Most schools are adopting the BYOD model now. Bit hard to carry a Mini, screen, keyboard and mouse in your backpack. Apple needs a a $499 notebook.
I say they should bring back the the polycarbonate case to get prices for laptops down. Make it an iOS based laptop with A Series chip too (and trackpad/mouse support).
The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time.
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
If Apple released such a monitor in the fall of 2018, it could sell over a million of them in the holiday quarter, making a healthy billion dollars or more in gross revenue just in one quarter. This would count as a true new category, and could improve the financials for years to come.
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.
"If the new iMacs are NAND only, they will be minimum $300 more expensive."
As far as I'm concerned, Apple's entire Mac line-up should be SSD-only
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 think that there are two types of Apple Fans now :
1. Those motivated by the products (especially those with a love for the Mac and MacOS). Most of those want to see apple expand their market share because they would like to see more people delighted by Apple products.
2. Those motivated by the Stock Price and Financial performance that Apple has experienced since the iPhone came out. They want prices to stay high to maintain high margins.
There is some overlap but they don't necessarily have the same motivations. I do think that there is lot of justification to the argument that Higher prices support R&D and better quality but still feel that Apple prices are a little high. (Despite high prices apple introduced the butterfly keyboard that took 3 generations to get right )
The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time.
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time.
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
I shouldn’t tone it down because I mean it. I see a train wreck at the end of the tunnel if Cook continues to be the CEO.
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.
Yeah, once you start piecing together all the right components for your bare NUC the price quickly skyrockets. Don't forget that the NUC does not come with an operating system either. If you need a legitimate Windows 10 Pro license that'll cost you another $180 bucks.
One thing that makes the new Mini very attractive for me is that monitor prices have really come down. If you can live with full HD (1080) displays you can put together a dual monitor (27" x 2) Mini setup for about the same price as the 1080 version of the 21" iMac. This would serve a lot of software developers, document writers, students, etc., quite well, especially with the ability to add more external storage as needed via TB3. As a SW developer I'd rather have two decent monitors than a single super high res monitor. Your tastes may differ.
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.
Thanks for the breakdown. That makes a lot of sense why they skipped that chipset. Still wish they worked with AMD for some kind of dedicated GPU option. Intel's dedicated graphics is underwhelming, at best, and its advancement is falling further behind every year.
I thought reports said the new Mac Mini only had a single TB3 controller. Was that incorrect? The Vega expansion chassis is definitely an appealing option, but the loss of ~20% performance through TB3 is unfortunate, especially for roundtrip rendering tasks. Add that to sharing bandwidth (assuming one controller) with the eGPU and external RAID storage, and you've got some substantial performance bottlenecks. The new T2 chip is definitely interesting and I'm intrigued to see what future generations bring. Obviously, it's a boon for HEVC, but there are still lots of ProRes and mpeg4-based files and operations (and even mpeg2 variants) that typically won't benefit from HEVC hardware depending on the project(s). All of those go back to the processor and integrated graphics. Intel does have some hardware optimizations for mpeg4 in their integrated graphics, but AMD Vega should still be faster.
Most schools are adopting the BYOD model now. Bit hard to carry a Mini, screen, keyboard and mouse in your backpack. Apple needs a a $499 notebook.
I say they should bring back the the polycarbonate case to get prices for laptops down. Make it an iOS based laptop with A Series chip too (and trackpad/mouse support).
You mean Newton eMate again? That won't be. For two reasons: Unlike Newton, the iPad is a mature and complete product that justifies itself with its market share. Second, Apple just won't make a toaster-fridge, TC is very resolute about that. That should put an end to all those ARM Mac dreams.
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.
Thanks for the breakdown. That makes a lot of sense why they skipped that chipset. Still wish they worked with AMD for some kind of dedicated GPU option. Intel's dedicated graphics is underwhelming, at best, and its advancement is falling further behind every year.
I thought reports said the new Mac Mini only had a single TB3 controller. Was that incorrect? The Vega expansion chassis is definitely an appealing option, but the loss of ~20% performance through TB3 is unfortunate, especially for roundtrip rendering tasks. Add that to sharing bandwidth (assuming one controller) with the eGPU and external RAID storage, and you've got some substantial performance bottlenecks. The new T2 chip is definitely interesting and I'm intrigued to see what future generations bring. Obviously, it's a boon for HEVC, but there are still lots of ProRes and mpeg4-based files and operations (and even mpeg2 variants) that typically won't benefit from HEVC hardware depending on the project(s). All of those go back to the processor and integrated graphics. Intel does have some hardware optimizations for mpeg4 in their integrated graphics, but AMD Vega should still be faster.
They were incorrect. Apple reps gave us bad info at the event. There are two controllers.
Thanks for the breakdown. That makes a lot of sense why they skipped that chipset. Still wish they worked with AMD for some kind of dedicated GPU option. Intel's dedicated graphics is underwhelming, at best, and its advancement is falling further behind every year.
I thought reports said the new Mac Mini only had a single TB3 controller. Was that incorrect? The Vega expansion chassis is definitely an appealing option, but the loss of ~20% performance through TB3 is unfortunate, especially for roundtrip rendering tasks. Add that to sharing bandwidth (assuming one controller) with the eGPU and external RAID storage, and you've got some substantial performance bottlenecks. The new T2 chip is definitely interesting and I'm intrigued to see what future generations bring. Obviously, it's a boon for HEVC, but there are still lots of ProRes and mpeg4-based files and operations (and even mpeg2 variants) that typically won't benefit from HEVC hardware depending on the project(s). All of those go back to the processor and integrated graphics. Intel does have some hardware optimizations for mpeg4 in their integrated graphics, but AMD Vega should still be faster.
Customers would be better off with 6-core for ProRes and H264, imo, and it would support non GPU type workflows a lot better. Plus, I’m not sure Polaris or Vega GPUs are a net win over Intel Quicksync, or a software renderer across 6-cores. A win over 2 cores sure, but 6 cores?
AI was misinformed about the TB3 controllers. You can see the two controllers on the board next to the TB3 ports in this iFixit picture:
You can get a Mac mini for consumer style usage, I would do it today over an iMac as I would use it with a 40” 4K monitor, and even get a quiet eGPU for it for 3D games, but you have to be mindful that the 2018 Mac mini is designed for distributed or cluster computing, or for non game developers.
If someone needs a lot of compute power for rendering jobs, Apple is saying that they should buy 4 minis, network them together, and render away across 24 cores. They’ll be stacked nice and neat on a desk, and will be quiet. I wonder if Thunderbolt networking (IP over TB) is supported for TB3?40 Gbit/s sounds better than 10 Gbit/s Ethernet, and you won’t need a switch, I think.
The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time.
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
I think Satya Nadella can Tim Cook a good run for his money for that title. The turn-around he's orchestrated at MS is phenomenal.
The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time.
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
I think Satya Nadella can Tim Cook a good run for his money for that title. The turn-around he's orchestrated at MS is phenomenal.
I don’t know if it was a turnaround. MS has a monopoly and failure is very forgiving for them. It was more that Nadella put MS on a more constructive focus or path. I agree with you he’s done a very good job in terms of ethics and company success, just as well as Cook. I’d prefer to walk back my statement as it isn’t a competition, only that we need more like them running mega corporations.
The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time.
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
I don’t necessarily agree about the displays. One could say the same thing about printers too. They’re both a commodity market for which there are plenty of players developing products which reflect the Apple industrial design style, all with low profit margins. Yes Apple could offer the display, but the vast majority of those needing one, would likely buy something cheaper anyway. Most Apple customers are likely buying a Mac with a built-in screen anyway, and don’t necessarily need a second one.
Really, until Apple comes up with something truly unique about their displays to justify the higher cost over bottom of the barrel competitors, they’re probably right to get out of the market. Now that Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C are at a point where one cable can handle everything a monitor and Mac needs from each other, including power; and with OLED prices dropping dramatically, Apple may have something to offer besides design.
The article starts by stating that "the 2018 Mac mini is remarkably powerful and remarkably good value for what it does."
What is remarkable and hard to believe, from a third party that is supposed to be knowledgeable and independent, is this kind of irrational enthusiasm.
The Mac mini has a very low end GPU, and an mid-range CPU. This means that all the following tasks are either impossible or take ages to complete: 1) gaming (except very light games), 2) non-basic video and photo editing, transcoding, effects, 3) mathematical computations and modelling, 4) 3D, 5) VR, 6) crypto-mining.
Given that weak standing, how can the Mac mini be labelled as remarkably powerful? And tied to this, remarkably good value?
Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
I don’t necessarily agree about the displays. One could say the same thing about printers too. They’re both a commodity market for which there are plenty of players developing products which reflect the Apple industrial design style, all with low profit margins. Yes Apple could offer the display, but the vast majority of those needing one, would likely buy something cheaper anyway. Most Apple customers are likely buying a Mac with a built-in screen anyway, and don’t necessarily need a second one.
Really, until Apple comes up with something truly unique about their displays to justify the higher cost over bottom of the barrel competitors, they’re probably right to get out of the market. Now that Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C are at a point where one cable can handle everything a monitor and Mac needs from each other, including power; and with OLED prices dropping dramatically, Apple may have something to offer besides design.
Apple wouldn’t have been selling displays to desktop users. They would have been selling Thunderbolt displays to their MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air userbase, which constitute 80% of the userbase. They should have made a 4K monitor in 2013, a 5K monitor in 2016, and they should have made multiple monitor sizes. It would have been a force multiplier for sales of the TB3 laptops in 2016 as it would have integrated docks, speakers, webcams, etc, in them.
A display is user facing hardware, and their industrial design is a feature within their userbase, who tend to be preferential to having nice looking hardware. So, I’m diametrically opposed to the thought that design isn’t a big feature in displays.
I don’t think there are many, if any, alumininum backed, glass covered displays on the market that matches the hardware ID of the laptops. Just strange that they thought it was the right idea to abandon it. It’s an essential part of the user experience of a computer on a desktop. So, don’t agree it being a commodity. A conversion rate of 10% of Apple hardware buyers would make an Apple standalone monitor a 1 billion dollar business per year.
It’s kind of like AirPods is the Apple branded audio interface for our ears. Monitors are like the Apple branded visual interface for our eyes.
The way that Apple can make some serious cash is by making 5K monitors with speakers, microphone, camera, and Thunderbolt 3 ports. Basically, reuse the iMac body or maybe make it slimmer in the back, price the 27” version at $999 and sell millions of them. I can’t believe Apple leaves so much cash on the table but yet raises the pricing on everything else. Apple has all the tech ready for such a monitor already. It’s just about leveraging what’s already out there and creating a new stream of revenue without any significant R&D costs or time.
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
Yes. Abandoning making branded displays since 2013 is one of those gigantic mistakes that someone hopefully writes a book about. The time period between 2012 to 2016 had some rather serious management issues regarding Apple’s PC hardware. There was bound to be some chaos after Jobs passed away and Cook reorganized the management structure, but it bled on for 4 years in certain parts of the company (Macs, iPads, Siri, other distractions). There definitely needs to be a book.
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
I don’t necessarily agree about the displays. One could say the same thing about printers too. They’re both a commodity market for which there are plenty of players developing products which reflect the Apple industrial design style, all with low profit margins. Yes Apple could offer the display, but the vast majority of those needing one, would likely buy something cheaper anyway. Most Apple customers are likely buying a Mac with a built-in screen anyway, and don’t necessarily need a second one.
Really, until Apple comes up with something truly unique about their displays to justify the higher cost over bottom of the barrel competitors, they’re probably right to get out of the market. Now that Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C are at a point where one cable can handle everything a monitor and Mac needs from each other, including power; and with OLED prices dropping dramatically, Apple may have something to offer besides design.
Apple has always been about controlling the key technologies that improve the user experience. As long as one is using a device, a display is an essential part of interacting with it. The same doesn't apply to a printer.
I believe the one thing that truly proves how overpriced these machines are is the fact they ship with the absolute bare minimum amount of memory and hard drive space. They should've come standard with at least 16 GB of Ram a 250 GB SSD drive. It shouldn't cost anything more than $300 to to upgrade 32 GB of RAM. Where do they get that 32 gigs of RAM is going to cost $600?! Seriously, I think Apple is really starting to lose it on the greedy train.
The article starts by stating that "the 2018 Mac mini is remarkably powerful and remarkably good value for what it does."
What is remarkable and hard to believe, from a third party that is supposed to be knowledgeable and independent, is this kind of irrational enthusiasm.
The Mac mini has a very low end GPU, and an mid-range CPU. This means that all the following tasks are either impossible or take ages to complete: 1) gaming (except very light games), 2) non-basic video and photo editing, transcoding, effects, 3) mathematical computations and modelling, 4) 3D, 5) VR, 6) crypto-mining.
Given that weak standing, how can the Mac mini be labelled as remarkably powerful? And tied to this, remarkably good value?
What do you think people use Mac mini’s for? Remember, people make rational decisions just like you do. They are willingly forking over $1500 for optioned up Mac mini’s. This is a lot of money, and the vast majority of sales will go to people making very rationale decisions as it will be a lot of money for them.
Hardly anyone was buying the Mac Mini for switching from PCs to Macs. Those days are GONE. Apple realized that the primary buyers of Mac Minis were using it for more professional purposes - such as servers, server farms, etc. So it made much more sense to create the Mac Mini Pro to sell to the ACTUAL USERS of the Mac Mini. And as such, it is FANTASTIC!
Comments
Why let LG grab this 5K monitor market? Doesn’t make any sense. This is just pure and simple lack of understanding of what the Apple ecosystem should be like and the laziness to make extra money. Just absolutely horrible “leadership” by Tim Cook.
If Apple released such a monitor in the fall of 2018, it could sell over a million of them in the holiday quarter, making a healthy billion dollars or more in gross revenue just in one quarter. This would count as a true new category, and could improve the financials for years to come.
As far as I'm concerned, Apple's entire Mac line-up should be SSD-only
1. Those motivated by the products (especially those with a love for the Mac and MacOS). Most of those want to see apple expand their market share because they would like to see more people delighted by Apple products.
2. Those motivated by the Stock Price and Financial performance that Apple has experienced since the iPhone came out. They want prices to stay high to maintain high margins.
There is some overlap but they don't necessarily have the same motivations. I do think that there is lot of justification to the argument that Higher prices support R&D and better quality but still feel that Apple prices are a little high. (Despite high prices apple introduced the butterfly keyboard that took 3 generations to get right )
But you should tone it down regarding Cook. He’s the best CEO in Silicon Valley, if not the world. Really, I can’t think of anyone else who has his mixture of ethics and success. He should be lauded for that, continuously. There are issues - the car project likely being more of a distraction than it should have - but those are normal for all large organizations.
mean it. I see a train wreck at the end of the tunnel if Cook continues to be the CEO.
One thing that makes the new Mini very attractive for me is that monitor prices have really come down. If you can live with full HD (1080) displays you can put together a dual monitor (27" x 2) Mini setup for about the same price as the 1080 version of the 21" iMac. This would serve a lot of software developers, document writers, students, etc., quite well, especially with the ability to add more external storage as needed via TB3. As a SW developer I'd rather have two decent monitors than a single super high res monitor. Your tastes may differ.
I thought reports said the new Mac Mini only had a single TB3 controller. Was that incorrect? The Vega expansion chassis is definitely an appealing option, but the loss of ~20% performance through TB3 is unfortunate, especially for roundtrip rendering tasks. Add that to sharing bandwidth (assuming one controller) with the eGPU and external RAID storage, and you've got some substantial performance bottlenecks. The new T2 chip is definitely interesting and I'm intrigued to see what future generations bring. Obviously, it's a boon for HEVC, but there are still lots of ProRes and mpeg4-based files and operations (and even mpeg2 variants) that typically won't benefit from HEVC hardware depending on the project(s). All of those go back to the processor and integrated graphics. Intel does have some hardware optimizations for mpeg4 in their integrated graphics, but AMD Vega should still be faster.
AI was misinformed about the TB3 controllers. You can see the two controllers on the board next to the TB3 ports in this iFixit picture:
You can get a Mac mini for consumer style usage, I would do it today over an iMac as I would use it with a 40” 4K monitor, and even get a quiet eGPU for it for 3D games, but you have to be mindful that the 2018 Mac mini is designed for distributed or cluster computing, or for non game developers.
If someone needs a lot of compute power for rendering jobs, Apple is saying that they should buy 4 minis, network them together, and render away across 24 cores. They’ll be stacked nice and neat on a desk, and will be quiet. I wonder if Thunderbolt networking (IP over TB) is supported for TB3?40 Gbit/s sounds better than 10 Gbit/s Ethernet, and you won’t need a switch, I think.
Really, until Apple comes up with something truly unique about their displays to justify the higher cost over bottom of the barrel competitors, they’re probably right to get out of the market. Now that Thunderbolt 3 and USB-C are at a point where one cable can handle everything a monitor and Mac needs from each other, including power; and with OLED prices dropping dramatically, Apple may have something to offer besides design.
A display is user facing hardware, and their industrial design is a feature within their userbase, who tend to be preferential to having nice looking hardware. So, I’m diametrically opposed to the thought that design isn’t a big feature in displays.
I don’t think there are many, if any, alumininum backed, glass covered displays on the market that matches the hardware ID of the laptops. Just strange that they thought it was the right idea to abandon it. It’s an essential part of the user experience of a computer on a desktop. So, don’t agree it being a commodity. A conversion rate of 10% of Apple hardware buyers would make an Apple standalone monitor a 1 billion dollar business per year.
It’s kind of like AirPods is the Apple branded audio interface for our ears. Monitors are like the Apple branded visual interface for our eyes.
Apple realized that the primary buyers of Mac Minis were using it for more professional purposes - such as servers, server farms, etc.
So it made much more sense to create the Mac Mini Pro to sell to the ACTUAL USERS of the Mac Mini.
And as such, it is FANTASTIC!