Yeah, I can see why they keep the mini as an entry spec computer, in contrast to the iMac which I think is a good deal as a complete computer system. Having a lower spec mini allows people to get into using macs with their existing hardware without the expense of an iMac. Making the mini more expensive defeats the purpose.
Apple has actually made the mini more expensive than the iMac, for what you get.
Yes, but they made it more expensive without adding much actual value. Yes it looks pretty and yes they got rid of the power brick. Bravo. How about getting off c2d already?
The thing that stuck out to me was that Aperture 3 was a BTO option. I have the latest 15" MBP Core i7 2.66Ghz and A3 runs DOG SLOW on it even with all other apps closed and 4GB of RAM.
I like that it includes HDMI and firewire 800, but price is too high to think about buying as a DVD player/photo viewer on an HDTV. I continue to use the slightly inconvenient method of unplugging my MBP from its Dell 24" monitor to the 46" Sony Bravia when I want to watch streaming Netflix, etc. Now if the Mac Mini had a BR player in it for that price, it might be tempting. I'm still waiting to make the jump to BR.
Scanning other forums, I think the consensus is that the Mini is now overpriced. This is not just from the usual PC fans looking for an opportunity to shout 'Apple Tax!', but also from true Apple fans who are disappointed with the increase. I predict this will be the number one item under discussion for this product for the next week or so, and then sales for the Mini (to the extent that anyone can track them reliably) will drop from the last model.
Apple makes some amazing products and runs a good business, but they are not above making mistakes. I think setting the entry point for Mac ownership at $700, without even including the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, is one such mistake.
if that's what up next, I'll be really pissed. Also, they have better find a way to transfer exisitng movies into SD card format then. Because i'm not adopting yet another technology unless it's direct to digital. I adopted BD a year ago becuase i just can't see owning everything in some mystical "Cloud" or to depend on a hard-drive and then go through the trouble of fishing cords from the office to the living room. Right now digital (for my lifestyle) is still in physical media. And if SD card hit the market in 5 years, or even 10 years, i'm going to be pissed. They need to find a way to allow consumers to either transfer or download movies (we already own) to our computers or another format. I'm not holding my breath, but since about 1998, i have:
1. replaced my VHS with DVD
2. replaced my DVD's with BD (just a year ago)
so in 12 years i've purchased 3 sets of my movie collection, granted each time i've added/subtracted a few. But it's damn frustrating! Granted taht's exactly what the Movie/TV industry wants, but it's pissing me off!
I think we all (as consumers) need to find a way to lobby against this kind of theiving of from the industry. And they constantly wine and complain they are loosing more money every year to pirating. Well maybe if they didn't gouge thier consumer base so much, we wouldn't have to download stuff!
That's a sad argument. The man said it's expensive 'cause it's the truth.
Nonsense. It's an opinion - or value judgment, if you will.
It may be expensive to you, but someone else may think it's a bargain. At what point is a computer 'expensive? $407.83? Or maybe it's $409.21?
Now, if he had said it was more expensive than the competition, he could provide competitive systems in the same size with the same hardware and the same quality and service for comparison - but he didn't do that, presumably because it's not possible.
she bought it at the Apple store. i don't exactly remember the conversation, other than the outcome made her just buy the "fully-Loaded" model because they were VERY hesitant about upgrading anything. I think the actual conversation was that upgrade cost alone would not be worth the money spent, so they encouraged just to have the RAM included in the computer she purchased. Since Apple Stores only sell the Base-Model and the Fully-Loaded-Model as your only options, upgrading can be costly and time consuming for THEM.
Personally, i've always purchased computers online or over the phone, customizing each option to my needs. I like purchasing low on RAM and upgrading in a couple years because it saves money (since tech. components usually go down in price over time) and i'm a pretty average user that doesn't need the top-line model right now. I've done this with the last 3 computers i've owned (since 1993) and it's always worked well.
The fact that Apple doesn't like to do this in the past, or charges you an arm and leg for is what's frustrating; until i saw that the new Mini will allow the user to change out the RAM now. That's a welcomed new direction. And, the fact they hid the access panel in a way that doesn't affect the "Apple Look" of the device is an added bonus.
Really though, for what the mini has for specs you wouldn't really need more than 2 gigs unless your running a lot of stuff. My buddy bought a macbook just recently. Same CPU and RAM I think and he thinks its quicker than his faster spec'ed quad core windows desktop with 2x the ram.
For what you get though, I really think that mini is about $100 too much. I would not bother with any upgrades. Ram will go down in price when you need it. Thats what I did with my iMac and it really paid off.
Scanning other forums, I think the consensus is that the Mini is now overpriced. This is not just from the usual PC fans looking for an opportunity to shout 'Apple Tax!', but also from true Apple fans who are disappointed with the increase. I predict this will be the number one item under discussion for this product for the next week or so, and then sales for the Mini (to the extent that anyone can track them reliably) will drop from the last model.
Apple makes some amazing products and runs a good business, but they are not above making mistakes. I think setting the entry point for Mac ownership at $700, without even including the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, is one such mistake.
I've been pretty pissed about the price increase as well. But if you go to dell's website and price out a 50/50 comparable machine (the Dell Studio Hybrid) it prices out at $689.
2.2 Ghtz w/ 3MB cache, 2 gigs ram, SD slot, HDMI, etc. So even though i'm pissed abotu the price of this, it's competitive. I guess it all boils down to components.
It still is a little amazing that you couldn't get the price down to at least $499 at the entry level.
Many people have questioned this CNC-machined approach since it first appeared a couple years or so ago.
Many people have defended it on the grounds that it is consistent with the proper business strategy of maximizing margins, i.e., percentage return on operating costs, as opposed to absolute profit without regards to operating costs or margins.
The defense is ostensibly valid, i.e., it would be correct, logically speaking, if in fact the CNC-machined approach were directly tied to that proper business strategy in the way that people who offer this defense assert that it is.
But the defense is a false defense. The correct business strategy is without question to maximize percentage return on operating costs. But the part that no one has ever demonstrated to any degree whatsoever, is how this correct understanding of business strategy demonstrates that the CNC-machined approach to building computers is a sound business decision, and not simply an obsession with a certain sort of quality.
Quality is always a subjective thing, but even if that were not the case, i.e., even if there were universal agreement that the CNC-machined approach adds genuine value to the machines, the defensive argument that has been offered is still logically disjointed. The reason is simply that there is not one scintilla of proof that computers have to be built this way lest margins suffer. I reiterate: there is not a scintilla of proof of this.
The point that many people seem to lack the ability to understand, is that when the number of units of a given product goes up, the enormous overhead associated with getting the product to production is prorated over a greater quantity of units, which manifestly lowers the total per-unit cost for the manufacturer. Thus, it is manifest that any strategy that successfully increases the number of units of a particular product can be a successful strategy for lowing the per-unit cost to the manufacturer and thereby improve the margins associated with that product. This is business 101, as it were, and yet there are many, many people on this forum and elsewhere who repeatedly say stuff that contradicts this simple, well-established truth. It is a logical fallacy to simplistically equate an improvement in margins, as a percentage of operating costs, to products that cost more to produce and that consequently cost more to the consumer and that consequently sell in lower volume. The defense that various people have offered, to the use of CNC-machining for making computers, is dead simply a bogus defense.
I have long maintained, and still maintain because I am convinced that it is true, that if Apple were to sell computers priced more competitively with the PC market, that their margins would actually increase, not by some small amount that would hardly make it worth the trouble, but by an enormous amount.
I believe this for two reasons:
(1.) Most people who choose to buy a PC do so because (rightly or not) they believe that the PC is more affordable.
(2.) There is no obvious reason why Apple would not be able to make computers just as cheaply as all the other PC makers.
When I say "cheaply", I am of course talking about the cost of manufacturing. Many people will of course jump in and claim that if you do that, quality will suffer. Well, quality will suffer, but the question is whether the reduction in quality, as assessed by the minions who go to Best Buy to purchase a generic PC, obviates the reason for purchasing an Apple computer. I can not think of a single reason why this should be so. If the CNC machining is spared, and the manufacturing is more in line with the way that most other manufacturers make computers, this should not significantly detract from the perception of quality, by the minions who buy a PC. In fact, the perception of quality should not go down very much at all, but the production cost would go down by a substantial amount. The computer could be sold at a much lower price, which would have the effect of an enormous increase in sales, bringing about an immediate and appreciable boost in margins, as a percentage of operating cost.
Apple's present business strategy does not make sound business sense. They are doing damed well to be sure. But you can be doing damed well and still not be doing nearly as well as you could be doing, and this is the case with Apple. I am 100% convinced of this.
There is only one rational argument that throws a wrench into this. If it should happen that people who presently are willing to pay the premium price for the Apple product would opt for the lower-priced Apple product if it were available at a lower price, then Apple would lose sales on those higher-priced products. If this were to happen, it is manifest that this could potentially have a negative impact on overall margins. But it is far from obvious that this would happen, and I am inclined to think that it would not happen. I am inclined to think that as long as the higher-priced products are adequately distinguished from the lower-priced products in terms of material and in terms of performance, then I see no reason to think that the present market for Apple computers would migrate to the lower-priced Apple product.
Why can't there be a Mini made the old-fashioned, cheaper way, selling alongside the newer, sexier, CNC-machined aluminum Mini? Evidently, Apple believes that if they were to do that, that it would steal sales from the sexy, aluminum Mini, and that the sales would be split between the two such that the product development overhead would prorate to a higher per-unit cost for each version. I cannot rule this out, but if the concern is valid, then the other way to manage this concern is simply not to commence development of the CNC-machined version in the first place, and to stick with the cheaper production method for this, the low-end, affordable version of the Apple computer. It will be very interesting to observe the change in the sales numbers for the new Mini as compared to the old, over the next year or so. Of course, even if the public has access to those numbers, it won't be worth much unless you also know the per-unit margins for both the old model and the new model.
The bottom line is that even after having puzzled over this for a couple of years now, I remain fully convinced that this CNC-machining business does not actually have much at all to do with maximizing margins as a percentage of operating costs. Rather, I am convinced that all it is really about is an obsession with making products that strive to a certain subjective sort of quality, with absolute indifference to any business reality. This is my opinion, and like everyone else, I am entitled to have and to share my opinion.
I think they are moving the Mini slightly upmarket. I think at the $500-$600 pricepoint they had limited options w/r/t video/cpu cost. At the new pricepoint, with a more attractive design, they will try to leave behind the "entry level" or "basic" impressions and market as their proper desktop sans monitor.
I still can't buy it without a current processor (i5). Maybe we will see that for Christmas.
Apple can't do an i5 with integrated nvidia graphics due to intels licensing restrictions. Apple using an i5 in the mini would require a discreet graphics card or settling for intels crappy integrated graphics.
For those of you complaining about the price, have you ever built a computer? You can spend <$50 on a case and power supply or you can spend a couple hundred (or more). Neither setup will change the specs of the machine, but your choice will greatly influence the cost. Apple shrunk the mini, switched to a unibody enclosure, and integrated the power supply. That is impressive, it's not surprising that they want to be paid extra for it.
I'll admit that the updated Mac Mini looks nice, but for a MINIMUM of six benjamins, I feel it is quite underwhelming. I think the arguements in the end boil down to (again) being able to use OS X, which is a defense used for all Apple products. Also, lets not forget that $600 gets you only the computer. I just did a trial buy on Apple's site... $1,934 for the base configuration + 27" Apple monitor, Apple wireless keyboard & magic mouse, iWork, and AppleCare. Yikes.
As a side note, now that the PSU is located within the housing, I wonder just how hot that sucker will get what with the CPU, GPU, PSU, HDD, and up to 8GBs of RAM confined into a 1.4" x 7.7" space. Forget frying eggs, I'll be able to grill me a sirloin on that baby.
Comments
Yeah, I can see why they keep the mini as an entry spec computer, in contrast to the iMac which I think is a good deal as a complete computer system. Having a lower spec mini allows people to get into using macs with their existing hardware without the expense of an iMac. Making the mini more expensive defeats the purpose.
Apple has actually made the mini more expensive than the iMac, for what you get.
Yes, but they made it more expensive without adding much actual value. Yes it looks pretty and yes they got rid of the power brick. Bravo. How about getting off c2d already?
I like that it includes HDMI and firewire 800, but price is too high to think about buying as a DVD player/photo viewer on an HDTV. I continue to use the slightly inconvenient method of unplugging my MBP from its Dell 24" monitor to the 46" Sony Bravia when I want to watch streaming Netflix, etc. Now if the Mac Mini had a BR player in it for that price, it might be tempting. I'm still waiting to make the jump to BR.
Apple makes some amazing products and runs a good business, but they are not above making mistakes. I think setting the entry point for Mac ownership at $700, without even including the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, is one such mistake.
Edit: It's already a separate article:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...pointment.html
Nope, apparently nothing changed. (besides Mac mini and iPhone preorder(?))
LOL... what counts as "something" besides a new phone and a new Mac?
Heh... I meant nothing changed after the Mac mini release. And I wasn't sure when the iPhone preorders became available.
I think the sequence of events was this:
Apple Store remains up
Stealth update to Mac mini
Apple Store goes down
Apple Store goes up
iPhone preorders available
Someone clarify if needed.
Does anyone proof read these things before they are posted?
"4.4 inches thin" try "1.4 inches thin"
Try 1.4" thick. It's not a press release, it's a report.
If you think it's expensive, don't buy one. That simple.
That's a sad argument. The man said it's expensive 'cause it's the truth. Don't be so defensive when people criticize your darling.
I think that's exactly where they're going.
if that's what up next, I'll be really pissed. Also, they have better find a way to transfer exisitng movies into SD card format then. Because i'm not adopting yet another technology unless it's direct to digital. I adopted BD a year ago becuase i just can't see owning everything in some mystical "Cloud" or to depend on a hard-drive and then go through the trouble of fishing cords from the office to the living room. Right now digital (for my lifestyle) is still in physical media. And if SD card hit the market in 5 years, or even 10 years, i'm going to be pissed. They need to find a way to allow consumers to either transfer or download movies (we already own) to our computers or another format. I'm not holding my breath, but since about 1998, i have:
1. replaced my VHS with DVD
2. replaced my DVD's with BD (just a year ago)
so in 12 years i've purchased 3 sets of my movie collection, granted each time i've added/subtracted a few. But it's damn frustrating! Granted taht's exactly what the Movie/TV industry wants, but it's pissing me off!
I think we all (as consumers) need to find a way to lobby against this kind of theiving of from the industry. And they constantly wine and complain they are loosing more money every year to pirating. Well maybe if they didn't gouge thier consumer base so much, we wouldn't have to download stuff!
WOW, this was alittle trolly, sorry!
HDMI, but still no Blu-ray drive?
C'mon, Apple - now you're just being needlessly stubborn. Add it as a goddam option and get it over with.
Indeed, it does seem stubborn.
That's a sad argument. The man said it's expensive 'cause it's the truth.
Nonsense. It's an opinion - or value judgment, if you will.
It may be expensive to you, but someone else may think it's a bargain. At what point is a computer 'expensive? $407.83? Or maybe it's $409.21?
Now, if he had said it was more expensive than the competition, he could provide competitive systems in the same size with the same hardware and the same quality and service for comparison - but he didn't do that, presumably because it's not possible.
Sales of putty knives will fall around the country to the great confusion of hardware store owners
she bought it at the Apple store. i don't exactly remember the conversation, other than the outcome made her just buy the "fully-Loaded" model because they were VERY hesitant about upgrading anything. I think the actual conversation was that upgrade cost alone would not be worth the money spent, so they encouraged just to have the RAM included in the computer she purchased. Since Apple Stores only sell the Base-Model and the Fully-Loaded-Model as your only options, upgrading can be costly and time consuming for THEM.
Personally, i've always purchased computers online or over the phone, customizing each option to my needs. I like purchasing low on RAM and upgrading in a couple years because it saves money (since tech. components usually go down in price over time) and i'm a pretty average user that doesn't need the top-line model right now. I've done this with the last 3 computers i've owned (since 1993) and it's always worked well.
The fact that Apple doesn't like to do this in the past, or charges you an arm and leg for is what's frustrating; until i saw that the new Mini will allow the user to change out the RAM now. That's a welcomed new direction. And, the fact they hid the access panel in a way that doesn't affect the "Apple Look" of the device is an added bonus.
Really though, for what the mini has for specs you wouldn't really need more than 2 gigs unless your running a lot of stuff. My buddy bought a macbook just recently. Same CPU and RAM I think and he thinks its quicker than his faster spec'ed quad core windows desktop with 2x the ram.
For what you get though, I really think that mini is about $100 too much. I would not bother with any upgrades. Ram will go down in price when you need it. Thats what I did with my iMac and it really paid off.
If you want a cheap computer buy a Dell. You just don't get it do you.
With customers like you Apple certainly gets it anyway. The thing is a rip off, there isn't two ways about it. It's a nice looking rip off though.
With customers like you Apple certainly gets it anyway.
Ireland! Where have ya been?
Scanning other forums, I think the consensus is that the Mini is now overpriced. This is not just from the usual PC fans looking for an opportunity to shout 'Apple Tax!', but also from true Apple fans who are disappointed with the increase. I predict this will be the number one item under discussion for this product for the next week or so, and then sales for the Mini (to the extent that anyone can track them reliably) will drop from the last model.
Apple makes some amazing products and runs a good business, but they are not above making mistakes. I think setting the entry point for Mac ownership at $700, without even including the monitor, keyboard, and mouse, is one such mistake.
Edit: It's already a separate article:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...pointment.html
I've been pretty pissed about the price increase as well. But if you go to dell's website and price out a 50/50 comparable machine (the Dell Studio Hybrid) it prices out at $689.
2.2 Ghtz w/ 3MB cache, 2 gigs ram, SD slot, HDMI, etc. So even though i'm pissed abotu the price of this, it's competitive. I guess it all boils down to components.
It still is a little amazing that you couldn't get the price down to at least $499 at the entry level.
Many people have defended it on the grounds that it is consistent with the proper business strategy of maximizing margins, i.e., percentage return on operating costs, as opposed to absolute profit without regards to operating costs or margins.
The defense is ostensibly valid, i.e., it would be correct, logically speaking, if in fact the CNC-machined approach were directly tied to that proper business strategy in the way that people who offer this defense assert that it is.
But the defense is a false defense. The correct business strategy is without question to maximize percentage return on operating costs. But the part that no one has ever demonstrated to any degree whatsoever, is how this correct understanding of business strategy demonstrates that the CNC-machined approach to building computers is a sound business decision, and not simply an obsession with a certain sort of quality.
Quality is always a subjective thing, but even if that were not the case, i.e., even if there were universal agreement that the CNC-machined approach adds genuine value to the machines, the defensive argument that has been offered is still logically disjointed. The reason is simply that there is not one scintilla of proof that computers have to be built this way lest margins suffer. I reiterate: there is not a scintilla of proof of this.
The point that many people seem to lack the ability to understand, is that when the number of units of a given product goes up, the enormous overhead associated with getting the product to production is prorated over a greater quantity of units, which manifestly lowers the total per-unit cost for the manufacturer. Thus, it is manifest that any strategy that successfully increases the number of units of a particular product can be a successful strategy for lowing the per-unit cost to the manufacturer and thereby improve the margins associated with that product. This is business 101, as it were, and yet there are many, many people on this forum and elsewhere who repeatedly say stuff that contradicts this simple, well-established truth. It is a logical fallacy to simplistically equate an improvement in margins, as a percentage of operating costs, to products that cost more to produce and that consequently cost more to the consumer and that consequently sell in lower volume. The defense that various people have offered, to the use of CNC-machining for making computers, is dead simply a bogus defense.
I have long maintained, and still maintain because I am convinced that it is true, that if Apple were to sell computers priced more competitively with the PC market, that their margins would actually increase, not by some small amount that would hardly make it worth the trouble, but by an enormous amount.
I believe this for two reasons:
(1.) Most people who choose to buy a PC do so because (rightly or not) they believe that the PC is more affordable.
(2.) There is no obvious reason why Apple would not be able to make computers just as cheaply as all the other PC makers.
When I say "cheaply", I am of course talking about the cost of manufacturing. Many people will of course jump in and claim that if you do that, quality will suffer. Well, quality will suffer, but the question is whether the reduction in quality, as assessed by the minions who go to Best Buy to purchase a generic PC, obviates the reason for purchasing an Apple computer. I can not think of a single reason why this should be so. If the CNC machining is spared, and the manufacturing is more in line with the way that most other manufacturers make computers, this should not significantly detract from the perception of quality, by the minions who buy a PC. In fact, the perception of quality should not go down very much at all, but the production cost would go down by a substantial amount. The computer could be sold at a much lower price, which would have the effect of an enormous increase in sales, bringing about an immediate and appreciable boost in margins, as a percentage of operating cost.
Apple's present business strategy does not make sound business sense. They are doing damed well to be sure. But you can be doing damed well and still not be doing nearly as well as you could be doing, and this is the case with Apple. I am 100% convinced of this.
There is only one rational argument that throws a wrench into this. If it should happen that people who presently are willing to pay the premium price for the Apple product would opt for the lower-priced Apple product if it were available at a lower price, then Apple would lose sales on those higher-priced products. If this were to happen, it is manifest that this could potentially have a negative impact on overall margins. But it is far from obvious that this would happen, and I am inclined to think that it would not happen. I am inclined to think that as long as the higher-priced products are adequately distinguished from the lower-priced products in terms of material and in terms of performance, then I see no reason to think that the present market for Apple computers would migrate to the lower-priced Apple product.
Why can't there be a Mini made the old-fashioned, cheaper way, selling alongside the newer, sexier, CNC-machined aluminum Mini? Evidently, Apple believes that if they were to do that, that it would steal sales from the sexy, aluminum Mini, and that the sales would be split between the two such that the product development overhead would prorate to a higher per-unit cost for each version. I cannot rule this out, but if the concern is valid, then the other way to manage this concern is simply not to commence development of the CNC-machined version in the first place, and to stick with the cheaper production method for this, the low-end, affordable version of the Apple computer. It will be very interesting to observe the change in the sales numbers for the new Mini as compared to the old, over the next year or so. Of course, even if the public has access to those numbers, it won't be worth much unless you also know the per-unit margins for both the old model and the new model.
The bottom line is that even after having puzzled over this for a couple of years now, I remain fully convinced that this CNC-machining business does not actually have much at all to do with maximizing margins as a percentage of operating costs. Rather, I am convinced that all it is really about is an obsession with making products that strive to a certain subjective sort of quality, with absolute indifference to any business reality. This is my opinion, and like everyone else, I am entitled to have and to share my opinion.
I believe that would be the green "power on" light. It is far too small to be an IR port, or even a paper clip hole--as some have suggested.
The "square" is the IR sensor, the "circle" is the power-light.
I think they are moving the Mini slightly upmarket. I think at the $500-$600 pricepoint they had limited options w/r/t video/cpu cost. At the new pricepoint, with a more attractive design, they will try to leave behind the "entry level" or "basic" impressions and market as their proper desktop sans monitor.
I still can't buy it without a current processor (i5). Maybe we will see that for Christmas.
Apple can't do an i5 with integrated nvidia graphics due to intels licensing restrictions. Apple using an i5 in the mini would require a discreet graphics card or settling for intels crappy integrated graphics.
For those of you complaining about the price, have you ever built a computer? You can spend <$50 on a case and power supply or you can spend a couple hundred (or more). Neither setup will change the specs of the machine, but your choice will greatly influence the cost. Apple shrunk the mini, switched to a unibody enclosure, and integrated the power supply. That is impressive, it's not surprising that they want to be paid extra for it.
The "square" is the IR sensor, the "circle" is the power-light.
Is that thing sticking its tongue out at me?
As a side note, now that the PSU is located within the housing, I wonder just how hot that sucker will get what with the CPU, GPU, PSU, HDD, and up to 8GBs of RAM confined into a 1.4" x 7.7" space.