I really enjoy articles like this. Rather than merely report goings on or worship the status quo at Cupertino, this editorial speaks the truth about a market need. Bravo.
Apple's product pricing is going up across the board, and that's not even including the cost of services like iCloud. I actually know people who stopped using their iPhone and switch to Android because they were so pissed off about iCloud storage and backup warnings, despite the fact they couldn't afford to pay for those extra services.
Apple may be in business to make a profit (and as an AAPL shareholder since 1999, I'm glad they are), but they also need to give an eye to the cost burden on their customers. If Apple can engage in political causes, power buildings off 100% renewable energy, make 100% recycled aluminum products, brazenly promote sexual orientation agendas, and provide fire relief for Californians (they do all those things), Apple surely could consider the cost of its products and the people lower cost devices would benefit.
At the end of the day, it's all of us individual consumers worldwide who made Apple the most valuable company in the world, and not all of us or even the majority of us are fabulous wealthy. I'm not suggesting Apple go back to the horrible Performa mentality which confused customers back then about as much as Apple's MacBook line does now (because MacBooks are all quite similar now -- same screens and all thin and light but no SD card slot, no USB-A, bad keyboards, no glowing logo on back, no MagSafe, etc.). But as the editorial points out, Apple does need to consider lower cost products and the customers who would benefit from them.
An interesting article, but I think the main problem with it starts with the title.
'… but a $499 model could server a larger audience.'
It's really odd that I've never heard anyone say, '… but a $10,000 Lamborghini could serve a larger audience.'
Well, I suspect it's because if Lamborghini made a $10,000 car then one of two things would happen:
No one would buy it because they'd think it was a clunker put together using the cheapest components left over from their tractor line.
Everyone would buy it, but not in enough numbers to make up for the loss on sales on their more expensive products.
Whenever I read this kind of thing:
They could sell over 33,000 Mac minis at a loss and not exceed what the company was willing to spend nearly four decades ago.
I think that somewhere in another universe, a fairy chokes on her own tongue and falls out of the sky. Two problems with this line of thinking: selling things at a loss in the hope that some other benefit will come of it, and looking at the way things were four decades ago and assuming that the same situation applies now.
There is also the assumption that the costs of producing a machine is purely in parts and manufacturing. This is, of course, not the case. In fact many of the hidden costs associated with the ongoing development and maintenance of the operating system, the specialist chips used for security, the R&D for stuff we haven't seen yet, the acquisitions – all this goes into the cost of building the kit, and none of these costs are going to change simply because you decide to use cheaper parts or cut bits out. In fact, if you really want a cheaper Mac, then the best thing to ask for is for Apple to follow the rest of the industry by cutting down on some of the costs that aren't associated with the hardware. The extra chips could go, along with the operating system. If they didn't have to spend money on MacOS then they could shave a lot of money off right there. So how does this sound: a really cheap Mac Mini that comes with a cheap Windows license, or Linux. It doesn't sound great to me. Or they could just go the Google route: build on Linux, steal parts to fill in the gaps and fight it out in court. Or they could sell the data on the machine to advertisers to cover the costs.
No, the problem of course is that since Jobs returned, Apple hasn't been aiming to serve a larger audience: they've chosen to serve the most profitable audience. They could produce a dirt cheap machine for schools, but schools are strapped for cash, so the only way this would work is to make a machine that was cheaper than a Chromebook, and given that the development costs for the OS which are built into every device sold … When Schiller says that they've looked at making cheaper machines but couldn't do it without making a machine that royally sucks, this is what he means. Other manufacturers are buying stock parts and licensing the operating system; that is far cheaper than making custom components and building the OS yourself.
And you could ask the question that if all the kids are using Chromebook at school, but go home to iPads, then is there any real advantage to losing money to fight Chromebooks. I have seen no evidence that using one machine in school will stop folk from moving to a different machine later on.
So perhaps the headline should be 'but a $499 Windows-based machine that sold data to advertisers could serve a larger audience.'
And you know what? It might … except of course it would be fighting with all the other cheap Windows machines on the market.
Unfortunately Apple under Cook is way too greedy for that. The iPhone has convinced them that people are more than willing to pay crazy high prices for an Apple product so why should they release an iPhone or Mac aimed towards education or lower income buyers. If people stopped paying the crazy high prices then Apple would have to lower their margins. But until then Apple has zero incentives to make affordable products for education or anyone else.
Same for BMW and Mercedes. Don’t like it? Get a Camry or in this case, a China made brand PC.
Exactly. "Designed in Heaven, Assembled in China". "Stop being poor!" as Paris Hilton likes to say.
I object to the argument that Apple is charging more an more for their product. Find an inflation calculator and enter what price you paid for your mac 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and 5 years ago. I think that inflation-adjusted apple's pricing is not increasing as dramatically as people think.
If inflation is confusing, think about how much you would spend on lunch about 15 years ago...$8? $5? now it is difficult to get out for lunch for less than $20.
Lastly, think about how much more processing power is vs years ago. I'd say not only is processing power greater but it is now much MUCH greater than the software needs of the vast majority of people. For example, I remember when running MS office was a chore for the computer...now the processing is WAY more than needed for that basic task.
(the $2,499 I spent on a G4 tower in 1999 would cost me $3,787 today.) (the iPhone 3G 8GB cost $599 in 2008, that's $702 in today's dollars, compare to the XR today at $749 but vastly superior)
The only way for Apple to be able to sell hardware in a reasonable price range with the ASPs that Apple now painted itself in the corner with is to jettison the Intel CPU/GPU and to go with its own ARM-based
A-Series CPUs and its own GPUs on all Apple non-pro macOS devices.
Let Intel manufacture the LTE chips for the Apple devices for now (until Apple is able to do this in house) and go A-Series chips all the way on all non-pro devices. The branding would also be pretty easy for the Apple's macOS-only devices. If it has Pro in the name, it's based on high-end Intel chips. If it doesn't have Pro, it's based on Apple's A-Series chips. The only remaining issue is to have a framework for running macOS apps made for Intel Macs on the A-Series Macs - Rosetta in reverse.
This will solve numerous problems for Apple.
One problem is the crazy high price for the Macs that just cannot compete with Wintel prices. Regular public schools will not buy computers that cost twice as much just because they have the Apple logo on them. This is especially true because Macs are still a small fraction in the enterprise, and schools' main purpose is to prepare kids for the job market either directly or by being an intermediate step on the ladder leading to a job. So, the only thing that will sell schools on the Macs is the lower cost of ownership, which can only be attained by dramatically lowering the price of Macs.
It's time to start thinking of growing the user base for Apple.
Continuing to raise prices will severely damage Apple. In fact, it's time for the Apple shareholders to demand that Apple come back to earth with their pricing policies. I'm a shareholder and I'm seriously concerned with the direction that Tim Cook is taking Apple with raising the ASP sky high. Apple should continue to maintain a high-end line of Macs, iPhones, and iPads, but it should also create a mid-range line in all three categories that suit most non-Pro users.
For example, the newly released MacBook Air should have been priced as follows:
8GB/128GB (Geared for secondary education): $849 (volume price); $899 (individual price; $200 less than current price)
8GB/256GB (Geared for colleges): $949 (volume price); $999 (individual price; $400 less than current price)
8GB/512GB (Geared for most consumers):$1149 ($450 less than current price)
16GB/512GB (Geared for consumers): $1299 ($500 less than current price)
16GB/1TB (Geared for high-end consumers): $1599
16GB/1.5TB (Geared for high-end consumers): $1899 ($700 less than current price)
-----------
Again, this is not a professional-level Mac, and with this pricing, the MacBook Air would become a great entry into the Apple ecosystem for millions and millions of new users, starting with kids in elementary, middle, and high schools and then on to college students.
The MacBook Air at these prices would also suit most non-professional consumers who need an ultra-portable and compact yet capable laptop and who are prepared to pay a few hundred dollars more for quality hardware and software compared to purchasing plastic Wintels.
For MacBook Pros (Intel-based), Apple can continue their current pricing strategy that prices them in the $2,000 - $3,000 range.
Personally, I would buy the 16GB/512GB MacBook Air and then add another NUC to my lab for heavy virtualization tasks. Instead of carrying extra pounds of power in my bag, I would rather use a light-weight portable Mac and access my lab via VPN when outside of my home.
There is really not much reason for those of us who are not in the music, video-editing, or photo-editing business for MacBook Pros. The rest of us can be served by the MacBook Air as long as it can drive 5K monitors, be able to do casual photo and video editing without slowing to a crawl, and run one Windows or Linux VM in VMware Fusion or Parallels. The rest of the tasks that most consumers perform do not require Pro-level Macs.
The market appears to be there for a $499 Mac mini, so the the only two questions left is whether Apple wants to enter that price-point again, or is capable of manufacturing a machine for that price. It certainly managed to build them right up to about last Tuesday when it finally replaced the $499 Mac mini with this new design.
There isn't a real business case for re-entering the $499 market. What's the advantage for Apple to trash ASPs and sell $499 machines instead $799 machines? Would it really double Mac sales?
Apple is already going to lose more valuable iMac sales to Mini sales as the new minis have very high bang for the buck.
And did Apple lose the edu market to Chromebooks or Google Docs? You aren't going to beat $200 chromebooks with a $500 Mac when the $300 iPads can't make a significant dent.
Services.
You still need to show that the $500 price point would sufficiently increase Mac sales so that it's a positive outcome even counting service income. What's more, the buyers of $500 PCs are likely not as good a demographic for services than $800 PC buyers...just like the buyers of $100 Android phones are not as good a demographic for services as $600+ iPhone buyers.
So that's still not a good business case for introducing a $500 mini and trashing your $1200 iMac sales when the $300 iPad already exists and is positioned within the Apple product line for the edu/low end market.
And iOS devices trounce MacOS devices in volume. So service income is largely dominated by iPads (ie cars) than Macs (trucks) anyway.
They would for sure sell at least one more... Mine!
I think Chromebooks have got the education market. Apple lost it. Apple stopped imaging making it harder for admins as well. So, I think Windows and Chromebooks have a lock on that market.
You don't image a Chromebook either so your argument about Apple taking away imaging doesn't make any sense. There are other ways to manage a Mac and its actually quite easy in the end. If you're constantly imaging your Macs then you have something wrong.
The only way for Apple to be able to sell hardware in a reasonable price range with the ASPs that Apple now painted itself in the corner with is to jettison the Intel CPU/GPU and to go with its own ARM-based
A-Series CPUs and its own GPUs on all Apple non-pro macOS devices.
Let Intel manufacture the LTE chips for the Apple devices for now (until Apple is able to do this in house) and go A-Series chips all the way on all non-pro devices. The branding would also be pretty easy for the Apple's macOS-only devices. If it has Pro in the name, it's based on high-end Intel chips. If it doesn't have Pro, it's based on Apple's A-Series chips. The only remaining issue is to have a framework for running macOS apps made for Intel Macs on the A-Series Macs - Rosetta in reverse.
This will solve numerous problems for Apple.
One problem is the crazy high price for the Macs that just cannot compete with Wintel prices. Regular public schools will not buy computers that cost twice as much just because they have the Apple logo on them. This is especially true because Macs are still a small fraction in the enterprise, and schools' main purpose is to prepare kids for the job market either directly or by being an intermediate step on the ladder leading to a job. So, the only thing that will sell schools on the Macs is the lower cost of ownership, which can only be attained by dramatically lowering the price of Macs.
It's time to start thinking of growing the user base for Apple.
Continuing to raise prices will severely damage Apple. In fact, it's time for the Apple shareholders to demand that Apple come back to earth with their pricing policies. I'm a shareholder and I'm seriously concerned with the direction that Tim Cook is taking Apple with raising the ASP sky high. Apple should continue to maintain a high-end line of Macs, iPhones, and iPads, but it should also create a mid-range line in all three categories that suit most non-Pro users.
For example, the newly released MacBook Air should have been priced as follows:
8GB/128GB (Geared for secondary education): $849 (volume price); $899 (individual price; $200 less than current price)
8GB/256GB (Geared for colleges): $949 (volume price); $999 (individual price; $400 less than current price)
8GB/512GB (Geared for most consumers):$1149 ($450 less than current price)
16GB/512GB (Geared for consumers): $1299 ($500 less than current price)
16GB/1TB (Geared for high-end consumers): $1549
16GB/1.5TB (Geared for high-end consumers): $1799 ($800 less than current price)
-----------
Therefore, the most expensive configuration of the MacBook Air should not exceed $1799, which was the price at which the MacBook Air was introduced in 2008. Again, this is not a professional-level Mac, and with this pricing, the MacBook Air would become a great entry into the Apple ecosystem for millions and millions of new users, starting with kids in elementary, middle, and high schools and then on to college students.
The MacBook Air at these prices would also suit most non-professional consumers who need an ultra-portable and compact yet capable laptop and who are prepared to pay a few hundred dollars more for quality hardware and software compared to purchasing plastic Wintels.
For MacBook Pros (Intel-based), Apple can continue their current pricing strategy that maintains the high ASPs.
Personally, I would buy the 16GB/512GB MacBook Air and then add another NUC to my lab for heavy virtualization tasks. Instead of carrying extra pounds of power in my bag, I would rather use a light-weight portable Mac and access my lab via VPN when outside of my home.
There is really not much reason for those of us who are not in the music, video-editing, or photo-editing business for MacBook Pros. The rest of us can be served by the MacBook Air as long as it can drive 5K monitors, be able to do casual photo and video editing without slowing to a crawl, and run one Windows or Linux VM in VMware Fusion or Parallels. The rest of the tasks that most consumers perform do not required Pro-level Macs.
NUCs aren’t really that much cheaper than the new Mini. I just bought a few since we wanted small machines to run Linux.
I also have jetsons and they run $600 so folks bloviating about how arm would make Macs cost nothing are on crack. While an aTV like device could be relatively inexpensive any laptop with components that don’t suck wouldn’t see a massive reduction on price because of a reduction on cpu price.
In any case the pricing above ignores the reality of iPhone pricing.
The mini is about 1000€ here. I can't justify that price since I'm doing most of my work on an iPad Pro, but I'd like to buy a cheaper Mac mini at about 600€, even if with some compromises.
And a $199 model could serve even greater audience. Don't get me even started on a $99 model...
Nope. $199 and $99 are too compromised. There's a reason we picked $499.
This is EXACTLY what my original comment was when this new mini was released, a $499 model can hit a sweet spot of affordable with limited compromise, for both switchers, low income and education!!
This also now has me concerned for what the entry price of the Pro model will cost!!
The mini is about 1000€ here. I can't justify that price since I'm doing most of my work on an iPad Pro, but I'd like to buy a cheaper Mac mini at about 600€, even if with some compromises.
Forget the notion of "cheap computer". Computers will be no more cheap, that slice of the market is already saturated by smartphones and tablets. Apple will not make a computer with specs below a decent smartphone. Those who can pay above $500 for a smartphone cannot ask for a computer below $500. There is no such thing.
I'm still wondering why Apple didn't opt for a variant of the new Mini with the new Intel CPU/AMD GPU hybrid in it. They are clearly aiming this at more of a pro market. Lot's of rendering (or other tasks) could be offloaded to the Vega GPU, and you could pick up some gaming sales, too. Seems like a no-brainer to me. The performance of the Vega absolutely blows away the Intel integrated graphics in every metric. Apps using Metal2 should scream on that chip. Touting FCPX & Compressor performance on a box with integrated graphics seemed kind of odd after Apple has talked up the capabilities of Metal2 so much. My $0.02, as ever.
And a $199 model could serve even greater audience. Don't get me even started on a $99 model...
Nope. $199 and $99 are too compromised. There's a reason we picked $499.
I tried to put an Intel NUC together for under $500 and couldn't do it unless it was so crippled as to be useless. A half decent NUC comes in at about $800. Now what I'd have liked to see is a $399 base Mac mini with no RAM or SSD and obviously user-friendly design for swapping these in and out. That would be the perfect hobbyist entry Mac.
This also now has me concerned for what the entry price of the Pro model will cost!!
The Core i7 Mini is second only to the iMac ProCore i7-7700K in single core performance and is sixth in multicore performance only behind the iMac Pros and Mac Pro 12-core. The base price is $1099.00.
The two graphic options available from Apple are the $699 Radeon Pro 580 or $1199 Vega 56 eGPUs exclusive from BlackMagic. There are far less expensive options if you roll your own.
That IS the entry level Pro Mac. Starting at $1099.
Anyone that whines about the price of the mini has zero intention in buying any Mac and especially not the Mac Pro.
I object to the argument that Apple is charging more an more for their product. Find an inflation calculator and enter what price you paid for your mac 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and 5 years ago. I think that inflation-adjusted apple's pricing is not increasing as dramatically as people think.
If inflation is confusing, think about how much you would spend on lunch about 15 years ago...$8? $5? now it is difficult to get out for lunch for less than $20.
Lastly, think about how much more processing power is vs years ago. I'd say not only is processing power greater but it is now much MUCH greater than the software needs of the vast majority of people. For example, I remember when running MS office was a chore for the computer...now the processing is WAY more than needed for that basic task.
(the $2,499 I spent on a G4 tower in 1999 would cost me $3,787 today.) (the iPhone 3G 8GB cost $599 in 2008, that's $702 in today's dollars, compare to the XR today at $749 but vastly superior)
The problem with your argument is that the Windows PC’s and competing Android phones have got cheaper, or stayed the same price, whilst offering far more than they did 5 or more years ago.
Apple was never “cheap” and nor should they be. But their current obsession with increasing margins every generation is now at the point where they are pricing out a fair chunk of the market.
I’ve switched a lot of people to the Mac, I’m a major advocate for Apple, but I’m struggling now to justify a Mac over a Windows competitor and it’s all because of price.
Not so long ago when someone was looking at a £500 Windows notebook you could talk them around to an £800 Mac. For that extra £300 you get attention to detail, premium build materials and Mac OS.
But with the starting point of £1200 for the new MacBook Air I can no longer justify the extra expense to people. It’s a beautiful machine, but it’s not £700 better than a £500 Windows based notebook.
Apple might be happy selling less for more, but I think it’s going to bite them in the arse sooner rather than later.
Exactly this. Both Windows and PCs have improved markedly in the last few years and include things Apple misses out, the things that make the computer convenient; the things people actually want, namely ports. PCs are no longer poor value, there are some excellent machines out there. Looking at it another way, you can buy two mid-range PCs for the price of a mid-range iMac, or another way - if a £500 PC dies after 3 years whereas a Mac might last 6, a new PC after 3 years would be quite a bit better spec-wise than the 3 year old Mac, making the Mac even worse value.
The Apple price apologists keep making excuses that are more and more irrational in an attempt to justify Apple's price increases - usually something along the lines of "you arent the target market", or "why are you here get a PC and be happy", when the general public's bemusement at the prices of Apple gear tells the real story. The apologists always seem to dismiss the point I often make about marketshare importance, and Apple's apparent ignorance of it, whereby developers will jump ship if the market is too small, and then the platform essentially implodes - Apple circa 1995.
I seriously disagree with this. I hope Apple never compromises on the Mac again. The $800 Mac Mini is an excellent machine. The $200-400 is served by the iPad. Btw the iPad has the NVME storage that is in the Mac Mini.
The iPad Pro does, the sixth does not have the same speed. Was the 2012 Mac mini compromised for $599?
With a hard drive ,yes the 2014 Mac Mini was compromised. For 2012 I think SSD prices kept it an okay machine. I believe Apple switched all iOS devices to NVMe since the A9 in the 6S ,SE & iPad 5(2017).
You realise the top-tier £2249 27" iMac still only comes with a fusion drive by default? It's embarrassing. If cost was a consideration for Apple choosing a HDD over a SSD in the price sensitive 2014 Mini, why does the high margin flagship 2018 iMac still have a HDD?
It isn’t being an apologist to point out what you fail to understand.
If you're trying to compare Apple today to the struggling and failing Apple of 1995, it shows you really have little to work with when it comes to understanding platforms. iOS and iDevices dominate - both the profit share and mindshare, including dev focus. Apple in 1995 was weak and feeble for many reasons I won’t go into here. Just because you want cheaper PC commodity prices, doesn’t in any way build an argument for the most successful company in human history becoming what it was (and wasn’t) in 1995.
Sour grapes and magic thinking. If you can’t spent the $150 more that this machine costs over the 2005 (adjust for inflation), with all of the upgraded components and controllers, then you aren’t in the market for anything other than a netbook.
I think we can safely say that AppleInsider’s argument for a $499 Mac Mini won't even get a preliminary glance from Apple. Entry level this, workstation that, Apple missed the boat, Apple is greedy, Apple doesn’t care about poor people. It’s the new mantra the desktop fans like to blather on about. If you haven’t figured out by now that the iPad is Apple’s entry level computer then there’s no hope for you. A $429 iPad (9.7 inch with 128GB) will out perform that $499 HP plastic box at Walmart any day.
Performance, looks, durability yes, productivity? Nope. Remember an iPad needs a keyboard to become anywhere near as productive as a laptop, and in one shot you've exceeded the price of that plastic box. And even if you do have a keyboard, there's still things you can't do on iPad, or are just hellishly awkward. It's fine as a consumption device, but as a creation tool for anything but the arts or perhaps creative writing, it is hamstrung by iOS.
Nah. A tablet serves different use cases that a desktop. Cars and trucks, as was said on day 1. I ran much of my business from an ipad — email, reading and editing spreadsheets, dropbox. In a form factor with practically no weight and easy to bring with me wherever. When it came to doing development and building out spreadsheets, I did that when at my desk. Different use cases.
Productivity != “only what I need, at all times!”
At least you people have changed your tune to include “the arts” lol.
EDIT: and just yesterday I used my ipad pro to review documentation and make notes with my Pencil. I’m a principle software engineer. Am I not productive? Is that “the arts”?
I'm still wondering why Apple didn't opt for a variant of the new Mini with the new Intel CPU/AMD GPU hybrid in it. They are clearly aiming this at more of a pro market. Lot's of rendering (or other tasks) could be offloaded to the Vega GPU, and you could pick up some gaming sales, too. Seems like a no-brainer to me. The performance of the Vega absolutely blows away the Intel integrated graphics in every metric. Apps using Metal2 should scream on that chip. Touting FCPX & Compressor performance on a box with integrated graphics seemed kind of odd after Apple has talked up the capabilities of Metal2 so much. My $0.02, as ever.
Available as the Blackmagic Vega eGPU for $1199. With two TB3 controllers you can have both an eGPU and a RAID array running on separate TB3s.
The i7 Mini w/32GB, 1TB SSD and 10GbE ($2600) + Vega ($1200) is $3800.
That leaves you a $1200 budget for keyboard, mouse and monitor in comparison to the base iMac Pro at $4999 (also with 32GB and 1 TB SSD). While the iMac Pro is faster (2 cores worth) the Mini enjoys higher single core performance and likely better thermal management for the Vega.
Complaints that the mini is "too expensive" ignores that it is the most cost effective Mac in the entire line up at every pricing tier. This IS the mini that folks have been waiting for since 2012. Forget the $499 base price. This is like bitching the iPhone XR is too expensive at $749. People are asking for the Mac product line entry point to essentially be the same as the iPhone product line entry point (the two year old iPhone 7 at $449). You want a $499 Mac? Buy the 2014 just like you buy the iPhone 7. Still available new from Best Buy.
Fuck you people (not you txsbaker75, yours was a perfectly fine question). It's insanely stupid to be outraged that the Mini base price moved to $799 when it offers so much bang for the buck.
I believe that succinctly enumerates my position on this matter.
I'm still wondering why Apple didn't opt for a variant of the new Mini with the new Intel CPU/AMD GPU hybrid in it. They are clearly aiming this at more of a pro market. Lot's of rendering (or other tasks) could be offloaded to the Vega GPU, and you could pick up some gaming sales, too. Seems like a no-brainer to me. The performance of the Vega absolutely blows away the Intel integrated graphics in every metric. Apps using Metal2 should scream on that chip. Touting FCPX & Compressor performance on a box with integrated graphics seemed kind of odd after Apple has talked up the capabilities of Metal2 so much. My $0.02, as ever.
Kaby Lake G would mean a different logic board, and it would be questionable how well it would support 2 Thunderbolt controllers, the T2 chip and 10 Gbit Ethernet due to only 8 PCIe lanes coming out of the CPU+GPU package. They are not drop in replacements to the processor variants Apple has chosen.
Kaby Lake G only comes in 4-core variants. It’s questionable to me that having a Polaris GPU (it is a Polaris GPU with Vega’s high bandwidth memory arch) is a net-net win over a 6-core CPU. I think a 6-core CPU will be a better option for FCPX and Compressor, and it will be much better for the jobs the 2018 Mac mini is meant to serve, cloud computing. The T2 chip also has HEVC encode/decode hardware in it and it would be the fastest and least power intensive way to do HEVC transcodes as well.
Last year, Kaby Lake G sounded like it was custom made for Apple. Then we learned it is a 100 TDP chip, only 4-core and basically the least number of PCIe lanes coming out of the package. With 6-core, 8-core CPU variants, T2 chips taking over many of the PCH jobs (and surely more in the T3), there is no reason whatsoever for it to be in Macs.
The iMac 21.5 model maybe? But, Apple could chose processor variants with 6 core options and use the mobile Vega chips that are going to be offered in the MBP15 this month. Really no reason whatsoever to use Kaby Lake G anymore.
Also, you folks better be prepared. If the new iMacs are NAND only, they will be minimum $300 more expensive. The iMacs are long overdue for a form factor refresh. They might just keep the same form factor like the Mac mini, but as of 2019, they will be 6 years using the same form factor. Either way, they’ll probably keep unchanged iMac 4K and iMac 5K models with HDD for $200 less or so, and the new models will be more expensive.
Unfortunately Apple under Cook is way too greedy for that. The iPhone has convinced them that people are more than willing to pay crazy high prices for an Apple product so why should they release an iPhone or Mac aimed towards education or lower income buyers. If people stopped paying the crazy high prices then Apple would have to lower their margins. But until then Apple has zero incentives to make affordable products for education or anyone else.
Apple has become a combination of the Mercedes Benz/Toyota-Lexus of personal computing. The reliability of Toyota-Lexus combined with the classic styling of MB. These products aren't for everybody and many will be just being the Corolla/Camry version of the Xr and not the MB/Lexus level XS/XSMax. But Apple will make big profits still. For the poor rabble of the masses Tim Cook says "Let them use Android"
I think we can safely say that AppleInsider’s argument for a $499 Mac Mini won't even get a preliminary glance from Apple. Entry level this, workstation that, Apple missed the boat, Apple is greedy, Apple doesn’t care about poor people. It’s the new mantra the desktop fans like to blather on about. If you haven’t figured out by now that the iPad is Apple’s entry level computer then there’s no hope for you. A $429 iPad (9.7 inch with 128GB) will out perform that $499 HP plastic box at Walmart any day.
Performance, looks, durability yes, productivity? Nope. Remember an iPad needs a keyboard to become anywhere near as productive as a laptop, and in one shot you've exceeded the price of that plastic box. And even if you do have a keyboard, there's still things you can't do on iPad, or are just hellishly awkward. It's fine as a consumption device, but as a creation tool for anything but the arts or perhaps creative writing, it is hamstrung by iOS.
Nah. A tablet serves different use cases that a desktop. Cars and trucks, as was said on day 1. I ran much of my business from an ipad — email, reading and editing spreadsheets, dropbox. In a form factor with practically no weight and easy to bring with me wherever. When it came to doing development and building out spreadsheets, I did that when at my desk. Different use cases.
Productivity != “only what I need, at all times!”
At least you people have changed your tune to include “the arts” lol.
If you had a mouse in for the iPad it would work out when "docked" to a 4K monitor and storage.
The only thing that really keeps the iPad as a desktop replacement is the awkwardness in working with text and text selection when using a physical keyboard and large screen. Even just having a mode where the iPad turns into a touchpad and auxiliary keys/displays when connected to a large display would mitigate most of the awkwardness even if I prefer a mouse to a touchpad.
Comments
Apple's product pricing is going up across the board, and that's not even including the cost of services like iCloud. I actually know people who stopped using their iPhone and switch to Android because they were so pissed off about iCloud storage and backup warnings, despite the fact they couldn't afford to pay for those extra services.
Apple may be in business to make a profit (and as an AAPL shareholder since 1999, I'm glad they are), but they also need to give an eye to the cost burden on their customers. If Apple can engage in political causes, power buildings off 100% renewable energy, make 100% recycled aluminum products, brazenly promote sexual orientation agendas, and provide fire relief for Californians (they do all those things), Apple surely could consider the cost of its products and the people lower cost devices would benefit.
At the end of the day, it's all of us individual consumers worldwide who made Apple the most valuable company in the world, and not all of us or even the majority of us are fabulous wealthy. I'm not suggesting Apple go back to the horrible Performa mentality which confused customers back then about as much as Apple's MacBook line does now (because MacBooks are all quite similar now -- same screens and all thin and light but no SD card slot, no USB-A, bad keyboards, no glowing logo on back, no MagSafe, etc.). But as the editorial points out, Apple does need to consider lower cost products and the customers who would benefit from them.
'… but a $499 model could server a larger audience.'
It's really odd that I've never heard anyone say, '… but a $10,000 Lamborghini could serve a larger audience.'
Well, I suspect it's because if Lamborghini made a $10,000 car then one of two things would happen:
No one would buy it because they'd think it was a clunker put together using the cheapest components left over from their tractor line.
Everyone would buy it, but not in enough numbers to make up for the loss on sales on their more expensive products.
Whenever I read this kind of thing:
I think that somewhere in another universe, a fairy chokes on her own tongue and falls out of the sky. Two problems with this line of thinking: selling things at a loss in the hope that some other benefit will come of it, and looking at the way things were four decades ago and assuming that the same situation applies now.
There is also the assumption that the costs of producing a machine is purely in parts and manufacturing. This is, of course, not the case. In fact many of the hidden costs associated with the ongoing development and maintenance of the operating system, the specialist chips used for security, the R&D for stuff we haven't seen yet, the acquisitions – all this goes into the cost of building the kit, and none of these costs are going to change simply because you decide to use cheaper parts or cut bits out. In fact, if you really want a cheaper Mac, then the best thing to ask for is for Apple to follow the rest of the industry by cutting down on some of the costs that aren't associated with the hardware. The extra chips could go, along with the operating system. If they didn't have to spend money on MacOS then they could shave a lot of money off right there. So how does this sound: a really cheap Mac Mini that comes with a cheap Windows license, or Linux. It doesn't sound great to me. Or they could just go the Google route: build on Linux, steal parts to fill in the gaps and fight it out in court. Or they could sell the data on the machine to advertisers to cover the costs.
No, the problem of course is that since Jobs returned, Apple hasn't been aiming to serve a larger audience: they've chosen to serve the most profitable audience. They could produce a dirt cheap machine for schools, but schools are strapped for cash, so the only way this would work is to make a machine that was cheaper than a Chromebook, and given that the development costs for the OS which are built into every device sold … When Schiller says that they've looked at making cheaper machines but couldn't do it without making a machine that royally sucks, this is what he means. Other manufacturers are buying stock parts and licensing the operating system; that is far cheaper than making custom components and building the OS yourself.
And you could ask the question that if all the kids are using Chromebook at school, but go home to iPads, then is there any real advantage to losing money to fight Chromebooks. I have seen no evidence that using one machine in school will stop folk from moving to a different machine later on.
So perhaps the headline should be 'but a $499 Windows-based machine that sold data to advertisers could serve a larger audience.'
And you know what? It might … except of course it would be fighting with all the other cheap Windows machines on the market.
Exactly. "Designed in Heaven, Assembled in China".
"Stop being poor!" as Paris Hilton likes to say.
One problem is the crazy high price for the Macs that just cannot compete with Wintel prices. Regular public schools will not buy computers that cost twice as much just because they have the Apple logo on them. This is especially true because Macs are still a small fraction in the enterprise, and schools' main purpose is to prepare kids for the job market either directly or by being an intermediate step on the ladder leading to a job. So, the only thing that will sell schools on the Macs is the lower cost of ownership, which can only be attained by dramatically lowering the price of Macs. It's time to start thinking of growing the user base for Apple.
Continuing to raise prices will severely damage Apple. In fact, it's time for the Apple shareholders to demand that Apple come back to earth with their pricing policies. I'm a shareholder and I'm seriously concerned with the direction that Tim Cook is taking Apple with raising the ASP sky high. Apple should continue to maintain a high-end line of Macs, iPhones, and iPads, but it should also create a mid-range line in all three categories that suit most non-Pro users. For example, the newly released MacBook Air should have been priced as follows:
-----------
Again, this is not a professional-level Mac, and with this pricing, the MacBook Air would become a great entry into the Apple ecosystem for millions and millions of new users, starting with kids in elementary, middle, and high schools and then on to college students.
The MacBook Air at these prices would also suit most non-professional consumers who need an ultra-portable and compact yet capable laptop and who are prepared to pay a few hundred dollars more for quality hardware and software compared to purchasing plastic Wintels.
For MacBook Pros (Intel-based), Apple can continue their current pricing strategy that prices them in the $2,000 - $3,000 range.
Personally, I would buy the 16GB/512GB MacBook Air and then add another NUC to my lab for heavy virtualization tasks. Instead of carrying extra pounds of power in my bag, I would rather use a light-weight portable Mac and access my lab via VPN when outside of my home. There is really not much reason for those of us who are not in the music, video-editing, or photo-editing business for MacBook Pros. The rest of us can be served by the MacBook Air as long as it can drive 5K monitors, be able to do casual photo and video editing without slowing to a crawl, and run one Windows or Linux VM in VMware Fusion or Parallels. The rest of the tasks that most consumers perform do not require Pro-level Macs.
I also have jetsons and they run $600 so folks bloviating about how arm would make Macs cost nothing are on crack. While an aTV like device could be relatively inexpensive any laptop with components that don’t suck wouldn’t see a massive reduction on price because of a reduction on cpu price.
In any case the pricing above ignores the reality of iPhone pricing.
This also now has me concerned for what the entry price of the Pro model will cost!!
Great article and completely agreed!
The two graphic options available from Apple are the $699 Radeon Pro 580 or $1199 Vega 56 eGPUs exclusive from BlackMagic. There are far less expensive options if you roll your own.
That IS the entry level Pro Mac. Starting at $1099.
Anyone that whines about the price of the mini has zero intention in buying any Mac and especially not the Mac Pro.
If you're trying to compare Apple today to the struggling and failing Apple of 1995, it shows you really have little to work with when it comes to understanding platforms. iOS and iDevices dominate - both the profit share and mindshare, including dev focus. Apple in 1995 was weak and feeble for many reasons I won’t go into here. Just because you want cheaper PC commodity prices, doesn’t in any way build an argument for the most successful company in human history becoming what it was (and wasn’t) in 1995.
Sour grapes and magic thinking. If you can’t spent the $150 more that this machine costs over the 2005 (adjust for inflation), with all of the upgraded components and controllers, then you aren’t in the market for anything other than a netbook.
Nah. A tablet serves different use cases that a desktop. Cars and trucks, as was said on day 1. I ran much of my business from an ipad — email, reading and editing spreadsheets, dropbox. In a form factor with practically no weight and easy to bring with me wherever. When it came to doing development and building out spreadsheets, I did that when at my desk. Different use cases.
Productivity != “only what I need, at all times!”
At least you people have changed your tune to include “the arts” lol.
EDIT: and just yesterday I used my ipad pro to review documentation and make notes with my Pencil. I’m a principle software engineer. Am I not productive? Is that “the arts”?
Available as the Blackmagic Vega eGPU for $1199. With two TB3 controllers you can have both an eGPU and a RAID array running on separate TB3s.
The i7 Mini w/32GB, 1TB SSD and 10GbE ($2600) + Vega ($1200) is $3800.
That leaves you a $1200 budget for keyboard, mouse and monitor in comparison to the base iMac Pro at $4999 (also with 32GB and 1 TB SSD). While the iMac Pro is faster (2 cores worth) the Mini enjoys higher single core performance and likely better thermal management for the Vega.
Complaints that the mini is "too expensive" ignores that it is the most cost effective Mac in the entire line up at every pricing tier. This IS the mini that folks have been waiting for since 2012. Forget the $499 base price. This is like bitching the iPhone XR is too expensive at $749. People are asking for the Mac product line entry point to essentially be the same as the iPhone product line entry point (the two year old iPhone 7 at $449). You want a $499 Mac? Buy the 2014 just like you buy the iPhone 7. Still available new from Best Buy.
Fuck you people (not you txsbaker75, yours was a perfectly fine question). It's insanely stupid to be outraged that the Mini base price moved to $799 when it offers so much bang for the buck.
I believe that succinctly enumerates my position on this matter.
Kaby Lake G only comes in 4-core variants. It’s questionable to me that having a Polaris GPU (it is a Polaris GPU with Vega’s high bandwidth memory arch) is a net-net win over a 6-core CPU. I think a 6-core CPU will be a better option for FCPX and Compressor, and it will be much better for the jobs the 2018 Mac mini is meant to serve, cloud computing. The T2 chip also has HEVC encode/decode hardware in it and it would be the fastest and least power intensive way to do HEVC transcodes as well.
Last year, Kaby Lake G sounded like it was custom made for Apple. Then we learned it is a 100 TDP chip, only 4-core and basically the least number of PCIe lanes coming out of the package. With 6-core, 8-core CPU variants, T2 chips taking over many of the PCH jobs (and surely more in the T3), there is no reason whatsoever for it to be in Macs.
The iMac 21.5 model maybe? But, Apple could chose processor variants with 6 core options and use the mobile Vega chips that are going to be offered in the MBP15 this month. Really no reason whatsoever to use Kaby Lake G anymore.
Also, you folks better be prepared. If the new iMacs are NAND only, they will be minimum $300 more expensive. The iMacs are long overdue for a form factor refresh. They might just keep the same form factor like the Mac mini, but as of 2019, they will be 6 years using the same form factor. Either way, they’ll probably keep unchanged iMac 4K and iMac 5K models with HDD for $200 less or so, and the new models will be more expensive.
The only thing that really keeps the iPad as a desktop replacement is the awkwardness in working with text and text selection when using a physical keyboard and large screen. Even just having a mode where the iPad turns into a touchpad and auxiliary keys/displays when connected to a large display would mitigate most of the awkwardness even if I prefer a mouse to a touchpad.