in the 15" rmbp. I suspect the price barrier you envision is really illusory, and it's more of a pricing strategy. It's not here or there, but there isn't an evidence that Apple couldn't do this due to component costs. It's unlikely that the firepro cards are that expensive in their base configuration, as they chopped down the memory for the D300s. It is 2 gpus, but I'm not sure one of them costs as much as they paid for a 5770 in 2010. If this was a case of 2x W7000s, they would probably poach quite a few windows buyers.

 

Anyway where do you think they would cut out costs by going to i7?  Keep in mind the boards used in single Xeon setups aren't anywhere near as much as the duals. They are similar to those used in the enthusiast class Sandy Bridge E and Ivy Bridge E setups.

post #1049 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

You mean dual core? That's how it works with the mobile skus. 

 

No, quad core Core i5 with Iris Pro for $799 and a "server" version quad core i7 with just HD5000 for $999.

 

For $500 extra you get keyboard, mouse and 21" monitor.   Even then the base iMac still a bad deal in comparison to the middle Mini.

 

So maybe just Core i5 with Iris and not Iris Pro.

post #1050 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This isn't a problem and never has been a problem. People interested in an iMac have zero interest in a headless desktop and vs versa.

 

It hasn't been a problem because Apple very carefully positions all it's products for the up-sell.

 

And I disagree that there is no overlap between iMac and Mac Mini users.

 

Quote:
Given the right desktop solution I'd be willing to pay around $1200. It would have to be a decent configuration and support better than iMac performance.

 

You'll continue to be disappointed.  What you are stating here is you want a top end iMac for half the price. That isn't going to happen.

post #1051 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

No, quad core Core i5 with Iris Pro for $799 and a "server" version quad core i7 with just HD5000 for $999.

 

For $500 extra you get keyboard, mouse and 21" monitor.   Even then the base iMac still a bad deal in comparison to the middle Mini.

 

So maybe just Core i5 with Iris and not Iris Pro.


I must look at the haswell lineup. Ivy had 0 quad i5 models in their mobile processor line. These were limited to desktop variants, where quad i5 was differentiated through disabled hyperthreading.

post #1052 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Sounds like a plan, although I'm not sure why desktops really need soldered RAM.
But Apple would like it.
Actually soldered RAM is in our future even if it isn't an Apple initiative. Most of the fastest new technologies coming have to be soldered in to meet electrical performance demands. I could see a time when you upgraded (SODIMMs) RAM is considered "slow RAM" to the machine.
Quote:
I would think, knowing Apple, that they'd go the route of eliminating the second HD, pulling the power supply out and redesigning it to make it smaller and quieter.
The whole problem with Apples lineup is that the Mini has been too small to deliver the midrange performance many of us want in a desktop machine. Here we are talking quad core CPUs at the very least. Iris plus graphics or support for discrete GPUs. The last time they tried a discrete GPU in a Mini it was a joke, not worth the money Apple was asking.
Quote:
Y'know, because it's what Apple does. 1smile.gif

The interesting thing here is that Haswell can allow Apple to dramatically transform the Mini into a better platform. If, a big if, they are wiling to give up on some of the old concepts, they can do a acceptable refactoring. One thing they would need to do is to pull the hard drives and switch to an SSD blade. This would provide more volume for heat sinks and the fan assembly. Further more of the power budget could be allocated to the Intel Processor and maybe another set of TB ports.

So the Mini would have its primary storage set up on an SSD and for people needing bulk storage an external drive module could be used. Let's face it the space occupied by the current hard drive bays is significant. Convert that space to supporting a much more powerful Mini and you have a winner.
post #1053 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It hasn't been a problem because Apple very carefully positions all it's products for the up-sell.
That is the whole point of my statement, the iMac can not replace the Mini for many users, it is not and never has been an up sell option. The iMac stands in a class of its own as an all in one. If you honestly think that Apple gets a lot of iMac sales due to people thinking the Mini is too little I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. If anything the up sell path has been towards the laptop line as they offer far better value than the iMac which is basically a rip off these days.
Quote:
And I disagree that there is no overlap between iMac and Mac Mini users.
Well you are free to do so. However please consider how often you hear people say they where forced to go the laptop route because of Apples desktop line up.
Quote:

You'll continue to be disappointed.  What you are stating here is you want a top end iMac for half the price. That isn't going to happen.

I never said such a thing! I said I wanted a machine that delivers better than iMac performance for $1200, which is easy to do by the way. You have to understand that the iMac is grossly overpriced for what you get. Do a minimalists desktop Haswell board that Apple is so capable of and you can have a nice small machine with very good performance for $1200. Hell with Iris the discrete GPU can be an option just as it is on the iMacs now. So you build a pizza box style PC with one PCI Express slot for an optional GPU. The box is simple, the motherboard is simple, cooling is somewhat simple - simple equals low cost to manufacture. I can imagine an automated line popping these out with little human help.

Now given that, I mentioned pizza box for its simplicity, there are actually many designs that Apple could leverage that would still result in a low cost machine with the power of an iMac. Let's face it the electronics aren't that expensive. You look at the Mac Pro and you see cheap electronics price real high, now part of that is due to the construction of the case which is impressive. So maybe all of the Mac Pros high cost isn't due to margin. It this case for the Mini all we are asking for is a simple elegant case that doesn't blow up machine costs, allows Apple to maintain its margins, and gives us a desktop with respectable performance.

The interesting thing here is that the Mini isn't far from what is needed in such a machine. Basically you need to handle a higher wattage CPU, but with Haswell fairly decent desktop chips are already within the Minis power range. So you extend that power range a bit to handle either the desktop chips or one of Intels high wattage mobile chips. The reality is you could add a couple of inches in width and depth and transform the Mini into a pizza box machine and maybe even simplify its assembly. This idea that such a machine is impossible is bogus in my mind. At best you are adding a couple of hundred dollars to the Minis cost.

Now the above isn't a machine that would support a GPU card. Discrete CPUs are something that likely will soon drop off my checklist as AMD and Intel continue to enhance their APU offerings. So while the need for a discrete GPU might still be there in 2013 the need may evaporate in 2014. I only stress the GPU part of the equation because for the most part the GPU is more important that the CPU in modern machines.

In the end though all you really need to do is to look at what HP and Dell offer to corporate customers as far as PCs go. It is pretty easy to purchase a decent PC for $1200.
post #1054 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The whole problem with Apples lineup is that the Mini has been too small to deliver the midrange performance many of us want in a desktop machine. Here we are talking quad core CPUs at the very least. Iris plus graphics or support for discrete GPUs. The last time they tried a discrete GPU in a Mini it was a joke, not worth the money Apple was asking.

 

Come on Wizard69, please read the specs of the current model before posting. The i7 option is the 3615QM, a quad core CPU with a score of 7307 over at CPU Benchmarks. The top of the line iMac has a CPU score of 9423. Sorry I'm not sure what your definition of fast is but the Mac Mini is defiantly faster than your so called midrange. A midrange CPU score is 3500, yep you heard it, half of what you get with the Mac Mini i7. By the way 3500 is still quick enough to do most of what the average user needs to do. If you can watch full HD videos on a Lenovo Tablet 2 tablet with an Atom processor that has a score of 679, 7307 is rocket numbers and will run pretty much anything you throw at it. I defiantly agree with you about the video, we need something much, much faster.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1055 of 1290

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/syscon_int.php?prodid=FS-348-OE

 

 

What the Mini could have been.  A nice mid range computer.  Some nice specs can go into this.  Vanilla box.  Chocolate Orange.  Or Strawberry.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1056 of 1290

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-073-BX

 

Looks nice in midnight black...

 

Or...

 

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/syscon_int.php?prodid=FS-348-OE

 

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/syscon_int.php?prodid=FS-348-OE

 

La Cube.

 

Apple could give the Mini far more options gpu wise with redesign.  It's not too far away with now being able to include an i7.  But if they can get an i7, SSD+ and Pro (heh, heh, heh...) integrated graphics into an Air or Pro laptop then the Mini could be oh-so much more.


The machine Wizard is calling for is easily possible.

 

3rd party 27 inch IPS screen very affordable.  Apple's made hard work of their desktop.  It's somewhat cynical upwell.  Greedy b*st*rdness in short.

 

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/syscon_int.php?prodid=FS-348-OE

 

I was around £982 randomly pressing buttons.  Managed to get an 256 SSD in there.  Decent R7 graphics.  K/B/Mouse, speakers etc.  Plus a rust platter.  i7.  

 

You could have an iPS screen 27 inched on top of that for..

 

£1320.  R9 280X?  £1490.  That's almost a grand cheaper than what I payed for my top of the line iMac.  The final payment of my 0% deal is due this month.  Be glad to have payed that off.

 

Heh.  For £2500, if I'd have waited...I could have had the Mac Pro... 'entry' model.' :P

 

*Passes someone the gun.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1057 of 1290

Still, I think the 'entry' Mac Pro maybe less of a rip off when they upgrade it and include a 6 core and a 512 gig SSD instead.

 

The 4 core entry for £2500 is a bit rich.  It's a decent spec apart from having to pay £2500 for a beeping quad core.  I wonder how much their mark up is. :P

 

The dual GPUS and the next gen SSD are the real draws.  And the design is killer.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #1058 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is the whole point of my statement, the iMac can not replace the Mini for many users, it is not and never has been an up sell option.

 

Except for HTPC and server users in what way is the iMac not a suitable replacement for the Mini as a desktop?  That YOU don't like the monitor isn't indicative of anything other than YOUR personal preference.

 

The iMac stands in a class of its own as an all in one. If you honestly think that Apple gets a lot of iMac sales due to people thinking the Mini is too little I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. If anything the up sell path has been towards the laptop line as they offer far better value than the iMac which is basically a rip off these days.
 

The iMac is generally better value from a computing value than the equivalent priced laptop.  You trade performance for mobility.

 

A $1200 MBP is a 2.4Ghz dual core i5 w/4GB RAM and a 128GB SSD

A $1200 iMac is a 2.7Ghz quad core i5 w/8GB RAM and a 1TB HDD

 

A $2600 MBP is a 2.3Ghz quad core i7 w/16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 750M

A $2600 iMac is a 3.5Ghz quad core i7 w/16GB RAM, 1TB Fusion and a GTX 775M

 

A $3200 MBP is a 2.6Ghz quad core i7 w/16GB RAM, 1TB SSD and 750M

A $3100 iMac is a 3.5Ghz quad core i7 w/16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and GTX 780M

 

Quote:
 Well you are free to do so. However please consider how often you hear people say they where forced to go the laptop route because of Apples desktop line up.

 

You and a few others say that.  Most folks go laptop because it's fast enough and a lot more convenient.  

 

Quote:
I never said such a thing! I said I wanted a machine that delivers better than iMac performance for $1200, which is easy to do by the way. You have to understand that the iMac is grossly overpriced for what you get.

 

Lol…you just said it again.  You want better than iMac performance (3.5Ghz quad core i7 w/GTX 775M) for $1200 vs $2600.  So what you want is an iMac for less than half the price so Apple makes half the revenue and half the profit even IF margins stay the same.

Quote:
In the end though all you really need to do is to look at what HP and Dell offer to corporate customers as far as PCs go. It is pretty easy to purchase a decent PC for $1200. 

 

Yes, because Dell and HP are such successful desktop makers that they should be the model that Apple aspires to.

 

A $1200 Optiplex 9020 (the corporate desktop) is a 3.4Ghz Core i7-4770 w/8GB RAM, a 1TB HDD, HD8570 and 23" P2314 monitor.  That's not a stunning machine and probably feels slower than the base iMac upgraded to Fusion drive for $1,499.

 

Amusingly the Optiplex 9020 lineup includes a 23" AIO.

post #1059 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post
 

What the Mini could have been.  A nice mid range computer. 

 

Instead the mini is arguably the best in class SFF computer available as opposed to a mid range boxy ITX build.

post #1060 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

Instead the mini is arguably the best in class SFF computer available as opposed to a mid range boxy ITX build.

No argument here, I think it's fast, real fast for the price. Like I stated above the difference in CPU performance between the top of the line iMac and Mac Mini is 2,116 using cpubenchmarks.com numbers. Now that might sound like big number and it is when you see a lot of low end laptops having a score of just 2,1116 but when we're looking at a computer that has a score above 7,000, an extra 2,000 isn't going to be noticeable unless your using the Mac Mini as a mini render farm. Also a score of 3500 is considered mid-range performance, 7307 is very. very fast and considered to be on the high end of the CPU spectrum especially when you factor in that the fastest CPU in the last generation of Mac Pro has a CPU score of 8630. and the new Macbook Pro's has a mark of 8517 the Mac Mini is one quick little machine. The new one will probably gain another 1,000 points on it's CPU score so I see absolutely nothing to complain about.

 

The only other mini type computer in which I would even consider is the Alienware X51, okay it's not as small as the Mac Mini but it isn't big either. The extra heft makes sense though when you look at the incredible specs, It has a new Haswell i7-4770 with an astounding CPU score of 9984 (side note, the XEON E5-1620 v2 found in the new Mac Pro for 3,000 has a CPU mark of 9298, so yeah this Dell is an extremely fast machine), a Nvidia 760 which is a trail blazer of a GPU, it's almost as fast as an ATI 7990, when overclocked it is, (Dell does sell the TI version of the 760 for an extra 200 which will then defiantly be the same speed as a ATI 7990), 8GB RAM, 1TB HD for only 1,100. Sorry but if you can live with Windows 7 this is defiantly the machine to buy, the price performance ratio is the best I have ever seen. It's a windows machine though and that is defiantly a hard sale around these parts but can you imagine if the Mac Mini had these specs for the same money, that would be off the chain and no doubt be the most successful Mac desktop of all time. I would defiantly buy a couple them.

 

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #1061 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Come on Wizard69, please read the specs of the current model before posting. The i7 option is the 3615QM, a quad core CPU with a score of 7307 over at CPU Benchmarks. The top of the line iMac has a CPU score of 9423.
OK so you reference data that supports my position, the Mini is a long ways from iMac performance and by definition an extremely long ways from Mac Pro performance.

By the way just because the Mini can be had with quad core today does not mean that we will get quad core in the next revision. Many of Intels Iris supported chips are dual core i86. What I don't want to see is a regression in the number of cores available, which is very possible. This is also why a bump in power/thermal capability would be nice.
Quote:
Sorry I'm not sure what your definition of fast is but the Mac Mini is defiantly faster than your so called midrange. A midrange CPU score is 3500, yep you heard it, half of what you get with the Mac Mini i7.
Midrange is based on what is available from Intel at the time as their primary product line. Thus a Haswell based Mini should be able to deliver at least a 55 watt Haswell processor or something in that range. Actually 55 watts might be a bit on the low end side. However I hope you get what I mean here, midrange isn't in comparison to other product lines but rather the current implementation.

Sadly in this respect the Mini has always come up short. In part that is due to thermal considerations which is why I would prefer a bigger box.
Quote:
By the way 3500 is still quick enough to do most of what the average user needs to do. If you can watch full HD videos on a Lenovo Tablet 2 tablet with an Atom processor that has a score of 679, 7307 is rocket numbers and will run pretty much anything you throw at it. I defiantly agree with you about the video, we need something much, much faster.
The GPU is a huge factor in modern operating systems! Frankly I'm not sure how the industry has managed to keep a focus on the CPU for so long. Let's face it between dedicated hardware for things like video decode and and much smarter GPU cores, the CPU is often only along for the ride.

You speak of Atom above which has of late been one of Intels most pathetic processors, to which AMD has responded with BRAZOS. The interesting thing here is that AMD got a huge number of design wins simply because of the much better GPU. Of course Intel is trying to turn this around and has focused on far better Atom chips but it highlights the importance of the GPU in delivering good interactivity. I might also suggest that this is part of Apples success with the "A" series chips.

In any event I don't buy the idea that The Mini runs anything you throw at it. I sit here with an iPad and a MBP not to far away. IPad certainly can't handle everything I'd like to throw at, thus I have to decide if my next technology buy is an iPad update or a new Mac. The point is each has performance problems right now depending upon what I do with them. Buying a Mini isn't an avenue to the land of excess performance.
post #1062 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CA-073-BX

Looks nice in midnight black...

Or...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/syscon_int.php?prodid=FS-348-OE

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/syscon_int.php?prodid=FS-348-OE

La Cube.

Apple could give the Mini far more options gpu wise with redesign.  It's not too far away with now being able to include an i7.  But if they can get an i7, SSD+ and Pro (heh, heh, heh...) integrated graphics into an Air or Pro laptop then the Mini could be oh-so much more.
I really don't have anything against the Mini as a small form factor computer. They have their place and have been a staple of the IBM PC world for some time. Frankly even in the PC world they have been a high margin option.

However when the design is so small that you don't have a decent performance option and in Apples case nothing else in the lineup then I have a problem. Oh by decent performance I'm not just talking about the CPU in isolation, modern PCs need a decent GPU. This is where the lust for a Mini with an Haswell based Iris processor comes in. Why Apple is dragging its feet here is beyond me.
Quote:

The machine Wizard is calling for is easily possible.
Anything is possible, we might even have warp drives in the future. Unfortunately I think wrap drives will come before Apple wises up and rationalizes the desktop line up.
Quote:
3rd party 27 inch IPS screen very affordable.  Apple's made hard work of their desktop.  It's somewhat cynical upwell.  Greedy b*st*rdness in short.
It really isn't greediness as they aren't totally out of line pricing wise on a small form factor PC running the latest mobile chips. The problem is there are better ways to deliver performance on the desktop, especially with Haswell. Haswell is now low enough in power that desktop chips might be viable in the right enclosure or Apple could go high end mobile.

In other words the Mini has a niche to fill but Apple has a gap to fill in their machine lineup.
Quote:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/syscon_int.php?prodid=FS-348-OE

I was around £982 randomly pressing buttons.  Managed to get an 256 SSD in there.  Decent R7 graphics.  K/B/Mouse, speakers etc.  Plus a rust platter.  i7.  

You could have an iPS screen 27 inched on top of that for..

£1320.  R9 280X?  £1490.  That's almost a grand cheaper than what I payed for my top of the line iMac.  The final payment of my 0% deal is due this month.  Be glad to have payed that off.

Heh.  For £2500, if I'd have waited...I could have had the Mac Pro... 'entry' model.' :P

*Passes someone the gun.

Lemon Bon Bon.

That price point on the entry level Mac Pro is asinine. It may or may not be excessive for what you get, that isn't really the point though. The point is Apple has no reasonable machine to fill the gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro. By the way, before anybody says anything, no the iMac is not a reasonable machine for the desktop.
post #1063 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post
 

The only other mini type computer in which I would even consider is the Alienware X51, okay it's not as small as the Mac Mini but it isn't big either. The extra heft makes sense though when you look at the incredible specs, It has a new Haswell i7-4770 with an astounding CPU score of 9984 (side note, the XEON E5-1620 v2 found in the new Mac Pro for 3,000 has a CPU mark of 9298, so yeah this Dell is an extremely fast machine), a Nvidia 760 which is a trail blazer of a GPU, it's almost as fast as an ATI 7990, when overclocked it is, (Dell does sell the TI version of the 760 for an extra 200 which will then defiantly be the same speed as a ATI 7990), 8GB RAM, 1TB HD for only 1,100. Sorry but if you can live with Windows 7 this is defiantly the machine to buy, the price performance ratio is the best I have ever seen. It's a windows machine though and that is defiantly a hard sale around these parts but can you imagine if the Mac Mini had these specs for the same money, that would be off the chain and no doubt be the most successful Mac desktop of all time. I would defiantly buy a couple them.

 

That is a sweet box and a good bang for the buck.  And win7 isn't bad.

 

If that were the mini…well yeah, it would be immensely popular but you really would have to buy a couple of them to generate the same profit as an iMac.  And the iMac would be history.  Good for us.  Not so good for Apple. 

post #1064 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Except for HTPC and server users in what way is the iMac not a suitable replacement for the Mini as a desktop?  That YOU don't like the monitor isn't indicative of anything other than YOUR personal preference.
So personal preference isn't a valid reason in your world view. I guess Detroit should go back to pain isn't all cars black too!

In any case the fact that I don't "want"the built in monitor isn't always a personal preference in many cases a separate monitor, that fits the application, is a requirement.
Quote:

You and a few others say that.  Most folks go laptop because it's fast enough and a lot more convenient.  
If it was only me saying that I might have to admit a strange value system, however as you point out a few, actually many, feel the same way.
Quote:

Lol…you just said it again.  You want better than iMac performance (3.5Ghz quad core i7 w/GTX 775M) for $1200 vs $2600.  So what you want is an iMac for less than half the price so Apple makes half the revenue and half the profit even IF margins stay the same.
Do you have a problem grasping English? I said I want a desktop computer that meets or exceeds the performance of an iMac in the $1200 range. I didn't say I want an iMac for half its price, huge difference.
Quote:
Yes, because Dell and HP are such successful desktop makers that they should be the model that Apple aspires to.
Again you miss the entire point here, Dell and HP have very good margins on their sales to corporations. As such there is nothing to prevent Apple from building a decent desktop machine with good margins.
Quote:
A $1200 Optiplex 9020 (the corporate desktop) is a 3.4Ghz Core i7-4770 w/8GB RAM, a 1TB HDD, HD8570 and 23" P2314 monitor.  That's not a stunning machine and probably feels slower than the base iMac upgraded to Fusion drive for $1,499.

Amusingly the Optiplex 9020 lineup includes a 23" AIO.
post #1065 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Instead the mini is arguably the best in class SFF computer available as opposed to a mid range boxy ITX build.

There is nothing wrong with that. The problem that Apple needs to address is that there is nothing in the desktop line up between the Mini and the now very expensive Mac Pro. And no the iMac is not an acceptable machine.
post #1066 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In any event I don't buy the idea that The Mini runs anything you throw at it. I sit here with an iPad and a MBP not to far away. IPad certainly can't handle everything I'd like to throw at, thus I have to decide if my next technology buy is an iPad update or a new Mac. The point is each has performance problems right now depending upon what I do with them. Buying a Mini isn't an avenue to the land of excess performance.

 

The 2012 mini runs anything you throw at it so long as it doesn't require a discrete GPU.  That means anything that the 2012 13" MBP was able to do only faster.

 

The expectation that an $800 machine gets you anywhere near "the land of excess performance" means your expectations are completely out of whack. 

post #1067 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

There is nothing wrong with that. The problem that Apple needs to address is that there is nothing in the desktop line up between the Mini and the now very expensive Mac Pro. And no the iMac is not an acceptable machine.

 

The iMac is a perfectly acceptable machine for many users.  The problem is that you want Apple stuff for cheap.  Apple doesn't work that way and it hasn't hurt them any.

post #1068 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So personal preference isn't a valid reason in your world view. I guess Detroit should go back to pain isn't all cars black too!

 

It's not a valid reason to expect Apple to change their lineup.  There are many personal preferences that Apple completely ignores.

 

Quote:
In any case the fact that I don't "want"the built in monitor isn't always a personal preference in many cases a separate monitor, that fits the application, is a requirement.

 

Very few scenarios require a separate monitor.  Of those, Apple has decided that it is not cost effective to meet.  

 

For the average desktop user this is NOT a requirement.

 

Quote:
If it was only me saying that I might have to admit a strange value system, however as you point out a few, actually many, feel the same way.

 

Many people apparently like phones with physical keyboards.  So what?

 

Quote:
Do you have a problem grasping English? I said I want a desktop computer that meets or exceeds the performance of an iMac in the $1200 range. I didn't say I want an iMac for half its price, huge difference.

 

No.  To Apple it is exactly the same statement.  You want to effectively halve their ASP and profits per unit.  You want a Mac with a fast Core i7 and a better than average GPU.  The only option Apple provides is a machine that costs $2200.  You want it for $1200.  Even if the margins were identical between the two (which it wouldn't be) on a per unit basis they make about half as much.  They'd have to double volume JUST to stay even.

 

This isn't going to happen. 

 

Would you pay $2000 for a 3.5Ghz Core i7 with a GTX 775M Mac Mini?   That would sit between the $800 Core i7 Mini with HD5000 and the $3000 Mac Pro.

post #1069 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

No argument here, I think it's fast, real fast for the price. Like I stated above the difference in CPU performance between the top of the line iMac and Mac Mini is 2,116 using cpubenchmarks.com numbers. Now that might sound like big number and it is when you see a lot of low end laptops having a score of just 2,1116 but when we're looking at a computer that has a score above 7,000, an extra 2,000 isn't going to be noticeable unless your using the Mac Mini as a mini render farm.
There are many uses where the extra performance can be very noticeable. The idea that the only average use is crunching spread sheets is bogus. One popular use for Minis is in XCode development and frankly cores and performance means everything when running a compiler.
Quote:
Also a score of 3500 is considered mid-range performance, 7307 is very. very fast and considered to be on the high end of the CPU spectrum especially when you factor in that the fastest CPU in the last generation of Mac Pro has a CPU score of [URL=http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?
I'm not sure why anybody would use last years hardware to arrive at a midrange performance number. This is the year of Haswell, midrange has to be determined by what is shipping new this year. Top end is a six core machine, so that puts midrange performance pretty high on the scale.
Quote:
cpu=Intel+Xeon+X5675+%40+3.07GHz]8630[/URL]. and the new Macbook Pro's has a mark of 8517 the Mac Mini is one quick little machine. The new one will probably gain another 1,000 points on it's CPU score so I see absolutely nothing to complain about.
Well we can hope. In any event the problem with the Mini is that is is fine for what it is but that is an extremely limited machine.
Quote:
The only other mini type computer in which I would even consider is the Alienware X51, okay it's not as small as the Mac Mini but it isn't big either. The extra heft makes sense though when you look at the incredible specs, It has a new Haswell i7-4770 with an astounding CPU score of 9984 (side note, the XEON E5-1620 v2 found in the new Mac Pro for 3,000 has a CPU mark of 9298, so yeah this Dell is an extremely fast machine), a Nvidia 760 which is a trail blazer of a GPU, it's almost as fast as an ATI 7990, when overclocked it is, (Dell does sell the TI version of the 760 for an extra 200 which will then defiantly be the same speed as a ATI 7990), 8GB RAM, 1TB HD for only 1,100.
Nice machine! Apple could sell something similar with one slot for an optional GPU card for the same price. By the way, Dell has fairly good margins on the Alienware lineup. So if Apple went the one slot route I really don't see a problem with margins which seems to worry so many.
Quote:
Sorry but if you can live with Windows 7 this is defiantly the machine to buy, the price performance ratio is the best I have ever seen. It's a windows machine though and that is defiantly a hard sale around these parts but can you imagine if the Mac Mini had these specs for the same money,
You can always install Linux or BSD on it!!! I may seem like a rabid Mac fan on this forum but I still have this desire to run old fashion UNIX or Unix like boxes. The interesting thing here is the Mini is actually a good box for these alternative OS's. Windows (burdened with it at work) just gets worst with every release.
Quote:
that would be off the chain and no doubt be the most successful Mac desktop of all time. I would defiantly buy a couple them.



I'm not sure what Apples problem with expanding the desktop lineup is. Sure the market is shrinking for low end machines, few would dispute that. However for these higher end machines, computers that are used professionally the market is stable.

People complain about Apple loosing income, but I think that is ridiculous. First; the high price on the Mac Pro will drive more customers away because of no viable option. Second; a decent desktop would generate far more sales than the iMac ever did! So they can keep the margins and just sell a lot more hardware.

Let's face it, unless Apple can reconfigure the desktop lineup with new machines, they will leave the impression in many customers minds that they have been abandoned. As good as the machine is the new Mac Pro is way to expensive to put on people's desks. It isn't a mainstream desktop by any measure. At the opposite end you have the Mini, which nice fills a niche. In between customers are screwed, they have nothing to choose from. This is a problem that just got bigger with the release of the Mac Pro and frankly I don't see any good in the arrangement for Apple.
post #1070 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The 2012 mini runs anything you throw at it so long as it doesn't require a discrete GPU.  That means anything that the 2012 13" MBP was able to do only faster.
That is baloney and frankly I think you know that. Of course if your definition of run is dog slow then maybe you are right.
Quote:
The expectation that an $800 machine gets you anywhere near "the land of excess performance" means your expectations are completely out of whack. 

No the point is the machine is limited performance wise. This is why I believe that Apple could do a hell of a lot better with a machine in the $1200 range. I don't expect the best or even middling in performance out of the Mini due to what it is.
post #1071 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The iMac is a perfectly acceptable machine for many users.
Sure it is, that doesn't invalidate my position.
Quote:
 The problem is that you want Apple stuff for cheap.
That is asinine considering I'm suggesting a machine with a much higher entry level price than the Mini. In any event I'm not sure why you keep twisting this into a suggestion that I want Apple stuff cheap, anybody with a reasonable mind would realize that I'm asking for a machine that would be far more expensive than the Mini.
Quote:
 Apple doesn't work that way and it hasn't hurt them any.
Hasn't hurt the company because the Mac Desktop lineup is a tiny part of the equation these days. The attitude though has lead to a desktop lineup few are happy with. That unhappiness have resulted in quarter after quarter declines in desktop sales. It isn't just a shift in the industry, it is a very real perception that Apples desktop lineup offers very poor value even in comparison to their laptop hardware.
post #1072 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

That is baloney and frankly I think you know that. Of course if your definition of run is dog slow then maybe you are right.

Nope. The mini is faster than the 2012 13" MBP. Are you claiming that the 2012 13" MBP is dog slow?
Quote:
No the point is the machine is limited performance wise. This is why I believe that Apple could do a hell of a lot better with a machine in the $1200 range. I don't expect the best or even middling in performance out of the Mini due to what it is.

The mini is only really limited as a gaming box and no more limited than the 13" MBP of the same generation.

Even the $3000 Mac Pro is "limited performance wise".
post #1073 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

It's not a valid reason to expect Apple to change their lineup.  There are many personal preferences that Apple completely ignores.
This is completely true. However when you have a product line with sales tanking you have to ask why. Apple doesn't seem to want to ask why.
Quote:

Very few scenarios require a separate monitor.  Of those, Apple has decided that it is not cost effective to meet.  
OK I will let you say that and just assume that you have nothing to do with the corporate world. I can't even say that corporate policy is even rational at times but their is a huge bias against all in ones. Unless of course the all in one is a laptop.
Quote:
For the average desktop user this is NOT a requirement.
That is a personal opinion, for many a choice in monitors is a requirement.
Quote:

Many people apparently like phones with physical keyboards.  So what?
The so what is Apples tanking sales when it comes to desktops.
Quote:

No.  To Apple it is exactly the same statement.  You want to effectively halve their ASP and profits per unit.  You want a Mac with a fast Core i7 and a better than average GPU.  The only option Apple provides is a machine that costs $2200.  You want it for $1200.  Even if the margins were identical between the two (which it wouldn't be) on a per unit basis they make about half as much.  They'd have to double volume JUST to stay even.
You really are stick on this nonsense aren't you! Apple will never sell me and frankly a lot of other people, an iMac as they are currently engineered, so their profit is essentially zero. As for doubling volume I can't predict if that will happen but it has potential for sales where an iMac would never be sold.

You seem to like the IMac, that is perfectly fine, but you discount the other realities out there which start with a very string bias against all in ones in the corporate world. Further many people (individuals) simply don't want the monitors the iMacs come with. Beyond that you have the maintenance and serviceability issues of the platform.

Your argument seems to revolve around Apple loosing iMac sales, build the right machine and all they will get is additional sales.
Quote:
This isn't going to happen. 

Would you pay $2000 for a 3.5Ghz Core i7 with a GTX 775M Mac Mini?   That would sit between the $800 Core i7 Mini with HD5000 and the $3000 Mac Pro.
No I wouldn't because I know they can do better price wise.
post #1074 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Sure it is, that doesn't invalidate my position.


Absolutely it does.  Your position is that there is no "acceptable" desktop between the mini and the mac pro.

 

Quote:
That is asinine considering I'm suggesting a machine with a much higher entry level price than the Mini. 

 

But much lower than the iMac.

 

Quote:
 In any event I'm not sure why you keep twisting this into a suggestion that I want Apple stuff cheap, anybody with a reasonable mind would realize that I'm asking for a machine that would be far more expensive than the Mini.

 

And much less expensive than the iMac.

 

Quote:
Hasn't hurt the company because the Mac Desktop lineup is a tiny part of the equation these days. The attitude though has lead to a desktop lineup few are happy with. That unhappiness have resulted in quarter after quarter declines in desktop sales. It isn't just a shift in the industry, it is a very real perception that Apples desktop lineup offers very poor value even in comparison to their laptop hardware.

 

Show quarter after quarter declines.

 

2013 Q1 was extremely weak because there were no iMacs until November.

2013 Q2 was strong.  In the quarterly conference it was stated that iMac sales were up while portable sales were down: "We experienced strong year-over-year growth in desktop sales following the December quarter launch of our stunning new iMacs, offset by a decline in portable sales given a weaker personal computer market overall."

2013 Q3 was down 13% YoY.

2013 Q4 was down because of the wait for the Haswell refresh in Sept.

 

Millions of people a year disagree with your opinion on the value of iMacs.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

This is completely true. However when you have a product line with sales tanking you have to ask why. Apple doesn't seem to want to ask why.

 

The entire PC business is in decline.  You have yet to show that Apple is suffering more than Dell or HP.

 

Quote:
OK I will let you say that and just assume that you have nothing to do with the corporate world. I can't even say that corporate policy is even rational at times but their is a huge bias against all in ones. Unless of course the all in one is a laptop.

 

Of the thousands of macs at my work I'd say a quarter are iMacs.  There isn't any prohibition against iMacs for any Mac shop I've seen.

 

There's a bias against Macs in general but once you get over that it doesn't really matter.

 

Quote:
That is a personal opinion, for many a choice in monitors is a requirement.

 

Prove it.   And you STILL have the ability to pick any monitor you like...even as your primary.

 

Quote:
The so what is Apples tanking sales when it comes to desktops.

 

Show the "tanking" sales isn't a function of the lack of availability at the end of 2012 or the general trend away from desktops and PCs in general.

 

Quote:
You really are stick on this nonsense aren't you! Apple will never sell me and frankly a lot of other people, an iMac as they are currently engineered, so their profit is essentially zero. As for doubling volume I can't predict if that will happen but it has potential for sales where an iMac would never be sold.

 

It's not nonsense it's math.  Your $1200 xMac would crater iMac sales which means you would have to generate double the sales to generate the same revenue.

 

Quote:
You seem to like the IMac, that is perfectly fine, but you discount the other realities out there which start with a very string bias against all in ones in the corporate world.

 

First, I work in an Apple shop.  Do you?  There is no strong bias against AIOs in an Apple shop.

Second, Apple's not strong in the corporate world anyway but a consumer brand.  This is why the uptick in enterprise purchases lifted Dell and HP sales and had no impact on Apple.

 

Quote:
Further many people (individuals) simply don't want the monitors the iMacs come with. Beyond that you have the maintenance and serviceability issues of the platform.

 

Apple's desktop profitability depends in part on the required monitor sales.  I still use a 2008 24" Dell Ultrasharp.  Why?  Because it was a solid monitor and still works well.  I see an asston of 30" ACDs around my work.  I forget when they stopped selling those.

 

Quote:
Your argument seems to revolve around Apple loosing iMac sales, build the right machine and all they will get is additional sales.

 

If you cut ASPs in half then you need to double sales JUST to stay even assuming the margins are the same.  Dropping desktop ASP 50% and only gaining 25% in new sales is a losing proposition.

 

Quote:
 No I wouldn't because I know they can do better price wise.

 

See.  It isn't that Apple doesn't produce a Mac that suits your "requirements" but that you simply don't want to pay what Apple charges.  

 

Even if Apple produced an xMac that filled the void between the Mini and the Pro with the right specs you still wouldn't buy it because you want it for less.

post #1075 of 1290
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Not likely.  Who's going to buy a $1299 2.7/3.2 Ghz Core i5 iMac if they can get a 2.0/3.2 Ghz Core i7 Mini for $899?

 

Anyone who wants a full computer? The reason Apple doesn’t make an xMac has nothing to do with losing iMac sales.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #1076 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Anyone who wants a full computer? The reason Apple doesn’t make an xMac has nothing to do with losing iMac sales.

 

So what would that be oh enlightened one?

 

Edit: LOL just noticed you were banned again.

post #1077 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

Not likely.  Who's going to buy a $1299 2.7/3.2 Ghz Core i5 iMac if they can get a 2.0/3.2 Ghz Core i7 Mini for $899?  Before there was the GPU up sell to get the iMac.

 

Even for $999 that's iffy.  All you would be doing is pushing ASPs and Mac profits down.

 

I suspect that none of the Minis get Iris Pro unless it's deliberately gimped to Core i5.


I've kept up with this thread, and it reads like a list of things I would like to buy, yet will never see. When it comes to certain subsets of the product line, it really does feel like the elusive "Apple tax" through certain outlier model pricing and what they do or do not make.

post #1078 of 1290
Originally Posted by nht View Post

So what would that be oh enlightened one?

 

Apple doesn’t like expandable computers. Never has. Ever. In 36 years of being a company. Instead of mocking me, why not stop looking like a fool by pretending you don’t know exactly why they don’t want to make one? You’re an intelligent person–far too intelligent not to know this already. I’m a worthless, pathetic moron, for crying out loud! I couldn’t do anything worth doing on my best day, even before I started losing my memory! And somehow I can figure this out and you can’t?!

 

“Doesn’t you failing at everything just make it more likely you’re wrong?”

Sure does. Except Apple keeps proving this point right.

 

Look at every single computer they make. Look at every computer they made five years ago. What has changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. HDD access? Gone. RAM? Soldered. GPU? Integrated or soldered.

 

Go back ten more years. What changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. The PowerMac G3 from before Steve’s return differs in no way from any other tower computer of that era. Look at the Mac Pro now. Apple, by giving the finger to the idea of a bare motherboard with sockets, slots, bays, and carriages, has created the most powerful, silent, and energy efficient workstation on the market.

 

Seeing the new Mac Pro, I actually think–for the first time–that Apple could do an xMac. Just put the Mac Mini’s internals into the Mac Pro case. Make it silver instead of black, boom; there’s your headless desktop. Basically the same as the Mac Mini now, really; not a desktop chip or anything. It’d just have more Thunderbolt ports than the Mini does now. And it won’t take sales from the iMac. It’s not going to be a “build your own computer”. You want that, buy Windows and suffer, rightly. If 17 years after Jobs’ return that hasn’t been hammered into people’s heads by now, it never will be. Integration is the way forward. Moonwalk if you must.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #1079 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

Millions of people a year disagree with your opinion on the value of iMacs.

 

Partly playing logical nitpicker, partly Devil's advocate, but we don't really know that. A few people in my peer group have found that Apple no longer represents enough of a value proposition to justify the fairly hefty (okay, "enormous") cost premium and have purchased Windows machines instead. Apple's numbers don't reflect how many people have simple said "Screw Mac" altogether.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

The entire PC business is in decline.  You have yet to show that Apple is suffering more than Dell or HP.

 

Actually, there *is* some evidence that Apple is sliding compared to Dell or HP. The reasons are not absolutely clear (are they ever?) but PC sales are rebounding somewhat while Mac sales continue to decline.

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/09/mac-shipments-continue-to-shrink-as-apple-loses-ground-in-us-pc-market

 

The knee-jerk response is "Mac buyers went with iPads instead" but that doesn't make any sense because Windows buyers could just as easily do the same thing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

you STILL have the ability to pick any monitor you like...even as your primary.

 

True, but you have to admit that it would be awfully silly to pay Apple $500 to tie up desk space with a monitor you're not going to use. If one's needs tend towards multiple monitors it does make more sense to skip the built-in display. It's not as unusual a desire as some Apple apologists would suggest.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

It's not nonsense it's math.  Your $1200 xMac would crater iMac sales which means you would have to generate double the sales to generate the same revenue.

 

At the risk of oversimplifying the statement, that's like saying Apple would be better off just charging a minimum of $5000 for an entry level computer because it would increase the margin and ASP.

 

The question is whether a Mac Medium would sell in sufficient numbers to offset any loss of iMac sales. If the ASP were half what it is now but resulted in three times the sales, it's a win (assuming comparable margins).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

Even if Apple produced an xMac that filled the void between the Mini and the Pro with the right specs you still wouldn't buy it because you want it for less.

 

I kinda get that, too, to be honest. The older I get, the harder it gets for me to swallow the Apple tax. Apple's 40%+ margins have resulted in tremendous benefit for Apple's investors and executives, so how about now we give the actual BUYERS a taste?

 

Imagine the Lennon-esque PR shock wave it would produce if Tim Cook stepped outside and announced "Okay, we've now got more money than Europe and Asia combined so we're gonna ease up and lower the price of everything we sell." I'm definitely no economist and there are at least a million ways I could be wrong, but something in my gut insists it would be a better approach than the current strategy of making buyers choose between a Mac or food! :)

post #1080 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Apple doesn’t like expandable computers. Never has. Ever. In 36 years of being a company. Instead of mocking me, why not stop looking like a fool by pretending you don’t know exactly why they don’t want to make one? You’re an intelligent person–far too intelligent not to know this already. I’m a worthless, pathetic moron, for crying out loud! I couldn’t do anything worth doing on my best day, even before I started losing my memory! And somehow I can figure this out and you can’t?!

 

“Doesn’t you failing at everything just make it more likely you’re wrong?”

Sure does. Except Apple keeps proving this point right.

 

Look at every single computer they make. Look at every computer they made five years ago. What has changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. HDD access? Gone. RAM? Soldered. GPU? Integrated or soldered.

 

Go back ten more years. What changed? DOORS. OPENINGS. SLOTS. BAYS. CARDS. The PowerMac G3 from before Steve’s return differs in no way from any other tower computer of that era. Look at the Mac Pro now. Apple, by giving the finger to the idea of a bare motherboard with sockets, slots, bays, and carriages, has created the most powerful, silent, and energy efficient workstation on the market.

 

Seeing the new Mac Pro, I actually think–for the first time–that Apple could do an xMac. Just put the Mac Mini’s internals into the Mac Pro case. Make it silver instead of black, boom; there’s your headless desktop. Basically the same as the Mac Mini now, really; not a desktop chip or anything. It’d just have more Thunderbolt ports than the Mini does now. And it won’t take sales from the iMac. It’s not going to be a “build your own computer”. You want that, buy Windows and suffer, rightly. If 17 years after Jobs’ return that hasn’t been hammered into people’s heads by now, it never will be. Integration is the way forward. Moonwalk if you must.

 

Except that a Mac Mini with a discrete GPU doesn't have doors, openings, slots, bays, cards, blah blah blah.  The only reason that the 2012 mac mini lost the GPU was to force the upsell to the iMac for anyone that desired a GPU.  Remember that there's an empty 2.5" HDD bay there that can be used for thermal management in the design.  

 

So why not pair a 650M with a quad Core i5 in the $800 2012 Mini?  Because it would have cratered iMac sales and drive down ASPs.

 

Why doesn't the base model 15" MBP have a GPU?  To force the ASP higher.

 

Why is the base Mac Pro $3K?  To move the ASP higher.

 

With the iPad cannibalizing PC sales AND the increased power in PCs in general there's stronger than ever downward pressure on Apple computer ASPs.  The Q4 results show revenues rising and profits declining.  That's a function of both margins declining and ASPs dropping.  Apple protects both religiously when they can even at the expense of volume.

 

They don't make a $1200 xMac (just) because of some design fetish.  They don't make a $1200 xMac because they'd kill Mac Pro and 27" iMac sales.  Every single computer model below their top tier is gimped in some way.

 

Why can't you BTO the mid tier $1499 21" iMac with a 775M with 2GB RAM?

Why can't you BTO the base $1999 15" MBP with a 750M? 

 

Margins and ASP.  These top end machines represent some of the best value in the line ups but they are also the most expensive.  Apple will not allow you to buy a sunroof without also getting the top model.  Hell, they'll even throw in sunroof for free when you buy the top model.  Price out the base 15" MBP with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 2.3Ghz i7. It costs $2599. So a free GPU upgrade if you pick the top tier $2599 model with the exact same spec.

 

So the answer isn't thermal.

So the answer isn't power supply.

So the answer isn't design.

 

The answer is ASPs and Margins.  xMac proponents refuse to get this.  APPLE WILL NOT SELL YOU A MID TIER DESKTOP WITHOUT FORCING YOU TO BUY A MONITOR EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

People are not stupid.  If Apple offered the xMac they could use with any monitor for $800 less money ($1199 vs $1999) for about the same performance they'd do it the majority of the time.  It's two extra cables. 

 

So when it comes down to it, my primary wish every Mini replacement cycle is simply "I hope they don't kill the mini".  That it will be gimped in some way is a given.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro