256 gig SSDs going for £120-ish and 512 SSDs going for £250-ish.
No reason Apple can't put them in their machines as standard on their desktops (they charge enough.)
I have a 1TB fusion drive in my iMac which I payed through the nose for. I'd rather had a 256 gig SSD for OS and programs and used an external platter for data.
Well it isn't that good but yeah it is a big improvement power wise. I'm in fact waiting to see what the Mini looks like when it comes out. I really have this feeling that we will get a major update to generate synergy with the new Mac Pro.
Believe me I'm waiting.
That is thinking small honestly, A7 has huge potential not just in mobile devices. I could really get into a media server built around one.
An A7 design in a desktop really shouldn't be called a Mac even though ideally it would run Mac OS/X. Calling such a device a Mac would lead to compatibility confusion and marketing issues. However the point remains there are many use for which the A7 could be put to use in a "desktop" platform that doesn't require mainstream i86 performance. Media servers, small office file servers, dedicated controllers, an Apple TV / games console all come to mind. Yes even a Mini with an A7 would be appealing as an entry level device, just don't call it a Mac Mini.
Take the Apple TV for example. Upgrade the internals with an A7, add more RAM & flash, support an external storage device and you have a platform that can do everything Apple TV can do and at the same time support apps, in this case mostly downloadable games. Ideally this would be a beefed up A7X variant to improve the GPU even more. The point here is that Apple could have a games / AppleTV platform in practically the same form factor as the current Apple TV and probably at a similar cost.
In any event the whole point with all this rambling is that Apple has the ability to dramatically change the price equation for a number of these non mobile uses. They can do this while maintaining good profits. It isn't like the A7 in some of these products would be good enough for everybody, they would however be good enough for millions of people. You have to realize that many servers, disk arrays and the like already run on ARM hardware that is a lot slower than A7.
As for a low end Mini like platform, A7 already runs at Core Duo like performance levels with most likely better graphics performance. Graphics by the way that supports OpenCL so many apps have the potential to go beyond Core Duo levels of performance. So lets say Apple can offer up an A7 in a $250 box with OS/X and 4GB of RAM, offer support in the App Store so that A7 apps won't be a problem and otherwise offer a complete computer - do you think that wouldn't sell? Especially considering that this chip would be running faster that the current A7 due to better cooling options and power supply options. Think about it, the new AirPort Extreme is $199, they can recycle much of that into an A7 based computer and tack on $50. It would sell like hotcakes especially if they can hit Core 2 levels of performance and used flash as secondary storage. No maybe $250 is a little too agressive for Apple but even at $350 it is still a huge improvement over the current Mini cost wise. Honestly though I think $199 would be doable for the basic hardware, it is only the flash drive that cause a bump to +$250.
A decent 'ramble.'
The A7 is one hell of a chip. With one helluva GPU 'Rogue.'
It wasn't so long ago we had Core Duos! My last iMac was a Core Duo! The 2008 top end model (thinks back...I think...)
Rogue is offering PS3 type GPU performance, Antialiased...(!) Surely has to be eclipsing the Mini's GPU performance from a few years ago?
Or as Gruber puts it...
The iPhone 5S is, in some measures, computationally superior to the top-of-the-line MacBook Pro from just five years ago. In your fucking pocket.
So, Wizard's call for a 'wet dream' Apple TV or Mini isn't so unreasonable. It could offer tremendous bang for the buck for most people. The same iPad computing folk that are eating traditional computer sales.
A7. 64 bit. (Going very mainstream! The Apple 'A' chip has arrived.) CPU and GPU very, very fast. (At this rate of going...how long until we're saying, 'Just a couple of years ago...' as opposed to 'just five years ago...' It could create a very powerful mass market computing platform. iPhone. iPad. ATV. (In theory, the latter could eclipse the value of the Mini as Wizard says...as Apple's console/media hub? And be very price competitive to PS4/XBox 1. Apple are already selling millions of ATVs...and spec wise, currently, it's nothing special.) Sell 50 million iPhone A7s, 50 million A7 iPads and 12 million ATVs in a year? That's 112 million A7 powered devices! That eclipses the Mac userbase with a power that...well, Gruber said it. You can kinda see where this is going...
If Intel is only improving mainstream cpu performance by 10% each year now...
...and the A7 chip doubles next year...and the year after that...(same for the gpu performance...)
How long could it be before we envision a time Apple can cut Intel loose..?
Either Arm goes into the Mac at some future point? Or we have an Apple II - Mac - iOS succession?
Not in the immediate future.
But that A7 is some chip. Make one helluva ATV console/media hub. (When the A7 drops into the 5C next year, the 'plastic' phone becomes very compelling...especially if Apple intro's a new, bigger phone and the rest of the line takes a knock down...in price.)
Many permutations. We'll have to see where Apple goes with it all.
The Mini is safe for now. Haswell. Better GPU 'Iris?' (g40/650 gpu performance?) More ram if Apple plays Santa. SSD as standard? Maybe I doubt the latter two. They just can't help themselves... By force of spec gravity from Intel...the Mini is becoming a reasonable buy. Should fly with an SSD in it.
Lemon Bon Bon comes into the thread to respond to the posts by wizard and myself offering good points with a little humor and then marv albert has to go and ruin it with useless spam. : [
Anyway wizard, the reason I don't want to go all in with Mavericks is because my current mini is serving me just fine but if Apple builds up the 2013 mini well enough it may get me to upgrade. If they simply go with an i5-4200M with 4 GB of memory and a 500 GB HDD in the base mini, I'm not sure I'll rush out to plunk $600 or more on it. Honestly I too am not sold on the Fusion drive but to have it offered in the mini would be nice for customers who want the space of an HDD with the speed of SSD and don't want to make sacrifices. Me? I am willing to make a sacrifice because I don't use a ton of space (at least not yet), also does the hard drive have to be rusty? : P
On the back of Wizard's speculative posts...re: the A7 (after all, Tim Cook called it a desktop class cpu. It is...equal to my previous iMac's cpu in many ways... How long before the A series chases down an i7? I look at the Power Mac in my front room and marvel that an iPhone 4 could run youtube better than it could...pinch me...*)
How long before the 'low end mini' is chased down by the A8, A9...
There was a time when Portable CPUs in laptops and gpus where miles ahead of the desktops. Now look at things. And the phone performance market is blazing along.
The A7 is an astonishing break through. If it doubles in two years, where will it be? (If the Intel cpu performances are merely 10% over the next two years...where will it be? We've had several of years now of very static cpu development in terms of performance.)
On the back of Wizard's speculative posts...re: the A7 (after all, Tim Cook called it a desktop class cpu. It is...equal to my previous iMac's cpu in many ways... How long before the A series chases down an i7?
Don't know but do they really need to chase down i7? Many of the markets Apple serves or could serve don't need i7's CPU performance though GPU performance is required.
I look at the Power Mac in my front room and marvel that an iPhone 4 could run youtube better than it could...pinch me...*)
I'm amazed everyday at what my old iPhone 4 and iPad 3 can do. These are both relatively old devices too. I've installed iOS on both and frankly it looks like they jumped the gun as far as it being ready for the iPad goes, but even so both machines are still fully functional. More so in some aspects they perform better than before iOS7 even if there are a few performance regressions here and there. That says a lot about iOS and Apples approach to performance.
How long before the 'low end mini' is chased down by the A8, A9...
If Apple goes the A7X route it might be this year. All they really would have to do is add two cores, improve the GPU and add 500MHz or so to the clock rate. Considering past behavior that isn't impossible. I'm not sure they will go quad core ARM in A7X, but if they did it would make for a very nice extreme low power desktop replacement. Effectively an AppleTV sized box could pass as a desktop computer and not run much hotter.
There was a time when Portable CPUs in laptops and gpus where miles ahead of the desktops. Now look at things. And the phone performance market is blazing along.
The evidence is pretty clear Intel has been forced by market conditions to embrace very low power devices. Even server rooms are rejecting +150 watt CPUs. It isn't just mobile, the entire industry has had to address the problem of excessive power usage.
The A7 is an astonishing break through. If it doubles in two years, where will it be?
That is a good question. At some point process technology won't shrink fast enough for Apple to do simple performance doubling, they will effectively have caught up with the semiconductor industries process scaling. At that point significant A series gains will only arrive when the new semiconductor processes do.
Since I'm a big iPad user I'm very much interested in what the A7X will look like in the next iPad or if there will even be an X variant. So I speculate a bit on what A7X might look like, does Apple stay dual core ARM to beef up the GPU or do they go quad core ARM? I don't know but you are looking two years ahead and I'm looking at what I hope is not more than two months. When you have a 1 billion plus transistor SoC is it really that easy to offer multiple variants, or can Apple may just bump clock rates to double iPad performance.
Lots of speculation but if Apple moves ahead with their two chip strategy then I have to believe that they have an excellent desktop replacement chip on their hands. That won't be in two years but rather months. No it won't compete with Intels top of the line processors but many products don't need that sort of performance.
(If the Intel cpu performances are merely 10% over the next two years...where will it be? We've had several of years now of very static cpu development in terms of performance.)
There is a limit to just how far you can go improving a CPU. In Intels case it takes considerable effort to get just a little bit of improvement each year as the architecture is mature. In Apples case they effectively with A7 are starting out with a whole new architecture that only support legacy ARM architecture in a 32 bit mode. In the long run I can see Apple dropping backwards compatibility with 32 bit ARM hardware completely. Divesting themselves completely from legacy hardware means they can push into new power and performance frontiers. Contrast this with Intel which has all sorts of legacy support built into every chip they have ever made.
So how long can Apple go on with 2X performance increases every year? I'm guessing about 4 years at which point they will be like Intel trying to squeeze a few percent out of each ALU. At that time the processor will be a pure 64 bit implementation. If Apple becomes real aggressive with developer with respect to supporting 64 bits in their apps you will know this is a long term goal.
Lemon Bon Bon.
As to Cringely he has some interesting ideas, some of which I agree with and that I think Apple is pursuing.
Number one I see Apple delivering the hardware so that some users can leverage their iPhone or tablet as their primary computer. This won't be for everybody and frankly if this is Apples goal the current iPhone 5S is way off mark here. However having a computer in your pocket that docks with the desktop hardware (keyboard, screen and whatever) either wirelessly or via plug in will be a huge win for many workers.
The problem I have here is that iOS isn't really there yet as an OS that will let this happen. The main problem they have is a place to stash common files so that you can work on them with different tools. That and they need a finder type app to help with managing that store. I know this is at odds with their security model but they need to find a solution that will make iOS viable in these sorts of desktop uses. There are other issues too, but I see how the user currently interacts with files and apps as a big problem moving forward.
One approach they should consider is a dual mode OS. One where an iOS device effectively runs a Mac OS GUI when docked. This would provide the user with all the benefits of Mac OS but only when there is a screen available to support that functionality. The one thing that absolutely prevents me from ditching my Mac for an iPad is the complete inability to get to the OS when needed. If they where to address this when docked to a screen and keyboard/mouse so that you have a duality of personalities to work with I might just say good bye to the Mac. The reality is that when mobile iOS rocks, at the desk it is a very frustrating environment. Even if that desktop mode ran iOS apps in separate iOS sized windows it would be a big improvement usability wise. Give us a bit of UNIX access and we are golden.
In a nut shell I think Cringely is right, Apples goal is a computer you carry around in your pocket that is "Your Computer". To accomplish that Apple will need to morph iOS into something different than we have today. That may be personalities that reveal themselves when plugged into a dock or some other solution. Apple is most likely hot on this but it is hard to say when the hardware and software will arrive. I really don't think iPhone 5s has the chops for this and for some odd reason they didn't address the lack of flash issue. All of these scenarios require a lot more secondary store than iPhone 5s ships with.
It wouldn't surprise me if they quietly dropped the low end mini if Intel doesn't make it worthwhile enough. Who knows?
You know I had a lengthy response here (it is raining outside) but I switched to another tab in Safari and all was lost.
In any event I really believe this chassis in the new Airport Extremes could make for one excellent place to build up a new Mac Mini or ARM based computer. With current technology you could stick Haswell in there but even better you could stick an A7 derived SOC. Like the Mac Pro there would be cards on both sides of the central divider. One would be the computer the other the SSD storage. Route some cables to an I/O block on one side and you are done. Simple, clean and elegant for a very low cost computer. With an ARM derived SoC implementation you may be able to reuse the power supply and cooling from the AirPort Extreme. The only question is would an A7Xx be powerful enough at the price Apple would ask. If they positioned it to compete against $300 laptops and desktops I don't think there would be a problem at all.
As for Intel and the Mini, Apple has more potential choices for chips to design in than they ever have had. For the entry level model, I wouldn't expect it to go away unless alternatives are built as described above. Everybody needs entry level hardware, so it comes down to what Apple chooses.
Even if Apple stays Intel I can still see the entire Mini being refactored. With the coming Mac Pro it is the right time to do so. Hopefully that means a machine that doesn't shy away from performance.
When you get a chance, see if you can rewrite that response and save it in a text file.
It has been raining for hours now, I'm getting a bit bummed out as I have work outside to do. I may just hop in the truck and take a ride someplace. Either that or do some inside work, I really want to be outside though as winter is coming.
In any event, I'm just hopeful that the new hardware debuts in October as rumored. It will be very interesting to say the least as this year it is far harder to guess at what will be in the new machines based on Intels catalog. That and a sixty four bit iPAd is very exciting to me.
I really don't think iPhone 5s has the chops for this and for some odd reason they didn't address the lack of flash issue.
While I don't have the link in front of me, it is expected that flash SSDs will likely be replaced by ReRam, or Resistance Ram. There is a company, who are investing in it now, and expect to have it to market in around 2016.
About the only way it could come earlier is if a company like Samsung or Apple invested large amounts of capital to speed it up. I have to admit, that if one of them did invest, I would prefer it to be Samsung, because that way, it would filter out to the whole industry, thanks to SSD manufacturing, supplying companies like Apple ex-cectra. With Apple, it would probably only go into Apple product, and while that is not a bad thing for their users, others like myself, still have a Windows Desktop, and can't afford a Mac, but would still like to use the latest tech.
While I don't have the link in front of me, it is expected that flash SSDs will likely be replaced by ReRam, or Resistance Ram. There is a company, who are investing in it now, and expect to have it to market in around 2016.
About the only way it could come earlier is if a company like Samsung or Apple invested large amounts of capital to speed it up. I have to admit, that if one of them did invest, I would prefer it to be Samsung, because that way, it would filter out to the whole industry, thanks to SSD manufacturing, supplying companies like Apple ex-cectra. With Apple, it would probably only go into Apple product, and while that is not a bad thing for their users, others like myself, still have a Windows Desktop, and can't afford a Mac, but would still like to use the latest tech.
The thing with A7 is that Apple could produce a very affordable "Mac" like machine. Apple isn't afraid to market good machines at low prices, the MBA highlight that. They are a machine few competing companies can seem to match. So Apple investing in a company doesn't mean that it will result in Apple only production. In fact Apple has a very mixed record here they have interest in Imagination, ARM (at one time), and a bunch of other companies with wide distribution. They only time Apple takes a company completely is when they have a motivation to block others from using the technology.
The thing with A7 is that Apple could produce a very affordable "Mac" like machine. Apple isn't afraid to market good machines at low prices, the MBA highlight that. They are a machine few competing companies can seem to match. So Apple investing in a company doesn't mean that it will result in Apple only production. In fact Apple has a very mixed record here they have interest in Imagination, ARM (at one time), and a bunch of other companies with wide distribution. They only time Apple takes a company completely is when they have a motivation to block others from using the technology.
They can and the iPhone 5C highlights this at $99 with a contract. It's funny in a way though that they would want to do this. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (yes I listen to him, sue me) and he is an Apple fan. He couldn't understand why Apple would want to make a so-called "low-end" iPhone when Apple has always been an expensive brand and appealed to users who can afford that brand.
We'll find out if he's right and if the 5C sells well over time just because it bears the Apple name, Apple logo, and iPhone logo.
The thing is, how inexpensive would you make a mini? $499? $399? What do you put in it as you drop the price?
They can and the iPhone 5C highlights this at $99 with a contract. It's funny in a way though that they would want to do this. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (yes I listen to him, sue me) and he is an Apple fan.
I really don't listen to radio much at all anymore but use to hear is broadcasts in the past. He certainly has some very valid view points. I do find it odd that he is an Apple fan to the extent he is, he seems to have a personality more in line with the Linux crowd.
He couldn't understand why Apple would want to make a so-called "low-end" iPhone when Apple has always been an expensive brand and appealed to users who can afford that brand.
I'm not sure this is really true. If you look towards the past many Apple computer really where not that expensive relative to the market at the time. Some products like the cube they did go stupid on. The retina MBPs might fall into that category too. The thing is Apple isn't a discounter, they set a price on a model and pretty much stick with it until the next. Only very recently have they been flexible with pricing.
They ALS carnet afraid to refactor a model to corner a bit of the market, just look at how the Mac Book Airs have evolved over time. They literally repositioned the machine into one of the best values on the market.
We'll find out if he's right and if the 5C sells well over time just because it bears the Apple name, Apple logo, and iPhone logo.
The "just because" is ridiculous. The 5C will sell well because it is a good value in the market place. It has a performance profile that few phones can match even after a year.
The thing is, how inexpensive would you make a mini? $499? $399? What do you put in it as you drop the price?
I'd would want an A7 based Mini to come in at around $250. As for an Intel based machine that is a harder question to address. They could move to desktop parts for a somewhat lower cost for the CPU chip, or they could skip Iris and again gain a pricing advantage. I really believe they could hit $500 for the entry level machine if they wanted too.
You sir are a realist not someone who buys just for the sake of buying.I totally agree with you.A phone is a phone as long as you can make a call from it.
Wizard - I absolutely agree with you because they have done it in the past unfortunately though I feel if they did make a $500 entry model, they would gimp it even more than they do the $600 model they have now. I'd like to be proven wrong though.
Comments
256 gig SSDs going for £120-ish and 512 SSDs going for £250-ish.
No reason Apple can't put them in their machines as standard on their desktops (they charge enough.)
I have a 1TB fusion drive in my iMac which I payed through the nose for. I'd rather had a 256 gig SSD for OS and programs and used an external platter for data.
Lemon Bon Bon.
8 gigs? It's dirt cheap to buy now.
Apple and it's 'charge you £400+ for some extra ram policies.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well it isn't that good but yeah it is a big improvement power wise. I'm in fact waiting to see what the Mini looks like when it comes out. I really have this feeling that we will get a major update to generate synergy with the new Mac Pro.
Believe me I'm waiting.
That is thinking small honestly, A7 has huge potential not just in mobile devices. I could really get into a media server built around one.
An A7 design in a desktop really shouldn't be called a Mac even though ideally it would run Mac OS/X. Calling such a device a Mac would lead to compatibility confusion and marketing issues. However the point remains there are many use for which the A7 could be put to use in a "desktop" platform that doesn't require mainstream i86 performance. Media servers, small office file servers, dedicated controllers, an Apple TV / games console all come to mind. Yes even a Mini with an A7 would be appealing as an entry level device, just don't call it a Mac Mini.
Take the Apple TV for example. Upgrade the internals with an A7, add more RAM & flash, support an external storage device and you have a platform that can do everything Apple TV can do and at the same time support apps, in this case mostly downloadable games. Ideally this would be a beefed up A7X variant to improve the GPU even more. The point here is that Apple could have a games / AppleTV platform in practically the same form factor as the current Apple TV and probably at a similar cost.
In any event the whole point with all this rambling is that Apple has the ability to dramatically change the price equation for a number of these non mobile uses. They can do this while maintaining good profits. It isn't like the A7 in some of these products would be good enough for everybody, they would however be good enough for millions of people. You have to realize that many servers, disk arrays and the like already run on ARM hardware that is a lot slower than A7.
As for a low end Mini like platform, A7 already runs at Core Duo like performance levels with most likely better graphics performance. Graphics by the way that supports OpenCL so many apps have the potential to go beyond Core Duo levels of performance. So lets say Apple can offer up an A7 in a $250 box with OS/X and 4GB of RAM, offer support in the App Store so that A7 apps won't be a problem and otherwise offer a complete computer - do you think that wouldn't sell? Especially considering that this chip would be running faster that the current A7 due to better cooling options and power supply options. Think about it, the new AirPort Extreme is $199, they can recycle much of that into an A7 based computer and tack on $50. It would sell like hotcakes especially if they can hit Core 2 levels of performance and used flash as secondary storage. No maybe $250 is a little too agressive for Apple but even at $350 it is still a huge improvement over the current Mini cost wise. Honestly though I think $199 would be doable for the basic hardware, it is only the flash drive that cause a bump to +$250.
A decent 'ramble.'
The iPhone 5S is, in some measures, computationally superior to the top-of-the-line MacBook Pro from just five years ago. In your fucking pocket.
So, Wizard's call for a 'wet dream' Apple TV or Mini isn't so unreasonable. It could offer tremendous bang for the buck for most people. The same iPad computing folk that are eating traditional computer sales.
A7. 64 bit. (Going very mainstream! The Apple 'A' chip has arrived.) CPU and GPU very, very fast. (At this rate of going...how long until we're saying, 'Just a couple of years ago...' as opposed to 'just five years ago...' It could create a very powerful mass market computing platform. iPhone. iPad. ATV. (In theory, the latter could eclipse the value of the Mini as Wizard says...as Apple's console/media hub? And be very price competitive to PS4/XBox 1. Apple are already selling millions of ATVs...and spec wise, currently, it's nothing special.) Sell 50 million iPhone A7s, 50 million A7 iPads and 12 million ATVs in a year? That's 112 million A7 powered devices! That eclipses the Mac userbase with a power that...well, Gruber said it. You can kinda see where this is going...
Hmm.
Interesting.
Lemon Bon Bon.
"The iPhone 5S is, in some measures, computationally superior to the top-of-the-line MacBook Pro from just five years ago. In your fucking pocket."
No big boxes at all.
But, ironically, it's the mother of all 'boxes...'
Lemon Bon Bon.
If Intel is only improving mainstream cpu performance by 10% each year now...
...and the A7 chip doubles next year...and the year after that...(same for the gpu performance...)
How long could it be before we envision a time Apple can cut Intel loose..?
Either Arm goes into the Mac at some future point? Or we have an Apple II - Mac - iOS succession?
Not in the immediate future.
But that A7 is some chip. Make one helluva ATV console/media hub. (When the A7 drops into the 5C next year, the 'plastic' phone becomes very compelling...especially if Apple intro's a new, bigger phone and the rest of the line takes a knock down...in price.)
Many permutations. We'll have to see where Apple goes with it all.
The Mini is safe for now. Haswell. Better GPU 'Iris?' (g40/650 gpu performance?) More ram if Apple plays Santa. SSD as standard? Maybe I doubt the latter two. They just can't help themselves... By force of spec gravity from Intel...the Mini is becoming a reasonable buy. Should fly with an SSD in it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Why the filthy language?
Anyway wizard, the reason I don't want to go all in with Mavericks is because my current mini is serving me just fine but if Apple builds up the 2013 mini well enough it may get me to upgrade. If they simply go with an i5-4200M with 4 GB of memory and a 500 GB HDD in the base mini, I'm not sure I'll rush out to plunk $600 or more on it. Honestly I too am not sold on the Fusion drive but to have it offered in the mini would be nice for customers who want the space of an HDD with the speed of SSD and don't want to make sacrifices. Me? I am willing to make a sacrifice because I don't use a ton of space (at least not yet), also does the hard drive have to be rusty? : P
http://www.cringely.com/2013/09/19/the-secret-of-ios-7/
On the back of Wizard's speculative posts...re: the A7 (after all, Tim Cook called it a desktop class cpu. It is...equal to my previous iMac's cpu in many ways... How long before the A series chases down an i7? I look at the Power Mac in my front room and marvel that an iPhone 4 could run youtube better than it could...pinch me...*)
How long before the 'low end mini' is chased down by the A8, A9...
There was a time when Portable CPUs in laptops and gpus where miles ahead of the desktops. Now look at things. And the phone performance market is blazing along.
The A7 is an astonishing break through. If it doubles in two years, where will it be? (If the Intel cpu performances are merely 10% over the next two years...where will it be? We've had several of years now of very static cpu development in terms of performance.)
Lemon Bon Bon.
It wouldn't surprise me if they quietly dropped the low end mini if Intel doesn't make it worthwhile enough. Who knows?
Since I'm a big iPad user I'm very much interested in what the A7X will look like in the next iPad or if there will even be an X variant. So I speculate a bit on what A7X might look like, does Apple stay dual core ARM to beef up the GPU or do they go quad core ARM? I don't know but you are looking two years ahead and I'm looking at what I hope is not more than two months. When you have a 1 billion plus transistor SoC is it really that easy to offer multiple variants, or can Apple may just bump clock rates to double iPad performance.
Lots of speculation but if Apple moves ahead with their two chip strategy then I have to believe that they have an excellent desktop replacement chip on their hands. That won't be in two years but rather months. No it won't compete with Intels top of the line processors but many products don't need that sort of performance. There is a limit to just how far you can go improving a CPU. In Intels case it takes considerable effort to get just a little bit of improvement each year as the architecture is mature. In Apples case they effectively with A7 are starting out with a whole new architecture that only support legacy ARM architecture in a 32 bit mode. In the long run I can see Apple dropping backwards compatibility with 32 bit ARM hardware completely. Divesting themselves completely from legacy hardware means they can push into new power and performance frontiers. Contrast this with Intel which has all sorts of legacy support built into every chip they have ever made.
So how long can Apple go on with 2X performance increases every year? I'm guessing about 4 years at which point they will be like Intel trying to squeeze a few percent out of each ALU. At that time the processor will be a pure 64 bit implementation. If Apple becomes real aggressive with developer with respect to supporting 64 bits in their apps you will know this is a long term goal.
As to Cringely he has some interesting ideas, some of which I agree with and that I think Apple is pursuing.
Number one I see Apple delivering the hardware so that some users can leverage their iPhone or tablet as their primary computer. This won't be for everybody and frankly if this is Apples goal the current iPhone 5S is way off mark here. However having a computer in your pocket that docks with the desktop hardware (keyboard, screen and whatever) either wirelessly or via plug in will be a huge win for many workers.
The problem I have here is that iOS isn't really there yet as an OS that will let this happen. The main problem they have is a place to stash common files so that you can work on them with different tools. That and they need a finder type app to help with managing that store. I know this is at odds with their security model but they need to find a solution that will make iOS viable in these sorts of desktop uses. There are other issues too, but I see how the user currently interacts with files and apps as a big problem moving forward.
One approach they should consider is a dual mode OS. One where an iOS device effectively runs a Mac OS GUI when docked. This would provide the user with all the benefits of Mac OS but only when there is a screen available to support that functionality. The one thing that absolutely prevents me from ditching my Mac for an iPad is the complete inability to get to the OS when needed. If they where to address this when docked to a screen and keyboard/mouse so that you have a duality of personalities to work with I might just say good bye to the Mac. The reality is that when mobile iOS rocks, at the desk it is a very frustrating environment. Even if that desktop mode ran iOS apps in separate iOS sized windows it would be a big improvement usability wise. Give us a bit of UNIX access and we are golden.
In a nut shell I think Cringely is right, Apples goal is a computer you carry around in your pocket that is "Your Computer". To accomplish that Apple will need to morph iOS into something different than we have today. That may be personalities that reveal themselves when plugged into a dock or some other solution. Apple is most likely hot on this but it is hard to say when the hardware and software will arrive. I really don't think iPhone 5s has the chops for this and for some odd reason they didn't address the lack of flash issue. All of these scenarios require a lot more secondary store than iPhone 5s ships with.
You know I had a lengthy response here (it is raining outside) but I switched to another tab in Safari and all was lost.
In any event I really believe this chassis in the new Airport Extremes could make for one excellent place to build up a new Mac Mini or ARM based computer. With current technology you could stick Haswell in there but even better you could stick an A7 derived SOC. Like the Mac Pro there would be cards on both sides of the central divider. One would be the computer the other the SSD storage. Route some cables to an I/O block on one side and you are done. Simple, clean and elegant for a very low cost computer. With an ARM derived SoC implementation you may be able to reuse the power supply and cooling from the AirPort Extreme. The only question is would an A7Xx be powerful enough at the price Apple would ask. If they positioned it to compete against $300 laptops and desktops I don't think there would be a problem at all.
As for Intel and the Mini, Apple has more potential choices for chips to design in than they ever have had. For the entry level model, I wouldn't expect it to go away unless alternatives are built as described above. Everybody needs entry level hardware, so it comes down to what Apple chooses.
Even if Apple stays Intel I can still see the entire Mini being refactored. With the coming Mac Pro it is the right time to do so. Hopefully that means a machine that doesn't shy away from performance.
It has been raining for hours now, I'm getting a bit bummed out as I have work outside to do. I may just hop in the truck and take a ride someplace. Either that or do some inside work, I really want to be outside though as winter is coming.
In any event, I'm just hopeful that the new hardware debuts in October as rumored. It will be very interesting to say the least as this year it is far harder to guess at what will be in the new machines based on Intels catalog. That and a sixty four bit iPAd is very exciting to me.
I really don't think iPhone 5s has the chops for this and for some odd reason they didn't address the lack of flash issue.
While I don't have the link in front of me, it is expected that flash SSDs will likely be replaced by ReRam, or Resistance Ram. There is a company, who are investing in it now, and expect to have it to market in around 2016.
About the only way it could come earlier is if a company like Samsung or Apple invested large amounts of capital to speed it up. I have to admit, that if one of them did invest, I would prefer it to be Samsung, because that way, it would filter out to the whole industry, thanks to SSD manufacturing, supplying companies like Apple ex-cectra. With Apple, it would probably only go into Apple product, and while that is not a bad thing for their users, others like myself, still have a Windows Desktop, and can't afford a Mac, but would still like to use the latest tech.
The thing with A7 is that Apple could produce a very affordable "Mac" like machine. Apple isn't afraid to market good machines at low prices, the MBA highlight that. They are a machine few competing companies can seem to match. So Apple investing in a company doesn't mean that it will result in Apple only production. In fact Apple has a very mixed record here they have interest in Imagination, ARM (at one time), and a bunch of other companies with wide distribution. They only time Apple takes a company completely is when they have a motivation to block others from using the technology.
They can and the iPhone 5C highlights this at $99 with a contract. It's funny in a way though that they would want to do this. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh (yes I listen to him, sue me) and he is an Apple fan. He couldn't understand why Apple would want to make a so-called "low-end" iPhone when Apple has always been an expensive brand and appealed to users who can afford that brand.
We'll find out if he's right and if the 5C sells well over time just because it bears the Apple name, Apple logo, and iPhone logo.
The thing is, how inexpensive would you make a mini? $499? $399? What do you put in it as you drop the price?
They ALS carnet afraid to refactor a model to corner a bit of the market, just look at how the Mac Book Airs have evolved over time. They literally repositioned the machine into one of the best values on the market. The "just because" is ridiculous. The 5C will sell well because it is a good value in the market place. It has a performance profile that few phones can match even after a year. I'd would want an A7 based Mini to come in at around $250. As for an Intel based machine that is a harder question to address. They could move to desktop parts for a somewhat lower cost for the CPU chip, or they could skip Iris and again gain a pricing advantage. I really believe they could hit $500 for the entry level machine if they wanted too.
You sir are a realist not someone who buys just for the sake of buying.I totally agree with you.A phone is a phone as long as you can make a call from it.
Maybe who knows?
Wizard - I absolutely agree with you because they have done it in the past unfortunately though I feel if they did make a $500 entry model, they would gimp it even more than they do the $600 model they have now. I'd like to be proven wrong though.