Mac Mini with discrete graphics?
So now that Tim Cook is at the helm, whats the possibility we'll finally get a Mac Mini with a discrete GPU with dedicated memory, or even better an upgradable GPU in a PCIe slot?
Mac Minis are perfect for my needs with the Fusion drive and available CPUs and memory, but don't meet my requirements with the integrated graphics. iMacs don't work for me due to the glossy screen and the fact that the CPU etc always ends up requiring upgrade while the screen is perfectly acceptable. Mac Pro is of course complete overkill for my needs.
Any chance we'll finally see Apple fill this market segment? Or are we doomed to be ignored forever?
Comments
This is a very interesting question as Mac sales are very strong right now. They could increase sales even more with expanded product lines. The problem is sales are strongest in the laptop lineup. I'm expecting Broadwell and SkyLake to shake up the laptop line up this year, so are you in a big rush?
Your knowledge about Apples products seem to be a bit dated, the screens for example aren't as glossy as they have been in the past. The latest Mini updates dramatically improved the GPUs too.
......
My hope is that Apple would see a niche to fill and offer a Mac Pro like machine with desktop CPUs and a single GPU.
......
This is exactly what Apple needs to add to their lineup. A Mac with a desktop CPU, desktop GPU in a PCIe slot (upgradable), and a Fusion drive.
Frankly I don't even care about an upgradeable GPU. The industry is at a point right now where upgradeable hardware is of limited value, the technology is changing fast leading us to entirely new generations of hardware.
Fusion drive is an interesting concept but it is quickly coming to the point where you can have enough flash for you main disk at a reasonable price.
I really like the idea of simply using the Mac Pro chassis with consumer hardware in place of the XEON and high end GPUs. Either that or a low end XEON and a single GPU in the chassis. Whatever combo is possible to let them ship it for less than $1500.
Like a quad-i7 with Iris Pro for under $1500:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE293LL/A/refurbished-154-inch-macbook-pro-20ghz-quad-core-intel-i7-with-retina-display
The old mini with the quad-i7 was $799, an Iris Pro one would have been about $849 but they have different plans for it so you have to just go with what they offer.
Frankly I don't even care about an upgradeable GPU. The industry is at a point right now where upgradeable hardware is of limited value, the technology is changing fast leading us to entirely new generations of hardware.
Fusion drive is an interesting concept but it is quickly coming to the point where you can have enough flash for you main disk at a reasonable price.
I really like the idea of simply using the Mac Pro chassis with consumer hardware in place of the XEON and high end GPUs. Either that or a low end XEON and a single GPU in the chassis. Whatever combo is possible to let them ship it for less than $1500.
Fast changing GPUs is exactly why we need an upgradable GPU. I always need a GPU upgrade years before anything else in the system.
I realize Iris and Iris Pro are making huge strides, and are perfectly acceptable for a lot of users. And even for me, it's good enough for most of what I need, problem is, they aren't enough for everything. I do realize this is Apple's standard - you keep things simpler and costs down for making something (hardware, software, whatever) for the majority and ignore the rest.
I think though in this case, the market segment that wants/needs a proper midrange system is larger than many people think. A cynical part of me says Apple realizes how big that segment is, but is ignoring it on purpose because that is the segment that upgrades rather than refreshes, which they think will reduce their sales.
The problem is, in my case I will not be buying a machine that does not fit my needs, so they will lose that sale (and just for the record, I've owned Apples / Macs since the Apple II).
I also know people who bought their first Macs after using iPads and Apple TVs (and loved them), but who are now migrating back to Windows because there is no acceptable midrange system in Apple's lineup. You can love the OS and software all you want, but if the hardware won't do the job, it doesn't matter.
I don't know if it is Apples plans or Intels stupidity that left us with the current Mini configuration. I still believe Apple did the right thing with the last rev focusing on GPU performance. It is too bad that the Quad core went missing though.
If you look at HP, they made $34b revenue in 2014 from personal computers with a marketshare of about 27%, which is about 85 million units. This makes the average selling price of their computers $400.
"Net revenue for consumer clients remained flat as growth in consumer notebooks, partly driven by our new product lineup including Chromebooks and hybrid products, was offset by a decline in consumer desktops"
Dell has similar marketshare and earnings.
When you consider GPUs, NVidia's earnings were $3.25b for GPUs in 2013, AMD made $2.1b. Intel has over 60% of the market (most low-end machines have no dedicated GPU) and NVidia/AMD have under 20% each. That means roughly 60m units each for NVidia/AMD or $35-55 average price per GPU. That means the vast majority of GPUs they sell are under those prices, which would be the mobile GPUs and very low-end bundled cards.
None of this data indicates any significant demand for a $1500 mid-range desktop with replaceable GPUs. There's a small group that really wants this but think about why this group wants a replaceable GPU. It's so they don't have to buy another computer. Apple doesn't make a single cent from someone buying a GPU from someone else. That's why the Mac Pro is better for them having fixed GPUs now because people can't hold onto them for 6 years and put a 3rd party GPU in. They have to go and pay Apple some money.
If the demand was there, they'd satisfy it. They are doing pretty well with their current strategy:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/01/23/as-the-mac-turns-30-apple-ponders-post-pc-era/
"Toni Sacchonaghi, a senior analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., estimates that Macs comprise about 5% of global market share by units, but account for more than 50% of the industry’s profits."
If they did release a mid-range tower, they'd probably lose some iMac sales to lower priced hardware and people would buy 3rd party displays. Nothing in that sentence would make Apple think it's a good business plan.
If the demand was there, they'd satisfy it. They are doing pretty well with their current strategy:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/01/23/as-the-mac-turns-30-apple-ponders-post-pc-era/
"Toni Sacchonaghi, a senior analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., estimates that Macs comprise about 5% of global market share by units, but account for more than 50% of the industry’s profits."
If they did release a mid-range tower, they'd probably lose some iMac sales to lower priced hardware and people would buy 3rd party displays. Nothing in that sentence would make Apple think it's a good business plan.
I understand your point, as I alluded to in one of my posts above. I had a PowerMac 6400 that lasted me well over 10 years through several GPU and CPU upgrades. Apple made no money off me on any of those (other than the OS upgrades I purchased).
On the other hand, the fact that they don't sell the computer I need means they are making no sales off me at all.
To your point above, the demand is there (based on your stats from the end), they just don't want to satisfy it, due to the margins not being there that they want.
How about they just sell me a version of Mac OS X for $200 I can install on generic hardware. I'll even buy it with a license agreement stating that it comes with no support or warranty from them. That'll happen
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
That can justify them making anything - no sale vs 1 sale. People said this about the XServe and 17" MBP, it's leaving money on the table etc. But they've done it in the past and it wasn't a good business setup. Consumer demand changes their market direction.
The 5% marketshare figure is misleading as the largest manufacturer has about 27% and their prices go below $400. This is the kind of thing people are buying:
http://www.amazon.com/15-6-Inch-Intel-Celeron-Laptop-500GB/dp/B00L49X8E6
http://www.amazon.com/HP-Stream-Laptop-Natural-Silver/dp/B00MVJYK6S
Apple's 15" laptop starts at $2k, that first 15" is $250 with free shipping. Even with under 5% net margins, that's crazy pricing. Laptops make up the majority of sales for all manufacturers. If you factor iPads in, which have low prices, Apple is the largest PC manufacturer.
The high volume demand is for cheap laptops and tablets, not mid-range desktops. PC manufacturers want to abandon the whole industry. HP wanted to sell off their PC division. Sony sold off their Vaio division. Samsung stopped all PC sales in Europe. Apple's strategy is in fact the only one that's sustainable and they're growing while the whole industry is shrinking.
They tried this in the past and it nearly bankrupted the company. That wouldn't happen now because the bulk of their revenue is from iOS but I highly doubt anyone is going to spend $200 on top of spending $250 on the actual machine. It would just be pirated and/or sold preinstalled on eBay/Amazon. They'd have to add all sorts of DRM and activation codes. It also eats into their hardware business so instead of someone buying an Air at $899, they get a $250 laptop with OS X.
They tried this in the past and it nearly bankrupted the company. That wouldn't happen now because the bulk of their revenue is from iOS but I highly doubt anyone is going to spend $200 on top of spending $250 on the actual machine. It would just be pirated and/or sold preinstalled on eBay/Amazon. They'd have to add all sorts of DRM and activation codes. It also eats into their hardware business so instead of someone buying an Air at $899, they get a $250 laptop with OS X.
As per my sarcastic comment at the end, which you left off your quote, I'm well aware that won't happen (and why).
I'd probably talk myself into a low end Mac Pro if it had a fusion drive option (and yes, I know I can put an external thunderbolt drive on it, but that additional cost always brings me back to my senses and stops the impulse purchase), or a Mac Mini with a non-upgradable mid-to-high end nVidia or ATI chipset with dedicated memory. And yes, I realize that would need to be a different form-factor for heat dissipation.
But because the non-upgradable GPU is going to drive a faster whole computer refresh, I'm not going to buy an iMac anymore. It's just a waste of a good screen, cpu, etc on upgrade. (and I've fried more than one iMac running the GPU flat out, which makes resale to recoup cost a little hard. Apple did a good job on heat dissipation in them, but went a little too far on form over function).
I don't doubt that one bit. However it isn't enough for anyone to care at Apple.