I don't really think you are even on the right track, Apple pretty much ignores the desktop line up.
Given it releases new iMacs like clockwork and refreshed the mini form factor not THAT long ago I wonder who is on the right track and who's ignoring reality when they say that Apple ignores the desktop. It's not the highest priority for sure given the overall decline of the desktop market as a whole but they hardly ignore it.
Quote:
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.
Or, more simply, desktop share has been on the decline overall for years. Gee, I wonder which is the more likely scenario: Apple is blind to the opportunity or Apple has the correct focus on what kind of machines folks want to buy.
Perhaps desktops will have a short comeback vs laptops as tablets get adopted. More likely is that the iPad will lose the need to sync to anything more than a aTV and fewer and fewer folks will buy trucks or either the desktop or laptop variety.
Quote:
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.
They've changed as much as the Macbook and MacBook Pro. These are all very mature products. The two products seeing the most form factor evolution are the mini and MBA.
Quote:
BS Apple can build a machine to sell at any margin they want too.
So your contention is that Apple is simply being petulant in denying your xMac desires?
Quote:
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.
So, because there is no xMac your opinion is that Apple isn't a good company that strives to fill the needs of their customers and that Apple needs to re-examine how they do business?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I had a Sony CRT that was my monitor for use with several computers. Got a decade out of it and sold it still functioning after all of that. I now have a recent vintage Cinema display that I expect will be around for quite some time. On the other hand, I have zero faith in the idea that I would get 10 years out of a computer because they just don't last that long, certainly with zero maintenance. At the very least the hard drive will need replacing.
Besides, if Apple sees fit to offer a headless Mac in around the price range of an iMac, surely it makes sense for that device to offer at worst comparable performance. There is little difference in cost, factoring in everything you need to have a working system between a Mini and an iMac, and yet the iMac is significantly more powerful. This is a strange situation and there is no need for it to be this way.
By the way, why would you throw out something working well instead of donating it or finding someone who could use it. Over the years I've made a point of not simply throwing away anything that I could put into the hands of friends or relatives who could benefit from it. I always seem to find someone willing to take my old gear off my hands. You would do well to not be so blatantly inconsiderate of the environment or proudly selfish.
I had a Sony CRT that was my monitor for use with several computers. Got a decade out of it and sold it still functioning after all of that. I now have a recent vintage Cinema display that I expect will be around for quite some time. On the other hand, I have zero faith in the idea that I would get 10 years out of a computer because they just don't last that long, certainly with zero maintenance. At the very least the hard drive will need replacing.
Depends on what you mean. Many computers will last 10 years. They just aren't all that useful after 5-6 years. Likewise, my old 12-14" CRTs were still functional but useless at the resolutions they supported.
Quote:
Besides, if Apple sees fit to offer a headless Mac in around the price range of an iMac, surely it makes sense for that device to offer at worst comparable performance. There is little difference in cost, factoring in everything you need to have a working system between a Mini and an iMac, and yet the iMac is significantly more powerful. This is a strange situation and there is no need for it to be this way.
It is structured this way for profitability and higher average sale prices while maintaining good value. If Apple did offer an xMac with iMac margins the Apple tax would be even more derided. As an AIO Apple can offer good value for an AIO but maintain the margins and higher ASPs.
Quote:
By the way, why would you throw out something working well instead of donating it or finding someone who could use it. Over the years I've made a point of not simply throwing away anything that I could put into the hands of friends or relatives who could benefit from it. I always seem to find someone willing to take my old gear off my hands. You would do well to not be so blatantly inconsiderate of the environment or proudly selfish.
You would do well to get off your high horse.
They were offered on our local freecycling e-group with no takers so they went off to recycling. The useful gear had already all been given away. Given I occasionally volunteer to help out to make old computers useful again I have a reasonable idea what is and isn't worthwhile even in a give-away scenario. These were not high end large CRTs but the tiny little 12"-14" VGA/SVGA no-name cheapo CRTs of the day and got recycled by the county as the local Goodwill doesn't even take computers anymore.
I hate throwing away old gear that worked so that's why I still had them but they had zero value outside some oddball uses (retro computer builds, fish tanks, etc). Likewise I'm going to pull the drives from the P90 and have it recycled too.
The 15" 1024x768 XGA CRT in the 1998 G3 iMac might have been still be useful to someone as a standalone CRT but I doubt it would be a common. It probably isn't that much more useful than the AIO as a whole. What is certain is that Apple gear tends to get used longer than PC gear so the difference is probably a wash in terms of ewaste generated.
You can find old 14" and 15" CRTs on eBay but as near as I can tell they don't get bids. Old 14" SVGAs sure as heck don't.
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.
We are starting to get the point and we are starting to move on. Only we are moving to Hackintoshes or Windows machines since Apple doesn't have the type of product we want.
We are starting to get the point and we are starting to move on. Only we are moving to Hackintoshes or Windows machines since Apple doesn't have the type of product we want.
Notice how Apple doesn't care enough about the Hackintosh subculture to make any effort to quash it as long as no one is trying to sell hackintoshes? As long as you pay for a legit copy of the OS no one around here cares much either. Hackintosh away. There are some nice builds out there.
Not only that, Windows 7 is a perfectly fine OS. Only a few whackos around here mind if you switch back. The rest of us run Parallels or Bootcamp.
Depends on what you mean. Many computers will last 10 years. They just aren't all that useful after 5-6 years. Likewise, my old 12-14" CRTs were still functional but useless at the resolutions they supported.
It is structured this way for profitability and higher average sale prices while maintaining good value. If Apple did offer an xMac with iMac margins the Apple tax would be even more derided. As an AIO Apple can offer good value for an AIO but maintain the margins and higher ASPs.
You would do well to get off your high horse.
They were offered on our local freecycling e-group with no takers so they went off to recycling. The useful gear had already all been given away. Given I occasionally volunteer to help out to make old computers useful again I have a reasonable idea what is and isn't worthwhile even in a give-away scenario. These were not high end large CRTs but the tiny little 12"-14" VGA/SVGA no-name cheapo CRTs of the day and got recycled by the county as the local Goodwill doesn't even take computers anymore.
I hate throwing away old gear that worked so that's why I still had them but they had zero value outside some oddball uses (retro computer builds, fish tanks, etc). Likewise I'm going to pull the drives from the P90 and have it recycled too.
The 15" 1024x768 XGA CRT in the 1998 G3 iMac might have been still be useful to someone as a standalone CRT but I doubt it would be a common. It probably isn't that much more useful than the AIO as a whole. What is certain is that Apple gear tends to get used longer than PC gear so the difference is probably a wash in terms of ewaste generated.
You can find old 14" and 15" CRTs on eBay but as near as I can tell they don't get bids. Old 14" SVGAs sure as heck don't.
You're muddying the waters and in the process missing the point entirely. For better or worse I have committed to going with a separate monitor at least for the next decade. I'm pleased with how it went with my previous monitor, a good-quality Sony 17" that served me well for a decade and was coupled with a succession of Mac computers. Now I have a 24" Cinema display that I'm happy with and my set-ups calls for me to combine that device with a separate computer. Period.
I don't want an all-in-one, I don't need an all-in-one, I'm simply not in the market for an all-in-one. You insisting I buy one as a solution is just plain dumb.
Like it or not, some of us prefer to not go the all-in-one route. That it's the way you would rather someone like me go is meaningless. It would be like telling someone that they shouldn't be thinking of buying a particular car company's family sedan because the way you see it, what one should buy is that same company's SUV. If you're in the market for an SUV you shop SUVs but if you're in the market for a family sedan, you shop family sedans and you don't care what the SUVs on the market can do.
The iMac is not a headless computer therefore if like me you are looking at headless computers, who cares about the iMac. Put another way, if I've decided to buy a sedan, what do I care that Honda makes a great minivan.
So telling someone that product mix among headless Macs doesn't matter because there's the iMac, simply doesn't make sense. What the iMac does do, though, is accentuate just how much of a cost is paid to provide the Mini with such a compact form factor. Slower, previous-gen CPU, laptop integrated graphics, slower hard drive. Who signed up for this stuff? I mean, really, if it wasn't for the software, who would give Apple the time of day considering it's $700 desktop can barely keep up with the competition's laptops checking in at hundreds less.
A desktop computer using components designed for desktop use. What a concept. Call it the xMac call whatever you like. All I know is, it makes sense. The Cube was an abject failure because at the time there was choice. Consumers chose performance over compactness. The only way that Apple could sell compactness was by eliminating that choice. That's where we are today. Jobs has a thing for compact desktops. Most of the rest of us don't. His company, his rules. Yet that doesn't mean we have to like it.
You're muddying the waters and in the process missing the point entirely.
I'm not the one pontificating from atop a green horse calling the iMac an environmental disaster.
Quote:
For better or worse I have committed to going with a separate monitor at least for the next decade. I'm pleased with how it went with my previous monitor, a good-quality Sony 17" that served me well for a decade and was coupled with a succession of Mac computers. Now I have a 24" Cinema display that I'm happy with and my set-ups calls for me to combine that device with a separate computer. Period.
Great. Enjoy.
Quote:
I don't want an all-in-one, I don't need an all-in-one, I'm simply not in the market for an all-in-one. You insisting I buy one as a solution is just plain dumb.
I never insisted you buy an all-in-one. I am pointing out that insisting that Apple make an xMac is just plain dumb. They haven't in a long long while. They aren't likely to in a long long while. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that.
Quote:
Like it or not, some of us prefer to not go the all-in-one route. That it's the way you would rather someone like me go is meaningless. It would be like telling someone that they shouldn't be thinking of buying a particular car company's family sedan because the way you see it, what one should buy is that same company's SUV. If you're in the market for an SUV you shop SUVs but if you're in the market for a family sedan, you shop family sedans and you don't care what the SUVs on the market can do.
Apple doesn't make a SUV anymore. Pretty much hasn't since the inexpensive single CPU G4 powermacs. That's a long time ago.
Quote:
So telling someone that product mix among headless Macs doesn't matter because there's the iMac, simply doesn't make sense.
No, you were whining that Apple doesn't have a mid-tier desktop.
Here's your quote again:
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.
They make a mid-tier desktop that is highly successful.
What they don't do is make a mid-tier desktop YOU like. Your position is that you would like Apple kill both the mini and the mac pro for a desktop YOU want.
Which would screw over professionals that need the computing power of the current Mac Pro and folks that use the Mini has a nice little media machine next to their HTPC. Your suggested Cube II fills neither role.
Quote:
What the iMac does do, though, is accentuate just how much of a cost is paid to provide the Mini with such a compact form factor. Slower, previous-gen CPU, laptop integrated graphics, slower hard drive. Who signed up for this stuff? I mean, really, if it wasn't for the software, who would give Apple the time of day considering it's $700 desktop can barely keep up with the competition's laptops checking in at hundreds less.
So don't buy it. Make a hackintosh. Apple doesn't appear to care.
But don't presume to speak for those of us who own a mini and like the form factor and very low power consumption and noise.
Quote:
A desktop computer using components designed for desktop use. What a concept. Call it the xMac call whatever you like. All I know is, it makes sense.
If it made sense for Apple they'd make one. Evidently it doesn't appear to make a whole lot of business sense or they'd have one.
Quote:
The Cube was an abject failure because at the time there was choice. Consumers chose performance over compactness. The only way that Apple could sell compactness was by eliminating that choice. That's where we are today. Jobs has a thing for compact desktops. Most of the rest of us don't. His company, his rules. Yet that doesn't mean we have to like it.
The cube failed because it was bleeding expensive. A trait the mini doesn't share but a modern cube costing the same as an iMac would.
I'm not the one pontificating from atop a green horse calling the iMac an environmental disaster.
Great. Enjoy.
I never insisted you buy an all-in-one. I am pointing out that insisting that Apple make an xMac is just plain dumb. They haven't in a long long while. They aren't likely to in a long long while. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that.
Apple doesn't make a SUV anymore. Pretty much hasn't since the inexpensive single CPU G4 powermacs. That's a long time ago.
No, you were whining that Apple doesn't have a mid-tier desktop.
Here's your quote again:
They make a mid-tier desktop that is highly successful.
What they don't do is make a mid-tier desktop YOU like. Your position is that you would like Apple kill both the mini and the mac pro for a desktop YOU want.
Which would screw over professionals that need the computing power of the current Mac Pro and folks that use the Mini has a nice little media machine next to their HTPC. Your suggested Cube II fills neither role.
So don't buy it. Make a hackintosh. Apple doesn't appear to care.
But don't presume to speak for those of us who own a mini and like the form factor and very low power consumption and noise.
If it made sense for Apple they'd make one. Evidently it doesn't appear to make a whole lot of business sense or they'd have one.
The cube failed because it was bleeding expensive. A trait the mini doesn't share but a modern cube costing the same as an iMac would.
It isn't a trait the Mini shares because Apple doesn't give consumers an option. The only reason the Cube was deemed expensive is that it was in terms of performance when compared to other desktop offerings from Apple at the time. Now, being as the Mini is the lone headless Mac offered by Apple at anywhere close to its price point, it isn't expensive in the sense that there is nothing to compare it to exactly. It's either buy the Mini or spend a lot more for a Mac Pro.
Yet we can clearly see what the penalty is for using laptop components in every measurable respect because the iMac uses desktop components, includes a monitor, a keyboard and a magic mouse yet checks in at not much more money yet with substantially more computing power. If you try to spec out the Mini to match the iMac, it gets pretty embarrassing. An iMac with 4GB of RAM, and a 500GB hard drive is $1,199. The Mini with 4GB, a 2.66Ghz processor, a 500 GB hard drive, a keyboard and a magic mouse checks in at $1,132. That's a difference of $67 yet we still haven't accounted for a monitor and the hardware is dramatically inferior. Previous gen dual core, weaker GPU, a 5,400 RPM drive. The cost for using laptop components is incredibly high.
I think it rather odd, by the way, that you seem to be of the view that Apple will never change its product mix. Clearly Apple has done that on numerous occasions and there is nothing stopping Apple from going a different route at some point, if not now then within a couple of years. I think that it is absurd to argue, as you seem to be doing, that there is something wrong with customers like me expressing their preference. Feedback matters. Apple would never change anything because of what I or any one customer might state but I don't doubt that Apple does regularly explore its options and values feedback from the general public.
Just because Apple hasn't gone a different route in recent years, are we to believe that it never will. Technology changes. Market forces change. What might have made sense two years ago, doesn't necessarily make sense today. Apple didn't make a tablet in 2006 or 2008 or 2009. It makes a tablet today. Prior to 2005, there was no Mini and it could be that two years from now there will not be one. In fact, the Mini's demise has long been rumoured but the little beast has soldiered on. Apple hasn't promised to make the Mini for all eternity. They could stop building them tomorrow.
Apple innovates on a regular basis and if it fails to follow the right path can easily lose its way. I don't know what an entry-level headless Mac based on desktop components would look like but I'm willing to bet that Apple has looked into it, perhaps even played around with a prototype or two. I realize that portables are taking over but that doesn't mean that Apple is going to simply hit cruise and never reconsider its desktop offerings. It would certainly be interesting to have them shake things up a little as only Apple can. And it sure strikes me that it has been rather quiet on the desktop front for a while now.
By the way, one has to wonder if a move to a larger enclosure isn't the direction Apple is going. It did, after all, introduce a larger Mini about a year ago with an integrated power supply and user upgradable memory. How much of a leap would it be to go larger still to accommodate desktop components. Probably would not take much of an increase considering such components are incorporated into the rather compact confines of the iMac. Cooling is the biggest hurdle but what might not be technically possible one model cycle can become so in the next.
I really want to know what it is that makes you think the Mini is going to be the only possible form that Apple's consumer-grade headless desktops can possess for a very long time. There is no reason for Apple to simply maintain a form factor indefinitely. Apple's history of innovation suggests otherwise.
Something's are obvious in life, not seeing is a problem for many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Given it releases new iMacs like clockwork and refreshed the mini form factor not THAT long ago I wonder who is on the right track and who's ignoring reality when they say that Apple ignores the desktop. It's not the highest priority for sure given the overall decline of the desktop market as a whole but they hardly ignore it.
When was the last time either of these machines had a major overhaul that dramatically improved platform capability? The only thing recently is Thunderbolt on the iMac an interface that by the way is largely overblown. Instead all we get is processor bumps to whatever Intel currently has available.
Now don't get me wrong Intels Sandy Bridge is an excellent CPU. However if implemented in the Mini without a discrete GPU it will be a step backwards as the GApU in Sandy Bridge sucks. Like it or not there has been zero innovation with respect to Apples desktop line, they are simply machines built to shift Intel hardware.
Quote:
Or, more simply, desktop share has been on the decline overall for years. Gee, I wonder which is the more likely scenario: Apple is blind to the opportunity or Apple has the correct focus on what kind of machines folks want to buy.
You mis the third consideration which is that people have given up on Apple desktop line up.
Quote:
Perhaps desktops will have a short comeback vs laptops as tablets get adopted. More likely is that the iPad will lose the need to sync to anything more than a aTV and fewer and fewer folks will buy trucks or either the desktop or laptop variety.
I'm not sure why their is so much handwringing in the Mac community over iPad or iOS device syncing. Syncing is what makes these devices so damn useful. Like it or not they dramatically impact the use of my laptop as a portable device.
Mind you it was Apple that came up with the idea of a digital hub in the first place. Neither the Mini nor the iMac really offer up the capabilities one would expect from a hub.
Quote:
They've changed as much as the Macbook and MacBook Pro. These are all very mature products. The two products seeing the most form factor evolution are the mini and MBA.
Your statement is insane. When last was the iMac a platform upon which new technology was introduced? As to form factor evolution and the Mini do you call a new box innovation? Seriously this is asinine. We are talking about a mid range device that would offer up substantially more capability than the current Mini.
Quote:
So your contention is that Apple is simply being petulant in denying your xMac desires?
No silly I'm saying times change and that Apple needs to change with them. They have effectively ignored the desk top and now have a very stale product lineup. People have different needs that Apple could easily cover with an expanded desktop line up. Beyond that the Mac line up is a roaring success sales wise so they need to consider climbing out of the trenches because they saved the company a few years ago.
Quote:
So, because there is no xMac your opinion is that Apple isn't a good company that strives to fill the needs of their customers and that Apple needs to re-examine how they do business?
Thank you...that is simply hilarious.
Not much of a businessman are we? An important part of running a business is keeping your customers happy. Apple seems to pull out most of the stops to do so in the laptop line. What I'm saying is that their lack of effort is extremely noticeable in the desktop line up. They have instituted some half hearted efforts such as a single processor Mac Pro that nObody wanted but have not looked closely at what modern users need.
Laugh if you must but I see desktop sales at Apple going the way of the XServe. This will certainly be an issue if they don't make the current machinery more appealing.
It isn't a trait the Mini shares because Apple doesn't give consumers an option. The only reason the Cube was deemed expensive is that it was in terms of performance when compared to other desktop offerings from Apple at the time. Now, being as the Mini is the lone headless Mac offered by Apple at anywhere close to its price point, it isn't expensive in the sense that there is nothing to compare it to exactly. It's either buy the Mini or spend a lot more for a Mac Pro.
The cube was grossly expensive relative to Apple and every other PC maker in the world. It wasn't all that serviceable either which is a key element in the desire to see an XMac. The Cube like the original Mac Book Air was an example of design winning over human factors. The difference as I see it is that Apple had the financial capability to stick it out when it came to the AIR. The effects of strong consumer feedback can be seen in the new AIRs. Due to Apples considering the consumers needs the new AIR is a run away success.
Quote:
Yet we can clearly see what the penalty is for using laptop components in every measurable respect because the iMac uses desktop components, includes a monitor, a keyboard and a magic mouse yet checks in at not much more money yet with substantially more computing power. If you try to spec out the Mini to match the iMac, it gets pretty embarrassing. An iMac with 4GB of RAM, and a 500GB hard drive is $1,199. The Mini with 4GB, a 2.66Ghz processor, a 500 GB hard drive, a keyboard and a magic mouse checks in at $1,132. That's a difference of $67 yet we still haven't accounted for a monitor and the hardware is dramatically inferior. Previous gen dual core, weaker GPU, a 5,400 RPM drive. The cost for using laptop components is incredibly high.
Intel gets a good penny for it's laptop chips which has a very negative impact upon the price positioning of the Mini. That is unless you understand the advantages of it's low power nature. The power capability of the little box is a problem or apparently isas I've yet to see the Mini with 45 watt class CPUs. I still lust for a Llano based Mini but that is probably farther off than the XMac. .
Quote:
I think it rather odd, by the way, that you seem to be of the view that Apple will never change its product mix. Clearly Apple has done that on numerous occasions and there is nothing stopping Apple from going a different route at some point, if not now then within a couple of years. I think that it is absurd to argue, as you seem to be doing, that there is something wrong with customers like me expressing their preference. Feedback matters. Apple would never change anything because of what I or any one customer might state but I don't doubt that Apple does regularly explore its options and values feedback from the general public.
no manufacture can last long with a static product line up. I'm not sure why people think that Apples desktop lineup will never change.
Quote:
Just because Apple hasn't gone a different route in recent years, are we to believe that it never will. Technology changes. Market forces change. What might have made sense two years ago, doesn't necessarily make sense today. Apple didn't make a tablet in 2006 or 2008 or 2009. It makes a tablet today. Prior to 2005, there was no Mini and it could be that two years from now there will not be one. In fact, the Mini's demise has long been rumoured but the little beast has soldiered on. Apple hasn't promised to make the Mini for all eternity. They could stop building them tomorrow.
One aspect about technology change is that it shoves capability down into smaller devices. Because we are at the beginning of an new generation of technology the Mini has the potential to become extremely powerful over the next couple if years. High integration low power SoCs will have a dramatic impact on what can be stuffed in a small box.
Now just because the future looks bright for the Mini doesn't mean that the desire for an XMac goes away. People will still want the RAM slots, storage slots and the occasional PCI Express slot. Even my desire for a discrete GPU will likely be dismissed by the rapid advancement of the integrated on chip GPUs.
In any event I think many people dismiss the XMac because they never personally had a use for them. Either that or they think nothing of upgrading by throwing out what is in a slot.
Quote:
Apple innovates on a regular basis and if it fails to follow the right path can easily lose its way. I don't know what an entry-level headless Mac based on desktop components would look like but I'm willing to bet that Apple has looked into it, perhaps even played around with a prototype or two.
Dozens most likely
Quote:
I realize that portables are taking over but that doesn't mean that Apple is going to simply hit cruise and never reconsider its desktop offerings.
They shouldn't do this but it does look that way
Quote:
It would certainly be interesting to have them shake things up a little as only Apple can. And it sure strikes me that it has been rather quiet on the desktop front for a while now.
Thus my comments about the line up being stagnet or stale. Maybe Apple is just waiting for the next round of chips from Intel or hopefully AMD. While no new model will be perfect they should be able to easily address the concerns seen in these threads. Further the thing (xMac) needs to be serviceable. It is really sad that today's laptops are easier to work than Apples desktop machines.
Quote:
By the way, one has to wonder if a move to a larger enclosure isn't the direction Apple is going. It did, after all, introduce a larger Mini about a year ago with an integrated power supply and user upgradable memory. How much of a leap would it be to go larger still to accommodate desktop components.
This is not likely as then you wouldn't gave a Mini.
Quote:
Probably would not take much of an increase considering such components are incorporated into the rather compact confines of the iMac. Cooling is the biggest hurdle but what might not be technically possible one model cycle can become so in the next.
Every slot you add requires an increase in the size of the power supply. This is actually one argument used against machines with slots. RAM requires slower budget foreach slot, a disk drive a corresponding amount of a power budget and PCI Express slots have their own expectations. So your power supply is bigger even if you don't need it. On the otherhand future PC boards will gave few chips on them and will run cool.
Quote:
I really want to know what it is that makes you think the Mini is going to be the only possible form that Apple's consumer-grade headless desktops can possess for a very long time. There is no reason for Apple to simply maintain a form factor indefinitely. Apple's history of innovation suggests otherwise.
This is the part I consider to be silly. I don't especially see the Mini going away but I can't see Apples position holding forever. There are just to many opportunities to explore here. Guessing at the exact size and configuration of that XMac isn't so easy though. It would be nice if Apple had something out in the next couple of months though.
I think it rather odd, by the way, that you seem to be of the view that Apple will never change its product mix.
Of course not. I just don't believe that they are going to bother to offer an xMac in an environment where desktop sales and ASPs are declining EXCEPT for the iMac/AIOs.
"The average selling price of desktop Macs was $1,403 at U.S. retail in March-- or nearly three times Windows PCs' $515 ASP, according to NPD. Windows desktop PC ASPs are down from $527 a year earlier, while desktop Mac ASPs are up from $1,366."
Desktops have been in decline since 2009. The market...aka the consumer...has spoken. Traditional desktops are less and less desirable.
Quote:
Just because Apple hasn't gone a different route in recent years, are we to believe that it never will.
Of course it has gone different routes. Just substantially different routes in markets that will actually see rapid growth. Not old mature markets on the decline. Asking for an xMac in 2011 is almost like asking Apple to produce a mainframe.
Quote:
By the way, one has to wonder if a move to a larger enclosure isn't the direction Apple is going. It did, after all, introduce a larger Mini about a year ago with an integrated power supply and user upgradable memory. How much of a leap would it be to go larger still to accommodate desktop components.
Larger but shorter. Apple says they are essentially the same volume.
"Apple tells us the new and old minis are essentially the same size by volume; you might think of the new mini as being a flattened-out version of the old."
The only thing the Mini is going to evolve into is a home media server via external thunderbolt drives. It might even lose optical in the next iteration.
Quote:
I really want to know what it is that makes you think the Mini is going to be the only possible form that Apple's consumer-grade headless desktops can possess for a very long time. There is no reason for Apple to simply maintain a form factor indefinitely. Apple's history of innovation suggests otherwise.
Because headless desktops are yesterdays technology and fewer and fewer folks are going to want to buy trucks vs cars? And they aren't going to waste their creative energy on new trucks vs new cars?
Something's are obvious in life, not seeing is a problem for many.
When was the last time either of these machines had a major overhaul that dramatically improved platform capability?
When was the last time for the MacBook or MacBook Pro? How much as the MBP really changed since 2006? About the same amount as the iMac. Some minor styling changes, processor and GPU upgrades, ect.
That is my point. Both are mature markets and Apple will milk them and spend most of its efforts on the iOS market and a little bit extra on the MBA.
Quote:
However if implemented in the Mini without a discrete GPU it will be a step backwards as the GApU in Sandy Bridge sucks. Like it or not there has been zero innovation with respect to Apples desktop line, they are simply machines built to shift Intel hardware.
Same issue for the MBP 13" right?
Quote:
You mis the third consideration which is that people have given up on Apple desktop line up.
Apple is selling a million per qtr. That will decline but slower than the overall desktop market.
Quote:
Your statement is insane. When last was the iMac a platform upon which new technology was introduced? As to form factor evolution and the Mini do you call a new box innovation? Seriously this is asinine. We are talking about a mid range device that would offer up substantially more capability than the current Mini.
When has the MacBook Pro been the platform upon which new technology was introduced? Seems like just processor bumps there too. The action is in tablets and phones.
Quote:
Not much of a businessman are we? An important part of running a business is keeping your customers happy.
It is unimportant to keep the most demanding 10% that generates 90% of the headaches but little of the profit. Better to let them move on to your competitors.
Quote:
Apple seems to pull out most of the stops to do so in the laptop line. What I'm saying is that their lack of effort is extremely noticeable in the desktop line up.
They aren't spending any more effort on the MBP than they are on the iMac. On the laptop side the majority of the changes have been with the MBA.
Quote:
Laugh if you must but I see desktop sales at Apple going the way of the XServe. This will certainly be an issue if they don't make the current machinery more appealing.
Sure. But not in the next few years. By then it may not matter.
Desktops are going to enjoy a resurgence of sorts because of the rise of the tablet. What makes the tablet such an ideal device is that it doesn't try to be a desktop replacement. If one is looking to perform more demanding tasks, that's where the desktop comes in.
The advantage of not trying to have a portable with desktop muscle is that for a good price you can have tons of battery life and a lighter form factor. Yet the flipside of that is then having a solid desktop serving as a companion becomes that much more important.
Not everyone will go the route of combining a tablet with a desktop but it's a combination that I think will appeal to a lot of people who might otherwise have opted for a single device compromising battery life and portability for the horsepower to do some heavy lifting.
So you use a tablet for lighter work while puttering around the house, cottage, whatever, and then you have a powerful desktop for doing more demanding work. Both devices suffer from fewer compromises because they are not trying to reconcile conflicting goals.
What I see as possible now that wasn't so much before is that both the Mini and the Mac Pro can be replaced effectively by one form factor that can be configured to meet various needs. This is possible because the consumer-grade desktop components found in the iMac are now powerful enough to perform demanding tasks. As well, Thunderbolt is now in the mix and is very much a game changer whose true value is yet to be fully understood.
For Apple, it seems to me that having one form factor for its headless line of desktops simplifies the process of evolving that product.
By using less expensive desktop components in an entry version of the desktop line, Apple could easily deliver a machine costing near the price of the Mini at one end and significantly less than the Mac Pro at the other.
With Apple it has always been about timing. You bring a product to market when the technology is there to do it right. Up to this point, a one-size-fits-all headless Mac hasn't been viable but I'm not convinced that's the case any longer.
It's not so much a question of adding an xMac to the line-up but rather having such an xMac replace both the Mini and the Pro. I would guess that's not in the cards for 2011 but Ivy Bridge might be the point at which it could happen.
Because headless desktops are yesterdays technology and fewer and fewer folks are going to want to buy trucks vs cars? And they aren't going to waste their creative energy on new trucks vs new cars?
No, couldn't be that simple.
Pickups and SUV's are still 50% of the vehicle market. While Nissan is struggling to get anyone to buy its all electric Leaf. Nissan has sold maybe 1000 in the US and the year is almost half over. That's not an impressive showing for new technology.
Desktop sales have slowed because there are fewer people that no longer have one. But computers still age. There will always be a market because people will always need to buy new ones.
And as stated elsewhere, as more people jump on the bandwagon of portable devices there will be a jump in home computer sales too. People have to have something somewhere to store and sync.
iMacs are popular in part to modern societies throw away attitude and mass consumerism. Fix or repair? Just chunk the whole thing and buy a new one. But some of us take care of what we buy and make it last as long as possible and as long as it is useful.
I typically keep a car for over 12 years. My push mower is 21 years old. At home I'm using a PowerMac G4. Which really has outlasted its usefulness but Apple still has that gap between the mini and the Pro so I keep hanging on and hoping.
Pickups and SUV's are still 50% of the vehicle market. While Nissan is struggling to get anyone to buy its all electric Leaf. Nissan has sold maybe 1000 in the US and the year is almost half over. That's not an impressive showing for new technology.
Desktop sales have slowed because there are fewer people that no longer have one. But computers still age. There will always be a market because people will always need to buy new ones.
And as stated elsewhere, as more people jump on the bandwagon of portable devices there will be a jump in home computer sales too. People have to have something somewhere to store and sync.
iMacs are popular in part to modern societies throw away attitude and mass consumerism. Fix or repair? Just chunk the whole thing and buy a new one. But some of us take care of what we buy and make it last as long as possible and as long as it is useful.
I typically keep a car for over 12 years. My push mower is 21 years old. At home I'm using a PowerMac G4. Which really has outlasted its usefulness but Apple still has that gap between the mini and the Pro so I keep hanging on and hoping.
Exactly. While some people will not be interested in a desktop system, there will be a place for such systems for quite some time. No good can come of Apple ignoring this segment of its business. Frankly if Apple's view is that developing desktops isn't worth the bother then stop selling them. It is destructive for Apple to be perceived to be only going through the motions with its desktop systems because the company spent a lot of time building up a reputation for being a premium brand. Premium brands don't neglect products just because they're serving a niche market. They continue to work on their development. If Apple can't be bothered to do that, pull the plug.
There is less urgency to Apple's work in the desktop space. It's now just one of the things Apple does as opposed to being the core of what it does. Yet it still needs to be devoting thought and resources to maintaining a high standard. It still needs to be perceived to be at least making an effort to produce the best devices possible.
Mac Pro users are typically not constrained by budget as much as time.
It's a chicken/egg situation though when it comes to defining the users. People who are not budget-limited are few and far between. The price point certainly limits the audience to people who have more money but that is not an exclusive group of people who have little time.
Also, the Mac Pro isn't all that fast until you get to the 8-core+ models. The current $1699 i7 21.5" iMac is faster than the $2499 Mac Pro and comes with a free screen. So even a time-constrained buyer would be throwing money away buying an entry Mac Pro especially now that Thunderbolt offers as much storage as needed.
So what does a headless machine offer that an iMac doesn't? Well, if you are into doing very heavy rendering or encoding, you don't need multiple screens so you can get multiple $1000-1200 Cubes with the 2.8GHz quad i7 and the time-limited users save time and money in style with low power usage as they use 65W chips.
The server guys and the high-end visual effects crowd would go nuts over a shelf of little quad i7 Cubes and it would make a neat alternative to the iMac.
Apple always say the consumer will tell them what the right route is by buying or not buying a product. Well, they have to give them the option in the first place and no the original Cube wasn't the option that failed, for obvious reasons.
But, the Mini will reach the desired performance-level eventually so it doesn't matter. Just one update to quad-core Ivy Bridge and that's almost enough. Give it 2-3 years and it will reach today's mid-level Mac Pro performance, which should be plenty for almost any task.
It would be nice of them to stop holding the Mini back though. There is a chance that this delay might have something to do with SSD but if it just ends up being an update that could have come months earlier, it's clear they are holding it back for some unknown reason.
It's a chicken/egg situation though when it comes to defining the users. People who are not budget-limited are few and far between. The price point certainly limits the audience to people who have more money but that is not an exclusive group of people who have little time.
Also, the Mac Pro isn't all that fast until you get to the 8-core+ models. The current $1699 i7 21.5" iMac is faster than the $2499 Mac Pro and comes with a free screen. So even a time-constrained buyer would be throwing money away buying an entry Mac Pro especially now that Thunderbolt offers as much storage as needed.
So what does a headless machine offer that an iMac doesn't? Well, if you are into doing very heavy rendering or encoding, you don't need multiple screens so you can get multiple $1000-1200 Cubes with the 2.8GHz quad i7 and the time-limited users save time and money in style with low power usage as they use 65W chips.
The server guys and the high-end visual effects crowd would go nuts over a shelf of little quad i7 Cubes and it would make a neat alternative to the iMac.
Apple always say the consumer will tell them what the right route is by buying or not buying a product. Well, they have to give them the option in the first place and no the original Cube wasn't the option that failed, for obvious reasons.
But, the Mini will reach the desired performance-level eventually so it doesn't matter. Just one update to quad-core Ivy Bridge and that's almost enough. Give it 2-3 years and it will reach today's mid-level Mac Pro performance, which should be plenty for almost any task.
It would be nice of them to stop holding the Mini back though. There is a chance that this delay might have something to do with SSD but if it just ends up being an update that could have come months earlier, it's clear they are holding it back for some unknown reason.
The Mini and the Macbook, on paper, seem like excessively expensive products considering they're both using previous-gen components. The Macbook, with 4GB of RAM and a 320GB hard drive, i.e. the same specs as the Macbook Pro, is $1,199 here in Canada vs. the Macbook Pro 13" which comes in at $1,249. I mean $50 difference, really? And the Mini might start at $699 but all you have to do is boost the memory to 4GB, step up to a 2.66Ghz previous-gen processor, toss in a keyboard and magic mouse to climb to $1082. Even considering the Mini uses costlier laptop components, compared to the laptops, something is out of whack. No expensive battery technology, no monitor, and yet the Mini is all of $167 cheaper than the Macbook Pro and $112 less than the Macbook.
By decontenting both the Macbook and the Mini, Apple gives the impression that pricing is appropriately lower for last-gen tech and yet in truth, Apple is charging just as much for its Core 2 Duo machines as they are the Sandy Bridge products like the Macbook Pros. How can this be?
We can't really claim that the Mini is a $699 machine when Apple doesn't provide some very basic pieces without which the Mini is unusable. Even if you buy the notion that the Mini is a desktop spinoff of Apple's laptops, the numbers don't add up. Surely the battery and monitor that comes with the Macbook Pro is worth more than $167 and when you consider the Pro has a far better processor, you have to wonder what's going on.
Right now you'd have to be quite naive to consider buying the Macbook since the Pro is pretty much the same price, with comparable specs. There is no similar option for potential Mini buyers but even a Sandy Bridge refresh seems rather like not enough to justify the price.
Apple is charging so much because it can. If all Apple delivers in the next few weeks is a Sandy Bridge refresh for the Mini, a price reduction is in order or at the very least the minimum RAM needs to climb to 4GB. Otherwise, the Mini will amount to a poor deal that Mac customers are being forced to turn to because there is no other way to get a headless Mac for less than $2,400.
Comments
I don't really think you are even on the right track, Apple pretty much ignores the desktop line up.
Given it releases new iMacs like clockwork and refreshed the mini form factor not THAT long ago I wonder who is on the right track and who's ignoring reality when they say that Apple ignores the desktop. It's not the highest priority for sure given the overall decline of the desktop market as a whole but they hardly ignore it.
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.
Or, more simply, desktop share has been on the decline overall for years. Gee, I wonder which is the more likely scenario: Apple is blind to the opportunity or Apple has the correct focus on what kind of machines folks want to buy.
Perhaps desktops will have a short comeback vs laptops as tablets get adopted. More likely is that the iPad will lose the need to sync to anything more than a aTV and fewer and fewer folks will buy trucks or either the desktop or laptop variety.
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.
They've changed as much as the Macbook and MacBook Pro. These are all very mature products. The two products seeing the most form factor evolution are the mini and MBA.
BS Apple can build a machine to sell at any margin they want too.
So your contention is that Apple is simply being petulant in denying your xMac desires?
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.
So, because there is no xMac your opinion is that Apple isn't a good company that strives to fill the needs of their customers and that Apple needs to re-examine how they do business?
Thank you...that is simply hilarious.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I had a Sony CRT that was my monitor for use with several computers. Got a decade out of it and sold it still functioning after all of that. I now have a recent vintage Cinema display that I expect will be around for quite some time. On the other hand, I have zero faith in the idea that I would get 10 years out of a computer because they just don't last that long, certainly with zero maintenance. At the very least the hard drive will need replacing.
Besides, if Apple sees fit to offer a headless Mac in around the price range of an iMac, surely it makes sense for that device to offer at worst comparable performance. There is little difference in cost, factoring in everything you need to have a working system between a Mini and an iMac, and yet the iMac is significantly more powerful. This is a strange situation and there is no need for it to be this way.
By the way, why would you throw out something working well instead of donating it or finding someone who could use it. Over the years I've made a point of not simply throwing away anything that I could put into the hands of friends or relatives who could benefit from it. I always seem to find someone willing to take my old gear off my hands. You would do well to not be so blatantly inconsiderate of the environment or proudly selfish.
I had a Sony CRT that was my monitor for use with several computers. Got a decade out of it and sold it still functioning after all of that. I now have a recent vintage Cinema display that I expect will be around for quite some time. On the other hand, I have zero faith in the idea that I would get 10 years out of a computer because they just don't last that long, certainly with zero maintenance. At the very least the hard drive will need replacing.
Depends on what you mean. Many computers will last 10 years. They just aren't all that useful after 5-6 years. Likewise, my old 12-14" CRTs were still functional but useless at the resolutions they supported.
Besides, if Apple sees fit to offer a headless Mac in around the price range of an iMac, surely it makes sense for that device to offer at worst comparable performance. There is little difference in cost, factoring in everything you need to have a working system between a Mini and an iMac, and yet the iMac is significantly more powerful. This is a strange situation and there is no need for it to be this way.
It is structured this way for profitability and higher average sale prices while maintaining good value. If Apple did offer an xMac with iMac margins the Apple tax would be even more derided. As an AIO Apple can offer good value for an AIO but maintain the margins and higher ASPs.
By the way, why would you throw out something working well instead of donating it or finding someone who could use it. Over the years I've made a point of not simply throwing away anything that I could put into the hands of friends or relatives who could benefit from it. I always seem to find someone willing to take my old gear off my hands. You would do well to not be so blatantly inconsiderate of the environment or proudly selfish.
You would do well to get off your high horse.
They were offered on our local freecycling e-group with no takers so they went off to recycling. The useful gear had already all been given away. Given I occasionally volunteer to help out to make old computers useful again I have a reasonable idea what is and isn't worthwhile even in a give-away scenario. These were not high end large CRTs but the tiny little 12"-14" VGA/SVGA no-name cheapo CRTs of the day and got recycled by the county as the local Goodwill doesn't even take computers anymore.
I hate throwing away old gear that worked so that's why I still had them but they had zero value outside some oddball uses (retro computer builds, fish tanks, etc). Likewise I'm going to pull the drives from the P90 and have it recycled too.
The 15" 1024x768 XGA CRT in the 1998 G3 iMac might have been still be useful to someone as a standalone CRT but I doubt it would be a common. It probably isn't that much more useful than the AIO as a whole. What is certain is that Apple gear tends to get used longer than PC gear so the difference is probably a wash in terms of ewaste generated.
You can find old 14" and 15" CRTs on eBay but as near as I can tell they don't get bids. Old 14" SVGAs sure as heck don't.
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.
We are starting to get the point and we are starting to move on. Only we are moving to Hackintoshes or Windows machines since Apple doesn't have the type of product we want.
How many users still have a CRT from 1999? How many folks still using an ACD from 2005 on a current machine?
I have an ACD 22" from 2003. It is possible to use it with a 2010 iMac? What would I need to do it.
I have an ACD 22" from 2003. It is possible to use it with a 2010 iMac? What would I need to do it.
A dongle or two. Thunderbolt (or mDP) to DVI and then from DVI to ADC.
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-M8661LL-.../dp/B00011KHT2
Jeez...that thing is $114.99 used. Hopefully you have a ACD that is DVI vs ADC. Otherwise I'd just get a new monitor.
That's enough acronyms to qualify for a OMGWTFBBQ comment.
We are starting to get the point and we are starting to move on. Only we are moving to Hackintoshes or Windows machines since Apple doesn't have the type of product we want.
Notice how Apple doesn't care enough about the Hackintosh subculture to make any effort to quash it as long as no one is trying to sell hackintoshes? As long as you pay for a legit copy of the OS no one around here cares much either. Hackintosh away. There are some nice builds out there.
Not only that, Windows 7 is a perfectly fine OS. Only a few whackos around here mind if you switch back. The rest of us run Parallels or Bootcamp.
Depends on what you mean. Many computers will last 10 years. They just aren't all that useful after 5-6 years. Likewise, my old 12-14" CRTs were still functional but useless at the resolutions they supported.
It is structured this way for profitability and higher average sale prices while maintaining good value. If Apple did offer an xMac with iMac margins the Apple tax would be even more derided. As an AIO Apple can offer good value for an AIO but maintain the margins and higher ASPs.
You would do well to get off your high horse.
They were offered on our local freecycling e-group with no takers so they went off to recycling. The useful gear had already all been given away. Given I occasionally volunteer to help out to make old computers useful again I have a reasonable idea what is and isn't worthwhile even in a give-away scenario. These were not high end large CRTs but the tiny little 12"-14" VGA/SVGA no-name cheapo CRTs of the day and got recycled by the county as the local Goodwill doesn't even take computers anymore.
I hate throwing away old gear that worked so that's why I still had them but they had zero value outside some oddball uses (retro computer builds, fish tanks, etc). Likewise I'm going to pull the drives from the P90 and have it recycled too.
The 15" 1024x768 XGA CRT in the 1998 G3 iMac might have been still be useful to someone as a standalone CRT but I doubt it would be a common. It probably isn't that much more useful than the AIO as a whole. What is certain is that Apple gear tends to get used longer than PC gear so the difference is probably a wash in terms of ewaste generated.
You can find old 14" and 15" CRTs on eBay but as near as I can tell they don't get bids. Old 14" SVGAs sure as heck don't.
You're muddying the waters and in the process missing the point entirely. For better or worse I have committed to going with a separate monitor at least for the next decade. I'm pleased with how it went with my previous monitor, a good-quality Sony 17" that served me well for a decade and was coupled with a succession of Mac computers. Now I have a 24" Cinema display that I'm happy with and my set-ups calls for me to combine that device with a separate computer. Period.
I don't want an all-in-one, I don't need an all-in-one, I'm simply not in the market for an all-in-one. You insisting I buy one as a solution is just plain dumb.
Like it or not, some of us prefer to not go the all-in-one route. That it's the way you would rather someone like me go is meaningless. It would be like telling someone that they shouldn't be thinking of buying a particular car company's family sedan because the way you see it, what one should buy is that same company's SUV. If you're in the market for an SUV you shop SUVs but if you're in the market for a family sedan, you shop family sedans and you don't care what the SUVs on the market can do.
The iMac is not a headless computer therefore if like me you are looking at headless computers, who cares about the iMac. Put another way, if I've decided to buy a sedan, what do I care that Honda makes a great minivan.
So telling someone that product mix among headless Macs doesn't matter because there's the iMac, simply doesn't make sense. What the iMac does do, though, is accentuate just how much of a cost is paid to provide the Mini with such a compact form factor. Slower, previous-gen CPU, laptop integrated graphics, slower hard drive. Who signed up for this stuff? I mean, really, if it wasn't for the software, who would give Apple the time of day considering it's $700 desktop can barely keep up with the competition's laptops checking in at hundreds less.
A desktop computer using components designed for desktop use. What a concept. Call it the xMac call whatever you like. All I know is, it makes sense. The Cube was an abject failure because at the time there was choice. Consumers chose performance over compactness. The only way that Apple could sell compactness was by eliminating that choice. That's where we are today. Jobs has a thing for compact desktops. Most of the rest of us don't. His company, his rules. Yet that doesn't mean we have to like it.
A dongle or two. Thunderbolt (or mDP) to DVI and then from DVI to ADC.
http://www.amazon.com/Apple-M8661LL-.../dp/B00011KHT2
Jeez...that thing is $114.99 used. Hopefully you have a ACD that is DVI vs ADC. Otherwise I'd just get a new monitor.
That's enough acronyms to qualify for a OMGWTFBBQ
Unfortunately, it's ADC. $115 will almost buy a cheapy new 22" monitor.
However, I appreciate the info and the effort you made to find it.
You're muddying the waters and in the process missing the point entirely.
I'm not the one pontificating from atop a green horse calling the iMac an environmental disaster.
For better or worse I have committed to going with a separate monitor at least for the next decade. I'm pleased with how it went with my previous monitor, a good-quality Sony 17" that served me well for a decade and was coupled with a succession of Mac computers. Now I have a 24" Cinema display that I'm happy with and my set-ups calls for me to combine that device with a separate computer. Period.
Great. Enjoy.
I don't want an all-in-one, I don't need an all-in-one, I'm simply not in the market for an all-in-one. You insisting I buy one as a solution is just plain dumb.
I never insisted you buy an all-in-one. I am pointing out that insisting that Apple make an xMac is just plain dumb. They haven't in a long long while. They aren't likely to in a long long while. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that.
Like it or not, some of us prefer to not go the all-in-one route. That it's the way you would rather someone like me go is meaningless. It would be like telling someone that they shouldn't be thinking of buying a particular car company's family sedan because the way you see it, what one should buy is that same company's SUV. If you're in the market for an SUV you shop SUVs but if you're in the market for a family sedan, you shop family sedans and you don't care what the SUVs on the market can do.
Apple doesn't make a SUV anymore. Pretty much hasn't since the inexpensive single CPU G4 powermacs. That's a long time ago.
So telling someone that product mix among headless Macs doesn't matter because there's the iMac, simply doesn't make sense.
No, you were whining that Apple doesn't have a mid-tier desktop.
Here's your quote again:
On the other hand many of us have long clamoured for a desktop that slots in below the Mac Pro and above the Mini.
They make a mid-tier desktop that is highly successful.
What they don't do is make a mid-tier desktop YOU like. Your position is that you would like Apple kill both the mini and the mac pro for a desktop YOU want.
Which would screw over professionals that need the computing power of the current Mac Pro and folks that use the Mini has a nice little media machine next to their HTPC. Your suggested Cube II fills neither role.
What the iMac does do, though, is accentuate just how much of a cost is paid to provide the Mini with such a compact form factor. Slower, previous-gen CPU, laptop integrated graphics, slower hard drive. Who signed up for this stuff? I mean, really, if it wasn't for the software, who would give Apple the time of day considering it's $700 desktop can barely keep up with the competition's laptops checking in at hundreds less.
So don't buy it. Make a hackintosh. Apple doesn't appear to care.
But don't presume to speak for those of us who own a mini and like the form factor and very low power consumption and noise.
A desktop computer using components designed for desktop use. What a concept. Call it the xMac call whatever you like. All I know is, it makes sense.
If it made sense for Apple they'd make one. Evidently it doesn't appear to make a whole lot of business sense or they'd have one.
The Cube was an abject failure because at the time there was choice. Consumers chose performance over compactness. The only way that Apple could sell compactness was by eliminating that choice. That's where we are today. Jobs has a thing for compact desktops. Most of the rest of us don't. His company, his rules. Yet that doesn't mean we have to like it.
The cube failed because it was bleeding expensive. A trait the mini doesn't share but a modern cube costing the same as an iMac would.
I'm not the one pontificating from atop a green horse calling the iMac an environmental disaster.
Great. Enjoy.
I never insisted you buy an all-in-one. I am pointing out that insisting that Apple make an xMac is just plain dumb. They haven't in a long long while. They aren't likely to in a long long while. All the whining in the world isn't going to change that.
Apple doesn't make a SUV anymore. Pretty much hasn't since the inexpensive single CPU G4 powermacs. That's a long time ago.
No, you were whining that Apple doesn't have a mid-tier desktop.
Here's your quote again:
They make a mid-tier desktop that is highly successful.
What they don't do is make a mid-tier desktop YOU like. Your position is that you would like Apple kill both the mini and the mac pro for a desktop YOU want.
Which would screw over professionals that need the computing power of the current Mac Pro and folks that use the Mini has a nice little media machine next to their HTPC. Your suggested Cube II fills neither role.
So don't buy it. Make a hackintosh. Apple doesn't appear to care.
But don't presume to speak for those of us who own a mini and like the form factor and very low power consumption and noise.
If it made sense for Apple they'd make one. Evidently it doesn't appear to make a whole lot of business sense or they'd have one.
The cube failed because it was bleeding expensive. A trait the mini doesn't share but a modern cube costing the same as an iMac would.
It isn't a trait the Mini shares because Apple doesn't give consumers an option. The only reason the Cube was deemed expensive is that it was in terms of performance when compared to other desktop offerings from Apple at the time. Now, being as the Mini is the lone headless Mac offered by Apple at anywhere close to its price point, it isn't expensive in the sense that there is nothing to compare it to exactly. It's either buy the Mini or spend a lot more for a Mac Pro.
Yet we can clearly see what the penalty is for using laptop components in every measurable respect because the iMac uses desktop components, includes a monitor, a keyboard and a magic mouse yet checks in at not much more money yet with substantially more computing power. If you try to spec out the Mini to match the iMac, it gets pretty embarrassing. An iMac with 4GB of RAM, and a 500GB hard drive is $1,199. The Mini with 4GB, a 2.66Ghz processor, a 500 GB hard drive, a keyboard and a magic mouse checks in at $1,132. That's a difference of $67 yet we still haven't accounted for a monitor and the hardware is dramatically inferior. Previous gen dual core, weaker GPU, a 5,400 RPM drive. The cost for using laptop components is incredibly high.
I think it rather odd, by the way, that you seem to be of the view that Apple will never change its product mix. Clearly Apple has done that on numerous occasions and there is nothing stopping Apple from going a different route at some point, if not now then within a couple of years. I think that it is absurd to argue, as you seem to be doing, that there is something wrong with customers like me expressing their preference. Feedback matters. Apple would never change anything because of what I or any one customer might state but I don't doubt that Apple does regularly explore its options and values feedback from the general public.
Just because Apple hasn't gone a different route in recent years, are we to believe that it never will. Technology changes. Market forces change. What might have made sense two years ago, doesn't necessarily make sense today. Apple didn't make a tablet in 2006 or 2008 or 2009. It makes a tablet today. Prior to 2005, there was no Mini and it could be that two years from now there will not be one. In fact, the Mini's demise has long been rumoured but the little beast has soldiered on. Apple hasn't promised to make the Mini for all eternity. They could stop building them tomorrow.
Apple innovates on a regular basis and if it fails to follow the right path can easily lose its way. I don't know what an entry-level headless Mac based on desktop components would look like but I'm willing to bet that Apple has looked into it, perhaps even played around with a prototype or two. I realize that portables are taking over but that doesn't mean that Apple is going to simply hit cruise and never reconsider its desktop offerings. It would certainly be interesting to have them shake things up a little as only Apple can. And it sure strikes me that it has been rather quiet on the desktop front for a while now.
By the way, one has to wonder if a move to a larger enclosure isn't the direction Apple is going. It did, after all, introduce a larger Mini about a year ago with an integrated power supply and user upgradable memory. How much of a leap would it be to go larger still to accommodate desktop components. Probably would not take much of an increase considering such components are incorporated into the rather compact confines of the iMac. Cooling is the biggest hurdle but what might not be technically possible one model cycle can become so in the next.
I really want to know what it is that makes you think the Mini is going to be the only possible form that Apple's consumer-grade headless desktops can possess for a very long time. There is no reason for Apple to simply maintain a form factor indefinitely. Apple's history of innovation suggests otherwise.
Given it releases new iMacs like clockwork and refreshed the mini form factor not THAT long ago I wonder who is on the right track and who's ignoring reality when they say that Apple ignores the desktop. It's not the highest priority for sure given the overall decline of the desktop market as a whole but they hardly ignore it.
When was the last time either of these machines had a major overhaul that dramatically improved platform capability? The only thing recently is Thunderbolt on the iMac an interface that by the way is largely overblown. Instead all we get is processor bumps to whatever Intel currently has available.
Now don't get me wrong Intels Sandy Bridge is an excellent CPU. However if implemented in the Mini without a discrete GPU it will be a step backwards as the GApU in Sandy Bridge sucks. Like it or not there has been zero innovation with respect to Apples desktop line, they are simply machines built to shift Intel hardware.
Or, more simply, desktop share has been on the decline overall for years. Gee, I wonder which is the more likely scenario: Apple is blind to the opportunity or Apple has the correct focus on what kind of machines folks want to buy.
You mis the third consideration which is that people have given up on Apple desktop line up.
Perhaps desktops will have a short comeback vs laptops as tablets get adopted. More likely is that the iPad will lose the need to sync to anything more than a aTV and fewer and fewer folks will buy trucks or either the desktop or laptop variety.
I'm not sure why their is so much handwringing in the Mac community over iPad or iOS device syncing. Syncing is what makes these devices so damn useful. Like it or not they dramatically impact the use of my laptop as a portable device.
Mind you it was Apple that came up with the idea of a digital hub in the first place. Neither the Mini nor the iMac really offer up the capabilities one would expect from a hub.
They've changed as much as the Macbook and MacBook Pro. These are all very mature products. The two products seeing the most form factor evolution are the mini and MBA.
Your statement is insane. When last was the iMac a platform upon which new technology was introduced? As to form factor evolution and the Mini do you call a new box innovation? Seriously this is asinine. We are talking about a mid range device that would offer up substantially more capability than the current Mini.
So your contention is that Apple is simply being petulant in denying your xMac desires?
No silly I'm saying times change and that Apple needs to change with them. They have effectively ignored the desk top and now have a very stale product lineup. People have different needs that Apple could easily cover with an expanded desktop line up. Beyond that the Mac line up is a roaring success sales wise so they need to consider climbing out of the trenches because they saved the company a few years ago.
So, because there is no xMac your opinion is that Apple isn't a good company that strives to fill the needs of their customers and that Apple needs to re-examine how they do business?
Thank you...that is simply hilarious.
Not much of a businessman are we? An important part of running a business is keeping your customers happy. Apple seems to pull out most of the stops to do so in the laptop line. What I'm saying is that their lack of effort is extremely noticeable in the desktop line up. They have instituted some half hearted efforts such as a single processor Mac Pro that nObody wanted but have not looked closely at what modern users need.
Laugh if you must but I see desktop sales at Apple going the way of the XServe. This will certainly be an issue if they don't make the current machinery more appealing.
It isn't a trait the Mini shares because Apple doesn't give consumers an option. The only reason the Cube was deemed expensive is that it was in terms of performance when compared to other desktop offerings from Apple at the time. Now, being as the Mini is the lone headless Mac offered by Apple at anywhere close to its price point, it isn't expensive in the sense that there is nothing to compare it to exactly. It's either buy the Mini or spend a lot more for a Mac Pro.
The cube was grossly expensive relative to Apple and every other PC maker in the world. It wasn't all that serviceable either which is a key element in the desire to see an XMac. The Cube like the original Mac Book Air was an example of design winning over human factors. The difference as I see it is that Apple had the financial capability to stick it out when it came to the AIR. The effects of strong consumer feedback can be seen in the new AIRs. Due to Apples considering the consumers needs the new AIR is a run away success.
Yet we can clearly see what the penalty is for using laptop components in every measurable respect because the iMac uses desktop components, includes a monitor, a keyboard and a magic mouse yet checks in at not much more money yet with substantially more computing power. If you try to spec out the Mini to match the iMac, it gets pretty embarrassing. An iMac with 4GB of RAM, and a 500GB hard drive is $1,199. The Mini with 4GB, a 2.66Ghz processor, a 500 GB hard drive, a keyboard and a magic mouse checks in at $1,132. That's a difference of $67 yet we still haven't accounted for a monitor and the hardware is dramatically inferior. Previous gen dual core, weaker GPU, a 5,400 RPM drive. The cost for using laptop components is incredibly high.
Intel gets a good penny for it's laptop chips which has a very negative impact upon the price positioning of the Mini. That is unless you understand the advantages of it's low power nature. The power capability of the little box is a problem or apparently isas I've yet to see the Mini with 45 watt class CPUs. I still lust for a Llano based Mini but that is probably farther off than the XMac.
I think it rather odd, by the way, that you seem to be of the view that Apple will never change its product mix. Clearly Apple has done that on numerous occasions and there is nothing stopping Apple from going a different route at some point, if not now then within a couple of years. I think that it is absurd to argue, as you seem to be doing, that there is something wrong with customers like me expressing their preference. Feedback matters. Apple would never change anything because of what I or any one customer might state but I don't doubt that Apple does regularly explore its options and values feedback from the general public.
no manufacture can last long with a static product line up. I'm not sure why people think that Apples desktop lineup will never change.
Just because Apple hasn't gone a different route in recent years, are we to believe that it never will. Technology changes. Market forces change. What might have made sense two years ago, doesn't necessarily make sense today. Apple didn't make a tablet in 2006 or 2008 or 2009. It makes a tablet today. Prior to 2005, there was no Mini and it could be that two years from now there will not be one. In fact, the Mini's demise has long been rumoured but the little beast has soldiered on. Apple hasn't promised to make the Mini for all eternity. They could stop building them tomorrow.
One aspect about technology change is that it shoves capability down into smaller devices. Because we are at the beginning of an new generation of technology the Mini has the potential to become extremely powerful over the next couple if years. High integration low power SoCs will have a dramatic impact on what can be stuffed in a small box.
Now just because the future looks bright for the Mini doesn't mean that the desire for an XMac goes away. People will still want the RAM slots, storage slots and the occasional PCI Express slot. Even my desire for a discrete GPU will likely be dismissed by the rapid advancement of the integrated on chip GPUs.
In any event I think many people dismiss the XMac because they never personally had a use for them. Either that or they think nothing of upgrading by throwing out what is in a slot.
Apple innovates on a regular basis and if it fails to follow the right path can easily lose its way. I don't know what an entry-level headless Mac based on desktop components would look like but I'm willing to bet that Apple has looked into it, perhaps even played around with a prototype or two.
Dozens most likely
I realize that portables are taking over but that doesn't mean that Apple is going to simply hit cruise and never reconsider its desktop offerings.
They shouldn't do this but it does look that way
It would certainly be interesting to have them shake things up a little as only Apple can. And it sure strikes me that it has been rather quiet on the desktop front for a while now.
Thus my comments about the line up being stagnet or stale. Maybe Apple is just waiting for the next round of chips from Intel or hopefully AMD. While no new model will be perfect they should be able to easily address the concerns seen in these threads. Further the thing (xMac) needs to be serviceable. It is really sad that today's laptops are easier to work than Apples desktop machines.
By the way, one has to wonder if a move to a larger enclosure isn't the direction Apple is going. It did, after all, introduce a larger Mini about a year ago with an integrated power supply and user upgradable memory. How much of a leap would it be to go larger still to accommodate desktop components.
This is not likely as then you wouldn't gave a Mini.
Probably would not take much of an increase considering such components are incorporated into the rather compact confines of the iMac. Cooling is the biggest hurdle but what might not be technically possible one model cycle can become so in the next.
Every slot you add requires an increase in the size of the power supply. This is actually one argument used against machines with slots. RAM requires slower budget foreach slot, a disk drive a corresponding amount of a power budget and PCI Express slots have their own expectations. So your power supply is bigger even if you don't need it. On the otherhand future PC boards will gave few chips on them and will run cool.
I really want to know what it is that makes you think the Mini is going to be the only possible form that Apple's consumer-grade headless desktops can possess for a very long time. There is no reason for Apple to simply maintain a form factor indefinitely. Apple's history of innovation suggests otherwise.
This is the part I consider to be silly. I don't especially see the Mini going away but I can't see Apples position holding forever. There are just to many opportunities to explore here. Guessing at the exact size and configuration of that XMac isn't so easy though. It would be nice if Apple had something out in the next couple of months though.
I think it rather odd, by the way, that you seem to be of the view that Apple will never change its product mix.
Of course not. I just don't believe that they are going to bother to offer an xMac in an environment where desktop sales and ASPs are declining EXCEPT for the iMac/AIOs.
"The average selling price of desktop Macs was $1,403 at U.S. retail in March-- or nearly three times Windows PCs' $515 ASP, according to NPD. Windows desktop PC ASPs are down from $527 a year earlier, while desktop Mac ASPs are up from $1,366."
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...acs/1304437069
Desktops have been in decline since 2009. The market...aka the consumer...has spoken. Traditional desktops are less and less desirable.
Just because Apple hasn't gone a different route in recent years, are we to believe that it never will.
Of course it has gone different routes. Just substantially different routes in markets that will actually see rapid growth. Not old mature markets on the decline. Asking for an xMac in 2011 is almost like asking Apple to produce a mainframe.
By the way, one has to wonder if a move to a larger enclosure isn't the direction Apple is going. It did, after all, introduce a larger Mini about a year ago with an integrated power supply and user upgradable memory. How much of a leap would it be to go larger still to accommodate desktop components.
Larger but shorter. Apple says they are essentially the same volume.
"Apple tells us the new and old minis are essentially the same size by volume; you might think of the new mini as being a flattened-out version of the old."
http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/18/m...d-2010-review/
The only thing the Mini is going to evolve into is a home media server via external thunderbolt drives. It might even lose optical in the next iteration.
I really want to know what it is that makes you think the Mini is going to be the only possible form that Apple's consumer-grade headless desktops can possess for a very long time. There is no reason for Apple to simply maintain a form factor indefinitely. Apple's history of innovation suggests otherwise.
Because headless desktops are yesterdays technology and fewer and fewer folks are going to want to buy trucks vs cars? And they aren't going to waste their creative energy on new trucks vs new cars?
No, couldn't be that simple.
Something's are obvious in life, not seeing is a problem for many.
When was the last time either of these machines had a major overhaul that dramatically improved platform capability?
When was the last time for the MacBook or MacBook Pro? How much as the MBP really changed since 2006? About the same amount as the iMac. Some minor styling changes, processor and GPU upgrades, ect.
That is my point. Both are mature markets and Apple will milk them and spend most of its efforts on the iOS market and a little bit extra on the MBA.
However if implemented in the Mini without a discrete GPU it will be a step backwards as the GApU in Sandy Bridge sucks. Like it or not there has been zero innovation with respect to Apples desktop line, they are simply machines built to shift Intel hardware.
Same issue for the MBP 13" right?
You mis the third consideration which is that people have given up on Apple desktop line up.
Apple is selling a million per qtr. That will decline but slower than the overall desktop market.
Your statement is insane. When last was the iMac a platform upon which new technology was introduced? As to form factor evolution and the Mini do you call a new box innovation? Seriously this is asinine. We are talking about a mid range device that would offer up substantially more capability than the current Mini.
When has the MacBook Pro been the platform upon which new technology was introduced? Seems like just processor bumps there too. The action is in tablets and phones.
Not much of a businessman are we? An important part of running a business is keeping your customers happy.
It is unimportant to keep the most demanding 10% that generates 90% of the headaches but little of the profit. Better to let them move on to your competitors.
Apple seems to pull out most of the stops to do so in the laptop line. What I'm saying is that their lack of effort is extremely noticeable in the desktop line up.
They aren't spending any more effort on the MBP than they are on the iMac. On the laptop side the majority of the changes have been with the MBA.
Laugh if you must but I see desktop sales at Apple going the way of the XServe. This will certainly be an issue if they don't make the current machinery more appealing.
Sure. But not in the next few years. By then it may not matter.
The advantage of not trying to have a portable with desktop muscle is that for a good price you can have tons of battery life and a lighter form factor. Yet the flipside of that is then having a solid desktop serving as a companion becomes that much more important.
Not everyone will go the route of combining a tablet with a desktop but it's a combination that I think will appeal to a lot of people who might otherwise have opted for a single device compromising battery life and portability for the horsepower to do some heavy lifting.
So you use a tablet for lighter work while puttering around the house, cottage, whatever, and then you have a powerful desktop for doing more demanding work. Both devices suffer from fewer compromises because they are not trying to reconcile conflicting goals.
What I see as possible now that wasn't so much before is that both the Mini and the Mac Pro can be replaced effectively by one form factor that can be configured to meet various needs. This is possible because the consumer-grade desktop components found in the iMac are now powerful enough to perform demanding tasks. As well, Thunderbolt is now in the mix and is very much a game changer whose true value is yet to be fully understood.
For Apple, it seems to me that having one form factor for its headless line of desktops simplifies the process of evolving that product.
By using less expensive desktop components in an entry version of the desktop line, Apple could easily deliver a machine costing near the price of the Mini at one end and significantly less than the Mac Pro at the other.
With Apple it has always been about timing. You bring a product to market when the technology is there to do it right. Up to this point, a one-size-fits-all headless Mac hasn't been viable but I'm not convinced that's the case any longer.
It's not so much a question of adding an xMac to the line-up but rather having such an xMac replace both the Mini and the Pro. I would guess that's not in the cards for 2011 but Ivy Bridge might be the point at which it could happen.
Because headless desktops are yesterdays technology and fewer and fewer folks are going to want to buy trucks vs cars? And they aren't going to waste their creative energy on new trucks vs new cars?
No, couldn't be that simple.
Pickups and SUV's are still 50% of the vehicle market. While Nissan is struggling to get anyone to buy its all electric Leaf. Nissan has sold maybe 1000 in the US and the year is almost half over. That's not an impressive showing for new technology.
Desktop sales have slowed because there are fewer people that no longer have one. But computers still age. There will always be a market because people will always need to buy new ones.
And as stated elsewhere, as more people jump on the bandwagon of portable devices there will be a jump in home computer sales too. People have to have something somewhere to store and sync.
iMacs are popular in part to modern societies throw away attitude and mass consumerism. Fix or repair? Just chunk the whole thing and buy a new one. But some of us take care of what we buy and make it last as long as possible and as long as it is useful.
I typically keep a car for over 12 years. My push mower is 21 years old. At home I'm using a PowerMac G4. Which really has outlasted its usefulness but Apple still has that gap between the mini and the Pro so I keep hanging on and hoping.
Pickups and SUV's are still 50% of the vehicle market. While Nissan is struggling to get anyone to buy its all electric Leaf. Nissan has sold maybe 1000 in the US and the year is almost half over. That's not an impressive showing for new technology.
Desktop sales have slowed because there are fewer people that no longer have one. But computers still age. There will always be a market because people will always need to buy new ones.
And as stated elsewhere, as more people jump on the bandwagon of portable devices there will be a jump in home computer sales too. People have to have something somewhere to store and sync.
iMacs are popular in part to modern societies throw away attitude and mass consumerism. Fix or repair? Just chunk the whole thing and buy a new one. But some of us take care of what we buy and make it last as long as possible and as long as it is useful.
I typically keep a car for over 12 years. My push mower is 21 years old. At home I'm using a PowerMac G4. Which really has outlasted its usefulness but Apple still has that gap between the mini and the Pro so I keep hanging on and hoping.
Exactly. While some people will not be interested in a desktop system, there will be a place for such systems for quite some time. No good can come of Apple ignoring this segment of its business. Frankly if Apple's view is that developing desktops isn't worth the bother then stop selling them. It is destructive for Apple to be perceived to be only going through the motions with its desktop systems because the company spent a lot of time building up a reputation for being a premium brand. Premium brands don't neglect products just because they're serving a niche market. They continue to work on their development. If Apple can't be bothered to do that, pull the plug.
There is less urgency to Apple's work in the desktop space. It's now just one of the things Apple does as opposed to being the core of what it does. Yet it still needs to be devoting thought and resources to maintaining a high standard. It still needs to be perceived to be at least making an effort to produce the best devices possible.
Mac Pro users are typically not constrained by budget as much as time.
It's a chicken/egg situation though when it comes to defining the users. People who are not budget-limited are few and far between. The price point certainly limits the audience to people who have more money but that is not an exclusive group of people who have little time.
Also, the Mac Pro isn't all that fast until you get to the 8-core+ models. The current $1699 i7 21.5" iMac is faster than the $2499 Mac Pro and comes with a free screen. So even a time-constrained buyer would be throwing money away buying an entry Mac Pro especially now that Thunderbolt offers as much storage as needed.
So what does a headless machine offer that an iMac doesn't? Well, if you are into doing very heavy rendering or encoding, you don't need multiple screens so you can get multiple $1000-1200 Cubes with the 2.8GHz quad i7 and the time-limited users save time and money in style with low power usage as they use 65W chips.
The server guys and the high-end visual effects crowd would go nuts over a shelf of little quad i7 Cubes and it would make a neat alternative to the iMac.
Apple always say the consumer will tell them what the right route is by buying or not buying a product. Well, they have to give them the option in the first place and no the original Cube wasn't the option that failed, for obvious reasons.
But, the Mini will reach the desired performance-level eventually so it doesn't matter. Just one update to quad-core Ivy Bridge and that's almost enough. Give it 2-3 years and it will reach today's mid-level Mac Pro performance, which should be plenty for almost any task.
It would be nice of them to stop holding the Mini back though. There is a chance that this delay might have something to do with SSD but if it just ends up being an update that could have come months earlier, it's clear they are holding it back for some unknown reason.
It's a chicken/egg situation though when it comes to defining the users. People who are not budget-limited are few and far between. The price point certainly limits the audience to people who have more money but that is not an exclusive group of people who have little time.
Also, the Mac Pro isn't all that fast until you get to the 8-core+ models. The current $1699 i7 21.5" iMac is faster than the $2499 Mac Pro and comes with a free screen. So even a time-constrained buyer would be throwing money away buying an entry Mac Pro especially now that Thunderbolt offers as much storage as needed.
So what does a headless machine offer that an iMac doesn't? Well, if you are into doing very heavy rendering or encoding, you don't need multiple screens so you can get multiple $1000-1200 Cubes with the 2.8GHz quad i7 and the time-limited users save time and money in style with low power usage as they use 65W chips.
The server guys and the high-end visual effects crowd would go nuts over a shelf of little quad i7 Cubes and it would make a neat alternative to the iMac.
Apple always say the consumer will tell them what the right route is by buying or not buying a product. Well, they have to give them the option in the first place and no the original Cube wasn't the option that failed, for obvious reasons.
But, the Mini will reach the desired performance-level eventually so it doesn't matter. Just one update to quad-core Ivy Bridge and that's almost enough. Give it 2-3 years and it will reach today's mid-level Mac Pro performance, which should be plenty for almost any task.
It would be nice of them to stop holding the Mini back though. There is a chance that this delay might have something to do with SSD but if it just ends up being an update that could have come months earlier, it's clear they are holding it back for some unknown reason.
The Mini and the Macbook, on paper, seem like excessively expensive products considering they're both using previous-gen components. The Macbook, with 4GB of RAM and a 320GB hard drive, i.e. the same specs as the Macbook Pro, is $1,199 here in Canada vs. the Macbook Pro 13" which comes in at $1,249. I mean $50 difference, really? And the Mini might start at $699 but all you have to do is boost the memory to 4GB, step up to a 2.66Ghz previous-gen processor, toss in a keyboard and magic mouse to climb to $1082. Even considering the Mini uses costlier laptop components, compared to the laptops, something is out of whack. No expensive battery technology, no monitor, and yet the Mini is all of $167 cheaper than the Macbook Pro and $112 less than the Macbook.
By decontenting both the Macbook and the Mini, Apple gives the impression that pricing is appropriately lower for last-gen tech and yet in truth, Apple is charging just as much for its Core 2 Duo machines as they are the Sandy Bridge products like the Macbook Pros. How can this be?
We can't really claim that the Mini is a $699 machine when Apple doesn't provide some very basic pieces without which the Mini is unusable. Even if you buy the notion that the Mini is a desktop spinoff of Apple's laptops, the numbers don't add up. Surely the battery and monitor that comes with the Macbook Pro is worth more than $167 and when you consider the Pro has a far better processor, you have to wonder what's going on.
Right now you'd have to be quite naive to consider buying the Macbook since the Pro is pretty much the same price, with comparable specs. There is no similar option for potential Mini buyers but even a Sandy Bridge refresh seems rather like not enough to justify the price.
Apple is charging so much because it can. If all Apple delivers in the next few weeks is a Sandy Bridge refresh for the Mini, a price reduction is in order or at the very least the minimum RAM needs to climb to 4GB. Otherwise, the Mini will amount to a poor deal that Mac customers are being forced to turn to because there is no other way to get a headless Mac for less than $2,400.