Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple's strategy here is. I paid just about $4K even for my 2009 Mac Pro. So the iMac pro is starting at $5K. WTF? So will Mac Pro start at $7K? Or are they going to milk iMac pro for 6/10mo until Mac Pro comes out then drop the price? Or maybe Mac Pro will start out less since it doesn't have a monitor? I'm truly baffled.
I think it was only after the Surface Studio and the Windows creator edition (and the constant whining and the louder voices saying -- they have given up)... that I think Apple finally came to its senses in almost a state of panic.
Hopefully some good things with come from this "panic". Apple once made some really great hardware and software for video/graphics pros. The facility where I used to work had Mac Pros, Xserves and Xserve RAIDs. Those RAIDs were really well made and a total joy to use and to maintain. The Xserves and MacPros were built in such a way that working on them for routine maintenance and upgrades was really easy. I would love to see Apple re-examine their thinking for the pro line and maybe take a look back in time.
Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
The way display technology is changing, you won’t want a monitor longer than five years, maybe a lot less if you get caught between technology advances. If You had a display right before the 5k DCI-P3 would you really still want it?
Yes, I would. I'm still very happily using the Cinema display that I bought with my MBP in 2008 even though the machine itself is no longer suitable for the work that I do. For people like me (and I suspect others), the useful life of a display far exceeds the useful life of a computer. (I'm not complaining about the existence of iMacs, nor am I clamouring for Apple to do this or that, just answering your question )
So when do AMD based Macs come out? Some of their new processors are pretty damn good for what you're paying for. They're certainly giving Intel a run for their money. Finally, Intel has some competition.
So when do AMD based Macs come out? Some of their new processors are pretty damn good for what you're paying for. They're certainly giving Intel a run for their money. Finally, Intel has some competition.
I hope never.
Why? According to what is available as reviews online are that Ryzen may not be as good as their Intel counterparts when it comes to single threaded performance (affecting mostly gaming), it is better / cost at most other tasks done on a PC. (other than the Thunderbolt spec and I am not sure whether the opening of the licensing would allow AMD or Apple to use Thunderbolt with AMD processors). I am just happy to see AMD come up with competitive products at this point -- since it is only with competition that Intel bothers to give us anything more than what we had last year, the year before, or the year before that....
Of course, if they started using AMD chips in their computers... they might want to purchase AMD for pocket change (depending on whether the x86 license can survive it with the help of IBM if necessary) and run it as a separate company (like FileMaker)... and share silicon tech between Apple and AMD (I am sure they could help each other).
Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple's strategy here is. I paid just about $4K even for my 2009 Mac Pro. So the iMac pro is starting at $5K. WTF? So will Mac Pro start at $7K? Or are they going to milk iMac pro for 6/10mo until Mac Pro comes out then drop the price? Or maybe Mac Pro will start out less since it doesn't have a monitor? I'm truly baffled.
Likely the Mini is going to Apple heaven with the iPods, and the a version of the new Pro will come down from the stratosphere. (But it will still be pricey compared to an iMac with a monitor.)
Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple's strategy here is. I paid just about $4K even for my 2009 Mac Pro. So the iMac pro is starting at $5K. WTF? So will Mac Pro start at $7K? Or are they going to milk iMac pro for 6/10mo until Mac Pro comes out then drop the price? Or maybe Mac Pro will start out less since it doesn't have a monitor? I'm truly baffled.
Likely the Mini is going to Apple heaven with the iPods, and the a version of the new Pro will come down from the stratosphere. (But it will still be pricey compared to an iMac with a monitor.)
I don't think the Mini is going to Apple Heaven -- when they had the 5 press people in to discuss the future Mac Pro (in a state of panic)... the question was asked and answered that the Mini is still "important". If they were going to discontinue that line they would have removed it from the lineup completely during the last Mac refresh at WWDC (or 2 weeks either side). I think what form it takes is dependent on the Mac Pro to some extent and how they implement modularity. Based on them not answering anything the future plans it indicated to me that there were two possibilities on timing.
The timing of the Mac Mini upgrade was sometime this year (August to October timeframe) - and they did not feel the need - nor want to pre release any details as to take away from the official announcement (Apple does like it's wow announcements).
The Mini's design is dependent on the Mac Pro's modularity and target market segment. I tend to think it is more likely #1 though.
I'm rather surprised that neither the article nor anyone in the forum has asked the most basic of all questions:
Which would be faster? A Xenon or i9?
This is an important question to be answered in light of the fact that the Mac Pro we have now is often bested by i7 iMacs. The current Mac Pro uses older edition Xenons, I am aware, but the question about what the new Xenons are possibly missing remains. For example, the Mac Pro's Xenon chip lacks “QuickSync” CPU-based acceleration for H.264 compression whereas the iMac i7 has it. Curious if there are similar issues on the new Xenons.
I'm rather surprised that neither the article nor anyone in the forum has asked the most basic of all questions:
Which would be faster? A Xenon or i9?
This is an important question to be answered in light of the fact that the Mac Pro we have now is often bested by i7 iMacs. The current Mac Pro uses older edition Xenons, I am aware, but the question about what the new Xenons are possibly missing remains. For example, the Mac Pro's Xenon chip lacks “QuickSync” CPU-based acceleration for H.264 compression whereas the iMac i7 has it. Curious if there are similar issues on the new Xenons.
An iMac would often best the Mac Pro when doing things like builds (developer) even when the processor benchmarks would indicate the Mac Pro should be faster. The issue is the builds would get limited benefit from each additional core (dependency threading issue on builds) -- and generally speaking the more cores the lower the per core processing speed tends to be. I believe consumer grade transcoding (Handbrake etc.) -- more than 8 cores are not that beneficial.
Then there are typically niche CPU extensions that first arrive on the Xeon class processors -- things like AVX-512 instruction set extensions (updated from AVX and AVX2)... which will likely be in the Xeon class processors in the new Mac Pros but disabled in the i9 processors. The Clang compiler (which provides the foundation for Swift and Object-C on the Mac) support it. If I understand it right it is basically ultra wide compute (fewer cycles to do do the same thing -- similar to 64 bit vs 32 bit for integer math) - which provides increased performance for scientific workloads like simulations, financial analysis, AI, 3D modelling, audio/video processing, cryptography, etc. Things like Handbrake likely would not support it but professional apps like Final Cut X would likely be updated to take advantage of the newer extensions.
It is highly likely the i9 processors like the 18 core processor will start out as a Xeon class processor -- but will have certain functionality physically disabled such as:
Extra PCIe lanes which could support more bandwidth from memory, SSDs and graphics cards (a single SSD right now could eat up 4 lanes per module - allowing for more U.2 drives without "switching". More lanes for GPUs or TPUs etc.
Greater on board Memory (would not be surprised for it to support 256GB of ECC memory 8x32GB)
Additional features like the AVX-512 will also be disabled if I am right.
It is basically Intel responding to the desktop threat from AMD but at the same time Intel will do the minimum necessary and do that maximum disabling necessary to protect the highly profitable Xeon class server and workstation business.
I read a post earlier complaining that the Mac Pro might be even higher priced and it will likely be too much... but you have to realize that the target audience is the creatives that felt they could not work with the 2013 Mac Pro model because of the limited expansion. A target audience that might have a $3K+ professional grade video card, and a $7K Red Rocket-X board in the computer. Then, of course, the 8K monitor which is going to be released for that Mac Pro -- will likely start somewhere north of $5K. When you realize that the primary target audience is spending money on pretty high priced expansion items... the cost of the Mac Pro is relatively a small part of it.
So when do AMD based Macs come out? Some of their new processors are pretty damn good for what you're paying for. They're certainly giving Intel a run for their money. Finally, Intel has some competition.
I hope never.
Why? According to what is available as reviews online are that Ryzen may not be as good as their Intel counterparts when it comes to single threaded performance (affecting mostly gaming), it is better / cost at most other tasks done on a PC. (other than the Thunderbolt spec and I am not sure whether the opening of the licensing would allow AMD or Apple to use Thunderbolt with AMD processors). I am just happy to see AMD come up with competitive products at this point -- since it is only with competition that Intel bothers to give us anything more than what we had last year, the year before, or the year before that....
I doubt that Apple will ever have any interest in AMD. There are several reasons. This new line from them is pretty good. But it’s cheap because AMD can’t get customers any other way, and they know it. AMD has always been a secondary brand, even for the short time when they had a slight advantage. But if anyone really believes that intel can’t kill this AMD line the way they’ve killed all the others, they’re dreaming. When Netburst was dying, when the last one in the line came out, people were thinking that finally, AMD was going move in. But intel simply changed course, and destroyed AMD again. If intel wants to, they can undoubtably do it now.
another reason is that AMD sold off their plants a long time ago. Now they’re dependent on Global Foundries, and the foreign governmental ownership. I doubt Apple would want any part of that possible mess.
apple also wouldn’t want to design processors for their competitors. If Apple’s were better, they would lose the rest of the business. If they weren’t, then why do this in the first place?
its also a question whether intel would allow Apple to continue to make x86 if they did buy AMD. The license AMD has, states very explicitly that if another entity buys the company, the license is void. In fact, it was a big question as to whether intel would allow AMD to continue the license after they sold off their manufacturing plants. That was a major issue for a while. It took a year for them to settle.
Apple doesn’t want to do anything other than to design chips. They are doing very well with ARM. We don’t know what their future plans are. Maybe they do plan on replacing x86 with ARM everywhere. We don’t know.
Of course, if they started using AMD chips in their computers... they might want to purchase AMD for pocket change (depending on whether the x86 license can survive it with the help of IBM if necessary) and run it as a separate company (like FileMaker)... and share silicon tech between Apple and AMD (I am sure they could help each other).
Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple's strategy here is. I paid just about $4K even for my 2009 Mac Pro. So the iMac pro is starting at $5K. WTF? So will Mac Pro start at $7K? Or are they going to milk iMac pro for 6/10mo until Mac Pro comes out then drop the price? Or maybe Mac Pro will start out less since it doesn't have a monitor? I'm truly baffled.
Likely the Mini is going to Apple heaven with the iPods, and the a version of the new Pro will come down from the stratosphere. (But it will still be pricey compared to an iMac with a monitor.)
I don't think the Mini is going to Apple Heaven -- when they had the 5 press people in to discuss the future Mac Pro (in a state of panic)... the question was asked and answered that the Mini is still "important". If they were going to discontinue that line they would have removed it from the lineup completely during the last Mac refresh at WWDC (or 2 weeks either side). I think what form it takes is dependent on the Mac Pro to some extent and how they implement modularity. Based on them not answering anything the future plans it indicated to me that there were two possibilities on timing.
The timing of the Mac Mini upgrade was sometime this year (August to October timeframe) - and they did not feel the need - nor want to pre release any details as to take away from the official announcement (Apple does like it's wow announcements).
The Mini's design is dependent on the Mac Pro's modularity and target market segment. I tend to think it is more likely #1 though.
But look at that wording - “still important”. I don’t remember the actual wording myself, but if that’s what they said, I don’t feel good about it. Sometimes when I quote, I leave out words before and after, but I try to keep the ones that have meaning in the statement. If they just said that it was “important”, I would feel better about it.
the problem here is that we don’t know what the sales are. The notebooks are assumed to be about 70% of sales, and iMacs are assumed to be most of the rest, with a tiny proportion of Mac Pro. Where does that leave the Mini? So for a while the Mini has been on life support. No real upgrades.
sometimes Apple doesn’t understand their own business. If sales of a product are falling, they don’t bother with it. Look at the 2013 Mac Pro. So, as it falls further behind in technology, the sales fall even faster. They don’t even think that using new chips every year will boost sales, even if the form isn’t thrilling everyone. So they let it languish. The only reason why they decided to have that meeting, and to recommit with a new model that’s considerably more advanced, is because the Mac Pro is a very high profile product, despite the sales numbers, and even because of the sales numbers. If pros keep deserting the platform, but in increasing numbers, then Apple can’t say that they are the choice of the creative community anymore, and that will tarnish their image, and possibly even hurt sales overall.
but what, exactly, does the Mini stand for? It was aimed at people who already had a Windows machine, hence no keyboard or mouse. Anything to cut costs to bring it in line with Windows machine costs. But now, does Apple really care about that market? With the pc market shrinking for years, though their own pc business has been steady, possibly Apple no longer feels that the Mini is bringing in enough new Mac users to matter. Use cases such as small servers in hotels, cruise ships and such are just small fry sales, maybe in the tens of thousands a year. Maybe even 100 thousand. But that’s too little to sustain a product line at Apple. For Dell, Hp and others, where they have multiple lines of computers, and multiple lines within those lines, a model that sells a couple of hundred thousand a year between Pro and consumer sales would earn it a permanent home, with regular upgrades. But not at Apple.
a good thing and a bad thing about Apple is that all of their products must be iconic designs. They don’t, and won’t, produce a product that sells in a minimal fashion. They won’t produce a product that isn’t great looking, both in feel, and look. That’s good in a number of ways, but it’s also bad, because where does an inexpensive little product, like a Mini, fit into that? So maybe they could be more practical, and replace the expensive aluminum case with a plastic one, like their routers and A Tv. That would cut costs. They could also make it a bit taller, to make it easier to upgrade.
but if they feel that it’s a computer product, like all of their other computer products, it’s GOT to be aluminum. That’s too bad. If they did something to cut $50 off the price, that would help sales. Remember that when it first came out it started at $499.
Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple's strategy here is. I paid just about $4K even for my 2009 Mac Pro. So the iMac pro is starting at $5K. WTF? So will Mac Pro start at $7K? Or are they going to milk iMac pro for 6/10mo until Mac Pro comes out then drop the price? Or maybe Mac Pro will start out less since it doesn't have a monitor? I'm truly baffled.
Likely the Mini is going to Apple heaven with the iPods, and the a version of the new Pro will come down from the stratosphere. (But it will still be pricey compared to an iMac with a monitor.)
I don't think the Mini is going to Apple Heaven -- when they had the 5 press people in to discuss the future Mac Pro (in a state of panic)... the question was asked and answered that the Mini is still "important". If they were going to discontinue that line they would have removed it from the lineup completely during the last Mac refresh at WWDC (or 2 weeks either side). I think what form it takes is dependent on the Mac Pro to some extent and how they implement modularity. Based on them not answering anything the future plans it indicated to me that there were two possibilities on timing.
The timing of the Mac Mini upgrade was sometime this year (August to October timeframe) - and they did not feel the need - nor want to pre release any details as to take away from the official announcement (Apple does like it's wow announcements).
The Mini's design is dependent on the Mac Pro's modularity and target market segment. I tend to think it is more likely #1 though.
But look at that wording - “still important”. I don’t remember the actual wording myself, but if that’s what they said, I don’t feel good about it. Sometimes when I quote, I leave out words before and after, but I try to keep the ones that have meaning in the statement. If they just said that it was “important”, I would feel better about it.
the problem here is that we don’t know what the sales are. The notebooks are assumed to be about 70% of sales, and iMacs are assumed to be most of the rest, with a tiny proportion of Mac Pro. Where does that leave the Mini? So for a while the Mini has been on life support. No real upgrades.
sometimes Apple doesn’t understand their own business. If sales of a product are falling, they don’t bother with it. Look at the 2013 Mac Pro. So, as it falls further behind in technology, the sales fall even faster. They don’t even think that using new chips every year will boost sales, even if the form isn’t thrilling everyone. So they let it languish. The only reason why they decided to have that meeting, and to recommit with a new model that’s considerably more advanced, is because the Mac Pro is a very high profile product, despite the sales numbers, and even because of the sales numbers. If pros keep deserting the platform, but in increasing numbers, then Apple can’t say that they are the choice of the creative community anymore, and that will tarnish their image, and possibly even hurt sales overall.
but what, exactly, does the Mini stand for? It was aimed at people who already had a Windows machine, hence no keyboard or mouse. Anything to cut costs to bring it in line with Windows machine costs. But now, does Apple really care about that market? With the pc market shrinking for years, though their own pc business has been steady, possibly Apple no longer feels that the Mini is bringing in enough new Mac users to matter. Use cases such as small servers in hotels, cruise ships and such are just small fry sales, maybe in the tens of thousands a year. Maybe even 100 thousand. But that’s too little to sustain a product line at Apple. For Dell, Hp and others, where they have multiple lines of computers, and multiple lines within those lines, a model that sells a couple of hundred thousand a year between Pro and consumer sales would earn it a permanent home, with regular upgrades. But not at Apple.
a good thing and a bad thing about Apple is that all of their products must be iconic designs. They don’t, and won’t, produce a product that sells in a minimal fashion. They won’t produce a product that isn’t great looking, both in feel, and look. That’s good in a number of ways, but it’s also bad, because where does an inexpensive little product, like a Mini, fit into that? So maybe they could be more practical, and replace the expensive aluminum case with a plastic one, like their routers and A Tv. That would cut costs. They could also make it a bit taller, to make it easier to upgrade.
but if they feel that it’s a computer product, like all of their other computer products, it’s GOT to be aluminum. That’s too bad. If they did something to cut $50 off the price, that would help sales. Remember that when it first came out it started at $499.
I think Apple knows that the Mini is a fairly diverse use - but unknown of the number. I think the reason why the Mac mini quad-core server was discontinued was that they felt that the niche would overlap too much with the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro (low end) -- and that if quad-core performance was necessary in a small package they would go up to the trashcan Mac.
Assuming the modular Mac Pro is larger and higher in cost than the trashcan, that opens up a wide gap that will likely need to be filled. I would have originally thought a Mac mini would just have a quad-core option, but after seeing WWDC and the external (sizeable) eGPU that the niche would have to be filled by a i7-7700K Radeon 580 graphics version to fill the need from the upscaled Mac mini and the low end trashcan market. It is sort of a less complicated small form factor instead of an ungainly eGPU that can not be looped back into the laptop monitor (i.e. VR/AR development)
What is the market for Mac Mini... anyone that needs a computer in a small relatively inexpensive model (with the same markup %) that either need it as a single purpose server or as a small development small desktop (that don't need nor want to maintain battery of a Laptop, and are averse to all-in-one computers - and there are quite a number of them -- especially with developers that often have multiple machines. (you only can look at one computer at a time for the most part). When the Mac mini was originally introduced it was envisioned as a computer for switchers... but that is a small rather insignificant part of the mini market place (IMHO).
Small development box to go along with a small laptop for VR development.
Small form factor for single purpose server or co-location services for the most part developers (single purpose would be a git server, or other).
Small form factor for those techies like me are averse to all-in-one computers (there are a large number relatively speaking to the mini marketplace). The second most component to go after the hard drive -- is the monitor. (I have had 3 or 4 monitors fail). And many techies with multiple computers (like me - I have 5) ... I don't need a monitor and keyboard for each of them.
Trade shows where your monitor might be hanging and larger than a desktop monitor.
I just think the replacement design for the Mac mini is going to be heavily dependent on what a modular Mac Pro is (so once they nailed down that they will know what to release as the complete Mac mini line -- though not the entire line needs to be redesigned). The reason the Mac Pro will take longer is it is going to be a complete redesign from anything in the line up -- so they have to settle on the basic design, then design how to fit the widest "professional" audience, then they have to build a new manufacturing line from the ground up and test the manufacturing line before production starts (the Mac mini is likely to be based on existing designs and will likely be quicker to retool for).
Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple's strategy here is. I paid just about $4K even for my 2009 Mac Pro. So the iMac pro is starting at $5K. WTF? So will Mac Pro start at $7K? Or are they going to milk iMac pro for 6/10mo until Mac Pro comes out then drop the price? Or maybe Mac Pro will start out less since it doesn't have a monitor? I'm truly baffled.
Likely the Mini is going to Apple heaven with the iPods, and the a version of the new Pro will come down from the stratosphere. (But it will still be pricey compared to an iMac with a monitor.)
I don't think the Mini is going to Apple Heaven -- when they had the 5 press people in to discuss the future Mac Pro (in a state of panic)... the question was asked and answered that the Mini is still "important". If they were going to discontinue that line they would have removed it from the lineup completely during the last Mac refresh at WWDC (or 2 weeks either side). I think what form it takes is dependent on the Mac Pro to some extent and how they implement modularity. Based on them not answering anything the future plans it indicated to me that there were two possibilities on timing.
The timing of the Mac Mini upgrade was sometime this year (August to October timeframe) - and they did not feel the need - nor want to pre release any details as to take away from the official announcement (Apple does like it's wow announcements).
The Mini's design is dependent on the Mac Pro's modularity and target market segment. I tend to think it is more likely #1 though.
But look at that wording - “still important”. I don’t remember the actual wording myself, but if that’s what they said, I don’t feel good about it. Sometimes when I quote, I leave out words before and after, but I try to keep the ones that have meaning in the statement. If they just said that it was “important”, I would feel better about it.
the problem here is that we don’t know what the sales are. The notebooks are assumed to be about 70% of sales, and iMacs are assumed to be most of the rest, with a tiny proportion of Mac Pro. Where does that leave the Mini? So for a while the Mini has been on life support. No real upgrades.
sometimes Apple doesn’t understand their own business. If sales of a product are falling, they don’t bother with it. Look at the 2013 Mac Pro. So, as it falls further behind in technology, the sales fall even faster. They don’t even think that using new chips every year will boost sales, even if the form isn’t thrilling everyone. So they let it languish. The only reason why they decided to have that meeting, and to recommit with a new model that’s considerably more advanced, is because the Mac Pro is a very high profile product, despite the sales numbers, and even because of the sales numbers. If pros keep deserting the platform, but in increasing numbers, then Apple can’t say that they are the choice of the creative community anymore, and that will tarnish their image, and possibly even hurt sales overall.
but what, exactly, does the Mini stand for? It was aimed at people who already had a Windows machine, hence no keyboard or mouse. Anything to cut costs to bring it in line with Windows machine costs. But now, does Apple really care about that market? With the pc market shrinking for years, though their own pc business has been steady, possibly Apple no longer feels that the Mini is bringing in enough new Mac users to matter. Use cases such as small servers in hotels, cruise ships and such are just small fry sales, maybe in the tens of thousands a year. Maybe even 100 thousand. But that’s too little to sustain a product line at Apple. For Dell, Hp and others, where they have multiple lines of computers, and multiple lines within those lines, a model that sells a couple of hundred thousand a year between Pro and consumer sales would earn it a permanent home, with regular upgrades. But not at Apple.
a good thing and a bad thing about Apple is that all of their products must be iconic designs. They don’t, and won’t, produce a product that sells in a minimal fashion. They won’t produce a product that isn’t great looking, both in feel, and look. That’s good in a number of ways, but it’s also bad, because where does an inexpensive little product, like a Mini, fit into that? So maybe they could be more practical, and replace the expensive aluminum case with a plastic one, like their routers and A Tv. That would cut costs. They could also make it a bit taller, to make it easier to upgrade.
but if they feel that it’s a computer product, like all of their other computer products, it’s GOT to be aluminum. That’s too bad. If they did something to cut $50 off the price, that would help sales. Remember that when it first came out it started at $499.
I think Apple knows that the Mini is a fairly diverse use - but unknown of the number. I think the reason why the Mac mini quad-core server was discontinued was that they felt that the niche would overlap too much with the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro (low end) -- and that if quad-core performance was necessary in a small package they would go up to the trashcan Mac.
Assuming the modular Mac Pro is larger and higher in cost than the trashcan, that opens up a wide gap that will likely need to be filled. I would have originally thought a Mac mini would just have a quad-core option, but after seeing WWDC and the external (sizeable) eGPU that the niche would have to be filled by a i7-7700K Radeon 580 graphics version to fill the need from the upscaled Mac mini and the low end trashcan market. It is sort of a less complicated small form factor instead of an ungainly eGPU that can not be looped back into the laptop monitor (i.e. VR/AR development)
What is the market for Mac Mini... anyone that needs a computer in a small relatively inexpensive model (with the same markup %) that either need it as a single purpose server or as a small development small desktop (that don't need nor want to maintain battery of a Laptop, and are averse to all-in-one computers - and there are quite a number of them -- especially with developers that often have multiple machines. (you only can look at one computer at a time for the most part). When the Mac mini was originally introduced it was envisioned as a computer for switchers... but that is a small rather insignificant part of the mini market place (IMHO).
Small development box to go along with a small laptop for VR development.
Small form factor for single purpose server or co-location services for the most part developers (single purpose would be a git server, or other).
Small form factor for those techies like me are averse to all-in-one computers (there are a large number relatively speaking to the mini marketplace). The second most component to go after the hard drive -- is the monitor. (I have had 3 or 4 monitors fail). And many techies with multiple computers (like me - I have 5) ... I don't need a monitor and keyboard for each of them.
Trade shows where your monitor might be hanging and larger than a desktop monitor.
I just think the replacement design for the Mac mini is going to be heavily dependent on what a modular Mac Pro is (so once they nailed down that they will know what to release as the complete Mac mini line -- though not the entire line needs to be redesigned). The reason the Mac Pro will take longer is it is going to be a complete redesign from anything in the line up -- so they have to settle on the basic design, then design how to fit the widest "professional" audience, then they have to build a new manufacturing line from the ground up and test the manufacturing line before production starts (the Mac mini is likely to be based on existing designs and will likely be quicker to retool for).
Whoa! Where do you get the idea that a $699 machine is going to compete, on any level, with a machine that starts around $3999? For all the server uses for the Mini, it would in no way compete with the Mac Pro. They’re for entirely different use cases.
wow, I just don’t see that scenario at all. If the Mini is going to remain in the line in some form, the the computer it won’t be competing with in any way, is the Mac Pro. It’s also a minimal machine for software developers. It’s just too slow, and doesn’t have enough RAM, or a worthwhile GPU. It’s never been intended for any of that. The server version was for use cases in which servers had low demands. They were used in bunches.
Apple should bring more headless Mac models and less iMacs. Save the display for many years of use, far beyond CPU becomes obsolete!
I can't for the life of me figure out what Apple's strategy here is. I paid just about $4K even for my 2009 Mac Pro. So the iMac pro is starting at $5K. WTF? So will Mac Pro start at $7K? Or are they going to milk iMac pro for 6/10mo until Mac Pro comes out then drop the price? Or maybe Mac Pro will start out less since it doesn't have a monitor? I'm truly baffled.
Likely the Mini is going to Apple heaven with the iPods, and the a version of the new Pro will come down from the stratosphere. (But it will still be pricey compared to an iMac with a monitor.)
I don't think the Mini is going to Apple Heaven -- when they had the 5 press people in to discuss the future Mac Pro (in a state of panic)... the question was asked and answered that the Mini is still "important". If they were going to discontinue that line they would have removed it from the lineup completely during the last Mac refresh at WWDC (or 2 weeks either side). I think what form it takes is dependent on the Mac Pro to some extent and how they implement modularity. Based on them not answering anything the future plans it indicated to me that there were two possibilities on timing.
The timing of the Mac Mini upgrade was sometime this year (August to October timeframe) - and they did not feel the need - nor want to pre release any details as to take away from the official announcement (Apple does like it's wow announcements).
The Mini's design is dependent on the Mac Pro's modularity and target market segment. I tend to think it is more likely #1 though.
But look at that wording - “still important”. I don’t remember the actual wording myself, but if that’s what they said, I don’t feel good about it. Sometimes when I quote, I leave out words before and after, but I try to keep the ones that have meaning in the statement. If they just said that it was “important”, I would feel better about it.
the problem here is that we don’t know what the sales are. The notebooks are assumed to be about 70% of sales, and iMacs are assumed to be most of the rest, with a tiny proportion of Mac Pro. Where does that leave the Mini? So for a while the Mini has been on life support. No real upgrades.
sometimes Apple doesn’t understand their own business. If sales of a product are falling, they don’t bother with it. Look at the 2013 Mac Pro. So, as it falls further behind in technology, the sales fall even faster. They don’t even think that using new chips every year will boost sales, even if the form isn’t thrilling everyone. So they let it languish. The only reason why they decided to have that meeting, and to recommit with a new model that’s considerably more advanced, is because the Mac Pro is a very high profile product, despite the sales numbers, and even because of the sales numbers. If pros keep deserting the platform, but in increasing numbers, then Apple can’t say that they are the choice of the creative community anymore, and that will tarnish their image, and possibly even hurt sales overall.
but what, exactly, does the Mini stand for? It was aimed at people who already had a Windows machine, hence no keyboard or mouse. Anything to cut costs to bring it in line with Windows machine costs. But now, does Apple really care about that market? With the pc market shrinking for years, though their own pc business has been steady, possibly Apple no longer feels that the Mini is bringing in enough new Mac users to matter. Use cases such as small servers in hotels, cruise ships and such are just small fry sales, maybe in the tens of thousands a year. Maybe even 100 thousand. But that’s too little to sustain a product line at Apple. For Dell, Hp and others, where they have multiple lines of computers, and multiple lines within those lines, a model that sells a couple of hundred thousand a year between Pro and consumer sales would earn it a permanent home, with regular upgrades. But not at Apple.
a good thing and a bad thing about Apple is that all of their products must be iconic designs. They don’t, and won’t, produce a product that sells in a minimal fashion. They won’t produce a product that isn’t great looking, both in feel, and look. That’s good in a number of ways, but it’s also bad, because where does an inexpensive little product, like a Mini, fit into that? So maybe they could be more practical, and replace the expensive aluminum case with a plastic one, like their routers and A Tv. That would cut costs. They could also make it a bit taller, to make it easier to upgrade.
but if they feel that it’s a computer product, like all of their other computer products, it’s GOT to be aluminum. That’s too bad. If they did something to cut $50 off the price, that would help sales. Remember that when it first came out it started at $499.
I think Apple knows that the Mini is a fairly diverse use - but unknown of the number. I think the reason why the Mac mini quad-core server was discontinued was that they felt that the niche would overlap too much with the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro (low end) -- and that if quad-core performance was necessary in a small package they would go up to the trashcan Mac.
Assuming the modular Mac Pro is larger and higher in cost than the trashcan, that opens up a wide gap that will likely need to be filled. I would have originally thought a Mac mini would just have a quad-core option, but after seeing WWDC and the external (sizeable) eGPU that the niche would have to be filled by a i7-7700K Radeon 580 graphics version to fill the need from the upscaled Mac mini and the low end trashcan market. It is sort of a less complicated small form factor instead of an ungainly eGPU that can not be looped back into the laptop monitor (i.e. VR/AR development)
What is the market for Mac Mini... anyone that needs a computer in a small relatively inexpensive model (with the same markup %) that either need it as a single purpose server or as a small development small desktop (that don't need nor want to maintain battery of a Laptop, and are averse to all-in-one computers - and there are quite a number of them -- especially with developers that often have multiple machines. (you only can look at one computer at a time for the most part). When the Mac mini was originally introduced it was envisioned as a computer for switchers... but that is a small rather insignificant part of the mini market place (IMHO).
Small development box to go along with a small laptop for VR development.
Small form factor for single purpose server or co-location services for the most part developers (single purpose would be a git server, or other).
Small form factor for those techies like me are averse to all-in-one computers (there are a large number relatively speaking to the mini marketplace). The second most component to go after the hard drive -- is the monitor. (I have had 3 or 4 monitors fail). And many techies with multiple computers (like me - I have 5) ... I don't need a monitor and keyboard for each of them.
Trade shows where your monitor might be hanging and larger than a desktop monitor.
I just think the replacement design for the Mac mini is going to be heavily dependent on what a modular Mac Pro is (so once they nailed down that they will know what to release as the complete Mac mini line -- though not the entire line needs to be redesigned). The reason the Mac Pro will take longer is it is going to be a complete redesign from anything in the line up -- so they have to settle on the basic design, then design how to fit the widest "professional" audience, then they have to build a new manufacturing line from the ground up and test the manufacturing line before production starts (the Mac mini is likely to be based on existing designs and will likely be quicker to retool for).
Whoa! Where do you get the idea that a $699 machine is going to compete, on any level, with a machine that starts around $3999? For all the server uses for the Mini, it would in no way compete with the Mac Pro. They’re for entirely different use cases.
wow, I just don’t see that scenario at all. If the Mini is going to remain in the line in some form, the the computer it won’t be competing with in any way, is the Mac Pro. It’s also a minimal machine for software developers. It’s just too slow, and doesn’t have enough RAM, or a worthwhile GPU. It’s never been intended for any of that. The server version was for use cases in which servers had low demands. They were used in bunches.
The Mac Mini 2012 quad core (in a configuration that was not worth upgrading just to quad core) was $999... that was with 4GB of memory and a 5400RPM 1TB spinning rust drive. If you were going to stick with that configuration - it would not be worth going for the higher end processor. I seem to remember spec'ing out a reasonable configuration and it was getting closer to $2,000 than $1,000. A base model Mac Pro in 2012 was somewhere around $2,900. I believe my 8-core Mac Pro from 2008 was one that was much more affordable at $2,400ish (not sure if that was the 4 core price I remember, or maybe that was when the Canadian dollar was higher.... and it would have been bought when I was in Canada; the price now in Canadian would be pathetic). I just think though it was pushed out of the line out on size and that neither was cheap anyways.
If they were going to get rid of the Mac Mini - they would have done so when they did house cleaning - discontinuing things like the Airport, monitor and a few other things or around WWDC at the time. After seeing the push into VR and basically only one computer (less than the Mac Pro) capable of VR (the top of the line iMac at $3,700+) without a design nightmare of an external eGPU that ... is sort of flakey... and not ready for prime time.... I think they will update what is now the 2-core Mac Mini - and by the time they do that the "rumoured" Core i7-8550U (quad-core suitable for the 13" MacBook Pro i.e. 17 to 20 watt).
Basically if you look at Apple showing off a MacBook Pro with a rather massive case and power supply which connects only to an external display - that solution is a rather poor solution for VR. As such I think there will be push to find something to plug that hole. Up until the AR/VR push Apple had no interest in putting a reasonably powered GPU in any computer but the Mac Pro.... I think that changes... As such I still have a gut feeling that they will come out with a Mac that slots into around $2,000+ that is not the Mac Pro... because the Mac Pro will start north of $3,900. I very well might be disappointed, but I think the time is right for Apple to maybe overdo it because I think they are in a state of panic.... then a few years down the road start to rationalize the lineup again. I think the push into VR changes things going forward.
The reason why they showcased the external eGPU, the case, the 3rd party Vive VR glasses -- is because Apple's solutions are still in the incubator / development state and they felt the need to release something. The stuff above, and the inviting in of 5 people to talk about far distance plans -- to me is indicates a state of panic and the feeling that they can't wait until everything is ready.
The external GPU just is darn ugly on the desktop and smacks of desperation.
So sales of PCs are plummeting. Of course; the hardware is shit, the software is shit, and they break on a two year cycle. But the number of users of computers isn’t shrinking. So where are they going? Are they really just going to phones? Yes, a phone can do everything that the vast majority of these “light browsing+facebook” automatons would’ve been doing on their el cheapo PCs in the first place, but the experience would be… garbage. How is it that a phone’s comparatively worse UI and minuscule screen is a more palatable option for them than a proper computer–even a PC? And does this not signal an opportunity to make a PC just for that kind of use? Ugh, making myself sick just thinking about that idea…
What about a Mac Nano? An aluminum Mac Mini in the Apple TV form factor? In fact, just give it basically Apple TV internals. Or, rather, iPhone/iPad internals. There’s an ARM version of OS X (I don’t see myself ever getting used to calling it macOS…), right? Like, a full-on version? Or at least one that isn’t stripped down to iOS-levels of barebones? Why not put that on there? Have it run Safari, iWork, iTunes, iLife, and the Mac App Store’s content only. I don’t like the idea, but that’s the only thing the vast majority of people seem to care about these days. Make it $299. BYOKDM. Or honestly, what are these people doing? What have they moved to from cheap PCs that Apple can scarf up?
So sales of PCs are plummeting. Of course; the hardware is shit, the software is shit, and they break on a two year cycle. But the number of users of computers isn’t shrinking. So where are they going? Are they really just going to phones? Yes, a phone can do everything that the vast majority of these “light browsing+facebook” automatons would’ve been doing on their el cheapo PCs in the first place, but the experience would be… garbage. How is it that a phone’s comparatively worse UI and minuscule screen is a more palatable option for them than a proper computer–even a PC? And does this not signal an opportunity to make a PC just for that kind of use? Ugh, making myself sick just thinking about that idea…
What about a Mac Nano? An aluminum Mac Mini in the Apple TV form factor? In fact, just give it basically Apple TV internals. Or, rather, iPhone/iPad internals. There’s an ARM version of OS X (I don’t see myself ever getting used to calling it macOS…), right? Like, a full-on version? Or at least one that isn’t stripped down to iOS-levels of barebones? Why not put that on there? Have it run Safari, iWork, iTunes, iLife, and the Mac App Store’s content only. I don’t like the idea, but that’s the only thing the vast majority of people seem to care about these days. Make it $299. BYOKDM. Or honestly, what are these people doing? What have they moved to from cheap PCs that Apple can scarf up?
I have no problem with macOS as a name since the operating system started out as Mac OS X -- then changed to OS X at the time Mountain Lion was released. X of course originally started out as the version number. I never got use to referring to the OS without "Mac" preceding it.
bkkcanuck said: I have no problem with macOS as a name since the operating system started out as Mac OS X -- then changed to OS X at the time Mountain Lion was released. X of course originally started out as the version number. I never got use to referring to the OS without "Mac" preceding it.
How long before they start calling it 'System' again? Maybe macOS 10.14 will be renamed System 10.14.
Comments
(I'm not complaining about the existence of iMacs, nor am I clamouring for Apple to do this or that, just answering your question
Likely the Mini is going to Apple heaven with the iPods, and the a version of the new Pro will come down from the stratosphere.
(But it will still be pricey compared to an iMac with a monitor.)
Which would be faster? A Xenon or i9?
This is an important question to be answered in light of the fact that the Mac Pro we have now is often bested by i7 iMacs. The current Mac Pro uses older edition Xenons, I am aware, but the question about what the new Xenons are possibly missing remains. For example, the Mac Pro's Xenon chip lacks “QuickSync” CPU-based acceleration for H.264 compression whereas the iMac i7 has it. Curious if there are similar issues on the new Xenons.
Then there are typically niche CPU extensions that first arrive on the Xeon class processors -- things like AVX-512 instruction set extensions (updated from AVX and AVX2)... which will likely be in the Xeon class processors in the new Mac Pros but disabled in the i9 processors. The Clang compiler (which provides the foundation for Swift and Object-C on the Mac) support it. If I understand it right it is basically ultra wide compute (fewer cycles to do do the same thing -- similar to 64 bit vs 32 bit for integer math) - which provides increased performance for scientific workloads like simulations, financial analysis, AI, 3D modelling, audio/video processing, cryptography, etc. Things like Handbrake likely would not support it but professional apps like Final Cut X would likely be updated to take advantage of the newer extensions.
It is highly likely the i9 processors like the 18 core processor will start out as a Xeon class processor -- but will have certain functionality physically disabled such as:
- Extra PCIe lanes which could support more bandwidth from memory, SSDs and graphics cards (a single SSD right now could eat up 4 lanes per module - allowing for more U.2 drives without "switching". More lanes for GPUs or TPUs etc.
- Greater on board Memory (would not be surprised for it to support 256GB of ECC memory 8x32GB)
- Additional features like the AVX-512 will also be disabled if I am right.
It is basically Intel responding to the desktop threat from AMD but at the same time Intel will do the minimum necessary and do that maximum disabling necessary to protect the highly profitable Xeon class server and workstation business.I read a post earlier complaining that the Mac Pro might be even higher priced and it will likely be too much... but you have to realize that the target audience is the creatives that felt they could not work with the 2013 Mac Pro model because of the limited expansion. A target audience that might have a $3K+ professional grade video card, and a $7K Red Rocket-X board in the computer. Then, of course, the 8K monitor which is going to be released for that Mac Pro -- will likely start somewhere north of $5K. When you realize that the primary target audience is spending money on pretty high priced expansion items... the cost of the Mac Pro is relatively a small part of it.
"Ok. The iMac Pro will likely get Xeon SKU’s of the following Intel Core-X models:
Intel 7980XE (18 cores/36 threads/42MB Cache/Turbo Boost TBD)
Intel 7900X (10 cores/20 threads/23MB Cache/Turbo Boost 3.0 Max 4.5GHz)
Intel 7820X ( 8 cores/16 threads/19MB Cache/Turbo Boost 3.0 Max 4.5GHz)
LGA 2066 socket R4 with four memory channels. That’s it I guess."
So there apparently will be some MORE Xeons announced before December.
another reason is that AMD sold off their plants a long time ago. Now they’re dependent on Global Foundries, and the foreign governmental ownership. I doubt Apple would want any part of that possible mess.
apple also wouldn’t want to design processors for their competitors. If Apple’s were better, they would lose the rest of the business. If they weren’t, then why do this in the first place?
its also a question whether intel would allow Apple to continue to make x86 if they did buy AMD. The license AMD has, states very explicitly that if another entity buys the company, the license is void. In fact, it was a big question as to whether intel would allow AMD to continue the license after they sold off their manufacturing plants. That was a major issue for a while. It took a year for them to settle.
Apple doesn’t want to do anything other than to design chips. They are doing very well with ARM. We don’t know what their future plans are. Maybe they do plan on replacing x86 with ARM everywhere. We don’t know.
No.
But look at that wording - “still important”. I don’t remember the actual wording myself, but if that’s what they said, I don’t feel good about it. Sometimes when I quote, I leave out words before and after, but I try to keep the ones that have meaning in the statement. If they just said that it was “important”, I would feel better about it.
the problem here is that we don’t know what the sales are. The notebooks are assumed to be about 70% of sales, and iMacs are assumed to be most of the rest, with a tiny proportion of Mac Pro. Where does that leave the Mini? So for a while the Mini has been on life support. No real upgrades.
sometimes Apple doesn’t understand their own business. If sales of a product are falling, they don’t bother with it. Look at the 2013 Mac Pro. So, as it falls further behind in technology, the sales fall even faster. They don’t even think that using new chips every year will boost sales, even if the form isn’t thrilling everyone. So they let it languish. The only reason why they decided to have that meeting, and to recommit with a new model that’s considerably more advanced, is because the Mac Pro is a very high profile product, despite the sales numbers, and even because of the sales numbers. If pros keep deserting the platform, but in increasing numbers, then Apple can’t say that they are the choice of the creative community anymore, and that will tarnish their image, and possibly even hurt sales overall.
but what, exactly, does the Mini stand for? It was aimed at people who already had a Windows machine, hence no keyboard or mouse. Anything to cut costs to bring it in line with Windows machine costs. But now, does Apple really care about that market? With the pc market shrinking for years, though their own pc business has been steady, possibly Apple no longer feels that the Mini is bringing in enough new Mac users to matter. Use cases such as small servers in hotels, cruise ships and such are just small fry sales, maybe in the tens of thousands a year. Maybe even 100 thousand. But that’s too little to sustain a product line at Apple. For Dell, Hp and others, where they have multiple lines of computers, and multiple lines within those lines, a model that sells a couple of hundred thousand a year between Pro and consumer sales would earn it a permanent home, with regular upgrades. But not at Apple.
a good thing and a bad thing about Apple is that all of their products must be iconic designs. They don’t, and won’t, produce a product that sells in a minimal fashion. They won’t produce a product that isn’t great looking, both in feel, and look. That’s good in a number of ways, but it’s also bad, because where does an inexpensive little product, like a Mini, fit into that? So maybe they could be more practical, and replace the expensive aluminum case with a plastic one, like their routers and A Tv. That would cut costs. They could also make it a bit taller, to make it easier to upgrade.
but if they feel that it’s a computer product, like all of their other computer products, it’s GOT to be aluminum. That’s too bad. If they did something to cut $50 off the price, that would help sales. Remember that when it first came out it started at $499.
Assuming the modular Mac Pro is larger and higher in cost than the trashcan, that opens up a wide gap that will likely need to be filled. I would have originally thought a Mac mini would just have a quad-core option, but after seeing WWDC and the external (sizeable) eGPU that the niche would have to be filled by a i7-7700K Radeon 580 graphics version to fill the need from the upscaled Mac mini and the low end trashcan market. It is sort of a less complicated small form factor instead of an ungainly eGPU that can not be looped back into the laptop monitor (i.e. VR/AR development)
What is the market for Mac Mini... anyone that needs a computer in a small relatively inexpensive model (with the same markup %) that either need it as a single purpose server or as a small development small desktop (that don't need nor want to maintain battery of a Laptop, and are averse to all-in-one computers - and there are quite a number of them -- especially with developers that often have multiple machines. (you only can look at one computer at a time for the most part). When the Mac mini was originally introduced it was envisioned as a computer for switchers... but that is a small rather insignificant part of the mini market place (IMHO).
- Small development box to go along with a small laptop for VR development.
- Small form factor for single purpose server or co-location services for the most part developers (single purpose would be a git server, or other).
- Small form factor for those techies like me are averse to all-in-one computers (there are a large number relatively speaking to the mini marketplace). The second most component to go after the hard drive -- is the monitor. (I have had 3 or 4 monitors fail). And many techies with multiple computers (like me - I have 5) ... I don't need a monitor and keyboard for each of them.
- Trade shows where your monitor might be hanging and larger than a desktop monitor.
I just think the replacement design for the Mac mini is going to be heavily dependent on what a modular Mac Pro is (so once they nailed down that they will know what to release as the complete Mac mini line -- though not the entire line needs to be redesigned). The reason the Mac Pro will take longer is it is going to be a complete redesign from anything in the line up -- so they have to settle on the basic design, then design how to fit the widest "professional" audience, then they have to build a new manufacturing line from the ground up and test the manufacturing line before production starts (the Mac mini is likely to be based on existing designs and will likely be quicker to retool for).wow, I just don’t see that scenario at all. If the Mini is going to remain in the line in some form, the the computer it won’t be competing with in any way, is the Mac Pro. It’s also a minimal machine for software developers. It’s just too slow, and doesn’t have enough RAM, or a worthwhile GPU. It’s never been intended for any of that. The server version was for use cases in which servers had low demands. They were used in bunches.
If they were going to get rid of the Mac Mini - they would have done so when they did house cleaning - discontinuing things like the Airport, monitor and a few other things or around WWDC at the time. After seeing the push into VR and basically only one computer (less than the Mac Pro) capable of VR (the top of the line iMac at $3,700+) without a design nightmare of an external eGPU that ... is sort of flakey... and not ready for prime time.... I think they will update what is now the 2-core Mac Mini - and by the time they do that the "rumoured" Core i7-8550U (quad-core suitable for the 13" MacBook Pro i.e. 17 to 20 watt).
Basically if you look at Apple showing off a MacBook Pro with a rather massive case and power supply which connects only to an external display - that solution is a rather poor solution for VR. As such I think there will be push to find something to plug that hole. Up until the AR/VR push Apple had no interest in putting a reasonably powered GPU in any computer but the Mac Pro.... I think that changes... As such I still have a gut feeling that they will come out with a Mac that slots into around $2,000+ that is not the Mac Pro... because the Mac Pro will start north of $3,900. I very well might be disappointed, but I think the time is right for Apple to maybe overdo it because I think they are in a state of panic.... then a few years down the road start to rationalize the lineup again. I think the push into VR changes things going forward.
The reason why they showcased the external eGPU, the case, the 3rd party Vive VR glasses -- is because Apple's solutions are still in the incubator / development state and they felt the need to release something.
The stuff above, and the inviting in of 5 people to talk about far distance plans -- to me is indicates a state of panic and the feeling that they can't wait until everything is ready.
The external GPU just is darn ugly on the desktop and smacks of desperation.
What about a Mac Nano? An aluminum Mac Mini in the Apple TV form factor? In fact, just give it basically Apple TV internals. Or, rather, iPhone/iPad internals. There’s an ARM version of OS X (I don’t see myself ever getting used to calling it macOS…), right? Like, a full-on version? Or at least one that isn’t stripped down to iOS-levels of barebones? Why not put that on there? Have it run Safari, iWork, iTunes, iLife, and the Mac App Store’s content only. I don’t like the idea, but that’s the only thing the vast majority of people seem to care about these days. Make it $299. BYOKDM. Or honestly, what are these people doing? What have they moved to from cheap PCs that Apple can scarf up?