Closing the book on Apple's Mac mini - Page 13

I did. Just didn't requote everything. I'd rather not change my environment much. I'm happy with it after many years of finding what works for me. I don't know what Mac I'm having next though. This iMac G5 is hanging on. Might be a Mini next if not a MacBook Pro as none of the other machines do it for me with their shiny screens or they're just overkill (MacPro) or pointless (MacBook Air).

I think we will see the Mac mini get updated with Santa Rosa and Penryn in one fell swoop. Apple has tried to put some distance between the Mac mini, MacBook and MacBook Pro, but they are not able to do that anymore with Intel pushing Penryn and trying to phase out Merom and Santa Rosa when Montevina gets released.

The Mac mini went 11 months without an update and only got a Core 2 Duo, just 3 months before the MacBook got Santa Rosa, which was 5 months after the MacBook Pro got Santa Rosa. The MacBook Pro got updated with Penryn as expected, but low and behold, the MacBook also got Penryn and the Multi-Touch trackpad. We did not see a hardware refresh last week because of the SDK event but I think we will see the iMac and Mac mini this Tuesday. The portables were updated together so why not the desktops?

The mini has historically been a little obsolete compared to other Apple models. It had the slowest G4, it had Core Duo when everything else was Core 2, it still has the older GMA950 IGP.

It wouldn't surprise me if Apple updated the mini but stuck with Merom-core processors. The chips are cheaper, more readily available, and good enough for the mini.

Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.

I wish I knew the actual sales numbers, and what numbers Apple considers viable. Until then, all anyone can do is guess. Eventually, the Mini will go the way of all lines, and AI will be able to say they were right (as will some who post here).

By "18 months", you meant "9 months", of course.

I use to have an Mac Mini and I loved it, it's great for a seperate computer. They shouldn't do anything to it though

Meaning what?

They move the mini to a desktop cpu and make it bigger with room for desktop HD and ram as well as pci-e slots and still make money with a low end cpu at the same price as the mini is now.

Intel is going to continue manufacturing and selling those processors for at least another 12 months.

I think it would be FAB if they started building Ethernet-over-mains into products like Apple TV. Imagine - no more cables but it would be capable of both WiFi and Ethernet protocols.

Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?

It depends on your point of view.

The Mac Mini is still more modern than many PCs you can buy and it's quite a bargain given it's small form.

For what I've used them for in the past - small office servers - the spec is also way more than we needed, so a less advanced model would be nice too, even one using Celerons.

They aren't obsolete specs. That would be if they continued to use PPC chips. They are somewhat slower, and use integrated graphics, as most PC's still do.

An xMac, eh? I figured as much.

Not enough profit margin at $599.
If more expensive, people would just buy the iMac instead.

I have yet to hear what the average customer would use PCI slots for. Even with the original Macintosh II, 95% of the buyers only had the single video card (that came with the computer) in there.

I guess it's a double-edged sword, there are some people who would like a low-spec cheaper version, but Apple might not want to be seen to be selling low spec stuff.

How easy would it be for Apple to start using Celeron processors anyway? I guess if you wanted a low-spec Mac for a low price, your best bet would be eBay.

Total nonsense. It's been shown over and over and over that an xMac would have at least the same profit margin as a Mac Mini, if not higher. It's not hard - you use cheaper components (desktop components are cheaper than laptop ones) but your manufacturing and shipping costs go up a bit because you need slightly more raw materials for the casework and the machine will be bigger and heavier.

As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping Apple from releasing an xMac is fear of cannibalising the iMac and, to a lesser extent, the Mac Pro.

It's not that simple. Apple isn't producing PC clones running OS X, and they never will.

If Apple did produce an xMac, it would still cost more. I'd love them to produce one that started, in a basic form, at $899.

No matter what, I can't see it going lower than that. Apple will not use a standard, cheap case. It will be something custom that will always look better, and cost more. They will also offer their keyboards and mice, which would be part of the package, unlike with the Mini, and that will raise the costs, which is why it's NOT with the Mini.

People seem to be forgetting that as well.

Sure it is.

Answer me this:

Are laptop components (laptop HDDs, laptop CPUs, laptop motherboard chipsets, laptop RAM, laptop optical drives) more expensive than their desktop counterparts?

If you think not, please provide some evidence.


They don't have to use a standard cheap case. Does the Mini use a standard cheap case? No, it doesn't, and yet is is less than $899. It's a custom case full of laptop components. So I say make a larger custom case (costlier than the Mini's) and fill it with desktop components (cheaper than the Mini's).

It's a drop in replacement.

eBay is no place to procure your IT requirements in a corporate environment.

The components aren't more expensive for the Mini, except for the HDD, which is the 2.5" laptop size.

Other than for that, component prices are about the same.

If you don't believe that, you are the one who has to show pricing, as you are making the claim.

Also, what you are also forgetting, in addition the charge for the keyboard and mouse, which you have ignored, is that people will be demanding, and expecting a "real" video card, with the attendent costs involved. No one will properly accept an xMac without at least one slot for a replaceable card. Add costs for the larger mobo, and attendent components to make that possible, as well as the card.

Even if Apple chose to have integrated graphics as the default mode for the cheapest model, people would still be buying a card.

Add at least $125 for the card, and additional for the bigger mobo and larger case. From Apple's Mini customize page, you will have to add $98 for the keyboard and mouse, so add that price to the total.

And then, would people accept the same processor that the Mini has, or would they demand equality with the iMac? I think the latter, at least, as people have been consistently demanding a desktop cpu for an xMac, that's the least they would accept. Add at least another $100 for the faster, more capable chips.

Also, people will want 4 GB RAM capability. Add costs on the mobo for the extra slots and circuits.

Now, for all of this, they need a bigger power supply. Add the costs for that in as well.


The Mini case costs very little, as it's very small, and mostly plastic. Not so for something bigger. Would Apple go for the all aluminum case? Very possible. That's not cheap, you could certainly add $50 for it over what the case for the Mini costs now. If not, they would likely go polycarbonate again. That also costs more.

Sorry, but you really are talking nonsense.

The Mac Mini currently uses exclusively laptop components:

Laptop CPU (merom)
Laptop RAM (So-dimms)
Laptop HDD (2.5") (you acknowledged this)
Laptop motherboard chipset (Napa)
Laptop slot-loading optical drive

Taking each in turn:

The cheaper mini uses the 1.83 GHz Merom, this costs $241 in quantities of 1000. The desktop Core 2 Duo costs $113 for the 2.2 GHz E4500 (intel processor price list here). That obliterates your paragraph about desktop processors costing $100 more. The whole point is that desktop processors cost less and are more powerful at the same time.

Laptop RAM always costs more. Obviously I've only got access to retail prices, but comparing 1 GiB of Corsair laptop RAM to 1 GiB of Corsair desktop RAM at Newegg you get $24.99 for the laptop RAM and $19.99 for the desktop RAM.

Laptop motherboard chipset: unfortunately, Intel don't publish their motherboard chipset prices, however, it is clear that the laptop motherboard chipsets have a more advanced manufacturing process (they have the same capabilities as desktop chipsets but run at much lower power) and are therefore highly likely to cost more than their desktop counterparts, just as laptop CPUs costs more than their desktop counterparts.

The optical drive is another one where it's difficult to compare prices (there are very few laptop optical drives at retail so they cost about 5 times more than retail desktop drives), but given that all other laptop components cost more than their desktop equivalents, you'd expect the trend to continue with optical drives. And you yourself often say that smaller = more expensive.


See later for the keyboard and mouse issue. The xMac would have integrated graphics onboard for the $599 model, and an empty PCIe slot. The higher models would have this slot filled with a higher-performance graphics card.

This allows people to upgrade the graphics in the cheapest xMac after-market if they so desire. And yes Lundy, I agree that 99% of people won't do that, but at least they now have the option (and their geek friend who advises them on computer purchases tells them that upgradeability is a must and therefore the current Mini is a no-no).


Only if they wanted one. That's a choice the Mini doesn't even give you in the first place.


$125 for the graphics card . This isn't 2001. Here's one at retail for $36.99 ($26.99 after rebate): inexpensive graphics card.

On the keyboard and mouse front: you have to add those costs to the costs of the Mini too, so I don't get what you are on about here?

All I'm saying is that you can take a $599 mini, make it big enough to fit desktop components inside and you end up with a more powerful, more expandable machine for the same sale price with approximately equal profit margin. The cost of Apple's keyboard and mouse do not enter into the equation.



You can get 2 GiB desktop RAM modules so we are talking one extra slot. The larger motherboard area and extra slot costs are easily offset by the lower motherboard chipset costs.


It's about 70% plastic and 30% metal, assuming the rear is 90% plastic.

I already acknowledged that a larger case would cost more. But the Mini remains as tangible evidence that custom case does not automatically negate a $599 selling price.

Excuse my ignorance, but is it possible to buy Mac parts and put them in something like a Mini-ITX case?

You're not looking at the right chips.

An xMac would need more powerful chips than the 2.2 GHz version you mentioned. If, as I said, they stuck with the iMac chips, at higher speeds than the paltry 2 GHz model that is the top of the Mini line, but the bottom of the iMac line, prices are higher.

If we took the newer T7800 2.6 GHz chip, instead of the current higher speed Extreme 2.8 GHz model, we're still talking about $795 in 1,000 quantities. The 2.4 GHz models is less, of course, but the newer 2.8 GHz model, the same speed as used in the top iMac now, costs more.

Obviously, Apple, and other big manufacturers get much lower pricing that the single bin price, and Penyrn chips are cheaper GHz for GHz.

I wasn't particularly talking about desktop chips as costing more, but higher performance chips that might be used. I mentioned desktop chips, because that's what most people wanting an xMac have mentioned. I brought that up to show that these machines would have to be more powerful than the Mini to be attractive to most people who would want one. Apple would not likely use desktop chips, and so the more expensive mobile chips would be used. I should have been more specific, but I thought you knew what I meant.


Yes, about five dollars. Not exactly a big deal. It costs much more to make a bigger mobo with more slots and components, than it does to buy one stick of mobile memory over the desktop equivalent.


Well, I certainly don't agree with that, as it makes no sense. The more advanced processes cost LESS, not more.


Apple uses a portable slot drive in the iMac, and so pricing would be the same there as well. Besides, the portable drives don't cost significantly more than any other slim slot drive.


Here, you're not justifying anything. You're just giving a model and a price.


In the case of the xMac, they certainly would want a real graphics card. One of the main reasons people give for this machine is gaming, or a lower cost PS or FCP workstation. If Apple offered this with disabable integrated graphics it would only serve to sell it at an unrealistically low price. Apple would then offer at least one card.


You're joking, right? Show me any graphics card that Apple offers that's even close to a low price of $125. Just how many people will be buying your favorite $36 card? One?



It's pretty obvious. Most people buying a Mini already have a computer. That's why Apple doesn't sell it with a keyboard and mouse. I know Mac people who moved to a Mini from older machines, and didn't buy keyboards and mice. Same thing with some PC people, though two did eventually spend $29.95 for the white one.

If Apple sells the xMac, they will sell it with the mouse and keyboard, as it won't be an entry model as the Mini is.


I know what you're saying, but you're wrong.


Wrong again. The costs are not lower.


Yes, as I said, it's mostly plastic.


The Mini case needs almost no structural support, as it's small, flat, and very simple. A mini tower is very different.

You're also forgetting the bigger power supply, and cooling needs for more powerful cpu's and graphics cards. That adds to the cost as well.

Only used.

Melgross, you appear to be arguing with points that I'm not even making; it is rather annoying.


You mean I'm not allowed to put an E4500 into my mythical xMac because the price differential between it and what's used in the current Mini proves me right and you wrong.

You don't need to tell me that laptop chips faster than the laptop chips in the Mini are more expensive. This is in the "Well, duh!" category. More powerful desktop chips cost less, that is what I am saying and nothing you've presented has, or possibly could, prove that wrong.


Yeah, by about $5 probably.




It makes perfect sense. I'm not talking about a more advanced process in terms of feature-size, I'm talking more advanced in terms of tolerances and inevitably lower yields etc. to give the capability of running at a lower voltage and hence lower power consumption. It's exactly the same reason as why laptop CPUs with the same feature sizes as desktop CPUs cost more money.

I think that the onus is definitely on you to provide a much more compelling argument as to why a desktop chipset will not cost less than a laptop chipset, given that a desktop CPU costs less than a laptop CPU.



What the heck has the iMac got to do with anything? I'm not talking about using a slot-loading laptop drive, I'm talking about using a drawer-type desktop drive. Which, like I said are five times cheaper at retail than laptop slot-loaders.


I know that Apple doesn't offer a cheap graphics card. The price of that retail card is to demonstrate that the cost of a graphics card needn't necessarily be $125 or anywhere near that.


But I'm talking about replacing the Mac Mini with an xMac, so the xMac will be Apple's entry-level



You haven't provided any evidence either that you know what I'm saying, or that I'm wrong.

Let's try to make it clearer what I'm saying, and maybe you'll get it this time:

The current Mac Mini uses laptop components and is not able to use more powerful graphics than integrated graphics (i.e., even Apple couldn't put dedicated graphics in there if they wanted to). The fact that it uses laptop components means that it is woefully underpowered, and has woefully low RAM and HDD capacity compared to other $599 desktops.

So, I'm saying you make the case and motherboard bigger (costs increase) and use desktop components instead of laptop ones (costs decrease, cancelling out the earlier cost increases = same sale price).

So I've taken this machine:

• 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo (T5600)
• 1 GiB RAM (2 GiB Max)
• 80 GB HDD
• Integrated graphics (non-upgradeable)
• No keyboard or mouse
• $599

and replaced it with this machine:

• 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo (E4500)
• 1 GiB RAM (4 GiB Max)
• 250 GB HDD
• Integrated graphics
• 1 free PCIe slot for more powerful graphics or something else
• No keyboard or mouse
• $599.

Now, which one of these is more attractive when compared to the competition?

Mr.H is correct, using desktop components would increase BOTH Apple's margins and the power of the machine.

At the expense of size and going toe to toe with HP and Dell. For about the same price Dell offers 2.4Ghz Quad Core Inspiron 530 ($609).

As is the mac mini enjoys certain economies of scale since almost the entire Apple line is composed of notebook components. The size certainly is nice although a home server version of the mini with two built in bays would be cool.

Whilst the mini does have a size "advantage" over those desktops, how many people are buying/considering the Mini because it is small, and how many buy/consider it because it is the lowest-cost Mac?

As it stands, the Mini is Apple's only desktop machine sold for $599, and therefore it already goes toe to toe with the aforementioned PCs and comes off a hell of a lot worse than my proposed xMac. The Mini has a 1.83 GHz processor and 80 GB HDD, and the xMac has 2.2 GHz and 250 GB HDD, hopefully it's obvious which one of those compares better with the Dell. There will be plenty of potential switchers and first-time computer purchasers who dismiss the Mini, and therefore Apple in general, because it's so piss-poor relative to equally-priced competition on the PC side.


Indeed it does and that is why I suggest that a desktop-component alternative would have equal margins rather than better ones. Having said that, once the iMac goes Penryn, the Mini will be the only machine in Apple's line-up using Merom, it is already the only machine using Napa, and it's the only machine that uses an 80 GB 2.5" HDD.

Oops, typed before I did enough research. Never mind.

No, we're both trying to make our own points.


I don't care which chips you put into this non-existent product. It's the chips Apple might put in a possible product that matters.


I believe that I brought up the desktop chips as an example, but as in the above sentence, I made the correct point that Apple isn't likely to use desktop chips, so the cost of them is irrelevant.


You're entitled to your guess.


There's no such thing as a process that's more advanced in tolerances and lower yields, ... They pick chips by bin that happen to have different characteristics. All chips are made to be the same, but they aren't. Some come out better than others. They get labeled differently, but this doesn't happen to support chips, just CPU's and memory.


You're making the assertion. If you don't want to look that;'s fine.


You should look at Apple's products. Except for the MacPro they are moving to slot loading drives.

By the way. I just went to Apple's store to check on some of this, but the store is down. Apple is updating it. I wonder for what?


You're right. It doesn't have to be that high, if you own a PC. Too bad Apple's models don't offer other manufacturers enough incentive to make cards for the Mac. Maybe, just maybe, if Apple does come out with this machine, they would sell enough to make that happen.


I know you are. I don't think pricing would be at that level though.


I understand what you're saying, but I think you're wrong. I don't see that pricing. I don't see it being released without a keyboard and mouse, and I don't see it replacing the Mini, unless it replaces the expensive model. That's just not Apple's way. The Mini itself proves that.

I'd like to be wrong on this, but I don't think I am. You're not addressing power and cooling issues which will drive the price up even if the rest of what you say could be done.

I see the xMac line as being between a Mini and the medium priced iMac.

Well, you seem to be under the impression that I'm suggesting that I think it's likely that Apple will produce this xMac I'm talking about. I don't think that at all. As it stands, it looks like we'll never see a headless dekstop (rather than a laptop without battery, keyboard, trackpad and screen) under $2000 from Apple again.

I'm just making a case for this mythical machine that Apple should sell as being a better offering than the Mini. I know that they won't do it.

they don't need to use them but having them gives you more BTO choice and if you have a nice screen then why buy a imac with a build in one. Also the older imacs had better video cards for gameing.

If the xmac had a good video card, more room for HDD's, faster desktop cpu, dvdrw and ram then the imac.
That makes it a better buy then the imac. Also the build in screen in the imac's is not that good for pro work and there are alot of pros with ppc g4 and g5 that don't need the power of the mac pro and want a good system in the $1000 to $1900 price range that the g4 and g5 where in.

why can't we have a desktop in the $900-$2000 range like the g4 and g5 use to be at? the mac pro starts at $2200

We both don't think that Apple will produce one, though I wish they would.

So, in the end, we do agree.

If they did produce on, the $899 to about the $1,599 price level is what I would expect.

That would clash way too much with the zealot stereotypes. Remember, anyone who isn't dazzled by the perfect iMac must either want some bottom of the line Compaq or must be a film producer with an unlimited budget. There can't be anyone between the two extremes. Then again I just gave mine, which I bough last summer, to my parents since I found myself using my 5-year old G3 iBook most of the time.

So ... Apple Insider finally ran a piece on Friday admitting it was wrong and the Mini is not dead. based at long last on some new 'insider' tip. Did AI eat humble pie? not really. did AI apologize to all those who tried to point out in this thread - in vain - it made no sense for Apple to abandon this desktop market segment? nope. did AI show any sign of a real thought process on this topic over the last 8 months whatsoever? un-uh. just stupid rumor-mongering.

AI, you got a big black eye right now.

Really? They say "Eating our words"... I'd say that's a suggestion they were wrong. I don't think they really need to say more, it's not like they're reading all of our posts.

Killing the Mini does not equal abandoning this market segment. It only means that if the Mini were not replaced.

We all know there are plenty of people who think the Mini should die and be replaced with the xMac.