or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo - Page 12

post #441 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Yup, at least they could have kept it at $499.
The $499 model should have looked like this:
Intel Chip
60Gb Hard Drive
512Mb RAM
64 Mb Dedicated 3D Graphics Card.
Internal Modem.
iWork.
At the same $499 price point everyone would have been happy. Apple blew it with this $599 model, IMHO.

The difference between you and me is that what I'm suggesting for $499 is possible, what you are suggesting is not. Apple could not do that and make a profit.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #442 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Let me change the anology as you are correct. BMW doesn't make $12000 subcompact- as far as I know.

They make a $16K one...the Mini (Cooper)
post #443 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Sony makes computers too and they don't shoot for the $299/$399 market either.

Why do folks assume that Apple is targeting the low end segments for their pool of switchers and not the pool of windows users that buy mid to high end PCs like the VIAO?

I'm not assuming that Apple is targeting those users. I'm acknowledging that Apple don't target those users and suggesting that they should (well, the $399 end, anyway), in addition to targeting the users that they already do.

This is where I'm coming from:

Apple should be aiming for around 10% market share to stop marginalisation of the platform.

What is Sony's share of the PC market? It isn't that high. Let's assume half of their customers don't actually like Windows. Slowly, that half will switch to OS X, but that won't result in a huge increase in market share for Apple.

IMHO, if Apple sticks with only its current machines, they will attain around 6% market share. If they want more market share than that, they will have to start offering more hardware options.

I'm happy for you, and anyone else, to disagree with me, but only if you are disagreeing with what I'm actually saying, rather than what you think I'm saying.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #444 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Yup, at least they could have kept it at $499.
The $499 model should have looked like this:
Intel Chip
60Gb Hard Drive
512Mb RAM
64 Mb Dedicated 3D Graphics Card.
Internal Modem.
iWork.
At the same $499 price point everyone would have been happy. Apple blew it with this $599 model, IMHO.

Would you like to price that model, item by item?

Start with the $207 or so the chip costs, and go to the cost of the mobo, case, power supply, external connectors, HD, optical drive (which one, or what type), RAM, 64 Mb 3D graphics board (which GPU?), internal modem, iWork, power cord, packaging, manuals, disk, box, cost of shipping from factory to USA California port, and shipping to store or home (included in price).

I'm assuming, of course, that both WiFi and Bluetooth, as well as Front Row with remote aren't included.

Please try to use realistic pricing models. Off the cuff numbers are of no value to anyone. Don't guess, look up the relevant information.

If you are going to be definite about this, you should be able to show us exactly how you arrived at it.

EDIT: I almost forgot. Are you including the iLife Suite that comes with it now, as well as iWork? Because, that's what most people want.
post #445 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H

Apple should be aiming for around 10% market share to stop marginalisation of the platform.

If Apple can reach 10%, and I think they can, then I think the mindshare of people will tilt further, and Apple will continue to rise.

It's already easier than it was, I notice. The more people that have Macs, the easier it is for someone else to consider one.
post #446 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Yup, at least they could have kept it at $499.
The $499 model should have looked like this:
Intel Chip
60Gb Hard Drive
512Mb RAM
64 Mb Dedicated 3D Graphics Card.
Internal Modem.
iWork.
At the same $499 price point everyone would have been happy. Apple blew it with this $599 model, IMHO.

To be realistic that'd have to be something like:
Intel Core Solo
40Gb Hard Drive
512Mb RAM
64mb Integrated Graphics
Ethernet Port
Combo drive
And probably 2 of 4 usb ports.
499

And that's probably still streching the dollar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #447 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I'm not assuming that Apple is targeting those users. I'm acknowledging that Apple don't target those users and suggesting that they should (well, the $399 end, anyway), in addition to targeting the users that they already do.

This is where I'm coming from:

Apple should be aiming for around 10% market share to stop marginalisation of the platform.

What is Sony's share of the PC market? It isn't that high.

In 2004 Sony was right below Apple but now that Apple is up to 4.4% (US) they trail further behind. So you want Apple to regain share close to its peak. Eh...seems unlikely.

And you haven't made the case that chasing that lower end market would be successful in reaching 10% share assuming that is a goal. You haven't made the case that 10% share is a valid goal for Apple.

With respect to the consumer desktop market would you prefer to have the upper 6% of the market or the bottom 10% of the market? Which segment is more profitable?

What are the opportunity costs of chasing that bottom 4% of the market to add to your upper end 6%?

Does a $399 Mini cannibalize your $599 Mini sales? Does the engineering and production effort of a $399 Mini cost you a rev of some other machine?

By pushing upper end of technology (GigE, BT, Core Duo) Apple is establishing the Intel Mac line as above the ordinary for Intel machines. What does a cut rate $399 Mini using older technology do to the branding?

Quote:
IMHO, if Apple sticks with only its current machines, they will attain around 6% market share. If they want more market share than that, they will have to start offering more hardware options.

I'm happy for you, and anyone else, to disagree with me, but only if you are disagreeing with what I'm actually saying, rather than what you think I'm saying.

Well, you're not the only person arguing for a lower cost mac.

You also bring up Dell but ignore that Sony has a different strategy. Share is important but so is profitability and the ability to execute. I suspect that Apple's corporate culture is sufficiently different from Dell's that it would be unsuccessful in using the same low cost strategy or achieve the same economies of scale and efficiency.

4-6% share is credible and Apple WILL release new machines. We're at the beginning of the transition not the end. They still need to get a lower cost notebook out the door and transition their high end.

There is time for variants and there IS opportunity for a lower cost mini from Intel's roadmap.

Vinea
post #448 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
The difference between you and me is that what I'm suggesting for $499 is possible, what you are suggesting is not. Apple could not do that and make a profit.

They didn't make a profit on the previous Mini?
What I proposed were simple upgrades using pieces that get cheaper over time. Of course they could make a profit, maybe not a Apple sized profit, but a profit.
post #449 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Would you like to price that model, item by item?

Start with the $207 or so the chip costs, and go to the cost of the mobo, case, power supply, external connectors, HD, optical drive (which one, or what type), RAM, 64 Mb 3D graphics board (which GPU?), internal modem, iWork, power cord, packaging, manuals, disk, box, cost of shipping from factory to USA California port, and shipping to store or home (included in price).

I'm assuming, of course, that both WiFi and Bluetooth, as well as Front Row with remote aren't included.

Please try to use realistic pricing models. Off the cuff numbers are of no value to anyone. Don't guess, look up the relevant information.

If you are going to be definite about this, you should be able to show us exactly how you arrived at it.

EDIT: I almost forgot. Are you including the iLife Suite that comes with it now, as well as iWork? Because, that's what most people want.

What are you smoking?
They are charging $599 for the Intel Mini with airport and bluetooth installed and the remote control.
Why the hell couldnt they profit from it if they sold the previous Mini for the same price?
post #450 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
What are you smoking?
They are charging $599 for the Intel Mini with airport and bluetooth installed and the remote control.
Why the hell couldnt they profit from it if they sold the previous Mini for the same price?

That's not an answer.

Either you can show it, or not.
post #451 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's not an answer.

Either you can show it, or not.

I quoted specs almost identical to the previous Mini G4.
Hard Drive prices have gone down so thats a wash.
A 64Mb Graphics card now should cost no more than the previous card.
If Apple spent more for a Core Single chip than the G4 than they are morons.

If they can charge only $100 more for a Mini WITH Airport, Bluetooth, and a remote they should be able to charge $499 for My Mini.
post #452 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
They make a $16K one...the Mini (Cooper)

Not with the BMW name. If people complain about the mini being cheap it doesn't really affect BMWs image. Churn out $399 cheap mac boxes with Apple's anme on them then people get on the internet and slam all Macs. See the critisism of Dell. All that for what $15 or $30 of profit. I can see why Apple doesn't want to jump into that market.
post #453 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I'm not assuming that Apple is targeting those users. I'm acknowledging that Apple don't target those users and suggesting that they should (well, the $399 end, anyway), in addition to targeting the users that they already do.

This is where I'm coming from:

Apple should be aiming for around 10% market share to stop marginalisation of the platform.

What is Sony's share of the PC market? It isn't that high. Let's assume half of their customers don't actually like Windows. Slowly, that half will switch to OS X, but that won't result in a huge increase in market share for Apple.

IMHO, if Apple sticks with only its current machines, they will attain around 6% market share. If they want more market share than that, they will have to start offering more hardware options.

I'm happy for you, and anyone else, to disagree with me, but only if you are disagreeing with what I'm actually saying, rather than what you think I'm saying.

I agree that if they offer a low cost machine they can increase market share. I think it unnecessary. They are already profitable at current market share and in many ways are leaders. People look to Apple to see where things are going. If Dell announced an event to introduce some new products would anyone care? No. They make boxes efficiently and cheaply. They are in a race with Lennovo to see who can make a pc for free. It's a race to the bottom. I grant Apple their margins so they will continue to innovate. It's the price of progress.
post #454 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Yup, at least they could have kept it at $499.
The $499 model should have looked like this:
Intel Chip
60Gb Hard Drive
512Mb RAM
64 Mb Dedicated 3D Graphics Card.
Internal Modem.
iWork.
At the same $499 price point everyone would have been happy. Apple blew it with this $599 model, IMHO.

So I did some of the leg work for you and priced this puppy ... here's how it breaks down sticking with 667 MHz FSB (since we don't want to go backwards...)

Intel Core Solo (2M L2 Cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65 nm) -- $209
Western Digital Scorpio WD600UE ATA-6 (NOT SATA) 2.5" Drive -- $82.00
Corsair ValueSelect 512MB 200 pin DDR2 667 MHz So-DIMM -- $56.00
iWork -- $79.00 (Since we all know Apple employees don't work for free, software does cost money to develop...)
Modem -- $5.00
Motherboard, Case, Cables -- $100 - $150

We're at $531 and we haven't included things people might need ... like ethernet and USB and FireWire. I'm sure this isn't Apple's cost ... I just googled the cheapest stuff I could find. Once you put all that together, it's just not cost-effective to make a computer with a Core Solo for under $500. As it is, Apple can't be making tons of profit on the mini. No one knows Apple's costs ... so we're all just speculating. You're wanting something unreasonable though

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply
post #455 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
So I did some of the leg work for you and priced this puppy ... here's how it breaks down sticking with 667 MHz FSB (since we don't want to go backwards...)

Intel Core Solo (2M L2 Cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65 nm) -- $209
Western Digital Scorpio WD600UE ATA-6 (NOT SATA) 2.5" Drive -- $82.00
Corsair ValueSelect 512MB 200 pin DDR2 667 MHz So-DIMM -- $56.00
iWork -- $79.00 (Since we all know Apple employees don't work for free, software does cost money to develop...)
Modem -- $5.00
Motherboard, Case, Cables -- $100 - $150

We're at $531 and we haven't included things people might need ... like ethernet and USB and FireWire. I'm sure this isn't Apple's cost ... I just googled the cheapest stuff I could find. Once you put all that together, it's just not cost-effective to make a computer with a Core Solo for under $500. As it is, Apple can't be making tons of profit on the mini. No one knows Apple's costs ... so we're all just speculating. You're wanting something unreasonable though

Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.
post #456 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
So I did some of the leg work for you and priced this puppy ... here's how it breaks down sticking with 667 MHz FSB (since we don't want to go backwards...)

Intel Core Solo (2M L2 Cache 1.66 GHz 667 MHz FSB 65 nm) -- $209
Western Digital Scorpio WD600UE ATA-6 (NOT SATA) 2.5" Drive -- $82.00
Corsair ValueSelect 512MB 200 pin DDR2 667 MHz So-DIMM -- $56.00
iWork -- $79.00 (Since we all know Apple employees don't work for free, software does cost money to develop...)
Modem -- $5.00
Motherboard, Case, Cables -- $100 - $150

We're at $531 and we haven't included things people might need ... like ethernet and USB and FireWire. I'm sure this isn't Apple's cost ... I just googled the cheapest stuff I could find. Once you put all that together, it's just not cost-effective to make a computer with a Core Solo for under $500. As it is, Apple can't be making tons of profit on the mini. No one knows Apple's costs ... so we're all just speculating. You're wanting something unreasonable though

That's some strong research. Finally somebody's put some numbers together. Like I've said all along, I don't know why Apple is going after this market at all.
post #457 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.

He said that Apple probably doesn't pay that. But it's a good starting point for discussion. Do you think Apple gets the components for free? Does Apple's vendors give products away at a loss for market share? Knock 15% off and its only about $75. Where's Apple's profit?
post #458 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.

That's why I said no one knows what Apple's costs are ... you don't, I don't. So, my unreasonable pricing is the same as your unreasonable assumption. Apple doesn't have to pay for the iWork software ... you're right, but they have to get money from it - their software people don't work for free. The prices I quoted are real prices to the consumer buying one unit. Soooo ... please, let us all know Apple's cost since apparently they can build this computer you're talking about ... even though it's shit. No USB, no FW, no WiFi or Bluetooth ... what the hell would you use this computer for? Basically all you did was put an Intel chip into a mini case and attach a GPU to it to give it the semblance of some kind of computer. Sorry ... people need a LITTLE more than that.

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply
post #459 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
That's why I said no one knows what Apple's costs are ... you don't, I don't. So, my unreasonable pricing is the same as your unreasonable assumption. Apple doesn't have to pay for the iWork software ... you're right, but they have to get money from it - their software people don't work for free. The prices I quoted are real prices to the consumer buying one unit. Soooo ... please, let us all know Apple's cost since apparently they can build this computer you're talking about ... even though it's shit. No USB, no FW, no WiFi or Bluetooth ... what the hell would you use this computer for? Basically all you did was put an Intel chip into a mini case and attach a GPU to it to give it the semblance of some kind of computer. Sorry ... people need a LITTLE more than that.

The USB and Firewire were obvious, of course those should be there.
Like I said, the Mini would be the same as the last Mini, except for the Intel Chip, larger hard drive, 64 Mb Video RAM instead of 32.
Yeh, that's just insane! What was I thinking !?
post #460 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
The USB and Firewire were obvious, of course those should be there.
Like I said, the Mini would be the same as the last Mini, except for the Intel Chip, larger hard drive, 64 Mb Video RAM instead of 32.
Yeh, that's just insane! What was I thinking !?

You're right ... it is insane of you to think that you can add all that stuff at no extra cost. Do you really think if Apple could pay the same price for a larger drive, they stick with the smaller one just to screw with your head? Bigger HDD costs money ...bigger GPU costs money ... and yes, the Intel chip costs money. Money Money Money. You're wanting a new mac with higher cost features at the same price ... sorry, Apple isn't going to start taking a profit loss because you want them to. USB and FW yes were obvious ... but what about WiFi and bluetooth? Do you want those standard also ... cause that costs money as well.

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 750GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
iPhone 5S, 32GB

Reply
post #461 of 782
But this is the case with Apple sometimes -- just way too ahead of the curve.

1. They can offer pentium Ms instead of Core Solo or Core Duo

2. They can offer 3.5" drives instead of the 2.5"

Do you think Joe Schmoe would care that his Mac has "the latest CPU that's the best ever!!"???!!???

Of course its all about the $$$$ at the end of the day but there's still a lot of room to play with. It's Apple's fixation with cost AND must-have features that's the killer.
post #462 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
I quoted specs almost identical to the previous Mini G4.
Hard Drive prices have gone down so thats a wash.
A 64Mb Graphics card now should cost no more than the previous card.
If Apple spent more for a Core Single chip than the G4 than they are morons.

If they can charge only $100 more for a Mini WITH Airport, Bluetooth, and a remote they should be able to charge $499 for My Mini.

You haven't accounted for the difference in cpu prices. The same machine as the old one with the new cpu would be about $100 more, as long as Apple doesn't eat all of that for every machine they sell. Do you think they would do that?
post #463 of 782
Come on, guys. Hardware prices go down, not up. A 80Gb Hard Drive costs what a 60Gb cost a year ago. Same goes with RAM, same goes with optical drives, etc etc. Prices go down, not up.
And if Apple is paying $100 more for a Core SOLO, then they are idiots.
Like the other poster just said, why couldn't they use a Pentium M?
Better yet, why didn't they just stick to the PowerPC, which Mac users were perfectly happy with? Where are the benefits? Integrated Video Card? Higher Prices?
post #464 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.

The price for the cpu is a bit high. Maybe $40 cheaper, going by Intel's mass pricing schedules.

The rest is also too high, it's true.

But they don't get iWork for free. By law, one division of a company must charge another fair market value for a part or service. So, whatever Apple charges a company or distributer must be charged for the software. The computer division "buys" the part from the software division.

None of that includes the other costs I mentioned which MUST be added in.

Also, distributers get the product for less than Apple sells it for at their own facilities. The distributers then sell them at a higher price to the stores.

That difference must also be accounted for. Apple might sell the $599 product to the distrib for $450, who then sells it to CompUsa for $525. That's approximate, of course. I'm not privy to Apple's numbers, but it's about right.

So, as Apple sells almost 50% of their product through their own organization, those prices must then be averaged with the list that Apple sells it at to arrive at the true wholesale price.

It's complex, because Apple must make a profit on that wholesale price as well, though a much smaller one.

Don't forget that the price also takes into account the costs of the rest of the company as well. It must pay for a certain percentage of the employees, rent, electricity costs, etc. Also insurance, medical plans, advertising. In short all of the expenses that a company has. Including, we don't want to forget, warrantee costs.

So, the cost of the parts is only a piece of the costs associated in building the product.

And speaking of building the product, Apple has to pay the companies who actually do build the products.

Take two aspirins, and call me in the morning.

It's important to have a good CFO.
post #465 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Come on, guys. Hardware prices go down, not up. A 80Gb Hard Drive costs what a 60Gb cost a year ago. Same goes with RAM, same goes with optical drives, etc etc. Prices go down, not up.
And if Apple is paying $100 more for a Core SOLO, then they are idiots.
Like the other poster just said, why couldn't they use a Pentium M?
Better yet, why didn't they just stick to the PowerPC, which Mac users were perfectly happy with? Where are the benefits? Integrated Video Card? Higher Prices?

They do. You're right. But we can compare to what Apple upgraded the Mini to a short while ago with their "silent" upgrade, not to what they were selling a year ago.

They aren't idiots for switching to Intel, just because the chips cost more. Staying on the PPC was company suicide. That's very clear.

IBM stated that they weren't going to continue development of the G5 in the direction Apple needed. And Freescale... Well, they don't make desktop chips. They haven't for several years. The chips Apple was buying from them are embedded chips. designed for automobiles, copiers, etc.

This will straighten itself out in the end. Apple was selling about 200 thousand Mini's a quarter, more last quarter. They will do better than that.
post #466 of 782
Wow... I actually found something I like about Macmini. I'm surprised to see CoreDuo CPU on a 478 socket. Once the faster intel CoreDuo comes out.... you can make your macmini faster. However, IGP still sucks, I already have few friends holding off on long waited intel macmini because of the IGP. I'm also one of them. Anyway, check out the 478 socket on the macmini intel reference board.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #467 of 782
Hopefully by August Apple will realize it screwed up and either lower the price, or add a modem for free, but I'm not counting on it.

Judging by the negative reaction from many people (not necessarily on this biased board), Apple did not come out with a winner.

Fix it, Apple. Get a real graphics card in there and lower the price back to $499.
post #468 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Fix it, Apple. Get a real graphics card in there and lower the price back to $499.

G4 Mac Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd
- 512MB RAM
Price: $599

Intel Core Solo Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 60GB hdd
- 512MB RAM
Price: $599

Considering the increased cost of the CPU, additional USB ports, audio IN addition, drastically better FSB, FrontRow with Apple Remote, etc...I think this is an EXCELLENT deal.
post #469 of 782
How about:
Intel Pentium M Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd (3.5")
- 512MB RAM
- x1300 64mb graphic card
Price: $499

Now *THAT* would be a sweet deal for $499.
post #470 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.

They do. You just don't get them in the USA.

Their Smart city cars are about £7000 here in the UK after taxes. It's not a bad corollary with the Mac Mini either. The Smart is impractical for many people because it's too small and you can buy cheaper, uglier cars with less style for about the same money or less built by Kia or some other Asian manufacturer.
post #471 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
How about:
Intel Pentium M Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd (3.5")
- 512MB RAM
- x1300 64mb graphic card
Price: $499

Now *THAT* would be a sweet deal for $499.

Such a great deal that I doubt Apple could turn a decent profit.
post #472 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.

Of course they do. Or do you think Apple's programmers work for free?
post #473 of 782
The Mac Mini is now clearly targeted towards someone who already has a PC or for grandma/grandpa who doesn't know jack about computers. Something in the math there which Apple did which showed them Intel GMA = $50 more profit per machine. Something in the research as well which showed Apple, look, there are people into games, and then there are those who want a computer for other stuff.... I had a point here somewhere but umm,..... never mind, carry on.....
post #474 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
The Mac Mini is now clearly targeted towards someone who already has a PC or for grandma/grandpa who doesn't know jack about computers. Something in the math there which Apple did which showed them Intel GMA = $50 more profit per machine. Something in the research as well which showed Apple, look, there are people into games, and then there are those who want a computer for other stuff.... I had a point here somewhere but umm,..... never mind, carry on.....

You do realize that the GMA950 actually out performs the 9200. (it is a performance upgrade over the G4 Mini's graphics-wise)
post #475 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
The number of people who ideally want a machine with just one PCI-E slot, but when they find out they can't get it, but a Power Mac instead, is very, very small.

People buy Power Macs because they can take 8 gigs (or is it 16 gigs now?) of EEC-RAM, two hard-drives (more if you get a third party hard drive mounting to go inside the G5 tower), and can have 4 processor cores.

And in the middle is the iMac. Nowt wrong with that either. IME People after midrange computers never, ever upgrade them internally.

The problem is, you get nerds saying not to buy all in one computers "because they can't be upgraded" even if the economics of doing so rarely makes sense. By the time someone may want to upgrade their computer ie. around the 2 years mark, CPU sockets, card slots, memory tech and even hard drives have moved on enough that you'd be buying old technology to keep a computer limping along. Selling your old iMac and buying a new one is cheaper as a whole.

I hear it all the time from acquaintances that say they don't but Mac because they asked a 'computer expert' and were told Macs weren't compatible and couldn't be upgraded. Both untruths where it actually matters.

Gamers of course are a law unto themselves but anyone considering a Mac Mini for gaming over an XBox wants their head seeing to.
post #476 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And in the middle is the iMac. Nowt wrong with that either. IME People after midrange computers never, ever upgrade them internally.

I don't want to take anything away from the iMac, I think it is Apple's best value machine they have ever made. But you have to concede that it has a built-in display, which many people just do not want. Displays can last a lot longer than computers.

I still don't get why there is such reluctance amongst some of you for Apple to just give its customers that little bit more choice. It doesn't mean Apple have to sacrifice their aesthetics.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #477 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
How about:
Intel Pentium M Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd (3.5")
- 512MB RAM
- x1300 64mb graphic card
Price: $499

Now *THAT* would be a sweet deal for $499.

As someone else said, too sweet. Take out the wireless and drop the HD to 60 GB, and you've got something that Apple could make a profit off. Having said that, I'm glad that Apple didn't go with the previous-generation Pentium-M, and continue to hope that they are waiting for a Celeron 4xx to introduce a cheaper mini.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #478 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I still don't get why there is such reluctance amongst some of you for Apple to just give its customers that little bit more choice. It doesn't mean Apple have to sacrifice their aesthetics.

I say wait and see what Apple does with the PowerMac line. They may surprise you.
post #479 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I don't want to take anything away from the iMac, I think it is Apple's best value machine they have ever made. But you have to concede that it has a built-in display, which many people just do not want. Displays can last a lot longer than computers.

Sure. But holding on to that 1024x768 crt for 4 years just to save £100 doesn't really make sense. The low end iMac isn't much more expensive than the high end Mini and you get a beautiful screen and much more with it.

Or to be less obtuse, I was using a 1024x768 LCD with crap viewing angles and dimmer backlight 2 years ago. Now I have a 1440x900 widescreen iMac screen. Who knows what monitors will be like in 2 years time. Both OSX and Windows are shifting to device independent resolutions. At that point, I'll probably buy another new iMac.

It's not an issue for the mid range.

IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
post #480 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sure. But holding on to that 1024x768 crt for 4 years just to save £100 doesn't really make sense. The low end iMac isn't much more expensive than the high end Mini and you get a beautiful screen and much more with it.

Or to be less obtuse, I was using a 1024x768 LCD with crap viewing angles and dimmer backlight 2 years ago. Now I have a 1440x900 widescreen iMac screen. Who knows what monitors will be like in 2 years time. Both OSX and Windows are shifting to device independent resolutions. At that point, I'll probably buy another new iMac.

It's not an issue for the mid range.

IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.

But what if you want a bigger screen. I may not want to upgrade in a year or 2 but want an iMac power computer with a 23 - 30" screen - I can only do this via a PM & I don't need all that performance or such a big machine.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo