I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
Thunderbolt is limited for video pci-e x4 -over head slows down video cards and eats up all of TB bus.
Why not put the card on the unused 8-12 pci-e lanes and have 2 TB ports on the other x8 lanes.
Apple likes to separate buyers out into clear categories though and the Cube covers a broad range. A Cube would also have a lot of potential to ruin what they've done with the iMac as people will spec up the cheaper Cube and buy a cheap screen.
Doesn't matter one bit what they've done with the iMac. I'll never buy an all in one. The mini is below my needs and the Mac Pro is overkill. So with its current offerings Apple has separated this buyer into a clear category that Apple doesn't have.
I would gladly pay $1500 for a Mac the size pictured above.
Doesn't matter one bit what they've done with the iMac. I'll never buy an all in one. The mini is below my needs and the Mac Pro is overkill. So with its current offerings Apple has separated this buyer into a clear category that Apple doesn't have.
I would gladly pay $1500 for a Mac the size pictured above.
What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
My view on this is that both the Mini and the Mac Pro are overdue for a major overhaul. Personally I think what should happen is that Apple kill off both models and replace them with one device that can be ordered with as much power as the end user requires. The key piece to making this possible is that Thunderbolt now makes external expansion viable.
Actually I see just the opposite in regards to the Mini, the coming technology will turn the Mini into a tiny power house of performance. Everybody is all excited about Sandy Bridge, which is good but AMDs Llano will be here next month with far better GPU performance and it actually runs at a lower power point doing so. A year from now the IVY Bridge and Llano follow ons will be even more powerful. The point is little boxes these days will be delivering surprising performance.
As to the Mac Pro I tend to agree, the whole thing needs to be scraped. What I'd like to see Apple do here is to deliver to dramatically different configurations in the same basic chassis. One would run a main stream processor with a reasonable GPU on the motherboard. Performance and storage options beyond the Mini is the goal here.
The other would be a direct replacement for the current Pro. This model would come with additional rack mounting hardware and be built with ultimate performance and flexibility in mind. The idea behind using the same basic chassis is economics, let the high columella model pay for the chassis the high performance model is built upon. While these two machines will look dramatically different than today's Pro I think Apple can pull off a chassis that is flexible enough for the purpose and acceptable to users.
What it comes down to is this, there is a real advantage for many users in a desktop chassis that is affordable and has some expansion capability. Apple doesn't currently have this midrange solution. There will always beep some demand for all out performance in a Mac so Apple still needs a machine optimized for all out computational performance, a "Pro" if you will. The problem here is that volumes on the Pro suck. I believe they suck to the point where Apple is seriously considering cutting the machine from the lineup. So they need a configuration that drives volume.
Quote:
As a result, one doesn't need a large tower that can accommodate lots of storage.
Totally bogus. For professional usage I only see internal storage needs going up.
Quote:
Right now I have a 3TB drive running via Firewire 800 off my Mini and the performance is fine for what I need. With the speed of Thunderbolt, all manner of high-performance drive solutions could be employed outside the base device with the necessary throughput to do heavy lifting.
And plug up your high performance I/O channel with disk traffic? This idea that Thunderbolt is some magic solution to the issue of disk storage just needs to die - the sooner the better. Professional users simply have to have internal storage options if for nothing else to keep tha I/O channel free for it's primary use.
If Apple where to come out with such a Pro I would suspect that pro users would drop it like the proverbial lead ballon. It is an exceedingly bad idea for the Pros intended market. Frankly external drives are not even a good idea for us more modest users.
Quote:
So you develop an enclosure not much larger than the original Cube (a behemoth placed alongside the current Mini) that offers desktop performance varying from decent to high-end professional grade with a starting price of about $800 and ranging up to around $2,000.
While I believe Apple needs to rethink it's approach to pro users the Cube would be another joke in my mind. The previous Cube was a bit of a disaster if you ask me. Apple needs to put as much thought into serviceability as they have their current Pro laptops.
Quote:
Such a device would, I think, meet the needs of most if not all of those already using headless Mac desktops. There would be a cost saving for Apple because development would be reduced down to one form factor.
one form factor would be a huge mistake.
Quote:
On the pro side, there would be a significant cost saving compared to buying the existing Mac Pro model and on the consumer side, for similar prices to the Mini, much better performance would be offered. I can't see the down side of this for anyone.
Oh come on with this "I can't see the down side of this for anyone.". Pro users can not get by on a Cube sized machine. This thought is so bogus that I suspect many Pro users will wake up totally enraged at the idea.
Quote:
If there is a reasonable explanation of why Apple isn't going in this direction, I'd love to hear it.
It is pretty clear you don't grasp the needs of Pro users or you would never had made some of the statements above. Pro users aren't like the rest of us, machine performance is dollars to them. Middle of the road users have never had an Apple solution, at least not in the last few years. The iMac is a middle of the road performer, but in the context of desktop boxes Apple has had nothing.
Quote:
By the way, if this is about the long term, certainly one has to ask, what's the value of having the Mac Pro if even the lesser models in the range can handle pro-calibre demands.
They can't. You really seem to misunderstand where most Mac Pros go. Some of these guys update with every Mac Pro release because they need that performance.
The new iMacs are certainly more powerful but that means little in this context. They certainly can handle more advanced work but they are machines for bleeding edge work where CPU time is money.
Quote:
Certainly if one is running a business, saving money has to be regarded as a good thing. If a mid-range model can be configured with enough variations to meet many needs, that's a win/win.
Exactly. I understood Apples needs many years ago to trim the Mac line up. The company was on hard times. This is no longer the case and frankly sales have been fantastic. They really need to round out the line to keep momentum moving forward. Many business won't even touch a Mac these days because there is nothing that fits their needs.
Quote:
Apple didn't have the technology to offer one form factor to meet multiple needs before but it is there now. As such, why not take advantage of it? After all, if the headless desktop has become more of a niche product, why fragment your offerings for that segment.
Fragmentation and proper pricing equals more sales. For example nothing we have talked about here would dramatically impact Mini sales. I actually see Mini sales getting stronger in the coming years. Like wise power users will always want a full blown PC that is bleeding edge. The only thing Apple doesn't have is a headless midrange Mac, something in the iMacs range of performance. So such a headless Mac will impact iMac sales some, but I believe at a far lower rate than many think. In actuality such a Mac would drive sales.
Quote:
Not the way that Apple usually does business. Seems to me that there has been so much focus on other products that Apple's usually rational approach hasn't been applied to its headless desktop range.
I don't know what all the problems are. It is pretty obvious to me that Mac Pro sales suck. IMac and the Mini on hpthe other hand seem yo do fine. It does look like a failure with respect to management taking advantage of the Macs growing popularity. There is also a slow but real interest growing where people are ditching laptops in favor of a desktop and a tablet combo. It does seem like Apple is asleep at the wheel here.
In any event the only machine right now that has a strong future is the Mini on the desktop. By the time Ivy Brdge gets plugged into that little box it will be a cool running power house. For people with modest GPU and storage needs it will be a bargain. Just imagine a machine with a twenty watt CPU that quadruples current performance, needs no extra hardware for Thunderbolt and finally has a sort of decent Intel GPU built in. The future looks really bright for the small form factor.
What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
This is clearly not the case. If anything Apple is following a trend here. For many Mini buyers the platform offers something that can't be had with traditional hardware. Of course that varies with the individual so there is no sense in enumerating all the potential reasons. However extremely low power usage is often a factor.
Quote:
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
Extremely odd if you ask me. As stated before I can understand the compact line up years ago but not now. Especially in a context where they have the hearts and minds of many new customers.
This is clearly not the case. If anything Apple is following a trend here. For many Mini buyers the platform offers something that can't be had with traditional hardware. Of course that varies with the individual so there is no sense in enumerating all the potential reasons. However extremely low power usage is often a factor.
Extremely odd if you ask me. As stated before I can understand the compact line up years ago but not now. Especially in a context where they have the hearts and minds of many new customers.
It would be interesting to find out just how many Mini buyers purchased the product because of its small size. I can only speak for myself. I didn't buy the Mini because it is compact but rather because I couldn't justify spending close to $3,000 for a Mac Pro being as I'm not a professional. The iMac is not an option because I can't justify paying for a monitor that will have to be thrown out before its time when the computer attached to it dies.
If this is about the server market, there is a simple solution. Continue to offer the current Mini in server form with the occasional update as older technology is no longer available.
If we're talking about an incredibly small number of folks who really need an ultra-portable desktop tower, why should Apple cater to such a small group at the expense of a larger segment who just want a decent desktop unit to mate with a good monitor and assorted peripherals. Right now customers like me are paying a price in terms of bang for the buck to accommodate a few thousand others who want and/or need the smallest form factor possible. I'm an Apple customer and will continue to be one but I can't say that I like what's happening.
While I believe Apple needs to rethink it's approach to pro users the Cube would be another joke in my mind. The previous Cube was a bit of a disaster if you ask me. Apple needs to put as much thought into serviceability as they have their current Pro laptops.
<snip>
Fragmentation and proper pricing equals more sales. For example nothing we have talked about here would dramatically impact Mini sales. I actually see Mini sales getting stronger in the coming years. Like wise power users will always want a full blown PC that is bleeding edge. The only thing Apple doesn't have is a headless midrange Mac, something in the iMacs range of performance. So such a headless Mac will impact iMac sales some, but I believe at a far lower rate than many think. In actuality such a Mac would drive sales.
I think the Cube was before its time. Back then enough horsepower couldn't be squeezed into a package that small. But today the horsepower of the iMac could be put into a cube sized Mac. But I must agree with your statement that it needs to be designed for serviceability.
And a mid range Mac (the type of Mac I want) could lead to more overall sales. After this weekend messing with my mother in laws Windows PC I was thinking how either a mini or iMac might be a good replacement for her. But I won't be chunking out money on one for her when I'm still dealing with my old Mac. Give me my Mac and I'll start looking at Apple's other products.
Doesn't matter one bit what they've done with the iMac. I'll never buy an all in one.
What I mean is that with the AIO form factor, they've forced IPS displays onto the consumer without them having to appreciate why it's better. Kind of like a parent forcing their kids to eat vegetables.
By separating the two, people inevitably shop around for the lowest price and don't take care to choose a high quality display, which pretty much undoes their efforts.
I'm in the same boat though and would probably never buy an AIO machine. If it had easy access to storage maybe but I don't like glossy displays.
What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
It's called an iMac.
I like the compact size of the mini as a desktop as it fits under my HDTV. A Cube, not so much.
The Mac Pro is a workstation and not a desktop. As in it is designed for more rigorous computational needs with more CPUs and ECC memory. They often aren't sporting the stock radeons they come with but Quadros. Odd though that it's no longer on the MP BTO list.
Mac Pro users are typically not constrained by budget as much as time.
What it comes down to is this, there is a real advantage for many users in a desktop chassis that is affordable and has some expansion capability. Apple doesn't currently have this midrange solution.
It doesn't want it or it would exist. It can't make more money with it or it would exist.
AIOs, SFF and workstation computers are the only desktop computers with healthy margins. These are the only desktop computers Apple builds. I wonder if there's a connection?
After this weekend messing with my mother in laws Windows PC I was thinking how either a mini or iMac might be a good replacement for her. But I won't be chunking out money on one for her when I'm still dealing with my old Mac. Give me my Mac and I'll start looking at Apple's other products.
If Apple thinks that HD3000 graphics are good enough for a 13" MBP, they probably think the same for the MM (even if those are not in the same category). Historically, the MM has followed loosely the specs of the 13" MB/MBP. I don't think this will change for the next refresh.
I believe that the regular MM will mimic the 13" MBP configurations (except RAM):
It can't make more money with it or it would exist.
But without that mid range product Apple is losing sales whether it admits it or not. The numbers may be small but they are real. Every Hackintosh is a lost sale (at least the hardware part of it). Not every one of those would have bought a mid range Mac but some of them would have.
I've been using Macs for close to 20 years. But I find that my computer needs do not fit within Apple's current product line up. So what does Apple want me to do? Buy an all in one even though I don't like them? Buy a mini that does not offer everything I need in a computer? Buy the Mac Pro that is overkill for my needs plus is more than I can spend?
My choices are complain to Apple in writing and on forums to try to convince it to expand its product line so that I can continue to be a Mac user or give up and switch to Windows.
Personally I'd rather keep complaining but time marches on and the Mac I have won't last forever. I'll soon have to make a choice and I'm thinking that my chances of staying Mac are getting slim.
I like the compact size of the mini as a desktop as it fits under my HDTV. A Cube, not so much.
The Mac Pro is a workstation and not a desktop. As in it is designed for more rigorous computational needs with more CPUs and ECC memory. They often aren't sporting the stock radeons they come with but Quadros. Odd though that it's no longer on the MP BTO list.
Mac Pro users are typically not constrained by budget as much as time.
The iMac? You mean that rather appealing device that is an environmental disaster. Take a monitor that has a likely lifespan of at least 12 years and combine it with components that you're lucky to get half that life out of, and not without replacing components along the way. Brilliant.
Instead, if you don't get all wound up over some minor desktop clutter, you can have a monitor that lasts as long as it lasts, outliving no doubt the computer equipment it's attached to. Besides, considering how much computer technology advances from year to year, do you really think anyone would be happy about running 2011 technology in 2023, because that's what advocating the purchase of an iMac comes down to, unless one thinks it acceptable to throw away a functioning electronic device.
Some folks are comfortable with the poor value proposition (considered long term) offered by the iMac but others not so much. Telling me and others looking for a mid-range tower to stop complaining and just buy an iMac misses the point entirely.
It would be interesting to find out just how many Mini buyers purchased the product because of its small size. I can only speak for myself. I didn't buy the Mini because it is compact but rather because I couldn't justify spending close to $3,000 for a Mac Pro being as I'm not a professional. The iMac is not an option because I can't justify paying for a monitor that will have to be thrown out before its time when the computer attached to it dies.
I'm sure that your perspective is true for many. In fact the high cost of a Pro would lead me to a Mini right now if I wanted to abandon my laptop. So we suffer the same problem, which is Apple not having a midrange desktop machine.
My point is that doesn't mean the Mini isn't important in the line up. It fill a significant niche and I don't think Apple having a midrange would significantly impact sales of the Mini.
Quote:
If this is about the server market, there is a simple solution. Continue to offer the current Mini in server form with the occasional update as older technology is no longer available.
where did server come into the discussion?
Quote:
If we're talking about an incredibly small number of folks who really need an ultra-portable desktop tower, why should Apple cater to such a small group at the expense of a larger segment who just want a decent desktop unit to mate with a good monitor and assorted peripherals.
Well this is the problem I don't think the market for the Mini is small at all. If you don't have a problem with the shortcomings it is a very capable machine. Here are some common uses for the Mini:
A desktop PC. The obvious use.
A media center PC.
It is my understandign that one big automaker uses them as MMI PC's on their manufacturing floor (running windows).
Since you borught it up they are used for various sorts of server needs.
People who travel by RV or boat like them for being compact.
Slightly related to the above Minis are appreciated by people living off grid
The Mini is a great second computer for many people.
Students not doing the laptop route gavitate to the Mini as it is agian compact. (honestly I think most students have given up on desktops).
It is a low cost machine so if you are on a budget there is deamnd in that regard. In other words it is a low price entry point to the Apple world.
These are just off the top of my head.
Quote:
Right now customers like me are paying a price in terms of bang for the buck to accommodate a few thousand others who want and/or need the smallest form factor possible.
A few thousand? The Mini has been at times Apples hottest selling desktop machine.
Quote:
I'm an Apple customer and will continue to be one but I can't say that I like what's happening.
Honestly neither do I, the lack of a midrange hurts Apple . I just think that with the very positive things happening in the marketplace the need for a midrange (XMac) has never been stronger. Mind you I'm not saying Apple needs to build a massive box, in that regards even the Mac Pro needs a diet, what I'm after is a box that supports more than one internal drive, a real GPU (quickly becoming outdated), and more RAM. The box should have the capacity to run the CPU a bit hardware than is seen in the Mini, the idea begin performance about midrange or high end iMac like.
I think the Cube was before its time. Back then enough horsepower couldn't be squeezed into a package that small.
When I first got wind of the Mini I really thought that somebody at Apple dropped off the deep end. For me it represented Apple at its worst. That is high price hardware that treated design as the only important aspect of the platform and totally forgetting about performance, serviceability and user ergonomics. I was not surprised at all to see it fail in the marketplace.
Quote:
But today the horsepower of the iMac could be put into a cube sized Mac. But I must agree with your statement that it needs to be designed for serviceability.
Yes hardware is becoming very very dense. However dense hardware means less performance at this point in time. Mainly because of heat, an issue likely to change in the future.
I know many people on these forums don't like to hear about AMD but they have Llano coming out next month that really rocks if the online forums are to be believed. Due to an emphasis on GPU performance the this little high integration processor performs really well with respect to todays work loads. It actually runs cooler that Sandy Bridge while out performing it.
The point is these strides in integration means future machines like the Mini will be very powerful. At the same time they can enable midrange machines that run very cool.
Quote:
And a mid range Mac (the type of Mac I want) could lead to more overall sales.
Yes exactly! This is what I've been getting at, such a machine probably wouldn't impact the Mini sales that much at all. All I really want in this box is room for an additional disk drive, RAM and a GPU. Even the discrete GPU is likely to be optional in the near future as the on board devices are extremely powerful especially in the AMD line up.
Depending upon how aggressive Apple wants to be the new machine can be extremely compact. For example the use of a blade SSD for system/apps storage and two slots for big magnetic drives (bulk storage) would provide a lot of the capability I'm looking for. Oh and more RAM slots for RAM expansion beyond the Mini. Squeezing in a PCI-Express slot would be nice too. This does not have to be a massive machine, but I do see some commonality with a revised Mac Pro making both more feasible.
Now to back track a bit and cover AMD. I realize that AMD benchmarks the Llano in a way that show the best light upon the GPU hardware while ignoring the CPU. Obviously AMD has yet to migrate their latest CPU tech into the Fusion line up. The point is for many users this is exactly what they need, that is really good GPU performance and a bit of video decoding hardware.
Quote:
After this weekend messing with my mother in laws Windows PC I was thinking how either a mini or iMac might be a good replacement for her. But I won't be chunking out money on one for her when I'm still dealing with my old Mac. Give me my Mac and I'll start looking at Apple's other products.
The difference in support is massive, probably one of Apples best selling points. Before getting a MBP for use as my primary machine I used Linux, so I know the depths that one can sink to fiddling with things. Admittedly the fiddling on Linux was often of amore productive sort that trying to maintain a Windows machine.
In any event I'm waiting to see what Apple does with the Mini and any potential XMac like device. I just have this idea that the coming Mini will be a rather massive overall and much faster all around. It does make me wonder what they are waiting on, as Intel obviously has the hardware for the machine.
It doesn't want it or it would exist. It can't make more money with it or it would exist.
I don't really think you are even on the right track, Apple pretty much ignores the desktop line up. It doesn't really matter if we are talking Pro or Mini they simply don't get the attention the laptops do. Much of this, I believe, is a hold over form the dark days when they aggressively trimmed the hardware lineup to save the company.
From a managerial standpoint that is a smart thing to do. It sin't too smart though to leave your hardware in a rut. Effectively the desktop line up is buried in the mud and it looks like Apple is putting in zero effort to pull itself out of this dark ditch. Lets be honest her how much have the iMac, Pro and Mini changed over the last few years? Not much at all, just a long series of bumps.
Quote:
AIOs, SFF and workstation computers are the only desktop computers with healthy margins.
BS Apple can build a machine to sell at any margin they want too.
Quote:
These are the only desktop computers Apple builds. I wonder if there's a connection?
The only connection is neglect. This is suppose to be the year of "back to the Mac", maybe the meant the Mac Book(s). A good company strive to fill the needs of its customers. At times that requires re-examining how they do business and evaluating how the markets have changed. We as customers have real needs that the Mini doesn't fill and where works stations aren't the answer.
I'm sure that your perspective is true for many. In fact the high cost of a Pro would lead me to a Mini right now if I wanted to abandon my laptop. So we suffer the same problem, which is Apple not having a midrange desktop machine.
My point is that doesn't mean the Mini isn't important in the line up. It fill a significant niche and I don't think Apple having a midrange would significantly impact sales of the Mini.
where did server come into the discussion?
Well this is the problem I don't think the market for the Mini is small at all. If you don't have a problem with the shortcomings it is a very capable machine. Here are some common uses for the Mini:
A desktop PC. The obvious use.
A media center PC.
It is my understandign that one big automaker uses them as MMI PC's on their manufacturing floor (running windows).
Since you borught it up they are used for various sorts of server needs.
People who travel by RV or boat like them for being compact.
Slightly related to the above Minis are appreciated by people living off grid
The Mini is a great second computer for many people.
Students not doing the laptop route gavitate to the Mini as it is agian compact. (honestly I think most students have given up on desktops).
It is a low cost machine so if you are on a budget there is deamnd in that regard. In other words it is a low price entry point to the Apple world.
These are just off the top of my head.
A few thousand? The Mini has been at times Apples hottest selling desktop machine.
Honestly neither do I, the lack of a midrange hurts Apple . I just think that with the very positive things happening in the marketplace the need for a midrange (XMac) has never been stronger. Mind you I'm not saying Apple needs to build a massive box, in that regards even the Mac Pro needs a diet, what I'm after is a box that supports more than one internal drive, a real GPU (quickly becoming outdated), and more RAM. The box should have the capacity to run the CPU a bit hardware than is seen in the Mini, the idea begin performance about midrange or high end iMac like.
Many of the uses for the Mini that you list would be equally well served, perhaps better so, by a $900 machine in a somewhat larger enclosure. We're not talking a large enclosure anywhere close to the size of a Mac Pro. I don't think the device would have to be that much larger than the current Mini to accommodate the sort of desktop components found in the iMac. As such a desktop PC, obviously, would be what the proposed machine would be used for and if we're talking not a tower form factor but something more along the lines of let's say a PS3 in shape which would work fine as a media center PC. It would make a great second computer in base form, checking in at something less than $1,000. The Mini, as computers go these days, is by no means inexpensive. Here in Canada the entry model is $699 and that isn't, in of itself, a working unit. You need a keyboard, a mouse, and of course a monitor. If you consider 4GB of RAM to be a minimal amount of memory for today's uses and throw in a keyboard and mouse, the price in this country would climb to $897. The base iMac checks in at $1,199 so surely if Apple can deliver a $1,200 all-in-one it can bring in a $900 desktop minus the monitor. And keep in mind that the iMac comes in base form with a 500GB hard drive running at 7,200 RPM and a 2.5Ghz quadcore processor. If you were to boost the Mini up to 500GB and up the processor to 2.66 Ghz dual core and the Magic Mouse that comes standard with the iMac, the price would jump up to $1,132. That's not cheap and downright outrageous considering the similarly priced iMac offers dramatically more performance. If anything, considering the specs you'd be looking at, the larger desktop would be more cost-effective than the current MIni.
I don't agree that a mid-range desktop would fail to impact Mini sales. It would devastate them. Same money but far more performance. Do the math.
The key to all of this would be to offer up a versatile platform that could range from let's say $900 to around $2,000, meeting the needs of the vast majority of desktop customers. Trumping the Mini would be insanely easy for Apple to do. There is a huge price to pay for using laptop components in a desktop. The challenge comes at the other end of the spectrum. To make this work you've have to offer a form factor able to accommodate the components needed by pro customers. Not being an engineer, who am I to say that it can be done with something much smaller than the current Mac Pro yet somewhat larger than the Mini. In other words, just how much would the Mini have to be expanded to make pro pieces work and in so expanding that model, would it then cause problems at the bottom end of the market.
I don't agree that a mid-range desktop would fail to impact Mini sales. It would devastate them. Same money but far more performance. Do the math.
Trumping the Mini would be insanely easy for Apple to do. [/QUOTE]
Price point is the key. If Apple were to come out with a mid range Mac I doubt it would lower iMac sales more than 15%. Why? There are too many consumers, people who just buy computers or other products without doing much in the way of real thinking about the purchase. The iMac looks cool. It's all in one package, neat! Ding. That's a sale.
Customers think through the buying process a little more throughly. I'm not saying that iMac buyers don't think things through. I'm just saying that for any mass produced product from cars to computers there are more consumers than customers.
If Apple prices a mid range Mac strategically they can have a successful new product without destroying iMac sales. Give us most of what we are asking for, easy open case without needing putty knives or suction cups, room for two hard drives and the optical drive, easy to upgrade drives and RAM and perhaps one expansion slot and we will pay a small premium to have all of those things that aren't available in the iMac. I would gladly pay $1500 for that kind of mid range Mac. Any consumer looking at that price versus the price of an iMac with a built in screen would dismiss the mid range Mac as being a rip off. The consumer won't see the features we want as advantages. "It's bigger and doesn't come with a screen?" But for us it would be a drool worthy, gotta have computer.
As for trumping the mini? In one way Apple has painted itself into a corner. Having built something as small as the mini the know nothing media would rip into Apple for building something bigger. That is the biggest fear Apple has to contend with if it brings a mid range Mac to market. Apple would have to have a well thought out ad and marketing campaign to silence the clueless idiots.
The iMac? You mean that rather appealing device that is an environmental disaster. Take a monitor that has a likely lifespan of at least 12 years and combine it with components that you're lucky to get half that life out of, and not without replacing components along the way. Brilliant.
How many users still have a CRT from 1999? How many folks still using an ACD from 2005 on a current machine?
The iMac may or may not be brilliant but at least it is highly profitable and sells well.
Quote:
Instead, if you don't get all wound up over some minor desktop clutter, you can have a monitor that lasts as long as it lasts, outliving no doubt the computer equipment it's attached to.
I doubt most monitors really last much beyond 1 replacement cycle. And for Apple it more about the total user experience over clutter. An AIO is typically easier to setup and use.
Quote:
Besides, considering how much computer technology advances from year to year, do you really think anyone would be happy about running 2011 technology in 2023, because that's what advocating the purchase of an iMac comes down to, unless one thinks it acceptable to throw away a functioning electronic device.
I have a functioning Dell XPS P90 in my basement that will get tossed since I'm moving. I've already sent 4 CRTs cluttering the house to the recycling dump. So yes, it's okay to throw away a functioning electroinic device as we do it all the time.
I help refurb computers for a local school and those things are just useless.
Quote:
Some folks are comfortable with the poor value proposition (considered long term) offered by the iMac but others not so much. Telling me and others looking for a mid-range tower to stop complaining and just buy an iMac misses the point entirely.
You guys have been bitching about an xMac for a decade. The folks missing the point aren't the ones point out that you should move on. The iMac more than meets Apples need for a mid-tier computer between the mini and Mac Pro.
Comments
I personally don't mind the Mini form factor. I think it's a beautifully designed piece of hardware. The problem in making it bigger is that it's a solution for the present, not for the future. Computer components are shrinking and in a few years, the Mini will reach the performance of the Pro.
Current Macbook Pro entry level - 6440:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/408439
2008 quad 3GHz Mac Pro - 7268:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/348740
That's only 3 years for the entry-level consumer line to come close to the entry-level Pro line.
The next refresh to the i5 will double the performance of the Mini CPU to match the MBP. Next year, Ivy Bridge will be all quad-core. In another year, it will have reached double the performance it has at the next refresh, which brings it in line with the current top iMac and entry Pro.
If they built a machine in-between, they lose the low price buyers and have to build a large machine to accommodate the Pro components.
I do think they can make a slim Pro machine though and it can have a GPU like the iMac but it restricts people who want to upgrade the GPU for computing etc.
I'm sure Apple have thought much longer than anyone about what the best strategy to go with is and I think for the long term, their lineup works. In say 5 or 6 years, the Mini is going to be one powerful little computer. The iMac will have the selling point of touch interaction. The Mac Pro to me seems like the old room-sized mainframes. It's just a big box of parts.
They can certainly market it as the personal supercomputer if it gets 64 CPU cores or whatever but the buyers will get ever fewer and prices higher until it's not worth making them anymore. I don't believe a large tower form factor has longevity.
The Mini update could have already been done but the iMac takes priority for Apple. It would be nice to see an SSD option but it'll only work well if they can hit 256GB in the entry model, maybe 160GB at a stretch. I would expect just a minor refresh though: 2.3GHz i5, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, Intel graphics, Thunderbolt. I would love to see NVidia/ATI build an external GPU for it and the other lower-end machines.
Thunderbolt is limited for video pci-e x4 -over head slows down video cards and eats up all of TB bus.
Why not put the card on the unused 8-12 pci-e lanes and have 2 TB ports on the other x8 lanes.
I like the concept of a Cube:
Apple likes to separate buyers out into clear categories though and the Cube covers a broad range. A Cube would also have a lot of potential to ruin what they've done with the iMac as people will spec up the cheaper Cube and buy a cheap screen.
Doesn't matter one bit what they've done with the iMac. I'll never buy an all in one. The mini is below my needs and the Mac Pro is overkill. So with its current offerings Apple has separated this buyer into a clear category that Apple doesn't have.
I would gladly pay $1500 for a Mac the size pictured above.
Doesn't matter one bit what they've done with the iMac. I'll never buy an all in one. The mini is below my needs and the Mac Pro is overkill. So with its current offerings Apple has separated this buyer into a clear category that Apple doesn't have.
I would gladly pay $1500 for a Mac the size pictured above.
What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
My view on this is that both the Mini and the Mac Pro are overdue for a major overhaul. Personally I think what should happen is that Apple kill off both models and replace them with one device that can be ordered with as much power as the end user requires. The key piece to making this possible is that Thunderbolt now makes external expansion viable.
Actually I see just the opposite in regards to the Mini, the coming technology will turn the Mini into a tiny power house of performance. Everybody is all excited about Sandy Bridge, which is good but AMDs Llano will be here next month with far better GPU performance and it actually runs at a lower power point doing so. A year from now the IVY Bridge and Llano follow ons will be even more powerful. The point is little boxes these days will be delivering surprising performance.
As to the Mac Pro I tend to agree, the whole thing needs to be scraped. What I'd like to see Apple do here is to deliver to dramatically different configurations in the same basic chassis. One would run a main stream processor with a reasonable GPU on the motherboard. Performance and storage options beyond the Mini is the goal here.
The other would be a direct replacement for the current Pro. This model would come with additional rack mounting hardware and be built with ultimate performance and flexibility in mind. The idea behind using the same basic chassis is economics, let the high columella model pay for the chassis the high performance model is built upon. While these two machines will look dramatically different than today's Pro I think Apple can pull off a chassis that is flexible enough for the purpose and acceptable to users.
What it comes down to is this, there is a real advantage for many users in a desktop chassis that is affordable and has some expansion capability. Apple doesn't currently have this midrange solution. There will always beep some demand for all out performance in a Mac so Apple still needs a machine optimized for all out computational performance, a "Pro" if you will. The problem here is that volumes on the Pro suck. I believe they suck to the point where Apple is seriously considering cutting the machine from the lineup. So they need a configuration that drives volume.
As a result, one doesn't need a large tower that can accommodate lots of storage.
Totally bogus. For professional usage I only see internal storage needs going up.
Right now I have a 3TB drive running via Firewire 800 off my Mini and the performance is fine for what I need. With the speed of Thunderbolt, all manner of high-performance drive solutions could be employed outside the base device with the necessary throughput to do heavy lifting.
And plug up your high performance I/O channel with disk traffic? This idea that Thunderbolt is some magic solution to the issue of disk storage just needs to die - the sooner the better. Professional users simply have to have internal storage options if for nothing else to keep tha I/O channel free for it's primary use.
If Apple where to come out with such a Pro I would suspect that pro users would drop it like the proverbial lead ballon. It is an exceedingly bad idea for the Pros intended market. Frankly external drives are not even a good idea for us more modest users.
So you develop an enclosure not much larger than the original Cube (a behemoth placed alongside the current Mini) that offers desktop performance varying from decent to high-end professional grade with a starting price of about $800 and ranging up to around $2,000.
While I believe Apple needs to rethink it's approach to pro users the Cube would be another joke in my mind. The previous Cube was a bit of a disaster if you ask me. Apple needs to put as much thought into serviceability as they have their current Pro laptops.
Such a device would, I think, meet the needs of most if not all of those already using headless Mac desktops. There would be a cost saving for Apple because development would be reduced down to one form factor.
one form factor would be a huge mistake.
On the pro side, there would be a significant cost saving compared to buying the existing Mac Pro model and on the consumer side, for similar prices to the Mini, much better performance would be offered. I can't see the down side of this for anyone.
Oh come on with this "I can't see the down side of this for anyone.". Pro users can not get by on a Cube sized machine. This thought is so bogus that I suspect many Pro users will wake up totally enraged at the idea.
If there is a reasonable explanation of why Apple isn't going in this direction, I'd love to hear it.
It is pretty clear you don't grasp the needs of Pro users or you would never had made some of the statements above. Pro users aren't like the rest of us, machine performance is dollars to them. Middle of the road users have never had an Apple solution, at least not in the last few years. The iMac is a middle of the road performer, but in the context of desktop boxes Apple has had nothing.
By the way, if this is about the long term, certainly one has to ask, what's the value of having the Mac Pro if even the lesser models in the range can handle pro-calibre demands.
They can't. You really seem to misunderstand where most Mac Pros go. Some of these guys update with every Mac Pro release because they need that performance.
The new iMacs are certainly more powerful but that means little in this context. They certainly can handle more advanced work but they are machines for bleeding edge work where CPU time is money.
Certainly if one is running a business, saving money has to be regarded as a good thing. If a mid-range model can be configured with enough variations to meet many needs, that's a win/win.
Exactly. I understood Apples needs many years ago to trim the Mac line up. The company was on hard times. This is no longer the case and frankly sales have been fantastic. They really need to round out the line to keep momentum moving forward. Many business won't even touch a Mac these days because there is nothing that fits their needs.
Apple didn't have the technology to offer one form factor to meet multiple needs before but it is there now. As such, why not take advantage of it? After all, if the headless desktop has become more of a niche product, why fragment your offerings for that segment.
Fragmentation and proper pricing equals more sales. For example nothing we have talked about here would dramatically impact Mini sales. I actually see Mini sales getting stronger in the coming years. Like wise power users will always want a full blown PC that is bleeding edge. The only thing Apple doesn't have is a headless midrange Mac, something in the iMacs range of performance. So such a headless Mac will impact iMac sales some, but I believe at a far lower rate than many think. In actuality such a Mac would drive sales.
Not the way that Apple usually does business. Seems to me that there has been so much focus on other products that Apple's usually rational approach hasn't been applied to its headless desktop range.
I don't know what all the problems are. It is pretty obvious to me that Mac Pro sales suck. IMac and the Mini on hpthe other hand seem yo do fine. It does look like a failure with respect to management taking advantage of the Macs growing popularity. There is also a slow but real interest growing where people are ditching laptops in favor of a desktop and a tablet combo. It does seem like Apple is asleep at the wheel here.
In any event the only machine right now that has a strong future is the Mini on the desktop. By the time Ivy Brdge gets plugged into that little box it will be a cool running power house. For people with modest GPU and storage needs it will be a bargain. Just imagine a machine with a twenty watt CPU that quadruples current performance, needs no extra hardware for Thunderbolt and finally has a sort of decent Intel GPU built in. The future looks really bright for the small form factor.
What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
This is clearly not the case. If anything Apple is following a trend here. For many Mini buyers the platform offers something that can't be had with traditional hardware. Of course that varies with the individual so there is no sense in enumerating all the potential reasons. However extremely low power usage is often a factor.
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
Extremely odd if you ask me. As stated before I can understand the compact line up years ago but not now. Especially in a context where they have the hearts and minds of many new customers.
This is clearly not the case. If anything Apple is following a trend here. For many Mini buyers the platform offers something that can't be had with traditional hardware. Of course that varies with the individual so there is no sense in enumerating all the potential reasons. However extremely low power usage is often a factor.
Extremely odd if you ask me. As stated before I can understand the compact line up years ago but not now. Especially in a context where they have the hearts and minds of many new customers.
It would be interesting to find out just how many Mini buyers purchased the product because of its small size. I can only speak for myself. I didn't buy the Mini because it is compact but rather because I couldn't justify spending close to $3,000 for a Mac Pro being as I'm not a professional. The iMac is not an option because I can't justify paying for a monitor that will have to be thrown out before its time when the computer attached to it dies.
If this is about the server market, there is a simple solution. Continue to offer the current Mini in server form with the occasional update as older technology is no longer available.
If we're talking about an incredibly small number of folks who really need an ultra-portable desktop tower, why should Apple cater to such a small group at the expense of a larger segment who just want a decent desktop unit to mate with a good monitor and assorted peripherals. Right now customers like me are paying a price in terms of bang for the buck to accommodate a few thousand others who want and/or need the smallest form factor possible. I'm an Apple customer and will continue to be one but I can't say that I like what's happening.
While I believe Apple needs to rethink it's approach to pro users the Cube would be another joke in my mind. The previous Cube was a bit of a disaster if you ask me. Apple needs to put as much thought into serviceability as they have their current Pro laptops.
<snip>
Fragmentation and proper pricing equals more sales. For example nothing we have talked about here would dramatically impact Mini sales. I actually see Mini sales getting stronger in the coming years. Like wise power users will always want a full blown PC that is bleeding edge. The only thing Apple doesn't have is a headless midrange Mac, something in the iMacs range of performance. So such a headless Mac will impact iMac sales some, but I believe at a far lower rate than many think. In actuality such a Mac would drive sales.
I think the Cube was before its time. Back then enough horsepower couldn't be squeezed into a package that small. But today the horsepower of the iMac could be put into a cube sized Mac. But I must agree with your statement that it needs to be designed for serviceability.
And a mid range Mac (the type of Mac I want) could lead to more overall sales. After this weekend messing with my mother in laws Windows PC I was thinking how either a mini or iMac might be a good replacement for her. But I won't be chunking out money on one for her when I'm still dealing with my old Mac. Give me my Mac and I'll start looking at Apple's other products.
Doesn't matter one bit what they've done with the iMac. I'll never buy an all in one.
What I mean is that with the AIO form factor, they've forced IPS displays onto the consumer without them having to appreciate why it's better. Kind of like a parent forcing their kids to eat vegetables.
By separating the two, people inevitably shop around for the lowest price and don't take care to choose a high quality display, which pretty much undoes their efforts.
I'm in the same boat though and would probably never buy an AIO machine. If it had easy access to storage maybe but I don't like glossy displays.
What's most curious about the Mini is that no one really asked for an ultra-compact desktop. While there are situations in which compactness matters most of us simply don't need for our computers to be so small. It's as if being as Jobs values compactness, the rest of us must as well.
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini. Odd that something so many want is simply not being made available.
It's called an iMac.
I like the compact size of the mini as a desktop as it fits under my HDTV. A Cube, not so much.
The Mac Pro is a workstation and not a desktop. As in it is designed for more rigorous computational needs with more CPUs and ECC memory. They often aren't sporting the stock radeons they come with but Quadros. Odd though that it's no longer on the MP BTO list.
Mac Pro users are typically not constrained by budget as much as time.
What it comes down to is this, there is a real advantage for many users in a desktop chassis that is affordable and has some expansion capability. Apple doesn't currently have this midrange solution.
It doesn't want it or it would exist. It can't make more money with it or it would exist.
AIOs, SFF and workstation computers are the only desktop computers with healthy margins. These are the only desktop computers Apple builds. I wonder if there's a connection?
After this weekend messing with my mother in laws Windows PC I was thinking how either a mini or iMac might be a good replacement for her. But I won't be chunking out money on one for her when I'm still dealing with my old Mac. Give me my Mac and I'll start looking at Apple's other products.
Or an iPad and seriously locking down her PC...
If Apple thinks that HD3000 graphics are good enough for a 13" MBP, they probably think the same for the MM (even if those are not in the same category). Historically, the MM has followed loosely the specs of the 13" MB/MBP. I don't think this will change for the next refresh.
I believe that the regular MM will mimic the 13" MBP configurations (except RAM):
$699 2.30 Core i5-2410M/HD3000, 2GB RAM, 320GB HDD, ODD, miniDP/TB port + HDMI
$999 2.70 Core i7-2620M/HD3000, 2GB RAM, 500GB HDD, ODD, miniDP/TB port + HDMI
I agree with mjteix. I'd like a better GPU but honestly the new 13" MBP isn't that bad for what it is.
http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25...book-pro-2011/
If the 3000HD can manage to play Diablo 3 reasonably I'll be happy. It shouldn't have any problems with 1080p since my old mini can manage that.
Honestly I do more gaming on the iPad these days.
It can't make more money with it or it would exist.
But without that mid range product Apple is losing sales whether it admits it or not. The numbers may be small but they are real. Every Hackintosh is a lost sale (at least the hardware part of it). Not every one of those would have bought a mid range Mac but some of them would have.
I've been using Macs for close to 20 years. But I find that my computer needs do not fit within Apple's current product line up. So what does Apple want me to do? Buy an all in one even though I don't like them? Buy a mini that does not offer everything I need in a computer? Buy the Mac Pro that is overkill for my needs plus is more than I can spend?
My choices are complain to Apple in writing and on forums to try to convince it to expand its product line so that I can continue to be a Mac user or give up and switch to Windows.
Personally I'd rather keep complaining but time marches on and the Mac I have won't last forever. I'll soon have to make a choice and I'm thinking that my chances of staying Mac are getting slim.
It's called an iMac.
I like the compact size of the mini as a desktop as it fits under my HDTV. A Cube, not so much.
The Mac Pro is a workstation and not a desktop. As in it is designed for more rigorous computational needs with more CPUs and ECC memory. They often aren't sporting the stock radeons they come with but Quadros. Odd though that it's no longer on the MP BTO list.
Mac Pro users are typically not constrained by budget as much as time.
The iMac? You mean that rather appealing device that is an environmental disaster. Take a monitor that has a likely lifespan of at least 12 years and combine it with components that you're lucky to get half that life out of, and not without replacing components along the way. Brilliant.
Instead, if you don't get all wound up over some minor desktop clutter, you can have a monitor that lasts as long as it lasts, outliving no doubt the computer equipment it's attached to. Besides, considering how much computer technology advances from year to year, do you really think anyone would be happy about running 2011 technology in 2023, because that's what advocating the purchase of an iMac comes down to, unless one thinks it acceptable to throw away a functioning electronic device.
Some folks are comfortable with the poor value proposition (considered long term) offered by the iMac but others not so much. Telling me and others looking for a mid-range tower to stop complaining and just buy an iMac misses the point entirely.
It would be interesting to find out just how many Mini buyers purchased the product because of its small size. I can only speak for myself. I didn't buy the Mini because it is compact but rather because I couldn't justify spending close to $3,000 for a Mac Pro being as I'm not a professional. The iMac is not an option because I can't justify paying for a monitor that will have to be thrown out before its time when the computer attached to it dies.
I'm sure that your perspective is true for many. In fact the high cost of a Pro would lead me to a Mini right now if I wanted to abandon my laptop. So we suffer the same problem, which is Apple not having a midrange desktop machine.
My point is that doesn't mean the Mini isn't important in the line up. It fill a significant niche and I don't think Apple having a midrange would significantly impact sales of the Mini.
If this is about the server market, there is a simple solution. Continue to offer the current Mini in server form with the occasional update as older technology is no longer available.
where did server come into the discussion?
If we're talking about an incredibly small number of folks who really need an ultra-portable desktop tower, why should Apple cater to such a small group at the expense of a larger segment who just want a decent desktop unit to mate with a good monitor and assorted peripherals.
Well this is the problem I don't think the market for the Mini is small at all. If you don't have a problem with the shortcomings it is a very capable machine. Here are some common uses for the Mini:
- A desktop PC. The obvious use.
- A media center PC.
- It is my understandign that one big automaker uses them as MMI PC's on their manufacturing floor (running windows).
- Since you borught it up they are used for various sorts of server needs.
- People who travel by RV or boat like them for being compact.
- Slightly related to the above Minis are appreciated by people living off grid
- The Mini is a great second computer for many people.
- Students not doing the laptop route gavitate to the Mini as it is agian compact. (honestly I think most students have given up on desktops).
- It is a low cost machine so if you are on a budget there is deamnd in that regard. In other words it is a low price entry point to the Apple world.
These are just off the top of my head.Right now customers like me are paying a price in terms of bang for the buck to accommodate a few thousand others who want and/or need the smallest form factor possible.
A few thousand? The Mini has been at times Apples hottest selling desktop machine.
I'm an Apple customer and will continue to be one but I can't say that I like what's happening.
Honestly neither do I, the lack of a midrange hurts Apple . I just think that with the very positive things happening in the marketplace the need for a midrange (XMac) has never been stronger. Mind you I'm not saying Apple needs to build a massive box, in that regards even the Mac Pro needs a diet, what I'm after is a box that supports more than one internal drive, a real GPU (quickly becoming outdated), and more RAM. The box should have the capacity to run the CPU a bit hardware than is seen in the Mini, the idea begin performance about midrange or high end iMac like.
I think the Cube was before its time. Back then enough horsepower couldn't be squeezed into a package that small.
When I first got wind of the Mini I really thought that somebody at Apple dropped off the deep end. For me it represented Apple at its worst. That is high price hardware that treated design as the only important aspect of the platform and totally forgetting about performance, serviceability and user ergonomics. I was not surprised at all to see it fail in the marketplace.
But today the horsepower of the iMac could be put into a cube sized Mac. But I must agree with your statement that it needs to be designed for serviceability.
Yes hardware is becoming very very dense. However dense hardware means less performance at this point in time. Mainly because of heat, an issue likely to change in the future.
I know many people on these forums don't like to hear about AMD but they have Llano coming out next month that really rocks if the online forums are to be believed. Due to an emphasis on GPU performance the this little high integration processor performs really well with respect to todays work loads. It actually runs cooler that Sandy Bridge while out performing it.
The point is these strides in integration means future machines like the Mini will be very powerful. At the same time they can enable midrange machines that run very cool.
And a mid range Mac (the type of Mac I want) could lead to more overall sales.
Yes exactly! This is what I've been getting at, such a machine probably wouldn't impact the Mini sales that much at all. All I really want in this box is room for an additional disk drive, RAM and a GPU. Even the discrete GPU is likely to be optional in the near future as the on board devices are extremely powerful especially in the AMD line up.
Depending upon how aggressive Apple wants to be the new machine can be extremely compact. For example the use of a blade SSD for system/apps storage and two slots for big magnetic drives (bulk storage) would provide a lot of the capability I'm looking for. Oh and more RAM slots for RAM expansion beyond the Mini. Squeezing in a PCI-Express slot would be nice too. This does not have to be a massive machine, but I do see some commonality with a revised Mac Pro making both more feasible.
Now to back track a bit and cover AMD. I realize that AMD benchmarks the Llano in a way that show the best light upon the GPU hardware while ignoring the CPU. Obviously AMD has yet to migrate their latest CPU tech into the Fusion line up. The point is for many users this is exactly what they need, that is really good GPU performance and a bit of video decoding hardware.
After this weekend messing with my mother in laws Windows PC I was thinking how either a mini or iMac might be a good replacement for her. But I won't be chunking out money on one for her when I'm still dealing with my old Mac. Give me my Mac and I'll start looking at Apple's other products.
The difference in support is massive, probably one of Apples best selling points. Before getting a MBP for use as my primary machine I used Linux, so I know the depths that one can sink to fiddling with things. Admittedly the fiddling on Linux was often of amore productive sort that trying to maintain a Windows machine.
In any event I'm waiting to see what Apple does with the Mini and any potential XMac like device. I just have this idea that the coming Mini will be a rather massive overall and much faster all around. It does make me wonder what they are waiting on, as Intel obviously has the hardware for the machine.
It doesn't want it or it would exist. It can't make more money with it or it would exist.
I don't really think you are even on the right track, Apple pretty much ignores the desktop line up. It doesn't really matter if we are talking Pro or Mini they simply don't get the attention the laptops do. Much of this, I believe, is a hold over form the dark days when they aggressively trimmed the hardware lineup to save the company.
From a managerial standpoint that is a smart thing to do. It sin't too smart though to leave your hardware in a rut. Effectively the desktop line up is buried in the mud and it looks like Apple is putting in zero effort to pull itself out of this dark ditch. Lets be honest her how much have the iMac, Pro and Mini changed over the last few years? Not much at all, just a long series of bumps.
AIOs, SFF and workstation computers are the only desktop computers with healthy margins.
BS Apple can build a machine to sell at any margin they want too.
These are the only desktop computers Apple builds. I wonder if there's a connection?
The only connection is neglect. This is suppose to be the year of "back to the Mac", maybe the meant the Mac Book(s). A good company strive to fill the needs of its customers. At times that requires re-examining how they do business and evaluating how the markets have changed. We as customers have real needs that the Mini doesn't fill and where works stations aren't the answer.
I'm sure that your perspective is true for many. In fact the high cost of a Pro would lead me to a Mini right now if I wanted to abandon my laptop. So we suffer the same problem, which is Apple not having a midrange desktop machine.
My point is that doesn't mean the Mini isn't important in the line up. It fill a significant niche and I don't think Apple having a midrange would significantly impact sales of the Mini.
where did server come into the discussion?
Well this is the problem I don't think the market for the Mini is small at all. If you don't have a problem with the shortcomings it is a very capable machine. Here are some common uses for the Mini:
- A desktop PC. The obvious use.
- A media center PC.
- It is my understandign that one big automaker uses them as MMI PC's on their manufacturing floor (running windows).
- Since you borught it up they are used for various sorts of server needs.
- People who travel by RV or boat like them for being compact.
- Slightly related to the above Minis are appreciated by people living off grid
- The Mini is a great second computer for many people.
- Students not doing the laptop route gavitate to the Mini as it is agian compact. (honestly I think most students have given up on desktops).
- It is a low cost machine so if you are on a budget there is deamnd in that regard. In other words it is a low price entry point to the Apple world.
These are just off the top of my head.A few thousand? The Mini has been at times Apples hottest selling desktop machine.
Honestly neither do I, the lack of a midrange hurts Apple . I just think that with the very positive things happening in the marketplace the need for a midrange (XMac) has never been stronger. Mind you I'm not saying Apple needs to build a massive box, in that regards even the Mac Pro needs a diet, what I'm after is a box that supports more than one internal drive, a real GPU (quickly becoming outdated), and more RAM. The box should have the capacity to run the CPU a bit hardware than is seen in the Mini, the idea begin performance about midrange or high end iMac like.
Many of the uses for the Mini that you list would be equally well served, perhaps better so, by a $900 machine in a somewhat larger enclosure. We're not talking a large enclosure anywhere close to the size of a Mac Pro. I don't think the device would have to be that much larger than the current Mini to accommodate the sort of desktop components found in the iMac. As such a desktop PC, obviously, would be what the proposed machine would be used for and if we're talking not a tower form factor but something more along the lines of let's say a PS3 in shape which would work fine as a media center PC. It would make a great second computer in base form, checking in at something less than $1,000. The Mini, as computers go these days, is by no means inexpensive. Here in Canada the entry model is $699 and that isn't, in of itself, a working unit. You need a keyboard, a mouse, and of course a monitor. If you consider 4GB of RAM to be a minimal amount of memory for today's uses and throw in a keyboard and mouse, the price in this country would climb to $897. The base iMac checks in at $1,199 so surely if Apple can deliver a $1,200 all-in-one it can bring in a $900 desktop minus the monitor. And keep in mind that the iMac comes in base form with a 500GB hard drive running at 7,200 RPM and a 2.5Ghz quadcore processor. If you were to boost the Mini up to 500GB and up the processor to 2.66 Ghz dual core and the Magic Mouse that comes standard with the iMac, the price would jump up to $1,132. That's not cheap and downright outrageous considering the similarly priced iMac offers dramatically more performance. If anything, considering the specs you'd be looking at, the larger desktop would be more cost-effective than the current MIni.
I don't agree that a mid-range desktop would fail to impact Mini sales. It would devastate them. Same money but far more performance. Do the math.
The key to all of this would be to offer up a versatile platform that could range from let's say $900 to around $2,000, meeting the needs of the vast majority of desktop customers. Trumping the Mini would be insanely easy for Apple to do. There is a huge price to pay for using laptop components in a desktop. The challenge comes at the other end of the spectrum. To make this work you've have to offer a form factor able to accommodate the components needed by pro customers. Not being an engineer, who am I to say that it can be done with something much smaller than the current Mac Pro yet somewhat larger than the Mini. In other words, just how much would the Mini have to be expanded to make pro pieces work and in so expanding that model, would it then cause problems at the bottom end of the market.
I don't agree that a mid-range desktop would fail to impact Mini sales. It would devastate them. Same money but far more performance. Do the math.
Trumping the Mini would be insanely easy for Apple to do. [/QUOTE]
Price point is the key. If Apple were to come out with a mid range Mac I doubt it would lower iMac sales more than 15%. Why? There are too many consumers, people who just buy computers or other products without doing much in the way of real thinking about the purchase. The iMac looks cool. It's all in one package, neat! Ding. That's a sale.
Customers think through the buying process a little more throughly. I'm not saying that iMac buyers don't think things through. I'm just saying that for any mass produced product from cars to computers there are more consumers than customers.
If Apple prices a mid range Mac strategically they can have a successful new product without destroying iMac sales. Give us most of what we are asking for, easy open case without needing putty knives or suction cups, room for two hard drives and the optical drive, easy to upgrade drives and RAM and perhaps one expansion slot and we will pay a small premium to have all of those things that aren't available in the iMac. I would gladly pay $1500 for that kind of mid range Mac. Any consumer looking at that price versus the price of an iMac with a built in screen would dismiss the mid range Mac as being a rip off. The consumer won't see the features we want as advantages. "It's bigger and doesn't come with a screen?" But for us it would be a drool worthy, gotta have computer.
As for trumping the mini? In one way Apple has painted itself into a corner. Having built something as small as the mini the know nothing media would rip into Apple for building something bigger. That is the biggest fear Apple has to contend with if it brings a mid range Mac to market. Apple would have to have a well thought out ad and marketing campaign to silence the clueless idiots.
The iMac? You mean that rather appealing device that is an environmental disaster. Take a monitor that has a likely lifespan of at least 12 years and combine it with components that you're lucky to get half that life out of, and not without replacing components along the way. Brilliant.
How many users still have a CRT from 1999? How many folks still using an ACD from 2005 on a current machine?
The iMac may or may not be brilliant but at least it is highly profitable and sells well.
Instead, if you don't get all wound up over some minor desktop clutter, you can have a monitor that lasts as long as it lasts, outliving no doubt the computer equipment it's attached to.
I doubt most monitors really last much beyond 1 replacement cycle. And for Apple it more about the total user experience over clutter. An AIO is typically easier to setup and use.
Besides, considering how much computer technology advances from year to year, do you really think anyone would be happy about running 2011 technology in 2023, because that's what advocating the purchase of an iMac comes down to, unless one thinks it acceptable to throw away a functioning electronic device.
I have a functioning Dell XPS P90 in my basement that will get tossed since I'm moving. I've already sent 4 CRTs cluttering the house to the recycling dump. So yes, it's okay to throw away a functioning electroinic device as we do it all the time.
I help refurb computers for a local school and those things are just useless.
Some folks are comfortable with the poor value proposition (considered long term) offered by the iMac but others not so much. Telling me and others looking for a mid-range tower to stop complaining and just buy an iMac misses the point entirely.
You guys have been bitching about an xMac for a decade. The folks missing the point aren't the ones point out that you should move on. The iMac more than meets Apples need for a mid-tier computer between the mini and Mac Pro.