I could see any of those options as options. My estimates are fairly conservative. I look at options tangential to what they have done within 2 major refresh cycles. I can say that even if you stuck completely with the mobile cpus, Apple has options at the same "recommended customer pricing" levels as those from the ivy bridge generation. The skus are there, but they aren't the same as the ones Apple uses in the retina macbook pros. The cpus in the Airs would be a backstep, so they won't go that route. Considering that the mini is often the last thing refreshed and Broadwell won't be around for some time, I don't see why they couldn't refresh it with Haswell apart from higher than desired building costs.
I know what you mean about DDR4, when it's used in place of dedicated vram, and I still do like AMD. You just reminded me, I've been looking at compute shaders lately. The reason is that they run on practically everything, including iphones. They're just slightly more limited on math operations, and I don't think they even support bitfield operations. I have to be careful in that regard, but on anything involving arithmetic, especially with floating point values, I try to stick to calling well tested code. I don't even mix simple arithmetic operations into the higher level code. Anyway.... the talk of DDR4 prompted me to drift into nerd talk.
I think the design works pretty well as it is but it generates a fair bit of noise when the fan is going.
The Pro cylinder is actually noisy when stressed, too. The difference is that it's so hard to stress it to where it actually puts up a fuss. The mini gets worked up pretty easily. I like the way you're thinking though -- a change in design that makes it quieter definitely would be desirable, as long as it doesn't adversely affect usefulness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
What are people who typically buy a quad-i7 Mac going to do without the Mini? If they are invested in the Mac platform, which most people would be, they'll migrate up to a MBP or iMac, both double the revenue.
And, unfortunately, both much less suited to the task for which they seem to be most often used (based on what I read here, anyway), specifically home entertainment device and headless slow-but-steady cruncher.
In both of the applications I use the mini, an iMac is out of the question because there's just nowhere to put it. Well, maybe on the floor behind the desk, but even that won't work in my living room. It's conceivable that I could use laptops instead, but it wouldn't be a very elegant or cost-effective solution since they'd be closed up and used with an external keyboard and display.
To be honest, I'd be more likely to switch to a little Windows box than spend $2000 to replace a device that cost half that. I wouldn't WANT to, but I probably would. I can't say what anyone else would do, but if they feel the same way, dropping the mini wouldn't be a money move for Apple.
both much less suited to the task for which they seem to be most often used (based on what I read here, anyway), specifically home entertainment device and headless slow-but-steady cruncher.
In both of the applications I use the mini, an iMac is out of the question because there's just nowhere to put it. Well, maybe on the floor behind the desk, but even that won't work in my living room. It's conceivable that I could use laptops instead, but it wouldn't be a very elegant or cost-effective solution since they'd be closed up and used with an external keyboard and display.
To be honest, I'd be more likely to switch to a little Windows box than spend $2000 to replace a device that cost half that. I wouldn't WANT to, but I probably would. I can't say what anyone else would do, but if they feel the same way, dropping the mini wouldn't be a money move for Apple.
I don't think home entertainment and headless setups would be the biggest uses. Most average buyers would have no idea how to setup a Mini for that and using a computer UI on a TV screen is not comfortable. The iMac takes up the majority of Apple's desktop sales. In late January 2013, Tim said iMacs were down 700,000 units after being delayed until late December. For that quarter, they had no iMac sales for 2 out of 3 months. So assuming that 700,000 makes up 2/3rds, they would typically sell around 1m units. According to their 10K 2012, they only sold 4.6m desktop units the whole year. So by far the iMac is making up the majority of the desktop unit sales.
In the most recent results, Apple said notebooks were driving Mac growth, particularly the Air with a lower entry price. Desktops are continuing to die down and they were already below 25% of their lineup.
With the new lower priced iMac, that will further erode the share of the Mac Mini.
For people who do want a media center, a $600 Mini is far from ideal. Amazon's best seller is the following Chromebox for $169 with an x86 Celeron processor:
That's all that's needed, just plug in a USB portable HDD or push media over the network. But that's not much different from the $99 Apple TV.
The quad-i7 Mini is a decent price for the CPU power but the target audience for that is small. If they want to keep OS X Server going, it makes sense to keep selling the Mini but I can see them moving this to iOS and ARM.
I don't think home entertainment and headless setups would be the biggest uses. Most average buyers would have no idea how to setup a Mini for that and using a computer UI on a TV screen is not comfortable. The iMac takes up the majority of Apple's desktop sales. In late January 2013, Tim said iMacs were down 700,000 units after being delayed until late December. For that quarter, they had no iMac sales for 2 out of 3 months. So assuming that 700,000 makes up 2/3rds, they would typically sell around 1m units. According to their 10K 2012, they only sold 4.6m desktop units the whole year. So by far the iMac is making up the majority of the desktop unit sales.
This has been the case for years. That however doesn't justify dropping the Mini just as it doesn't justify dropping the Mac Pro. The Mini like the Mac Pro was never meant to be a high volume machine as it was introduced way back in time when it wasn't even possible to get decent performance out of a box that size. Effectively it was a powerful SFF machine back in the day when SFF meant a highly compromised machine.
Today the Mini, thanks to modern chips, is a viable computer. However I believe there is this legacy in the minds of consummers that a desktop that size couldn't possibly be performant.
The other problem with the Mini is that Apple doesn't try hard enough. Revs are far apart and lacking in modern componentry. This becomes obvious when one looks at Mac Book AIR and then the Mini. About the only thing you can say is "what the hell Apple".
Given that I understand the need for an entry level machine. However would it really be that difficult to ship a Mini that supports two motherboards. One a low end board the other targetted at performance. The are obviously doing so with the iMac.
In the most recent results, Apple said notebooks were driving Mac growth, particularly the Air with a lower entry price. Desktops are continuing to die down and they were already below 25% of their lineup.
This has also been an industry trend for years. However there is no way that the desktop market can be totally ignored because there will always be some demand for the hardware.
With the new lower priced iMac, that will further erode the share of the Mac Mini.
The products serve two different markets and as such the low cost iMac will have zero impact on Mini sales. That given that we have a modern well engineered Mini to work with. The fact of the matter is people will go to other platforms before even considering an iMac.
For people who do want a media center, a $600 Mini is far from ideal. Amazon's best seller is the following Chromebox for $169 with an x86 Celeron processor:
That's all that's needed, just plug in a USB portable HDD or push media over the network. But that's not much different from the $99 Apple TV.
Apple TV could use some modernizing. Support for Apps would be fantastic.
The quad-i7 Mini is a decent price for the CPU power but the target audience for that is small. If they want to keep OS X Server going, it makes sense to keep selling the Mini but I can see them moving this to iOS and ARM.
That little platform is excellent if you don't need advance GPU support and can get by with the relatively low clock rates for a desktop. In fact many developers find that the machine is ideal for their trade. Well as long as they aren't into development requiring great GPU support or more cores than the i7 provides. The shipping Mini is however outdated which can be an issue for developers.
there is no way that the desktop market can be totally ignored because there will always be some demand for the hardware.
Unfortunately Apple has demonstrated that it doesn't care about products that make short coin. "Demand" isn't enough. There has to be BIG demand. There is still a market for servers but they don't make those anymore. Same for 17" laptops. If the pool of buyers is smaller than they want, Apple seems to be willing to let it go. I don't know if they expect those people will buy some other Apple product or if they're willing to lose those buyers altogether, but they obviously perceive such moves as beneficial in some way.
I'm not qualified to say whether it's a good practice or bad.
That's all that's needed, just plug in a USB portable HDD or push media over the network. But that's not much different from the $99 Apple TV.
If Apple made it possible to connect a drive full of media directly to the ?TV rather requiring a computer to feed it, about half of our use for the living room mini would be satisfied. Allowing it to access NAS would be even better -- then the same drive could feed both the ?TV in the living room and the one in the bedroom.
Unfortunately Apple has demonstrated that it doesn't care about products that make short coin. "Demand" isn't enough. There has to be BIG demand. There is still a market for servers but they don't make those anymore. Same for 17" laptops. If the pool of buyers is smaller than they want, Apple seems to be willing to let it go. I don't know if they expect those people will buy some other Apple product or if they're willing to lose those buyers altogether, but they obviously perceive such moves as beneficial in some way.
I'm not qualified to say whether it's a good practice or bad.
That does seem to be Apples attitude. I will go out on a limb and say yeah it is bad practice. Why? The uniqueness of Apples hardware means those with needs not meant have no choice but to leave the family altogether.
Unfortunately Apple has demonstrated that it doesn't care about products that make short coin. "Demand" isn't enough. There has to be BIG demand. There is still a market for servers but they don't make those anymore. Same for 17" laptops. If the pool of buyers is smaller than they want, Apple seems to be willing to let it go. I don't know if they expect those people will buy some other Apple product or if they're willing to lose those buyers altogether, but they obviously perceive such moves as beneficial in some way.
In some cases they are willing to let go customers, you can see that in their professional software. When the volumes are so low, the risk from losing customers is similarly low. Where possible, they make suitable compromises. When it came to the XServe, they turned the Mini into a Server. For the 17" MBP, they increased the screen resolution on the 15" to offer the same workspace. This ensures at least some customer retention. The ones who feel really strongly take to Facebook:
In some cases they are willing to let go customers, you can see that in their professional software. When the volumes are so low, the risk from losing customers is similarly low. Where possible, they make suitable compromises.
And sometimes they improve a product causing mass hysteria in the customer base.
The big problem right now though is that they are pursuing the business or professional market on one hand while dropping others. The link up with IBM is an example here.
On the other hand a lot of Apples software products spend too much time in stasis. This leads to professional disinterest. Aperture is just one example here. In fact Aperture should have been getting meaningful updates every six months. Unfortunately Apple is like this with lots of its non operating systems software. The software debuts and then just sits on App Store forever without an update. This isn't good because in some cases a package may sit for multiple year with no update from Apple.
When it came to the XServe, they turned the Mini into a Server. For the 17" MBP, they increased the screen resolution on the 15" to offer the same workspace. This ensures at least some customer retention. The ones who feel really strongly take to Facebook:
The entire market for 17" machines isn't there or better stated is crashing hard. For many they tried a 17" machine but realized it was too big! The problem here is that Apple has plenty of laptop models to repalce the 17" laptop. What they don't have is something that replaces the Mini.
In 2 years, the MBP one managed to get 518 likes, the XServe one managed 31 likes in 4 years.
The same thing is going to happen with the hugely popular iPod. They're not selling any more so there's no point in Apple making them.
The only thing that makes sense here is to optimize Touch. In fact it is strange here that they don't upgrade Touch more often as it is the only iPod with legs. That is it is the last remaining iPod with sales that aren't an embarrassment. This comes back to the problem of stasis, letting your only remaining good seller languish is just stupid.
The entire market for 17" machines isn't there or better stated is crashing hard. For many they tried a 17" machine but realized it was too big!
I don't think that's true. In fact, I don't think you could find a single person on this forum that bought a 17" and regretted it because it was too big.
You and I have been down this road before and you didn't change my mind about the benefit of the larger screen and I know I'm not going to change yours. I accept that it's entirely up to Apple whether or not they want to sell a 17" laptop, but I do not believe that those who bought them became unhappy with them.
The entire market for 17" machines isn't there or better stated is crashing hard. For many they tried a 17" machine but realized it was too big!
I don't think that's true. In fact, I don't think you could find a single person on this forum that bought a 17" and regretted it because it was too big.
You and I have been down this road before and you didn't change my mind about the benefit of the larger screen and I know I'm not going to change yours. I accept that it's entirely up to Apple whether or not they want to sell a 17" laptop, but I do not believe that those who bought them became unhappy with them.
The size difference isn't that big between them:
The larger screen's sole benefit is scaling everything up a small amount, they both have the same 1920 x 1200 maximum resolution.
A few people have been forced to go to the Retina model because of a failure of the old model or just needed an upgrade and found they prefer the improvement in display quality. It's now an IPS display with sharper text, improved viewing angles, better colors etc. Some people might like the extra scale of the 17" but it's such a small scale difference. It's not even as big as the 13" to 15" difference. You'd probably have to live with a 15" before being comfortable with it but people get conditioned to prefer things that's hard to change. It's the same deal with the larger screen iPhone. It's been 7 years people have used 4" or less and now the possibility of something significantly larger is floating around and people dig the heels in. We are always having to adapt to change, sometimes it works out better, sometimes not but we hardly ever get absolute control over what's available.
I don't think that's true. In fact, I don't think you could find a single person on this forum that bought a 17" and regretted it because it was too big.
I can only base my opinion here on what I've seen in a corporate environment. In this case engineers ended up rejecting the large laptops because they where cumbersome to work on. This especially if you had to travel a lot. Personally I have an older 15" MBP and sometimes that amchine is more in the way than useful, it is very inconvienent when traveling that is for sure.
You and I have been down this road before and you didn't change my mind about the benefit of the larger screen and I know I'm not going to change yours.
Obviously you don't understand what I'm saying. The benefits of a larger screen are clearly understood. It is the bulk of the machine that is the problem. Try using one on a plane or out in the field.
I accept that it's entirely up to Apple whether or not they want to sell a 17" laptop, but I do not believe that those who bought them became unhappy with them.
In happy might not be the right word here. The trend has been towards the smaller easier to use machines.
If you think about it we are on the same roller coaster ride with iPhone. People are whining (literally) about a large screened iPhone and likely will get it. The question how long will it take for the fascination to wear off? You will certainly have people swearing by the large screened device and probably very up set when Apple drops it. In the end people will settle in on the optimal size based on experience.
The larger screen's sole benefit is scaling everything up a small amount, they both have the same 1920 x 1200 maximum resolution.
Apple could change the resolution, that might actually work out well for many users. But you would still have the volume problem due to size. Apple might be able to change the aspect ratio to narrow the machine some but then you have special order panels.
A few people have been forced to go to the Retina model because of a failure of the old model or just needed an upgrade and found they prefer the improvement in display quality. It's now an IPS display with sharper text, improved viewing angles, better colors etc. Some people might like the extra scale of the 17" but it's such a small scale difference. It's not even as big as the 13" to 15" difference.
Interesting observation.
You'd probably have to live with a 15" before being comfortable with it but people get conditioned to prefer things that's hard to change. It's the same deal with the larger screen iPhone. It's been 7 years people have used 4" or less and now the possibility of something significantly larger is floating around and people dig the heels in. We are always having to adapt to change, sometimes it works out better, sometimes not but we hardly ever get absolute control over what's available.
The problem with both the rumored larger iPhones and the 17" MBP is that they are both the results of fads. As you note some will get attached to the larger screens and at times even leverage them in the work they do. The problem is some doesn't cut it in manufacturing like this. Further the majority will settle in on the optimal size. Frankly there is little Apple can do about this. A cell phone that is too big will eventually stop selling just as the 17" dried up sales wise.
The problem with both the rumored larger iPhones and the 17" MBP is that they are both the results of fads. As you note some will get attached to the larger screens and at times even leverage them in the work they do. The problem is some doesn't cut it in manufacturing like this. Further the majority will settle in on the optimal size. Frankly there is little Apple can do about this. A cell phone that is too big will eventually stop selling just as the 17" dried up sales wise.
I actually liked the 17" and didn't mind carrying it. 15" is still the undisputed most popular size with every other brand, which is why I wasn't so sure Apple would hike their starting price there relative to the older one. Their sales may be more skewed toward the 13" models due to relative pricing. 17" models gained popularity due to a time when they were being purchased by people who might have otherwise used desktop crts of 17-19". 21" wasn't that common outside of creative fields. The trend in phones is a similar one. It's a matter of trying to get more functionality out of a portable device until it reaches a point where something is lost in convenience or usability. Losing comfortable one handed use would be annoying, and at some point it becomes uncomfortable to carry in your pocket. I figured larger phones and iPad minis might end up more popular among women that carry handbags, but I haven't really spotted too much correlation there.
Anyway I think phones are at a pretty good size right now. I played with a Note 2 some time ago (maybe a year?), and it wasn't comfortable to use. I doubt Apple will approach that size, but they might shift a little from where they are now.
The larger screen's sole benefit is scaling everything up a small amount, they both have the same 1920 x 1200 maximum resolution.
A few people have been forced to go to the Retina model because of a failure of the old model or just needed an upgrade and found they prefer the improvement in display quality. It's now an IPS display with sharper text, improved viewing angles, better colors etc. Some people might like the extra scale of the 17" but it's such a small scale difference.
Except that the image quality of the 15" Retina is NOT better once you switch away from the "native" resolution by setting it to 1920x1200. You do get an increase in usable viewing angle, but the image is softer and less detailed than even the older, larger native 1920x1200 17".
Further, I find the UI just too small at 1920x1200 on a 15" screen. You say the difference is small, but my experience is that the 17" is already pushing the lower limit for acceptable screen size at that resolution, so dropping to 15" seems to me to cross a "threshold" that makes it uncomfortable. Obviously, others' mileage may vary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The benefits of a larger screen are clearly understood. It is the bulk of the machine that is the problem. Try using one on a plane or out in the field.
I understand what you're saying. I just haven't felt that way. I had a 15" and carefully compared before upgrading to the 17". To be honest, I found the degree of hassle involved in transporting them pretty similar. The 15" was already heavy and bulky. I didn't even notice the addition of a little more weight and a bit more bulk, and I haul the thing around everywhere I go.
It's all utterly irrelevant since Apple doesn't make a 17" model anymore so I want to stress that I'm no longer "complaining," I'm simply defending the concept. There's no doubt that a 15" rMBP is a reasonable compromise, but in my opinion it IS a "compromise," not an "equivalent" or "improvement." That's all.
Except that the image quality of the 15" Retina is NOT better once you switch away from the "native" resolution by setting it to 1920x1200. You do get an increase in usable viewing angle, but the image is softer and less detailed than even the older, larger native 1920x1200 17".
Further, I find the UI just too small at 1920x1200 on a 15" screen. You say the difference is small, but my experience is that the 17" is already pushing the lower limit for acceptable screen size at that resolution, so dropping to 15" seems to me to cross a "threshold" that makes it uncomfortable. Obviously, others' mileage may vary.
I crossed 50 a few years ago so things like the UI feature sizes do matter. Even then the 17" is just a big machine to carry around.
I understand what you're saying. I just haven't felt that way. I had a 15" and carefully compared before upgrading to the 17". To be honest, I found the degree of hassle involved in transporting them pretty similar. The 15" was already heavy and bulky. I didn't even notice the addition of a little more weight and a bit more bulk, and I haul the thing around everywhere I go.
After having an iPad for a couple of years now I have an even stronger appreciation for small. However that needs to be balanced against the fact that vision is a problem that didn't exist in the past. So while I might be tempted by a 13" if I did get another laptop it probably would be a 15".
It's all utterly irrelevant since Apple doesn't make a 17" model anymore so I want to stress that I'm no longer "complaining," I'm simply defending the concept. There's no doubt that a 15" rMBP is a reasonable compromise, but in my opinion it IS a "compromise," not an "equivalent" or "improvement." That's all.
The discussion is relevant though because the discussion highlights to Apple people's desires. Yes I believe that threads like this get reviewed at apple. Well at least by at least a few there. As such Im pretty sure Apple knows that there is disappointment out there with the lack of a large MBP.
Does that mean Apple will bring back the 17" machine? I don't know but the rumors about the 12" machine has me seriously thinking that Apple might go to a two inch increment thus a line up of 12" , 14", & 16" machines. It would be even better if they played with the aspect ratios a bit to make the screens taller at each increment. In otherwords 16:9 screens are as much a problem as screens that are too small.
Except that the image quality of the 15" Retina is NOT better once you switch away from the "native" resolution by setting it to 1920x1200. You do get an increase in usable viewing angle, but the image is softer and less detailed than even the older, larger native 1920x1200 17".
Further, I find the UI just too small at 1920x1200 on a 15" screen. You say the difference is small, but my experience is that the 17" is already pushing the lower limit for acceptable screen size at that resolution, so dropping to 15" seems to me to cross a "threshold" that makes it uncomfortable. Obviously, others' mileage may vary.
There's a video review here comparing the two, the 15" wasn't set to the highest resolution:
[VIDEO]
Image comparisons are around 1:47. The review is here:
That guy liked the 17" model and the audio quality came out better. The 17" has a subwoofer.
"The retina MacBook Pro’s display is stupid good. When it was announced, I thought Nah, 1900 x 1200 on 17 inches is as good as it can get. I was wrong. I can run 1920 x 1200 on this 15? rMBP, and it’s clearer than the 17?. Some applications aren’t retina-ready yet, so they look pretty blurry at the moment, but I’m sure that will be remedied in the next month or two.
To be honest, the display on the rMBP is so good, it’s the reason I’m selling my 17? and keeping the 15?. 1920 x 1200 feels “small” on the 17? – meaning it’s hard for me to read words on it. On the 15? though, the text is so crisp that it doesn’t look as small. It’s easy to read at any resolution.
I like that I can switch between 1440 x 900 and 1920 x 1200 on the rMBP. When working on the 17?, I want the resolution to be 1920 x 1200, but if I’m just going to be doing some writing or web browsing, I’d like a more readable resolution. Anything besides the native 1920 x 1200 on the 17? looks blurry, whereas all resolutions on the rMBP look great."
Then later says:
"I actually decided to sell the Retina MBP and keep my 17?. After another day with the rMBP, I just don’t like that I can’t take it apart and tinker with it like I can my 17?. The retina display is amazing, but it also makes non-retina apps look relatively terrible.
The speakers in the 17? are better, as I mentioned before, and since my wife and I use the MBP to watch movies, the 17? display provides better viewing at a distance.
The Real Reason
Really? I don’t like Lion."
That was back in 2012. He eventually upgraded the OS to Mountain Lion on the 17".
Fast forward to 2014 and his 17" MBP is suffering from the GPU failure so he's spending money building a hackintosh desktop:
Spent over $1200 to get a quad-i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, although he had $654 of parts already on top. He could have sold his laptop for spares for $300-400 (the display still works and he could have sold the SSD separately). Then bought a 2013 refurb:
There's a video review here comparing the two, the 15" wasn't set to the highest resolution:
A comparison of both at Native resolution will certainly favour the Retina. Once the Retina display is scaled to 1900x1200, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
"The retina MacBook Pro’s display is stupid good. When it was announced, I thought Nah, 1900 x 1200 on 17 inches is as good as it can get. I was wrong. I can run 1920 x 1200 on this 15? rMBP, and it’s clearer than the 17?.
He's wrong. Either he didn't make the comparison side-by-side or he has a case of novelty blinders. With both displays set to 1900x1200, the old 17" display looks better than the 15" Retina. I *think* I can make that statement as an absolute -- or is that perception subjective?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
"The retina display is amazing, but it also makes non-retina apps look relatively terrible.
A problem that sadly persists to this day. Unfortunately his prediction that it would be solved "within a few months" didn't come true. Too bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
$1659 - 300 = $1359 vs $1209 and he doesn't have to mess around with building some hacked together monstrosity that likely won't even work properly.
And with that, whatever credibility he might have had goes "poof!"
Comments
I think the design works pretty well as it is but it generates a fair bit of noise when the fan is going.
The Pro cylinder is actually noisy when stressed, too. The difference is that it's so hard to stress it to where it actually puts up a fuss. The mini gets worked up pretty easily. I like the way you're thinking though -- a change in design that makes it quieter definitely would be desirable, as long as it doesn't adversely affect usefulness.
What are people who typically buy a quad-i7 Mac going to do without the Mini? If they are invested in the Mac platform, which most people would be, they'll migrate up to a MBP or iMac, both double the revenue.
And, unfortunately, both much less suited to the task for which they seem to be most often used (based on what I read here, anyway), specifically home entertainment device and headless slow-but-steady cruncher.
In both of the applications I use the mini, an iMac is out of the question because there's just nowhere to put it. Well, maybe on the floor behind the desk, but even that won't work in my living room. It's conceivable that I could use laptops instead, but it wouldn't be a very elegant or cost-effective solution since they'd be closed up and used with an external keyboard and display.
To be honest, I'd be more likely to switch to a little Windows box than spend $2000 to replace a device that cost half that. I wouldn't WANT to, but I probably would. I can't say what anyone else would do, but if they feel the same way, dropping the mini wouldn't be a money move for Apple.
the Mini has now skipped two generations of chips, that is just weird, as such they must have something big planned.
Or, maybe they have NO plans for it anymore.
Here's hoping you're right.
I don't think home entertainment and headless setups would be the biggest uses. Most average buyers would have no idea how to setup a Mini for that and using a computer UI on a TV screen is not comfortable. The iMac takes up the majority of Apple's desktop sales. In late January 2013, Tim said iMacs were down 700,000 units after being delayed until late December. For that quarter, they had no iMac sales for 2 out of 3 months. So assuming that 700,000 makes up 2/3rds, they would typically sell around 1m units. According to their 10K 2012, they only sold 4.6m desktop units the whole year. So by far the iMac is making up the majority of the desktop unit sales.
In the most recent results, Apple said notebooks were driving Mac growth, particularly the Air with a lower entry price. Desktops are continuing to die down and they were already below 25% of their lineup.
With the new lower priced iMac, that will further erode the share of the Mac Mini.
For people who do want a media center, a $600 Mini is far from ideal. Amazon's best seller is the following Chromebox for $169 with an x86 Celeron processor:
http://www.amazon.com/Asus-CHROMEBOX-M004U-ASUS-Desktop/dp/B00IT1WJZQ
That's all that's needed, just plug in a USB portable HDD or push media over the network. But that's not much different from the $99 Apple TV.
The quad-i7 Mini is a decent price for the CPU power but the target audience for that is small. If they want to keep OS X Server going, it makes sense to keep selling the Mini but I can see them moving this to iOS and ARM.
Today the Mini, thanks to modern chips, is a viable computer. However I believe there is this legacy in the minds of consummers that a desktop that size couldn't possibly be performant.
The other problem with the Mini is that Apple doesn't try hard enough. Revs are far apart and lacking in modern componentry. This becomes obvious when one looks at Mac Book AIR and then the Mini. About the only thing you can say is "what the hell Apple".
Given that I understand the need for an entry level machine. However would it really be that difficult to ship a Mini that supports two motherboards. One a low end board the other targetted at performance. The are obviously doing so with the iMac. This has also been an industry trend for years. However there is no way that the desktop market can be totally ignored because there will always be some demand for the hardware. The products serve two different markets and as such the low cost iMac will have zero impact on Mini sales. That given that we have a modern well engineered Mini to work with. The fact of the matter is people will go to other platforms before even considering an iMac. Apple TV could use some modernizing. Support for Apps would be fantastic.
That little platform is excellent if you don't need advance GPU support and can get by with the relatively low clock rates for a desktop. In fact many developers find that the machine is ideal for their trade. Well as long as they aren't into development requiring great GPU support or more cores than the i7 provides. The shipping Mini is however outdated which can be an issue for developers.
Unfortunately Apple has demonstrated that it doesn't care about products that make short coin. "Demand" isn't enough. There has to be BIG demand. There is still a market for servers but they don't make those anymore. Same for 17" laptops. If the pool of buyers is smaller than they want, Apple seems to be willing to let it go. I don't know if they expect those people will buy some other Apple product or if they're willing to lose those buyers altogether, but they obviously perceive such moves as beneficial in some way.
I'm not qualified to say whether it's a good practice or bad.
That's all that's needed, just plug in a USB portable HDD or push media over the network. But that's not much different from the $99 Apple TV.
If Apple made it possible to connect a drive full of media directly to the ?TV rather requiring a computer to feed it, about half of our use for the living room mini would be satisfied. Allowing it to access NAS would be even better -- then the same drive could feed both the ?TV in the living room and the one in the bedroom.
That does seem to be Apples attitude. I will go out on a limb and say yeah it is bad practice. Why? The uniqueness of Apples hardware means those with needs not meant have no choice but to leave the family altogether.
In some cases they are willing to let go customers, you can see that in their professional software. When the volumes are so low, the risk from losing customers is similarly low. Where possible, they make suitable compromises. When it came to the XServe, they turned the Mini into a Server. For the 17" MBP, they increased the screen resolution on the 15" to offer the same workspace. This ensures at least some customer retention. The ones who feel really strongly take to Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/macbook.pro.17.retina.display
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-Xserve/175367599142822
In 2 years, the MBP one managed to get 518 likes, the XServe one managed 31 likes in 4 years.
The same thing is going to happen with the hugely popular iPod. They're not selling any more so there's no point in Apple making them.
The big problem right now though is that they are pursuing the business or professional market on one hand while dropping others. The link up with IBM is an example here.
On the other hand a lot of Apples software products spend too much time in stasis. This leads to professional disinterest. Aperture is just one example here. In fact Aperture should have been getting meaningful updates every six months. Unfortunately Apple is like this with lots of its non operating systems software. The software debuts and then just sits on App Store forever without an update. This isn't good because in some cases a package may sit for multiple year with no update from Apple. The entire market for 17" machines isn't there or better stated is crashing hard. For many they tried a 17" machine but realized it was too big! The problem here is that Apple has plenty of laptop models to repalce the 17" laptop. What they don't have is something that replaces the Mini.
The only thing that makes sense here is to optimize Touch. In fact it is strange here that they don't upgrade Touch more often as it is the only iPod with legs. That is it is the last remaining iPod with sales that aren't an embarrassment. This comes back to the problem of stasis, letting your only remaining good seller languish is just stupid.
The entire market for 17" machines isn't there or better stated is crashing hard. For many they tried a 17" machine but realized it was too big!
I don't think that's true. In fact, I don't think you could find a single person on this forum that bought a 17" and regretted it because it was too big.
You and I have been down this road before and you didn't change my mind about the benefit of the larger screen and I know I'm not going to change yours. I accept that it's entirely up to Apple whether or not they want to sell a 17" laptop, but I do not believe that those who bought them became unhappy with them.
The size difference isn't that big between them:
The larger screen's sole benefit is scaling everything up a small amount, they both have the same 1920 x 1200 maximum resolution.
A few people have been forced to go to the Retina model because of a failure of the old model or just needed an upgrade and found they prefer the improvement in display quality. It's now an IPS display with sharper text, improved viewing angles, better colors etc. Some people might like the extra scale of the 17" but it's such a small scale difference. It's not even as big as the 13" to 15" difference. You'd probably have to live with a 15" before being comfortable with it but people get conditioned to prefer things that's hard to change. It's the same deal with the larger screen iPhone. It's been 7 years people have used 4" or less and now the possibility of something significantly larger is floating around and people dig the heels in. We are always having to adapt to change, sometimes it works out better, sometimes not but we hardly ever get absolute control over what's available.
In happy might not be the right word here. The trend has been towards the smaller easier to use machines.
If you think about it we are on the same roller coaster ride with iPhone. People are whining (literally) about a large screened iPhone and likely will get it. The question how long will it take for the fascination to wear off? You will certainly have people swearing by the large screened device and probably very up set when Apple drops it. In the end people will settle in on the optimal size based on experience.
Interesting observation.
The problem with both the rumored larger iPhones and the 17" MBP is that they are both the results of fads. As you note some will get attached to the larger screens and at times even leverage them in the work they do. The problem is some doesn't cut it in manufacturing like this. Further the majority will settle in on the optimal size. Frankly there is little Apple can do about this. A cell phone that is too big will eventually stop selling just as the 17" dried up sales wise.
The problem with both the rumored larger iPhones and the 17" MBP is that they are both the results of fads. As you note some will get attached to the larger screens and at times even leverage them in the work they do. The problem is some doesn't cut it in manufacturing like this. Further the majority will settle in on the optimal size. Frankly there is little Apple can do about this. A cell phone that is too big will eventually stop selling just as the 17" dried up sales wise.
I actually liked the 17" and didn't mind carrying it. 15" is still the undisputed most popular size with every other brand, which is why I wasn't so sure Apple would hike their starting price there relative to the older one. Their sales may be more skewed toward the 13" models due to relative pricing. 17" models gained popularity due to a time when they were being purchased by people who might have otherwise used desktop crts of 17-19". 21" wasn't that common outside of creative fields. The trend in phones is a similar one. It's a matter of trying to get more functionality out of a portable device until it reaches a point where something is lost in convenience or usability. Losing comfortable one handed use would be annoying, and at some point it becomes uncomfortable to carry in your pocket. I figured larger phones and iPad minis might end up more popular among women that carry handbags, but I haven't really spotted too much correlation there.
Anyway I think phones are at a pretty good size right now. I played with a Note 2 some time ago (maybe a year?), and it wasn't comfortable to use. I doubt Apple will approach that size, but they might shift a little from where they are now.
The larger screen's sole benefit is scaling everything up a small amount, they both have the same 1920 x 1200 maximum resolution.
A few people have been forced to go to the Retina model because of a failure of the old model or just needed an upgrade and found they prefer the improvement in display quality. It's now an IPS display with sharper text, improved viewing angles, better colors etc. Some people might like the extra scale of the 17" but it's such a small scale difference.
Except that the image quality of the 15" Retina is NOT better once you switch away from the "native" resolution by setting it to 1920x1200. You do get an increase in usable viewing angle, but the image is softer and less detailed than even the older, larger native 1920x1200 17".
Further, I find the UI just too small at 1920x1200 on a 15" screen. You say the difference is small, but my experience is that the 17" is already pushing the lower limit for acceptable screen size at that resolution, so dropping to 15" seems to me to cross a "threshold" that makes it uncomfortable. Obviously, others' mileage may vary.
The benefits of a larger screen are clearly understood. It is the bulk of the machine that is the problem. Try using one on a plane or out in the field.
I understand what you're saying. I just haven't felt that way. I had a 15" and carefully compared before upgrading to the 17". To be honest, I found the degree of hassle involved in transporting them pretty similar. The 15" was already heavy and bulky. I didn't even notice the addition of a little more weight and a bit more bulk, and I haul the thing around everywhere I go.
It's all utterly irrelevant since Apple doesn't make a 17" model anymore so I want to stress that I'm no longer "complaining," I'm simply defending the concept. There's no doubt that a 15" rMBP is a reasonable compromise, but in my opinion it IS a "compromise," not an "equivalent" or "improvement." That's all.
The discussion is relevant though because the discussion highlights to Apple people's desires. Yes I believe that threads like this get reviewed at apple. Well at least by at least a few there. As such Im pretty sure Apple knows that there is disappointment out there with the lack of a large MBP.
Does that mean Apple will bring back the 17" machine? I don't know but the rumors about the 12" machine has me seriously thinking that Apple might go to a two inch increment thus a line up of 12" , 14", & 16" machines. It would be even better if they played with the aspect ratios a bit to make the screens taller at each increment. In otherwords 16:9 screens are as much a problem as screens that are too small.
There's a video review here comparing the two, the 15" wasn't set to the highest resolution:
[VIDEO]
Image comparisons are around 1:47. The review is here:
https://caseyfriday.com/2012/07/retina-macbook-pro-vs-17-macbook-pro/
That guy liked the 17" model and the audio quality came out better. The 17" has a subwoofer.
"The retina MacBook Pro’s display is stupid good. When it was announced, I thought Nah, 1900 x 1200 on 17 inches is as good as it can get. I was wrong. I can run 1920 x 1200 on this 15? rMBP, and it’s clearer than the 17?. Some applications aren’t retina-ready yet, so they look pretty blurry at the moment, but I’m sure that will be remedied in the next month or two.
To be honest, the display on the rMBP is so good, it’s the reason I’m selling my 17? and keeping the 15?. 1920 x 1200 feels “small” on the 17? – meaning it’s hard for me to read words on it. On the 15? though, the text is so crisp that it doesn’t look as small. It’s easy to read at any resolution.
I like that I can switch between 1440 x 900 and 1920 x 1200 on the rMBP. When working on the 17?, I want the resolution to be 1920 x 1200, but if I’m just going to be doing some writing or web browsing, I’d like a more readable resolution. Anything besides the native 1920 x 1200 on the 17? looks blurry, whereas all resolutions on the rMBP look great."
Then later says:
"I actually decided to sell the Retina MBP and keep my 17?. After another day with the rMBP, I just don’t like that I can’t take it apart and tinker with it like I can my 17?. The retina display is amazing, but it also makes non-retina apps look relatively terrible.
The speakers in the 17? are better, as I mentioned before, and since my wife and I use the MBP to watch movies, the 17? display provides better viewing at a distance.
The Real Reason
Really? I don’t like Lion."
That was back in 2012. He eventually upgraded the OS to Mountain Lion on the 17".
Fast forward to 2014 and his 17" MBP is suffering from the GPU failure so he's spending money building a hackintosh desktop:
https://caseyfriday.com/2014/07/im-building-a-hackintosh-part-1/
Spent over $1200 to get a quad-i7, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, although he had $654 of parts already on top. He could have sold his laptop for spares for $300-400 (the display still works and he could have sold the SSD separately). Then bought a 2013 refurb:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE293LL/A/refurbished-154-inch-macbook-pro-20ghz-quad-core-intel-i7-with-retina-display
$1659 - 300 = $1359 vs $1209 and he doesn't have to mess around with building some hacked together monstrosity that likely won't even work properly.
There's a video review here comparing the two, the 15" wasn't set to the highest resolution:
A comparison of both at Native resolution will certainly favour the Retina. Once the Retina display is scaled to 1900x1200, not so much.
"The retina MacBook Pro’s display is stupid good. When it was announced, I thought Nah, 1900 x 1200 on 17 inches is as good as it can get. I was wrong. I can run 1920 x 1200 on this 15? rMBP, and it’s clearer than the 17?.
Quote:
"The retina display is amazing, but it also makes non-retina apps look relatively terrible.
Quote:
$1659 - 300 = $1359 vs $1209 and he doesn't have to mess around with building some hacked together monstrosity that likely won't even work properly.