Apple hates the Mini. Or, at the very least, Cupertino isn't really fond of it.
Apple's culture believes that not controlling the entire user experience almost killed the company. They see headless desktops as a legacy of the pre-iMac days where the beige LC, Performa and Power Macs made the desktop computer a style-less commodity. A Mac desktop user without a built-in screen only contributes a fraction of the margin to Apple's bottom line, and then does so again when they upgrade their half-a-machine four years later.
This isn't about available chips. It never has been. Apple has all the components it needs right now to build a Mini that rivals or surpasses the iMac. They simply refuse to do so, and their business logic is sound. The availability of the Mini was primarily about switchers to the platform at the expense of Windows, and offering a price point that gets cost conscious buyers into an Apple Store.
Once you're in the Store, Apple goes all out to convince you not to buy the Mini. Sales people point out it's underpowered. The lack of an Apple monitor to accompany it (despite the fact that Apple has easy access to 21" panels) means that Mini buyers will need a third party monitor, PLUS FaceTime camera PLUS good speakers PLUS keyboard and mouse. The salesperson will point out that all this puts the 21" iMac within striking distance, and most buyers will accept the option. In a world where the Mini is no longer upgradable, why would you even object?
This is why I've focused on asking that the iMacs gain some upgradability with respect to RAM and HD/SSD. The Mini has been out for more than ten years now and to keep waiting for it to suddenly become a respectable midrange Mac is a fool's errand.
I believe it has served its purpose, and Apple should terminate the Mac Mini line (or shrink it further for embedded applications only) and drop the entry level iMac to an appropriate level to compensate.
I agree Apple wants to get rid of Mac Mini. But they are not in a hurry, so it will properly get its last update as Skylake CPU.
iMac is comparatively a decent value to Mac Mini, if we factor in the quality Display, Keyboard, Camera and SSD. But if we compare iMac entry level to its other competitor that it is much more expensive.
The only way to get iMac into affordable range is to ditch Intel, that is the CPU and the Chipset and now possibly Thunderbolt with USB 3.1 and Type C allowing Alternate mode ( PCI-E and DisplayPort ). That is at least a $200+ BOM cost reduction.
So we need a ARM Based iMac.... which is exactly what? A Large iPad.
I think few years down the road, when both the software and hardware are ready, the core of OSX has finish ported to ARM, ARM CPU fast enough while Apple have a Desktop Class GPU of their own. A large screen iPad will essentially replace iMac, and with lower pricing, the Mac Mini too. The use case for Mac Mini embedded Application will largely be filled with updated Apple TV.
There were people who said they'd never want to switch from IMB to Intel.
If Apple can do a switch-over as seamlessly as they did that and ARM reached desktop-rivaling performance, then why not?
Intel was considerably faster at the time by any reasonable metric. The G5s led in areas that weren't typically leveraged by their users. The G4s that were used in the powerbooks at the time were extremely slow. That meant that emulation was a slight slowdown rather than an extreme one. If they switched today, it would be extreme. I also think you guys drastically over estimate how much they would drop the price. The lowest imac has migrated to cheaper configurations, yet the price keeps going up.
Intel was considerably faster at the time by any reasonable metric. The G5s led in areas that weren't typically leveraged by their users. The G4s that were used in the powerbooks at the time were extremely slow. That meant that emulation was a slight slowdown rather than an extreme one. If they switched today, it would be extreme. I also think you guys drastically over estimate how much they would drop the price. The lowest imac has migrated to cheaper configurations, yet the price keeps going up.
Fair point! I'm thinking an ARM switch, if it happens, is still years away though, and years is an eternity in chip production. Some company could have quantum computers by then that are 1000x better!
Intel was considerably faster at the time by any reasonable metric. The G5s led in areas that weren't typically leveraged by their users. The G4s that were used in the powerbooks at the time were extremely slow. That meant that emulation was a slight slowdown rather than an extreme one. If they switched today, it would be extreme. I also think you guys drastically over estimate how much they would drop the price. The lowest imac has migrated to cheaper configurations, yet the price keeps going up.
Take a look at some of Apples developer videos out this year. They are doing interesting things with App Store and the developer tools. App Store, with iOS 9, will download processor specific executable code based on the characteristics of the device requesting the app. Well if everything goes to plan it will. So in iOS land if you need a 64 bit executable the store downloads that and leaves 32 bit specific code off the device. This applys to other parts of the app too. This could be easily extended to Mac OS or even uniquely different future processors on iOS devices.
On top of all of that they seem to have an initiative going where apps would be bit code that gets translated into an executable at download time. Again the complied code would be processor specific.
The point here is that the app situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. With this technology Apple could throw a MIPS chip into the next Mac and nobody would know. Obviously I don't know Apple full intentions here but it does look like the iOS devices will gain a bit of processor independence. On the Mac the platform has been 64 bit for a long time now so there is one less support vector. If you think the future is emulation I have to suggest that you are too focused on how it was done in the past.
Fair point! I'm thinking an ARM switch, if it happens, is still years away though, and years is an eternity in chip production.
Apple would need a compelling reason to switch. One reason that I can think of is to get full control of the SOC. This is where all modern computer design is taking place these days.
Some company could have quantum computers by then that are 1000x better!
With ARM based hardware Apple would be free to add any sort of logic they require. This could give them significant advantages as the could put what they want on the chip. Need logic to support an AI, no problem just allocate the chip space.
Take a look at some of Apples developer videos out this year. They are doing interesting things with App Store and the developer tools. App Store, with iOS 9, will download processor specific executable code based on the characteristics of the device requesting the app. Well if everything goes to plan it will. So in iOS land if you need a 64 bit executable the store downloads that and leaves 32 bit specific code off the device. This applys to other parts of the app too. This could be easily extended to Mac OS or even uniquely different future processors on iOS devices.
On top of all of that they seem to have an initiative going where apps would be bit code that gets translated into an executable at download time. Again the complied code would be processor specific.
The point here is that the app situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. With this technology Apple could throw a MIPS chip into the next Mac and nobody would know. Obviously I don't know Apple full intentions here but it does look like the iOS devices will gain a bit of processor independence. On the Mac the platform has been 64 bit for a long time now so there is one less support vector. If you think the future is emulation I have to suggest that you are too focused on how it was done in the past.
I'll take a look at them later, but are you suggesting that they would port things quickly rather than rely on emulation? Somehow I don't see a reason for them to switch away from Intel at the moment. I've been wrong before, but the macbook was the first place I would have looked for ARM, if it was going to appear in a Mac this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt
Fair point! I'm thinking an ARM switch, if it happens, is still years away though, and years is an eternity in chip production. Some company could have quantum computers by then that are 1000x better!
I've read quantum computing stories for many years at this point. No one has really solved that problem as of yet.
Has a future Apple event where a possible new mini been announced or even iMac? Would the iMac receive just a silent update?
The Mini was just updated less than two months ago. It's probably not going to see an update for quite awhile.
The most logical guess for desktops is that the iMac gets revved in October, with the 21" getting a Retina upgrade.
The iMac (aside from the 27" Retina introduced last year) has not seen an upgrade in almost two years, so it's a good bet that Apple's going to add new chips, new ports (maybe even Thunderbolt 3, if Skylake is truly almost ready.)
The Mini was just updated less than two months ago. It's probably not going to see an update for quite awhile.
The most logical guess for desktops is that the iMac gets revved in October, with the 21" getting a Retina upgrade.
The iMac (aside from the 27" Retina introduced last year) has not seen an upgrade in almost two years, so it's a good bet that Apple's going to add new chips, new ports (maybe even Thunderbolt 3, if Skylake is truly almost ready.)
Oops, sorry about that. I meant to say less than a year ago, and must have confused it with the Retina iMac's '50 days since last update'.
Apple doesn't typically update the Mini every October like the other desktops. That doesn't mean they can't update it with Skylake when they update the iMacs, but if the 21.5" iMac is going Retina 4K and gets a big push from Apple as their new big consumer product, I think they'll defer changes to the Mini.
Apple doesn't typically update the Mini every October like the other desktops. That doesn't mean they can't update it with Skylake when they update the iMacs, but if the 21.5" iMac is going Retina 4K and gets a big push from Apple as their new big consumer product, I think they'll defer changes to the Mini.
They have released it alongside imacs before. A retina imac should in fact sell itself.
Take a look at some of Apples developer videos out this year. They are doing interesting things with App Store and the developer tools. App Store, with iOS 9, will download processor specific executable code based on the characteristics of the device requesting the app. Well if everything goes to plan it will. So in iOS land if you need a 64 bit executable the store downloads that and leaves 32 bit specific code off the device. This applys to other parts of the app too. This could be easily extended to Mac OS or even uniquely different future processors on iOS devices.
On top of all of that they seem to have an initiative going where apps would be bit code that gets translated into an executable at download time. Again the complied code would be processor specific.
The point here is that the app situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. With this technology Apple could throw a MIPS chip into the next Mac and nobody would know. Obviously I don't know Apple full intentions here but it does look like the iOS devices will gain a bit of processor independence. On the Mac the platform has been 64 bit for a long time now so there is one less support vector. If you think the future is emulation I have to suggest that you are too focused on how it was done in the past.
Not exactly, as Chris Lattner pointed out the App Slimming and Bitcode are already Architecture specific. You can get the App to be fully optimized for future Apple ARM SoC with new instruction without optimization and resubmition, but you cant get the same App to run in different architecture like MIPS.
And App thinning & bitcode isn't available on Mac App Store yet. For now is is more of an iOS devices thing.
Has a future Apple event where a possible new mini been announced or even iMac? Would the iMac receive just a silent update?
They should update it at the event in October of 2015 with the same chipset that is in the 13" Macbook Pro, that being Broadwell with Iris 6100 graphics. They may not do this because they give so little love to the Mini.
They should update it at the event in October of 2015 with the same chipset that is in the 13" Macbook Pro, that being Broadwell with Iris 6100 graphics. They may not do this because they give so little love to the Mini.
Shoot they can do that now if they wanted to and I would be happy with that. That is the issue though, because you're right they don't give proper attention to the mini. Hell it sucks that they don't go Intel HD 6000, Iris 6100, and Iris Pro 6200. So now I'm looking at the iMac and we'll see what happens there. I have become more open-minded to the iMac however I wish they would include flash storage by default instead of a 5,400 rpm HDD.
Sooner or later you need to buy! There is significant truth in the idea that faster hardware is always just around the corner!
Given that I would expect new hardware updates to come with the final release of El Capitan. This mainly because the combo of new hardware and El Capitan will be very impressive as far as feel and performance goes. So think fall.
Shoot they can do that now if they wanted to and I would be happy with that. That is the issue though, because you're right they don't give proper attention to the mini. Hell it sucks that they don't go Intel HD 6000, Iris 6100, and Iris Pro 6200. So now I'm looking at the iMac and we'll see what happens there. I have become more open-minded to the iMac however I wish they would include flash storage by default instead of a 5,400 rpm HDD.
And I will believe me. I remember about five to six years ago I kept saying I was going to buy a Mac and I think it was someone on MacRumors IRC kept saying "Just buy one already!" I knew when my time was.
Comments
No, it's not hard to understand. Not at all.
Apple hates the Mini. Or, at the very least, Cupertino isn't really fond of it.
Apple's culture believes that not controlling the entire user experience almost killed the company. They see headless desktops as a legacy of the pre-iMac days where the beige LC, Performa and Power Macs made the desktop computer a style-less commodity. A Mac desktop user without a built-in screen only contributes a fraction of the margin to Apple's bottom line, and then does so again when they upgrade their half-a-machine four years later.
This isn't about available chips. It never has been. Apple has all the components it needs right now to build a Mini that rivals or surpasses the iMac. They simply refuse to do so, and their business logic is sound. The availability of the Mini was primarily about switchers to the platform at the expense of Windows, and offering a price point that gets cost conscious buyers into an Apple Store.
Once you're in the Store, Apple goes all out to convince you not to buy the Mini. Sales people point out it's underpowered. The lack of an Apple monitor to accompany it (despite the fact that Apple has easy access to 21" panels) means that Mini buyers will need a third party monitor, PLUS FaceTime camera PLUS good speakers PLUS keyboard and mouse. The salesperson will point out that all this puts the 21" iMac within striking distance, and most buyers will accept the option. In a world where the Mini is no longer upgradable, why would you even object?
This is why I've focused on asking that the iMacs gain some upgradability with respect to RAM and HD/SSD. The Mini has been out for more than ten years now and to keep waiting for it to suddenly become a respectable midrange Mac is a fool's errand.
I believe it has served its purpose, and Apple should terminate the Mac Mini line (or shrink it further for embedded applications only) and drop the entry level iMac to an appropriate level to compensate.
I agree Apple wants to get rid of Mac Mini. But they are not in a hurry, so it will properly get its last update as Skylake CPU.
iMac is comparatively a decent value to Mac Mini, if we factor in the quality Display, Keyboard, Camera and SSD. But if we compare iMac entry level to its other competitor that it is much more expensive.
The only way to get iMac into affordable range is to ditch Intel, that is the CPU and the Chipset and now possibly Thunderbolt with USB 3.1 and Type C allowing Alternate mode ( PCI-E and DisplayPort ). That is at least a $200+ BOM cost reduction.
So we need a ARM Based iMac.... which is exactly what? A Large iPad.
I think few years down the road, when both the software and hardware are ready, the core of OSX has finish ported to ARM, ARM CPU fast enough while Apple have a Desktop Class GPU of their own. A large screen iPad will essentially replace iMac, and with lower pricing, the Mac Mini too. The use case for Mac Mini embedded Application will largely be filled with updated Apple TV.
This journey will properly take 3+ years.
An ARM iMac? Jesus christ, you're killing off all options for me at Apple if that were to happen.
There were people who said they'd never want to switch from IMB to Intel.
If Apple can do a switch-over as seamlessly as they did that and ARM reached desktop-rivaling performance, then why not?
There were people who said they'd never want to switch from IMB to Intel.
If Apple can do a switch-over as seamlessly as they did that and ARM reached desktop-rivaling performance, then why not?
Intel was considerably faster at the time by any reasonable metric. The G5s led in areas that weren't typically leveraged by their users. The G4s that were used in the powerbooks at the time were extremely slow. That meant that emulation was a slight slowdown rather than an extreme one. If they switched today, it would be extreme. I also think you guys drastically over estimate how much they would drop the price. The lowest imac has migrated to cheaper configurations, yet the price keeps going up.
Intel was considerably faster at the time by any reasonable metric. The G5s led in areas that weren't typically leveraged by their users. The G4s that were used in the powerbooks at the time were extremely slow. That meant that emulation was a slight slowdown rather than an extreme one. If they switched today, it would be extreme. I also think you guys drastically over estimate how much they would drop the price. The lowest imac has migrated to cheaper configurations, yet the price keeps going up.
Fair point! I'm thinking an ARM switch, if it happens, is still years away though, and years is an eternity in chip production. Some company could have quantum computers by then that are 1000x better!
Take a look at some of Apples developer videos out this year. They are doing interesting things with App Store and the developer tools. App Store, with iOS 9, will download processor specific executable code based on the characteristics of the device requesting the app. Well if everything goes to plan it will. So in iOS land if you need a 64 bit executable the store downloads that and leaves 32 bit specific code off the device. This applys to other parts of the app too. This could be easily extended to Mac OS or even uniquely different future processors on iOS devices.
On top of all of that they seem to have an initiative going where apps would be bit code that gets translated into an executable at download time. Again the complied code would be processor specific.
The point here is that the app situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. With this technology Apple could throw a MIPS chip into the next Mac and nobody would know. Obviously I don't know Apple full intentions here but it does look like the iOS devices will gain a bit of processor independence. On the Mac the platform has been 64 bit for a long time now so there is one less support vector. If you think the future is emulation I have to suggest that you are too focused on how it was done in the past.
With ARM based hardware Apple would be free to add any sort of logic they require. This could give them significant advantages as the could put what they want on the chip. Need logic to support an AI, no problem just allocate the chip space.
Take a look at some of Apples developer videos out this year. They are doing interesting things with App Store and the developer tools. App Store, with iOS 9, will download processor specific executable code based on the characteristics of the device requesting the app. Well if everything goes to plan it will. So in iOS land if you need a 64 bit executable the store downloads that and leaves 32 bit specific code off the device. This applys to other parts of the app too. This could be easily extended to Mac OS or even uniquely different future processors on iOS devices.
On top of all of that they seem to have an initiative going where apps would be bit code that gets translated into an executable at download time. Again the complied code would be processor specific.
The point here is that the app situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. With this technology Apple could throw a MIPS chip into the next Mac and nobody would know. Obviously I don't know Apple full intentions here but it does look like the iOS devices will gain a bit of processor independence. On the Mac the platform has been 64 bit for a long time now so there is one less support vector. If you think the future is emulation I have to suggest that you are too focused on how it was done in the past.
I'll take a look at them later, but are you suggesting that they would port things quickly rather than rely on emulation? Somehow I don't see a reason for them to switch away from Intel at the moment. I've been wrong before, but the macbook was the first place I would have looked for ARM, if it was going to appear in a Mac this year.
Fair point! I'm thinking an ARM switch, if it happens, is still years away though, and years is an eternity in chip production. Some company could have quantum computers by then that are 1000x better!
I've read quantum computing stories for many years at this point. No one has really solved that problem as of yet.
Has a future Apple event where a possible new mini been announced or even iMac? Would the iMac receive just a silent update?
The Mini was just updated less than two months ago. It's probably not going to see an update for quite awhile.
The most logical guess for desktops is that the iMac gets revved in October, with the 21" getting a Retina upgrade.
The iMac (aside from the 27" Retina introduced last year) has not seen an upgrade in almost two years, so it's a good bet that Apple's going to add new chips, new ports (maybe even Thunderbolt 3, if Skylake is truly almost ready.)
Quote:
Has a future Apple event where a possible new mini been announced or even iMac? Would the iMac receive just a silent update?
You already know the answer to that.
o_O The mini got updated in October 2014.
o_O The mini got updated in October 2014.
Oops, sorry about that. I meant to say less than a year ago, and must have confused it with the Retina iMac's '50 days since last update'.
Apple doesn't typically update the Mini every October like the other desktops. That doesn't mean they can't update it with Skylake when they update the iMacs, but if the 21.5" iMac is going Retina 4K and gets a big push from Apple as their new big consumer product, I think they'll defer changes to the Mini.
Apple doesn't typically update the Mini every October like the other desktops. That doesn't mean they can't update it with Skylake when they update the iMacs, but if the 21.5" iMac is going Retina 4K and gets a big push from Apple as their new big consumer product, I think they'll defer changes to the Mini.
They have released it alongside imacs before. A retina imac should in fact sell itself.
Take a look at some of Apples developer videos out this year. They are doing interesting things with App Store and the developer tools. App Store, with iOS 9, will download processor specific executable code based on the characteristics of the device requesting the app. Well if everything goes to plan it will. So in iOS land if you need a 64 bit executable the store downloads that and leaves 32 bit specific code off the device. This applys to other parts of the app too. This could be easily extended to Mac OS or even uniquely different future processors on iOS devices.
On top of all of that they seem to have an initiative going where apps would be bit code that gets translated into an executable at download time. Again the complied code would be processor specific.
The point here is that the app situation isn't as bad as people make it out to be. With this technology Apple could throw a MIPS chip into the next Mac and nobody would know. Obviously I don't know Apple full intentions here but it does look like the iOS devices will gain a bit of processor independence. On the Mac the platform has been 64 bit for a long time now so there is one less support vector. If you think the future is emulation I have to suggest that you are too focused on how it was done in the past.
Not exactly, as Chris Lattner pointed out the App Slimming and Bitcode are already Architecture specific. You can get the App to be fully optimized for future Apple ARM SoC with new instruction without optimization and resubmition, but you cant get the same App to run in different architecture like MIPS.
And App thinning & bitcode isn't available on Mac App Store yet. For now is is more of an iOS devices thing.
Has a future Apple event where a possible new mini been announced or even iMac? Would the iMac receive just a silent update?
They should update it at the event in October of 2015 with the same chipset that is in the 13" Macbook Pro, that being Broadwell with Iris 6100 graphics. They may not do this because they give so little love to the Mini.
Shoot they can do that now if they wanted to and I would be happy with that. That is the issue though, because you're right they don't give proper attention to the mini. Hell it sucks that they don't go Intel HD 6000, Iris 6100, and Iris Pro 6200. So now I'm looking at the iMac and we'll see what happens there. I have become more open-minded to the iMac however I wish they would include flash storage by default instead of a 5,400 rpm HDD.
Given that I would expect new hardware updates to come with the final release of El Capitan. This mainly because the combo of new hardware and El Capitan will be very impressive as far as feel and performance goes. So think fall.