Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo - Page 16

And the ones with the same form-factor as the current Mac Mini cost a lot more than it.


If you are going to say that the computer I suggest would actually cost more than the Mac mini, please quote my post from page 14 (the one that says "on to flogging my dead horse...") and indicate where my reasoning has gone wrong.


You are right, the power supply would have to be beefier than the current Mac mini. However, brining the PSU into the computer casework would save on packaging and this extra money could be spent on an uprated PSU. Pretty much the only things that would have to change would be the output devices in the PSU. The component costs would not be much higher (a couple of dollars at the most).

Higher capacity desktop HDDs only require more power than lower capacity desktop HDDs if they have more platters. Capacity increases from improvements in data density do not add to the power requirements.


Yes, this is something that I have been thinking about. The machine would not support 10,000 rpm drives. It would probably require a fan. But, laptop HD and optical drives could be an option (no reason why they couldn't go into a bigger case), which when taken would mean the computer could ship without a fan. Now the user gets to choose between large HDDs in conjunction with more capable optical drives, and quietness of the machine, rather than Apple making the choice for them.


I can believe that. Making a computer bigger makes the volume increase faster than the surface area, and it's surface area that costs in terms of packaging. I already acknowledged that the casework would be more costly, but that other savings would significantly outweigh the costs increases.


Sounds nice. Maybe one day Steve will wake up. I suppose no-one's perfect, he's got it right nearly all the rest of the time.



In this thread you state that you own 10,000 Apple shares. At the moment, they are worth $677,200. In my experience someone with that many shares in one company, probably has money invested elsewhere too. Even if you don't, it still makes you wealthy in my book, and I am sure many others'. But you are right, it's all relative.



Why this fixation on 500 GB? Like I said, the mini tops out at 120 GB and 120 GB laptop HDD is a lot more expensive than a 120 GB desktop HDD.


O.K. Point well made, and point taken. I hope I did not cause offence.



Yes, I am well aware of this. But it would be able to run OS X and iLife very well (better than current low-end iBooks).


They are? Well, like I said, I think they are being churlish. The mini is a great deal if you happen to want exactly what it is offering.


Agreed. The iMac is a brilliant machine.


No reason that couldn't happen with a $599 configuration of the computer I suggest.

Yes, they will be. You have to draw the line somewhere. I believe some configurability is better than none.

It would be one full size slot.

People were expecting the price to at least remain the same, with a 64Mb Graphics Card.
If you look at whats inside the Mini it was always a rip-off. The Hard Drive size is laughable, and theres no room for expansion or changing anything.
People expect to get ripped off by Apple, but the $499 Mini was borderline acceptable even though what you get for the money is ridiculous compared to a $499 PC. However, that was a sweet spot money wise that finally got people to consider switching. They got over the lack of keyboard and mouse, even though that's ridiculous enough, not they expect people to forget about having to pay extra for a modem also? Plus its $100 more? Plus they include Integrated graphics without an option for anything better while just a few days ago Apple was telling everyone that IG is crap?
And some of you can actually try to argue Apple's way out of this?

They screwed up.

Since you insist in using this form to reply, I'll use it as well.

You do admit that these larger case cost more.


I believe that I already covered it. You just don't agree, as the post here indicates. But, I will cover each point here.


Of course, bringing it into the case would make the case MUCH larger again, and add to that already heavy heat load that a big 3/5" HD adds. Heat removal now becomes even more of a problem. Compact cases always have more a problem with heat removal than small cases. As you are still talking about a now, fairly, small case. The entire unit would need a rethinking.

I don't agree that this would lead to a "couple of dollars". How are you coming to that conclusion from a non engineering standpoint?


That depends on the manufacturer. No two manufacturers drives require the same power, even if they have the same number of platters. It might only vary by 15-20%, but it does vary. For example, Seagates Barracuda drives use more power, and put out more heat than other drives in their class by a substantial amount. Going to a 7,200 rpm drive also adds considerable power and heat.



So, now Apple has to start telling people that they can't put just any drive in their new, shiny machine? Can you imagine the howls that would produce?

By limiting the drives to the smaller, less power hungry, and far less heat producing drives, Apple is telling people that this machine has certain limitations. Accept it, or don't buy it. Or buy an external drive that fits into those nice cases that match the computer, and sit underneith.

By allowing 3.5" drives, Apple is saying to put anything inside that you want to. Even though Apple really doesn't want you to. What happens if your nice new big HD burns the power supply out, or overheats the cpu, and destroys that? Who is responsible? Who pays for the warrantee service?

Do you stick your small drive back in again, and whine when Apple says that you overloaded the machine, thus requiring an out of warrantee service charge?


Because, several posters specifically used it as a desireable thing.

160 GB 2.5" drives have just come out, and will likely be available for the Mini before too long. As I've said, 200+GB drives will be out by the end of the year. Prices are also dropping steadily.

What we will be seeing before too long, is the discontinuation of smaller 3.5" drives. The industry is rushing into a standardization of the 2.5" drive for desktop use. The availability of 7,200 rpm drives has made that possible for all but the most performance oriented needs. When these drives reach the 300GB point, you will begin to see this happen. This may be no more than two years away. HD manufacturers are already slowing down the size increase of their 3.5" models. Not that they won't get larger, but the pace has clearly slowed down. Perpendicular recording is being applied to the smaller form factor drives.When they (3.5") do, it will be more to decrease the numbers of platters rather than to increase capacity.



None taken.


Possibly true, but not the experience that Apple wants the consumer to have. Look at all of the frustrated posts about whether the dual core could play 1080p! A Celeron might not be able to play 720p very well. I'm not sure about that, of course. But it's very possible. You should have seen the criticism over the G4 Mini problems with hi-def.



(We were talking about no Superdrive in the $599 model.)

Churlish indeed! But this is what you get when you start cutting features. You might lose as many sales as you gain. And the ones you lose might be the better customers. The ones more likely to spend additional money.


Only if it has the features it has now.

Please quote my post from page 14 and pick it apart.

It seems that the source of our disagreement about costs hinges on the costs of the casework, but I'm not sure.

However, I thought the thing that we had agreed to disagree about was whether Apple even needed a machine that starts at $399. I also thought that you were happy that Apple's only truly flexible desktop was its Power Mac, but now I know that that is not the case.



I am an electronics engineer (or at least, I've got an MEng with 1st class honours and am now doing a PhD). I was talking about the increased cost of the PSU components, not of the machine as a whole.



People wanting more than 120 GB is very different from people wanting 10,000 rpm. Whilst people in that market want larger capacities, possibly at 7200 rpm, I don't think they want 10,000 rpm.


I agree that this could be a problem. I don't know how to estimate how many users are likely to do that, so I can't analyse the risk involved. Some people are always going to be dishonest, you just have to accept it. The question, in this case, is how many?

I don't disagree with everything in your example.

It's the concept that I am having problems with.

If I were to design a machine to those specs, it would be much larger, with much higher specs in the PW and cooling. I don't see it costing less at all. It also wouldn't be a Mini, and that's the other point.

You are talking about a completely different machine. As an engineer, you should see that.

If you want to talk about a completely different machine, then that would be different. But, let's not pretend to ourselves that we are still thinking about a slightly revised Mini.

If this is the tower you are talking about, then I could see it. People opting for that would be more sophisitcated, and could handle choices. I doubt that Apple would ever produce a tower for that price, however.


The casework is part of it. But it would also be a bigger, more complex mobo, power supply, cooling arrangement etc.


Sure. But, the funny thing here is that I wasn't responding to your post, but someone else's. (don't remember who, now)

Well, I would like to see the iMac back to where it was with user expandability. I would also like to see Apple produce my $999 tower, or something close to it.


Have you done any fair amount of real world work/ I'm not asking that as an insult. I just find that people new to the profession still don't have a good handle on the manufacturing process.

Look at what we have. The DESIGN engineer! The GOD.

The Production engineer, one of the angels.

Then we have the lowly line engineer. He's a dwarf.

Unfortunately, often it's the guy on the bottom who knows most about costs, and practicality.

[QUOTE]
People wanting more than 120 GB is very different from people wanting 10,000 rpm. Whilst people in that market want larger capacities, possibly at 7200 rpm, I don't think they want 10,000 rpm.9/QUOTE]

Probably true. But that big hot 3.5" high capacity drive is still going to fry a small unit.



(cheat on warrentee service)

Everyone who puts a big drive in, and fries their machine.

I won't be back here for a few hours. Cheers, Mel.

Yes, of course I understand that I'm talking about a machine bigger than the mini. It would still be a lot smaller than a normal tower. I also understand that it isn't just a simple modification of the mini, and would cost Apple to develop. But Apple is no stranger to R&D, unlike most other PC makers. I'm confused that Apple ever came out with the mini, it must have cost more to develop than a mini tower. I suppose that now Apple's done it, they could keep the mini, and just bring out a small configurable tower as well.

Like I've said before, I think the biggest selling point of the mini is its price. Next, and less important to most people, is its quietness. Finally, is its size. The quietness could be preserved in my suggested machine by having laptop HDD and optical drive as an option.


The chipset that Apple uses in the mini supports PCIe, there just isn't a slot. Since the case would be bigger, the mobo could be bigger, and therefore much easier to lay out.



None taken. I used to work, during the holidays, for cambridge consultants (who coincidentally and completely O.T. span out Cambridge Silicon Radio, whose bluetooth chips are used in Apple's products, and who also span out AlphaMosaic (who were then bought by Broadcom) whose chip is used to decode video in the 5th gen iPod). But no, I do not have any direct experience or education in production of high-volume CE.


Well, I'd like to think that at least 1% of those people would be honest. But we are still left with the question of estimating how many users would put in a too-demanding HDD. We are also assuming that the PSU wouldn't have auto shut-off.

But, you see, if this then IS your mini TOWER, then I have no problem with your assumptions.

It's just too bad that Apple will likely not produce yours any more than they will produce mine.

Why should software be included into the price of the hardware?

Oh good ... I was waiting to see what the guys at Ars would say when they got their hands on one ... their results, as you might expect are very pleasing, and a little surprising!

Ars Technica Mac Mini Core Solo Test

Well, most of the people I know staying with Windows for software are just gamers.

I think a $399 Mac would fit for an email, web, musci & photos, and word processor machine. My parents and relatives, my wife's parents and relatives, and most of my friends' family -- this is the use of their computer ('cept those who like to play games).

Not quite sure what you're saying here. So an OS lives and dies by the amount of software for it, that would make the hardware would live and die by the amount of hardware available for it. Though the Mini doesn't leave that much room for hardware improvements (excluding external additions).

Haven't thoroughly read the thread here, but I think I've seen the complaints that the enclosure doesn't make room for the 3.5" HDs where the 500GB is cheaper.

Not the people I mentioned above who could make use of a $399 Mac

I think the Mac Mini is a pretty neat computer. Though it's not one for me, it's kinda nifty. That the thing with one company making the hardware, they can only make so many product lines geared to only so many target markets. There'll always be (sometimes big) gaps in between.

I'm not saying Apple should or should not go to clones, just that they will hit this issue with their product lineup unless they release many more products to fill the spaces which I do not thing they'll do.

I think Apple makes great products and they do seem to last well. However, I wonder if they miss their mark more often than hit them. When Apple released OS X to clone makers, the complaint was that the clone makers were taking market share from Apple and not the other market. So why did people buy the clones instead of actual Apple hardware? If Apple's hardware was so great, people should've still been buying them.

That is true. However, perception is reality and people will make their comments and opintions based on that reality (like how I did from what I think is the truth). The perception is not always fact which is why some peoples reality is totally distorted -- like there's some reality distortion field (just had to say that one).

That's the cold hard reality. As long as Apple's the only manufacturer of computers capable of running OS X, we'll have to take what Apple provides to us what Apple believes we want. The thing with the Windows, Linux, and anything else of the generic x86 market is that they have a wide range of choices when it come to purchasing computers. One thing us Mac users don't have (well, unless you use the Maxxuss or whatever his name is patch).

Well, if it could do email, web, and Office stuff (since that's all I would need for work), I would pick one up to use at the office instead of the stuff they make us use. At that price, I wouldn't have to worry about getting the company to expense it.

It's hard for them to win. There's too many people out there with too many wants and needs. One company can't release a product line for each of those, but I kinda covered that already.

Welcome to Macintosh.

That almost sounds like a Shuttle PC.

Well, as long as the system can use one of the video cards out there and doesn't have to be a "Mac Edition" card. Seems printing the words "Mac Edition" on the box raises the price somewhat.

Well, that's if one cares about the extra noise from fans (okay, maybe not the windtunnel fans, but there are desktop fans that are not that loud). For me, I don't really mind the fan noise (hear the one from my PowerMac now). It's normally covered up by the TV or my daughter screaming. And even when that's not present, it's like white noise in the background. After a while I don't really notice it anymore. Just to say, I have a G4 PowerMac, I've heard the original G5 PowerMac fans were deafening loud.

Yeah, got no real problem with external cases. Makes things more portable too when needing to take it from home to work or to a friends house or somewhere. Some cases look pretty nice too (though that's a personal opinion). Yeah, buying these from Fry's, Best Buy, or somewhere online would probably be cheaper than an option from the Apple Store (much like how buying RAM from somewhere else is cheaper).

I think the inelegant part may be referring to the external case may actually be bigger than the Mini or something.

Not to speak for the other people, but I think people feel that paying $100 more than the previous gen's $499 tag would justify the superdrive. I don't think the other additions are taken into account. If I were to buy the $599 Mini, I would want take the superdrive over the airport and bluetooth since those are two that I wouldn't need.

I wonder how hard it would've been to just throw in the keyboard and mouse?

Heh, it's funny, one of the features shown of the lastest OS is that now from the print dialog, there's a fax PDF option in the PDF drop down menu. However, seems the means for the OS doing that is disappearing (minus the external option). Not that I would ever use it, just thought I'd say something....

Don't really check out the trailers on Apple's site. If I couldn't view the HD trailers, I'm find with the others (don't have QT pro for the full screen either). However, If I couldn't view HD content at all (when they finally standardize on HD DVDs), that's something else.

I think the appeal of the $399 (or less as you suggested in your previous post) is that down the road, there's less complaint to purchasing a new computer that supports some newer stuff for about the same price. "Ah, I paid $399 for this computer two years ago, I won't mind paying $399 for this one now to do this....."

I think when it gets to be $500 or more, people have to start thinking of their wallets. Heck, my wife won't let me splurge on a $499 computer. When I suggested $399, she reduced it only to a maybe. Sheesh....

I think I was touching up on something like this in my other posts. There are too many people each with their own need. If there's computer A and computer B which is just like A, but a little extra stuff, there will always be some consumer who really wants computer A.5 or so. Too hard for one company to meet all these needs.

Maybe something like the Shuttle PC (http://www.shuttle.com). Like the XPC barebones....ahh, I dunno. I just say this cuz I was thinking about a Shuttle for a game system to take to LAN parties.

Not sure what that implies, but anyways. I was referring to the comment about a $399 and the cost of iLife and OS X etc. etc. etc. When I bought my PowerMac, it didn't come with iLife (wasn't out yet). The PowerMacs out now include iLife, but the price point is around the same of what my model would've been equivalent to.

I mean, does it cost the full amount of the software package for Apple to include the CDs or DVDs or to build the OS off an image with this already installed?

Macintosh is a package, one the has evolved over the years. Also, as sales increase, Apple does not need to make the same margin on each sale.

The software that comes bundled with the Mac is worth a lot of money as it is good stuff, especially for average users, right out of the box. The addition of a word processor would add ten-fold to the value, but I think that is coming somewhere down the line. (Appleworks was bundled for years and was a very capable program).

iLife's programs, all being made by the same maker, are all very similar (not to mention inter-connnected), thus lowering the learning curve before one can put the software to use. That means time saved, which is money saved. Add lower stress rates and a quicker realisation of pride regarding the work one has accomplished with the machine and software, and, if you ask me, an extra 200 bucks (over your 399 price) is worth the ease of use, quality, stability, lack of viruses, etc. Also, if I have any problems or questions with any part of the package (or the whole thing), I only have to call one support line. If I work hard to earn money, I want to spend that money well.

All very good points.

The thing is iLife and OS X raise the value of the machine. They do not raise the costs for Apple.

They raise costs considerably, it's just that the costs are (mostly) sunk rather than marginal. Dells pays $x per CPU sold to MS for Windows. Their cost per machine doesn't change if they sell ten million or one million. Apple invests $y million/year in OS X and iLife, and needs to make that up from the sum of all sales. You end up paying a little more marginally from Apple than Dell/MS because Apple needs to spread OS development costs comparable to MS's across one-tenth as many boxes. The fact they can compete at all is probably due in equal measure to Apple's efficiency and the combination of MS's inability to spend most of the money they collect and their unbelievably prolifigate waste of much of what they do spend.

Yes, sorry, I was not trying to imply that iLife and OS X cost Apple nothing to develop. But like you say, they are not marginal costs, so the cost to Apple to include them on a computer are very low compared to what they charge for the shrink-wrapped product at retail.

But, at least in the case of iLife (and all the other stuff people would love to see bundled with their new toy), there is an opportunity cost. Foregone sales of iLife. Just as I expect Apple reckons that selling a Mini with better video or faster HDD will have an opportunity cost in sales of much more profitable hardware.

James

Welcome to our new member!

However, iLife is included with all new Macs, so any Mac sold means an iLife set sold. There is a difference when it comes to upgrading... buying the box. Some people may choose to hold off on the update until they update their computer.

Thanks! I could have sworn I had an account on here before, but apparently not!

True - but not an iLife set at full retail, hence there being an opportunity cost to consider.

You really should read more of the thread. These points have been discussed back and forth several times.

I'll just respond to the "gamers" portion.

I hope you don't think that most Windows users are gamers. That's a small portion of the platform. There is a difference between people who play some basic games part of the time, and Gamers.

The former are the vast majority. The latter are a small minority.

We discussed this as well.

This has been covered as well, but it bears repeating, as it isn't obvious.

One division of a company MUST, by law, pay another division of the same company, Fair Market Value, for a part or service they acquire from them.

If the iLife package has a value, as a pre-packaged product license, of, say $20, then the computer division must pay the software division $20 for each copy of the software it bundles. whether the disks are included or not is something else. It is the license that is of value, and is what the fee is for.

To the company, as a whole, the movement generates no positive, or negative cash flow, except for the bookkeeping costs involved.

But, each division must pay its way.

There are two aspects to this.

The developmental costs are certainly real, and burdensome.

However, Apple sells many copies of its software at retail. While this market is smaller that MS's, by a wide margin, it is enough to help recoup those costs, as well as the marketing costs that are always associated with sales.

Apple sells several million copies of the OS every year, as well as several million copies of iLife as well.

The sales of the OS add several hundred million dollars to Apple's gross, and are considered to contribute a greater percentage (margin) to Apple's profits than hardware sales do.

Software, particularly that such as iLife costs less for Apple to upgrade, then the initial cost of developing the product, even as it adds additional products to the mix. Apple is most certainly earning a good profit on that as well.

The costs of that software is always added to the price of the computer. The question is; how much? Only Apple has those figures.

MS, being primarily a software developer, has tremendous profits vs total sales. Extremely high margins, up to 80%.

This allows them to lose money on most all of their other endeavors. The games division, for example, has been giving them a loss of about $1.2 billion per year ever since they introduced the XBox. No other company could afford such consistent losses at that level.

Mr. H, you should be interested in this.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=91459

I've discussed this on another thread, but when vista comes out I think you will see what a value ilife and OS x are. Apple sells these at a very reasonable price IMO.

However, there are a lot of people who don't consider ease of use, integrated software, lower learning curve as part of the costs making the Mac a better value rather than a cheaper system (lack of viruses is only until virus writers start writing 'em for the Mac). They just look at the bottom line -- what's going to be coming out of their wallets and make their decision off that.

Another parts it that people who buy systems already know how to work the programs they're going to use on any platform so that part also isn't a factor in the total cost.

Yes, in the long run, there'll be less headache running OS X than something else and less time will be spent hacking away at the OS. But most people don't think of this when buying a computer.

I do agree that it costs Apple money to develop these programs and they need to make it up somewhere. But it's the arguement that including the software with the hardware would raise the costs of the system that much. So if the software wasn't included and was required to be purchased from the store, would that make the hardware that much cheaper?

Absolutely! And including it with every machine makes it even more of a bargin.

A Mac sold is an iLife set sold? Heh, I've been thinking it's Apple's way of getting people to use the iLife set and then when they release the new version, the users have to purchase the new one.

Not sure if buying the box is just an upgrade. It's for new and upgrading consumers. iLife from the box will install on a system even if there are no previous versions installed. An upgrade would require a previous version to be installed.

At least you got a welcome....

Hehehehe...

I didn't say most Windows users are gamers. I just said most of the Windows users I know are.

Heh, when you come back and there are pages and pages of discussion, I kinda quick skim through the posts.....

People here post too quickly and I'm a slow reader. \

Ok, I see that. Best explanation I've seen. I'll go with that.