$100 increase for Apple's redesigned Mac mini seen as disappointment

1568101114

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 274
    i386i386 Posts: 91member
    Apart from being too pricey w/o keyboard or mouse, it's still not the ideal Home Cinema in a box device.



    SD slot on the back, not practical, either the side or better still the front.



    Concerning Blueray, Some 3rd party will make a USB BD drive in the same facade once OSX supports BD playback.



    Maybe Apple should offer, say DVD Player Pro for $29 or something, you know people would buy it to play all their BD stuff.



    Also if they included a wireless remote touch pad controller and the App Store w. Games then maybe it would be worth 800 Eur., (but maybe the new Apple TV will be this though).



    I mean 800 Eur are they mad?
  • Reply 142 of 274
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    It's been pointed out yes, but poorly, and incorrectly.



    Late 2009 Mini:

    Middle: 2.53GHz 4GB RAM 320GB hdd 9400M OS X $799



    Mid 2010 Mini:

    Base: 2.4GHz 2GB RAM 320GB hdd 320M OS X $699



    Slower cpu, less ram, faster GPU. <sarcasm>Yes, OH so improved </sarcasm>



    OK, I missed the memory difference, but add $100 for memory to bump it up to $799, and I'll bet the new graphics with the incrementally slower CPU is a net performance gain. It's still not correct to compare it to the previous low-end model and declare it a price increase on that basis. If anything they held the line on the price and it has other upgrades.



    As I said, one can correctly argue that they raised the entry price, but it's not like they jacked it up without giving the buyer more.
  • Reply 143 of 274
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    It's been pointed out that the new Mini, at $699, out-specs the old $799 Mini. So this isn't a price hike, it's a $100 price cut on an upgrade, despite what the title of the article implies.



    The "price hike" is just an illusion based on elimination of the low-end model. One can argue that the entry price has been "hiked", which is a valid point, but the Mini price, based on specs, has been cut.



    Stop talking sense. That'll never work.
  • Reply 144 of 274
    quevarquevar Posts: 101member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    It's been pointed out yes, but poorly, and incorrectly.



    Late 2009 Mini:

    Middle: 2.53GHz 4GB RAM 320GB hdd 9400M OS X $799



    Mid 2010 Mini:

    Base: 2.4GHz 2GB RAM 320GB hdd 320M OS X $699



    Slower cpu, less ram, faster GPU. <sarcasm>Yes, OH so improved </sarcasm>



    I'm glad someone finally pointed this out correctly. If this was release 8 months ago, it would have made sense at this price point, but Apple basically released the average of the two previous models in terms of price and specs. The only two additional items were the HDMI port, which could have been done through the mini display port, and the new body, which is entirely aesthetic.



    From a business standpoint, it would make sense to have the lower priced version there, even if few people buy it since there is definitely an up-sell component to having the price listed lower for the entry model.
  • Reply 145 of 274
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Perhaps I should have said "... based on some of your posting history."



    Or, you could have just not said anything, and avoided looking like a butt-hurt fanboy?



  • Reply 146 of 274
    Apple used to make an XServe cluster node years ago.

    I would like to see Apple made an Mac mini cluster node.



    Take the new design and replace the 2 hard drives with a single 32GB SSD.

    - SD card slot

    - Audio jacks

    - Mini Displayport

    - 3 USB



    put in the beefiest CPU that enclosure can handle.



    This would also be great for dedicated tasks such as digital signage.
  • Reply 147 of 274
    iansilviansilv Posts: 283member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    If that is failure, what would be success?



    If it folded up. i want the iPAd to fold up, so it is smaller. And then unfold. And stuff.
  • Reply 148 of 274
    O.K. First of all this New Mac Mini should have stayed $599. Then to add insult to injury, they want $150 to upgrade to a 2.66 ghz processor. That is only .26 ghz faster. You would think that you would get more for $150, like a GT version of the Video card.
  • Reply 149 of 274
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LongDukDong View Post


    Or, you could have just not said anything, and avoided looking like a butt-hurt fanboy?







    Well, he claims he found it valuable, so
  • Reply 150 of 274
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,658member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Stop talking sense. That'll never work.



    Well, it's not often I'm accused of that. Thought I'd fly it as a trial balloon, see how it goes.
  • Reply 151 of 274
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NomadMac View Post


    it should have had Blu Ray. Doesn't that seem logical?



    I have a feeling that Apple is hoping to avoid BR as long as possible. It seems to me that HD (true 1080) downloads will come along in the not too distant future and maybe Apple is looking to avoid BR just like Flash-on-mobile??



    Personally I haven't bought any BR movies yet because of the price! I just can't bring myself to pay double for a BR disc.



    KRR
  • Reply 152 of 274
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post


    the CPU is not fast enough for HTPC. i don't need to browse the web on my TV, i need to be able to do some hard core trans coding......



    If you have to transcode all your content before you can watch it then you don't have anything near a true HTPC. Install Perian and you can run pretty much every codec and container via QuickTime.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jerseymac View Post


    Regarding Blu Ray, can you not buy an external Blu Ray player and connect it to the USB on the Mac Mini? Thought I read someplace the software doesn't support it.



    The Mac OS doesn't support AACS, but Windows does and the HW supports HDCP so if you boot into Windows you can plug in an external Blu-ray drive and play protected Blu-ray media.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Sadly, even I was somewhat disappointed by the new Mini's offering. My only wish was for it to have a quad-core option. We were waiting to see what Apple would introduce.



    I don't know of any Quad-core option for notebooks that have under a 45W TDP. I don't think those come out until 2011.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    apple currently sells an iPod Touch for $199(30% profit margin).

    remove the display(glass, touch membrane, LCD, backlight).

    remove the headphone jack and dock connector.

    add an HDMI port, A4 chip.



    BOOM! new AppleTV $99 (Apple will sell the device at cost and make the profit on increased app, music, movie, and miscellaneous hardware sales)



    Yes, the current AppleTV's days are numbered.

    We will probably see the new AppleTV this Fall before the holidays.

    ---

    Also consider Steve's comments about a "go to market strategy" at the All Things Digital conference recently.



    I was taking the idea one step further. You basically need a device about the size of the iPod Nano built into a stand that offers a few ports. I look at the new iPhone 4's logic board and it's tiny. Surely, it doesn't have to be that small, but it could be and still push high-profile 1080p content.



    Either way, I think we're both right about a cheap TV coming in short order based on A4 and iOS. I think the iPod Special Event is the perfect time to demo this great stocking stuffer.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    OK, I missed the memory difference, but add $100 for memory to bump it up to $799, and I'll bet the new graphics with the incrementally slower CPU is a net performance gain. It's still not correct to compare it to the previous low-end model and declare it a price increase on that basis. If anything they held the line on the price and it has other upgrades.



    As I said, one can correctly argue that they raised the entry price, but it's not like they jacked it up without giving the buyer more.



    SSquirrel makes a point, his sarcasm notwithstanding, but he also ignores the other new design changes to the Mac Mini that could very well increase its price.



    That's not to say that it makes it the price any easier to swallow, but I have to think that Apple knows exactly what they are doing. How many here who have bought Mac Minis went for the cheapest model and didn't upgrade to a more expensive model? That's one reason why Apple could have gone with a pricer model. How many here would never consider a Mac Mini because it's just too little machine for the money, even at $500, since most of us don't mind if a desktop system takes up more space than a box of chocolates? Count me in this group.
  • Reply 153 of 274
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by universeman View Post


    Who wants to own a movie when they're all available for streaming? One day. I have never understood why people would want to have racks of plastic discs in their living rooms.



    I agree. I stopped buying discs (movie and music) long time ago. I have them downloaded in both channels and now I don't have to worry about storage, scratches and changing disc every time i want to watch or hear different titles. I wish my game consoles have the same approach. ATM, if I have 3 new games that I juts bought, I need to swap the discs to play and that's the main reason I hesitates more... Yes, I'm lazy but then that is progress



    I too disappointed with the new Mini.. I don't mind the price increase if they shipped it with newer processor like Core i5 or at least i3. I still can use my student discount but Core Duo CPU is a 'failed' both on Apple and Intel part. I don't care at all about the Blu-Ray drives. Not necessary for both now and the future as the way I sees it. It also Apple's strategy and I agree.
  • Reply 154 of 274
    muncywebmuncyweb Posts: 157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 2 cents View Post


    ........feds should investigate them and leave the good companies (BP, massey energy, etc alone). Those companies are doing such wonderful things....



    Oh absolutely. Filling the ocean with oil is a huge step forward.
  • Reply 155 of 274
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MuncyWeb View Post


    Oh absolutely. Filling the ocean with oil is a huge step forward.



    See, that's why everyone needs to get off BP's back¡ If we just let them continue their selfless effort to completely drain the oceans of oil this will never happen again¡ If not by an accident this oil would have evnetually leaked naturally at some point in the Earth's geologic future. These guys are heroes¡









    (I'm so not serious)
  • Reply 156 of 274
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NomadMac View Post


    it should have had Blu Ray. Doesn't that seem logical?



    I quite agree. It's all very well people repeatedly saying Apple doesn't believe in Blu-ray but until there's a suitable home cinema system provided by Apple or others that uses a hard drive, optical broadband nationwide (I'm in the UK) and a better price point for downloads and HD downloads of as high a standard as Blu-ray then people will buy Blu-ray discs and for that reason Apple should at least make their systems compatible and make the streaming/download service a better prospect.
  • Reply 157 of 274
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post


    Say what you will, i respect that. But i don't think it's any coincidence that the aTV and Mac Mini keep getting closer and closer to converging into a HTPC product. They took the HDMI from the aTV and put it on the Mini, they Put Front Row on the Mac, which is essentially the aTV UI. Now they are making the phyical devices almost identical in size (save for the height). They are even marketing the Mini on the Apple site as a HTPC; as well as adding a TimeMachine/Capsule features built-in.



    If you look at the Progression of the iDevices Apple offers.

    2001 - First was the iPod - music

    then video in 2003-04

    Then in 2007 the iPHone - phone, internet, music video

    Then in 2010 the iPad - larger form factor (Close to netbook screen) music, video, interent, books, iWork

    throw-in the aTV inbetween



    The product's screen gets bigger, they put more and more OSx Functionality in it. Every 3-4 years they make a major hardware/software update that's "game changing". I'm telling you, perhaps you haven't looked into thier update schedules historically, but i'm going to safely bet we'll see a iOSx aTV or a dumbed-down Mac Mini HTPC in the next 2-4 years. The two platforms WILL converge at some point in the near future; either as seperate ideas or a whole new device called "iHome" or "iTV".



    Apple makes small incremental steps, so say what you want, it's coming.



    You're looking at it completely wrong. First of all what you described was divergence, not convergence. Convergence would be a Mac mini with an Apple TV UI (or an iOS emulator, if Apple TV gains iOS) replacing Front Row, but still running full OSX. Essentially you'd have macs with an Apple TV mode that was easily accessible. I could see something like that coming in 10.7. What I could not see happening is the Mac Mini being split (diverging) into two computing lines, with one of them solely dedicated to media playback, running iOS on hardware that can't even support it (natively). All for what amounts to a minimal discount from a full fledged computing platform. That seems like an even worse strategy than the current Apple TV.



    Lets look at this another way. The 16GB iPad costs $499 and is capable of playing back anything in the iTunes store. Take out some of the largest and most expensive components (the screen and the battery) and add a TV UI and you have a tiny, capable, and cheap set top box that absolutely sips power (it can run off USB power).



    A revamped Apple TV will spawn from iPhone/iPad hardware if it's running iOS. There is no need for any of the Mac Mini hardware to show up in a new Apple TV, and if iPad hardware is used, there would be a ton of empty space in a case with the same footprint as mac mini or current apple TV. The Mini isn't supplementing Apple TV in that form factor, it is replacing it. Apple TV is likely destined for much bigger things (by becoming smaller and cheaper).
  • Reply 158 of 274
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don't know of any Quad-core option for notebooks that have under a 45W TDP. I don't think those come out until 2011.



    SSquirrel makes a point, his sarcasm notwithstanding, but he also ignores the other new design changes to the Mac Mini that could very well increase its price.



    That's not to say that it makes it the price any easier to swallow, but I have to think that Apple knows exactly what they are doing. How many here who have bought Mac Minis went for the cheapest model and didn't upgrade to a more expensive model? That's one reason why Apple could have gone with a pricer model. How many here would never consider a Mac Mini because it's just too little machine for the money, even at $500, since most of us don't mind if a desktop system takes up more space than a box of chocolates? Count me in this group.



    I believe in clearly labeled sarcasm for less confusion on text forums I'm well aware of the other changes that add cost (mainly the miniaturization of the power unit and the size of the Mini overall, plus the all aluminum nature), but the size of the Mini was fine before, so the other changes add no value for me.



    (crossposting from the Arstechnica thread with some additions)

    See I wanted Apple to go the opposite direction with the Mini. Hell, even if it was 10x10x6 it would be almost 2/3 the volume of a Shuttle PC. The original 8x8x8 Cube dimensions are even smaller still. Don't shrink it, make it bigger, start upgrading the entire desktop lineup to i5 cpus. An i5 with 4GB RAM and a DX11 ATI card at a reasonable price would have been complete switch-bait for me. I have a large desktop PC at home right now that is definitely more powerful than the Mini. I like the idea of switching to Mac, but the Mini as it exists currently is not the device to entice that switch. i5 with good graphics, yep, I woulda been there with bells on.



    Steve is obsessed with making everything as small as possible (unless it's the Mac Pro, in which case it's ginormous) so no go on that. Dimensions like I talk about would have been more in line with the long debated XMac and something like that priced at $800 or even $900 would have been more expensive, but a much greater value.



    The original purpose of the Mini was to have an inexpensive Mac to help induce switchers. Clearly that is less of a concern for them these days.
  • Reply 159 of 274
    cory bauercory bauer Posts: 1,286member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by universeman View Post


    Who wants to own a movie when they're all available for streaming?



    People who rewatch movies more than once and don't want to pay $4.99 every time they do it? People who don't want their movie to expire after 24 hours once they start watching it? I can rent Blu-Ray's by mail and have the best audio and video quality possible at home, and they don't cost me $5 a piece; and, if I don't watch it in 24 hours someone doesn't break into my house and take it back.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by universeman View Post


    One day.



    Don't hold your breath. Unlike discs, streaming content will always be limited by distribution windows; many movies aren't available day-and-date with the disc, many are only available for 60-90 days, and many more will never be available at all. You'll never see an endless library of movies built the way Apple has with music, which is why the disc will live much longer than streaming enthusiasts like to believe.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by universeman View Post


    I have never understood why people would want to have racks of plastic discs in their living rooms.



    The only way you lose a physical disc collection is by robbery or fire, both of which are covered by insurance. You can lose your entire digital collection in an instant with a hard drive failure, which is guaranteed to happen eventually with non solid-state drives, and there's zero reimbursement.
  • Reply 160 of 274
    mitchelljdmitchelljd Posts: 163member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by masternav View Post


    ...in case you missed the background - Blu-Ray drives are seeing much higher than average error rates, and are widely seen as an incremental upgrade to DVD. With other technology already queuing up to replace it - let me remind you of Steve Jobs comments at WWDC - that Apple always looks at and evaluates the forward value of a technology as they decide whether it should be included in their footprint. That being said, you can buy from a nice selection of external Blu-ray drives to attach to your computing device, which means that Apple doesn't have to install it in the case itself.



    btw a "fifteen year flash-in-the-pan" constitutes a conflagration by any fire-fighting standards - so you may want to find another expression for a "temporary market anomaly spanning a decade and a half and a wide variety of devices producing unprecedented profitability and success for a previously pre-humously pronounced dead corporate entity".



    Glad I could help you out there.







    ok please, Blu-Ray is fantastic. lots of people enjoy them and have collections of them. including myself. Many of us are also in places where you can not do VOD or streaming. Not everyone wants that all the time.



    so... they ought to give consumers the OPTION to do BLU-RAY on the mac. not just tell them they can't which is what Apple is doing.



    Also... for the $100 price increase, which is what this is... apple ought to have



    1- HDMI (check)

    2- Blu-Ray playback (not done) there are plenty of Superdrives which can read BD also.

    3- Nvidia 330m chip (not done) this is a much better graphics chip than the 320m



    all in all, i think this is a nice update, just slightly overpriced.
Sign In or Register to comment.