Apple's powerful new Mac mini perfectly suits the 'Pro' market, yet the complaints have al...

1246710

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 189
    ipilyaipilya Posts: 185member
    smaffei said:
    How and what are you developing with Swift on an iPad?
    I still dream of some implementation of Xcode on iOS- but for now building occurs on an external Mac. There are actually services you can subscribe to for this as well. I am thinking of baking my own IDE on iOS and connection to a build harness. My current projects are vapor based so build can happen remotely and no need for install :)
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 62 of 189
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,689administrator
    crowley said:
    This is a very strange article.  Why is it necessary to attack and belittle people who were complaining about the Mac Mini delay between updates (>1000 days!)?  These are people who are into Apple stuff and want Apple to make better machines; what is the value in this kind of petty "told you so" editorial?  The tone of these pieces seem to have taken a nosedive recently, Apple doesn't need this kind of defence, it further contributes to the image of the smug, petulant Apple fanboy.
    We weren't talking about the complaints about the years between updates because we are on record for saying that was unreasonable, I'm not even sure where you got that.

    This is an editorial, and is clearly labeled as such. This is a pro-focused Mac mini, and covers nearly everything that (realistically) Apple wanted to include based on users' complaints. SATA internal storage was never going to happen. PCI-E was never going to happen.

    This isn't a defense of Apple, but more aimed at the (unrealistic) expectations that this would start at $499. But yet, here we are.
    edited October 31 williamlondonmagman1979
  • Reply 63 of 189
    Doug WillisDoug Willis Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    The Mac Mini is a welcome and well overdue update to the Mac line. All apple have to do now, is cut back on their outrageous price gouging of accessories and upgrade components.
    williamlondonlorin schultzlarz2112
  • Reply 64 of 189
    I will never understand the delusion these articles promote. If you want to understand the complaints then join the rest of the damn world. Apple - at best - is heinously price gouging for off the shelf components you can see the prices of (and buy) yourself. These articles not only try to cover up this behavior but they convince a few others that all is well and this is how it should be. We need competitors. Healthy competitors. Apple has the money to be that, but its customer base and especially the vocal supporters like this prevent that from ever happening.
    williamlondonStayPuftZombiedocno42
  • Reply 65 of 189
    Guys, please realize that the new Mac mini is, quite literally, a 15" MacBook Pro in a different form factor, with as few changes as possible other than dropping the GPU.
  • Reply 66 of 189
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,689administrator
    jtrdfw said:
    I will never understand the delusion these articles promote. If you want to understand the complaints then join the rest of the damn world. Apple - at best - is heinously price gouging for off the shelf components you can see the prices of (and buy) yourself. These articles not only try to cover up this behavior but they convince a few others that all is well and this is how it should be. We need competitors. Healthy competitors. Apple has the money to be that, but its customer base and especially the vocal supporters like this prevent that from ever happening.
    You're conflating issues. You have some points here, but this isn't even close to what the article is talking about.
    williamlondonmagman1979
  • Reply 67 of 189
    eightzero said:
    This is an informative article, and an entertaining thread. Lotta business and computer experts here. 

    When I heard about the new mac mini yesterday, I lit off my long dormant one to brainstorm a new use. I've pondered making a headless server out of it, not because I need a headless server, but because I have an old mac mini that works as well as the day it came out of the box. It light right off. And I see it frozen in time on OSX 10.4. With a bit of fiddling, I see why It can't go headless without some help: 10.4 doesn't permit screen sharing, something that requires Apple Remote Desktop, a $80 purchase from Apple, apparently. 10.5 put in the screen sharing as we know it. 

    But the little machine sits ready to roll. I even have a little USB wifi adapter plugged into it. It sites right next to my original iPod that yes, works fine. I just...don't have a use for either. 


    Oh, old Mac Minis are just made for Linux. ;) I only *just* sold my original 2005 G4 model (for about as much as people are getting on trade-in for their 2015 models). That little thing ran Linux for a much longer portion of its life than it ever ran OSX.
  • Reply 68 of 189
    Where do you get off saying we can't complain?  That's a horrific, narrow attitude. I think the mini will be good for some people, but I take exception to two issues - 1) It's too expensive for the base model.  This is supposed to be the entry level computer that wins over your standard Windows goon. Except now its approaching twice the price of the original mini.  I'm betting it has an impressive profit-margin for the company though. 2) Lack of a discreet GPU option yet again.  But the ability to add an eGPU partially offsets that, I suppose.  Still, should have it as an option.  I honestly feel that they set their price points to keep demand down.  Otherwise I was wanting to order one yesterday, but I decided not to. (because of the price mainly.)
    edited October 31 williamlondondocno42
  • Reply 69 of 189
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,606member
    crowley said:
    This is a very strange article.  Why is it necessary to attack and belittle people who were complaining about the Mac Mini delay between updates (>1000 days!)?  These are people who are into Apple stuff and want Apple to make better machines; what is the value in this kind of petty "told you so" editorial?  The tone of these pieces seem to have taken a nosedive recently, Apple doesn't need this kind of defence, it further contributes to the image of the smug, petulant Apple fanboy.
    We weren't talking about the complaints about the years between updates because we are on record for saying that was unreasonable, I'm not even sure where you got that.

    This is an editorial, and is clearly labeled as such. This is a pro-focused Mac mini, and covers nearly everything that (realistically) Apple wanted to include based on users' complaints. SATA internal storage was never going to happen. PCI-E was never going to happen.

    This isn't a defense of Apple, but more aimed at the (unrealistic) expectations that this would start at $499. But yet, here we are.
    Don't hide behind the editorial label, that's undignified.

    A $499 pro machine would be unreasonable, but a $499 entry level machine that is still updated regularly is not unreasonable.  Nor is it unreasonable to ask for a range of options for the Mac Mini that accommodate both the entry level and the semi-pro and some steps in between.  Apple have done this before, even to the degree of having base and server configurations.

    And cherry pricing unreasonable demands of a handful of people to base a combative article on is silly.  Again, Apple don't need this defence (which it definitely is).
    williamlondondocno42
  • Reply 70 of 189
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,606member
    Where do you get off saying we can't complain? 
    This.

    There has been a steadily increasing chorus of sycophants who take this pithy "Apple's way or the highway" attitude, where no complaints or debate will be considered or tolerated.

    It's very unhealthy.
    williamlondonlarz211280s_Apple_Guydocno42
  • Reply 71 of 189
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,689administrator
    crowley said:
    Where do you get off saying we can't complain? 
    This.

    There has been a steadily increasing chorus of sycophants who take this pithy "Apple's way or the highway" attitude, where no complaints or debate will be considered or tolerated.

    It's very unhealthy.
    Where you get off saying that we can't point out the inanity of the complaints? You're welcome to debate what you want and have your own opinions. We do. We don't stifle the debate about it.

    I'll leave the pricing debate with this. The Intel NUC with TWO Thunderbolt 3 ports with similar performance (probably a hair lower, but we'll see) costs $499, without RAM and storage. Odd how there's no hue and cry about that. This mini is very clearly NOT intended to fight with the low-end boxes, or give an entry-point into the Mac ecosystem. Low-end users don't need one Thunderbolt 3 port, let alone four. The departure from that market in the Mac is a topic for another day, though. 

    You're welcome to believe what you want about defense and "hiding" behind an editorial label. You're wrong, though.
    edited October 31 williamlondonfastasleep
  • Reply 72 of 189
    crowleycrowley Posts: 5,606member
    crowley said:
    Where do you get off saying we can't complain? 
    This.

    There has been a steadily increasing chorus of sycophants who take this pithy "Apple's way or the highway" attitude, where no complaints or debate will be considered or tolerated.

    It's very unhealthy.
    Where you get off saying that we can't point out the inanity of the complaints? You're welcome to debate what you want and have your own opinions. We do. We don't stifle the debate about it.

    I'll leave the pricing debate with this. The Intel NUC with TWO Thunderbolt 3 ports with similar performance (probably a hair lower, but we'll see) costs $499, without RAM and storage. Odd how there's no hue and cry about that.
    Debate and point out where they're wrong, don't decry them as inane and write pithy editorials that begin with obnoxious trash talk like "You asked for it and you got it, now let's see if you buy it."

    Like I said before, tone.
    williamlondon80s_Apple_Guydocno42
  • Reply 73 of 189
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,689administrator
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    Where do you get off saying we can't complain? 
    This.

    There has been a steadily increasing chorus of sycophants who take this pithy "Apple's way or the highway" attitude, where no complaints or debate will be considered or tolerated.

    It's very unhealthy.
    Where you get off saying that we can't point out the inanity of the complaints? You're welcome to debate what you want and have your own opinions. We do. We don't stifle the debate about it.

    I'll leave the pricing debate with this. The Intel NUC with TWO Thunderbolt 3 ports with similar performance (probably a hair lower, but we'll see) costs $499, without RAM and storage. Odd how there's no hue and cry about that.
    Debate and point out where they're wrong, don't decry them as inane and write pithy editorials that begin with obnoxious trash talk like "You asked for it and you got it, now let's see if you buy it."

    Like I said before, tone.
    As before, you're welcome to not like the tone, if you're so inclined.
    edited October 31 williamlondon
  • Reply 74 of 189
    ...no option dual (raid) standard PCIe blade storage to me = not pro... (check newegg pricing!)
    ...no option discrete GPU bto to me = not pro...
    Does adding a raid enclosure and eGPU undermine the minimalist design argument,
    and raise the cost to silly money...? The other upgrades are all welcome of course, and yet...
    Here's hoping the Vega option at least makes it into the BTO roster next month...


    edited October 31 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 75 of 189
    i7 is for server rooms only, it will be way too noisy with air cooling given Intel still hasn't improved on nanometers for so many years now. i5's only benefit is the hyperthreading which is unnecessary on a quad core. The i3 has 4 real cores and gives comparable performance to Kabylake i5 but even better is it doesn't have turbo boost which means more predictable and reliable performance. i3 gets my vote, save the money for the upgrade to 256GB SSD (which is ridiclous it isn't the base spec at this price).

    I think 4 thunderbolt ports was overkill. If it has 2 controllers then they could have cut costs by only including 1 and got the price down to $599 ($699 if they had included 256GB SSD). Could even put a display port in the space to save people needing to buy a USB-C to display port cable. I can't see anyone running multiple 4k@60Hz monitors off this GPU. And no one in their right mind would use a thunderbolt 5k because at that additional cost the 27" iMac is within reach and offers so much more value than a mini.
    williamlondonGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 76 of 189
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,199member
    eightzero said:
    This is an informative article, and an entertaining thread. Lotta business and computer experts here. 

    When I heard about the new mac mini yesterday, I lit off my long dormant one to brainstorm a new use. I've pondered making a headless server out of it, not because I need a headless server, but because I have an old mac mini that works as well as the day it came out of the box. It light right off. And I see it frozen in time on OSX 10.4. With a bit of fiddling, I see why It can't go headless without some help: 10.4 doesn't permit screen sharing, something that requires Apple Remote Desktop, a $80 purchase from Apple, apparently. 10.5 put in the screen sharing as we know it. 

    But the little machine sits ready to roll. I even have a little USB wifi adapter plugged into it. It sites right next to my original iPod that yes, works fine. I just...don't have a use for either. 


    Oh, old Mac Minis are just made for Linux. ;) I only *just* sold my original 2005 G4 model (for about as much as people are getting on trade-in for their 2015 models). That little thing ran Linux for a much longer portion of its life than it ever ran OSX.
    Hum. By golly by gum. You're on to something. I've never run a linux box. Maybe give this some thought. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 77 of 189
    Since the i3 and i7 have the same Intel Graphics they will they all render video at the same speed using Quick Sync?
  • Reply 78 of 189
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,229member
    philotech said:
    I think the new mini is a fine machine and probably worth the money (in Apple categories of course - no doubt that you will get away with less in the Windows PC world). However, what people are complaining about ist that the entry level bar to an Apple PC has been raised considerably over time: The initial mini was USD 500 IIRC and now we are at USD 800, even taking into account inflation that's a lot more.
    Other than the MBA, Apple is not aiming the Mac at entry-level markets anymore.  Don't be surprised if that becomes more prominent over time.  iOS will be for entry-level markets.
    Patience Grasshopper....
  • Reply 79 of 189
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,229member
    jbdragon said:
    I think prices went up to much for what you get. $799 for a i3, really? Great Apple finally updated the hardware and then jacked prices up. It should start at $599 at most for that i3. The Mac Mini was suppose to be a way to get a low cost Mac. Now it's a over priced thing. It was never meant to be a PRO type of thing. It's so far from that now with a weak i3 at a $799 starting price point. I don't get it.
    I think that price-wise Apple is in a corner with the Mac line.
    A big part of the cost of both the iPhone and the Mac_____ is the ongoing Apple support and ecosystem that the buyer pays for when they purchase the machine.

    It's a mostly fixed cost that doesn't change (much) whether they sell 1, 1 million or 1 billion.
    They sell enough iPhones to spread that cost pretty thin and not materially impact the price of the phone.  But, they don't sell enough Macs to do that and the fixed cost is absorbed by fewer machines and impacts the price far more.

    Apple rightly doesn't want to cut those services -- but it means that they have to charge more for the equivalent hardware than, say, an HP would have to do.
    PickUrPoison
  • Reply 80 of 189
    philotech said:
    I think the new mini is a fine machine and probably worth the money (in Apple categories of course - no doubt that you will get away with less in the Windows PC world). However, what people are complaining about ist that the entry level bar to an Apple PC has been raised considerably over time: The initial mini was USD 500 IIRC and now we are at USD 800, even taking into account inflation that's a lot more.
    Nope. $600 in 2005 at launch, stayed at $600 until 2014 (with a brief period at $700 in 2010), when it dropped to $500 with all upgradeability removed.

    The $500 cheap mini only existed in the crippled 2014 edition.

    US $600 in 2005 dollars is about $775 in 2018 dollars. So the $800 price is a course correction. $700 would have been better, but if it stays at $800 for the next ten years, the low end will be a bargain in 2028!
    edited October 31 fastasleep
Sign In or Register to comment.