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.
I never intended my statement to apply solely to desktops. But the number of customers primarily using MacBooks with external monitors isn’t likely that large. Those that are have many excellent and inexpensive options available to them. They may not all look like Apple products, but again, we’re talking about a black rectangle. Would 10% of Apple hardware buyers actually spend well over the market value to buy a matching Apple display that doesn’t offer any significant features over others in the market? I’m not even sure 10% of Apple hardware buyers are using a second display, or even as a primary one. While I agree with you that it would be an excellent branding option, I’m not sure it would really pay off for Apple at present. While such a business might make a billion, the profit would be quite slim, and the costs substantial. Since Apple is all about profit margins, a $1bb business doesn’t look so good unless Apple is pocketing the lionshare of that in profits. I’m not sure they would, even if 10% of their customers bought in.
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.
Printers are a much more significant obstacle for user experience. Displays are about equal. Few have ever plugged in a modern monitor that didn’t just work, but a printer can be a major headache. Moreover, printers tend to sit in prominent spaces in offices for easy access, and their design is critical for fitting into that environment. And monitors all tend to look about the same — black rectangles. While one must always have a display, and therefore it is a much more critical part of a user interface, only a very small percentage of Apple devices need one, as most are built-in. The percentage who need an extra display for the majority of devices sold which have their own display is even smaller.
Of all AI posts, those on the Mac mini always result in a huge discussion. I know the AI readership is a small sample group and maybe even not representative, but still a possibility that Apple under-estimates the demand for this item. Let's be honest here, the latest hardware refresh didn't constitute a massive design effort, so why did it take so many years?
My best hunch, is a combination of things. I've heard stories about how when the iPhone became popular and the company grew like crazy, a lot of resources were pulled off other projects (including the Mac) to sustain the rapid growth. So, in that sense, it is possible they are just starting to recover. While it seems like a crazy amount of time, their growth was equally crazy... probably unlike most any other company has had to deal with.
I also, though, get the impression they really thought iOS was going to more rapidly replace the Mac than it has. I say this for a few reasons... first, the amount of effort in messaging about being a 'computer' and leadership talking about how they are using iOS as their primary OS and such. But, also some of the iOS transitions we've seen recently, like adding more access to manage files and such. I think they are finally realizing that their philosophy of how iOS is the 'next thing' was being hampered by misunderstandings of crucial workflow differences (and deficiencies in iOS).
So, it might well be the case they both were contained in terms of what they could do, coupled with a real lack of effort given some plan of iOS being the successor. That also makes sense in light of the iMac Pro (which they did seem to be working on over this time). Maybe the plan was to have some 'pro' laptops and then the iMac Pro as the Mac line. After they realized it wasn't going to go down quite like that, they started once again on some of the other models.
You're absolutely correct that redesigning the mini shouldn't have taken so long. But, what gives me hope is that they didn't just update the CPU and maybe ports and give us another dual-core i5 machine. They seem to have 'done their homework' and really produced a great machine. The mini didn't need a massive redesign effort, but it needed what it got.
Aside from user-community xMac wishes, I really can't imagine them having done much better on the mini refresh/redesign. It exceeded my expectations. It has been a long time since I've said that.
macxpress said: ... Apple is fighting a losing battle there, which is why it never competes on price. Apple will never win the price game and I hope it never plays that game because once it does, it's a long slow death for Apple.
Just keep in mind that there is a huge difference between having a product range that addresses a wide audience, and a price-race to the bottom. I'm more of an Apple-tech changing the world guy, than a, look at the fashion I can afford, kind of guy. As long as Apple makes great stuff, I'd like to see it at the lowest price possible (and still give Apple a health profit margin), not head toward gilded exclusive club pricing (which seems more like what they are doing these days).
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.
And if Apple did that, people would still bitch and complain that it's still not enough and Apple should have shipped it with 32GB of RAM and 512GBs of flash storage for that price. Apple is never gonna win that argument with some people.
Some might, but virtualshift's premise is faulty, though. I'm currently using a MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM and getting along just fine aside from a few things I'd like to be able to do, such as VMs. 8 GB is plenty of RAM for like 90% of users... even many pro users. 16 GB is as much as most of the pro machines (like the laptops) were LIMITED to until super recently. 8 GB is a perfectly reasonable amount of base RAM.
Storage, as well. 128 GB is fine, unless you NEED more. I'm certainly going to get 16 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage, minimally, but a lot of people don't need that, or need one or the other for specific purposes (i.e.: they might need lots of RAM, but only 128 GB storage, etc.)
Again, my only complaint is that they don't have a lower low-end model that is a bit closer match to an updated version of the previous gen at a lower price-point. ex: 8 GB RAM, 128 GB storage (maybe just internal normal SSD if it saves cost), 2-core i5, etc. for ~ $200 less. I'd not buy that, but it would open the mini to an even broader market.
macplusplus said: The years to flood all the world with crappy products on cheap dollar have ended. Only those who can deliver highly integrated high value items will survive. Others will get buried into the crappy smartphone/tablet/convertible junkyards.
Hmm, I'd like to believe that... but I wonder what evidence you see of this? The companies of the world seem to be churning out more crap than ever.
macplusplus said: The years to flood all the world with crappy products on cheap dollar have ended. Only those who can deliver highly integrated high value items will survive. Others will get buried into the crappy smartphone/tablet/convertible junkyards.
Hmm, I'd like to believe that... but I wonder what evidence you see of this? The companies of the world seem to be churning out more crap than ever.
I started this gig forward-facing to the public in 2012 as a general gadget guy. Between 2012 to 2014 or so, there was a general gadget clean-up. The low-end of stuff wasn't as crappy anymore, and you could generally assume that something would at least be functional and work okay, if not pretty well overall for most users.
Something changed in 2014 or 2015, and we seem to be sliding back to crap-gadgets being super-prevalent again. I'm not even sure what factors led up to it.
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.
Dude. They’re coming out with a display next year. Cool yer jets.
I have been wondering about the coming Apple monitor. Will it be a mainstream (but good) monitor, e.g. the iMac 5K screen but in a separate enclosure, or will it be an all-out Pro monitor, wide gamut US$2000 type thing? Because Apple have been making the Mac more of a pro tool and also putting up prices in general.
You already answered your question. 5K, wide gamut, all types of HDR and alike. Those looking for cheap monitor can go 4K over USB 3.1. The trend is towards highest integration and higher prices, not towards "downsizing" and cheaper, at least with Apple.
When Apple came out with the LED Cinema and Thunderbolt displays for $999, the price was considered sky-high. Hey, back then a $500 iPhone was considered outrageously expensive. Now we are begging Cook to keep the lower-end iPhone pricing in the sub-thousand-dollar range. I guess in 2018, no one is holding their breath for a $1,000 5K Apple-branded monitor. Is it going to cost $1999?
Cook has lost his mind. To whom is he planning to sell Apple gadgets at these prices? Certainly there won’t be much volume at these prices.
The LG 5K UltraFine retails for $1299.
I'm well aware of it. This price is due to the monopoly that Apple has afforded to LG to produce the only Apple-endorsed 5K monitor. My point exactly is that Apple should not leave money on the table. The $1299 price for a plasticky monitor with mediocre reviews (just look at the Apple store reviews) is a travesty.
The cheapest iMac that features a 27" 5K LED monitor, i5 quad-core CPU, 8GB RAM, 256 GB SSD) is $1721 (without the bundled keyboard and mouse). Subtract from $1721 the cost of the actual computer parts (based on the price of the 2018 Mac Mini ($799) similarly equipped: i3 quad-core CPU, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD), and you get $922. Then, add the cost of the parts required for the monitor's Thunderbolt capability, and you will get to the sweet spot of about $999. Based on these calculations, it's easy to see that the LG monitor is overpriced by about $400, given the fact that it is housed in an ugly plastic body. The fair price for the LG 5K UltraFine monitor is $899, not $1299.
If Apple released their own 27" 5K LED monitor based on the current iMac design, they would not lose much of the ASP compared to the ASP that they are selling their lowest-end iMac at. In fact, a lot of folks would prefer buying a Mac Mini to pair it with the Apple's 5K LED monitor instead of buying an iMac because the former combination makes much more sense, as the computer can be upgraded within a couple years while the monitor can be kept for 10 years.
The 5K monitor will probably be relevant for the next 10 years, as the 1080p monitors still being sold have been around for at least a decade now or perhaps even longer. The component costs for such a monitor will be reduced with time, so the ASP of such a monitor will be gradually increasing for years to come.
Of course, Apple can also release a higher-end professional-level monitor and charge $2000 or more for it, but there needs to be a sub-$1000 27" 5K LED monitor from Apple that works flawlessly with the current generation of Thunderbolt Macs and also looks good on the desk unlike the ugly LG UltraFie monitor. The most mind-blowing part of this is that Apple doesn't need to invest anything to design such a monitor. They can literally reuse the current iMac body and the current iMac display panel or they can spend a few million dollars and shrink the depth and the bezels of the current iMac body design for the 5K monitor. In latter case, the ROI would be ridiculously high, as Apple can literally sell over a million monitors in just the first quarter it goes on sale.
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.
No I'm talking about the early 2000's MacBook (especially the black one). That was a great laptop. A friend wiped out on his motorcycle going 70 mph; he ended up in surgery for several hours but his MacBook was ok except for a few scratches.
Nope the Dream lives on; I just expect that it will take 5 - 7 years to evolve MacOs and iOS to that point. Marzipan is just the start.
"In the future, Apple will probably have this opportunity to reduce costs by dropping Intel."
I bet you that Apple's CPU/GPU won't be much cheaper. We're already paying a premium for the iOS devices. CPU cost is not the issue.
"In the future, Apple will probably have this opportunity to reduce costs by dropping Intel."
I bet you that Apple's CPU/GPU won't be much cheaper. We're already paying a premium for the iOS devices. CPU cost is not the issue.
"In the future, Apple will probably have this opportunity to reduce costs by dropping Intel."
I bet you that Apple's CPU/GPU won't be much cheaper. We're already paying a premium for the iOS devices. CPU cost is not the issue.
But yet, we aren't. The Apple TV is $169.
$169 is one trip to a grocery store. The Apple TV will last you for 3-4 years. This price is ridiculously low for the quality of the box.
I wish Apple would price their other gadgets with the same approach. We shouldn't complain about the price of the Apple TV. Let's instead focus on how ridiculously overpriced the iPhones and Macs are. If Apple can drop $200 off their current low-end Macs by using their own chips, that would make a tremendous difference. Apple should also stop gouging for upgrades in RAM and SSD. I'm actually surprised they are getting away with that sort of strategy by soldering in RAM and SSD and then gouging for anything but the lowest-end configuration. If the government can't punish Tim Cook for this sort of extortion, the customers will. It's time for the shareholders to sound an alarm.
As I was reading through this article and comments, something hit me, the 2018 MacMini is not really a replacement for the 2014 MacMini. It is the 12 year late replacement for the low end PowerMac. When the MacPro came out it started at $2499 (Could be custom ordered at $2299). This was the replacement for the $1999+ PowerMacs, however the $1499-$1799 Single Core PowerMac was never truly replaced (https://everymac.com/global-mac-prices/mac-prices-us-usa-united-states-america.html). I am one of the people who missed the "Mid Range" non-all-in-one desktop Mac. If you configure the MacMini with 512GB of storage and either the i5 or the i7 it is $1299-$1499, back in the sweet spot for the old mid-range Macs. But even looking at the small base storage, it makes sense for the mac cloud server farm they highlighted in their introduction video. If you are using it to do builds you do not need that much storage. In the Linux/Windows Server world attached to large SANs, it is not uncommon to have 100GB or less boot partition. We have some VMWare blades that only have a 32GB flash drive for booting and no onboard storage.
I believe Apple hit a home run with the new MacMini. The only issue it that it is really a MacMini Pro now and not the Switcher/Entry-Level computer of the past.
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.
Mike Wuerthele said: I started this gig forward-facing to the public in 2012 as a general gadget guy. Between 2012 to 2014 or so, there was a general gadget clean-up. The low-end of stuff wasn't as crappy anymore, and you could generally assume that something would at least be functional and work okay, if not pretty well overall for most users.
Something changed in 2014 or 2015, and we seem to be sliding back to crap-gadgets being super-prevalent again. I'm not even sure what factors led up to it.
Well, and beyond gadgets, computers, and tech-gear, it applies to other industries as well. We remodeled a house like 4 or 5 years ago, and I was amazed at how poor quality the building materials, fixtures, and such had become. My wife and I are now going on some 2nd or 3rd waves of various appliances as previous ones broke, and the quality of the replacements has been horrible (some even the same brand, similar model). A few months ago, we had to buy a new Dyson vacuum as our one of like 13 or 14 years finally had some issues that weren't worth fixing... but the new one is way more cheaply made.
And, it's not even like you can necessarily buy the higher end brands and spend your way out of the crap anymore, as much of the higher end stuff has been impacted as well.
sirozha said: If Apple released their own 27" 5K LED monitor based on the current iMac design, they would not lose much of the ASP compared to the ASP that they are selling their lowest-end iMac at. In fact, a lot of folks would prefer buying a Mac Mini to pair it with the Apple's 5K LED monitor instead of buying an iMac because the former combination makes much more sense, as the computer can be upgraded within a couple years while the monitor can be kept for 10 years.
The 5K monitor will probably be relevant for the next 10 years, as the 1080p monitors still being sold have been around for at least a decade now or perhaps even longer. The component costs for such a monitor will be reduced with time, so the ASP of such a monitor will be gradually increasing for years to come.
Of course, Apple can also release a higher-end professional-level monitor and charge $2000 or more for it, but there needs to be a sub-$1000 27" 5K LED monitor from Apple that works flawlessly with the current generation of Thunderbolt Macs and also looks good on the desk unlike the ugly LG UltraFie monitor. The most mind-blowing part of this is that Apple doesn't need to invest anything to design such a monitor. They can literally reuse the current iMac body and the current iMac display panel or they can spend a few million dollars and shrink the depth and the bezels of the current iMac body design for the 5K monitor. In latter case, the ROI would be ridiculously high, as Apple can literally sell over a million monitors in just the first quarter it goes on sale.
While I'm not sure I'm in the market for that much monitor right now, I agree with your points. If they can sell an iMac 5k for what they do, they can certainly sell just the display part at a 'reasonable' price and still make a good profit. While there are tons of other monitors out there, a lot of them would look like junk compared to something Apple would make. And, as you say, a display like that is a much longer term investment.
"In the future, Apple will probably have this opportunity to reduce costs by dropping Intel."
I bet you that Apple's CPU/GPU won't be much cheaper. We're already paying a premium for the iOS devices. CPU cost is not the issue.
But yet, we aren't. The Apple TV is $169.
Yep, which shows the pricing isn't really all that based on the cost of the parts. But, if it is Apple-part pricing vs what Apple has to pay a 3rd-party (Intel), it at least gives them more flexibility.
ajminnj said: I am one of the people who missed the "Mid Range" non-all-in-one desktop Mac. If you configure the MacMini with 512GB of storage and either the i5 or the i7 it is $1299-$1499, back in the sweet spot for the old mid-range Macs.
Same here. I wonder how many of us there are (aside from all the special-use applications it seems aimed at).
fallenjt said: Same for BMW and Mercedes. Don’t like it? Get a Camry or in this case, a China made brand PC.
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.
I think the iMac will be just fine, especially if they update it appropriately. While I'm not a fan of all-in-ones, I'm sure the average consumer is. So, those who aren't quite ready to buy into Apple's iOS-is-the-new-computer stuff would probably get an iMac. Once you start adding a reasonably good screen in and such, the mini doesn't look like as good of a deal anymore to someone who doesn't value multiple video inputs, or a specific monitor setup... or wants a really clean desk setup.
The problem with the analogy, though IMO, is that I don't quite know what the OS represents when it comes to cars. I'm a heck of a lot more locked into the Apple eco-system than I am picking a different brand of car.
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.
Apple never wanted the market. Most school districts have very specific purchase controls. The middlemen push HPs and Lenovos (and to a lesser extent, Dells).
Apple can't compete with Wintels in education...at all.
The old CRT bondi-blue and fruit colored iMacs could. They were sub 1000 and they included a mouse/kb and screen, backed by great service.
But the new Minis have none of that really. No mouse/kb or screen. 800 dollars for a Core i3-powered system that costs 500 dollars to assemble off the shelf is just too expensive. Tacking on a mouse/kb and screen makes that system cost almost 1000 dollars. That's between 200-400 more than the avg Lenovo thinkcentre in most pubic schools. Worse is that most software licenses get nuked and have to be repurchased.
For Apple to succeed in education, they'd need to really want to succeed there. It sounds circuitous but it's not. They'd need a 500 dollar Mini with a purchaseable screen option and mouse/kb for 6-700 dollars that could at least compete with Wintel offerings.
OR they'd need a compelling killer app for their 1100 iMacs that could justify the 2x price of the average public school computer. However neither of those cases are present this day.
This is where the cost of manufacturing is an issue, though, and that's one point we can't realistically begin to guess about. That doesn't stop anybody from trying, though, and especially so when there are key areas that we know are potential cost savings.
Such as Thunderbolt 3. There might well be K-12 schools that would like Thunderbolt 3, but there's surely none that need it on every unit in the building. Similarly, PCI-e NVMe storage could still be replaced by slower options -- like the flash cells in the sixth generation iPad we mentioned before.
Why schools shouldn't get Thunderbolt 3? Is a 5K monitor too much for a lab, auditorium and alike?
So a teacher shouldn't do video transcoding either, drop that NVMe SSD too.
What you want from Apple is basically a Chromebook !..
1) 4K60 is supported on HDMI 2.0. If said teacher wants 5K or Thunderbolt 3 for other reasons then the $799 mini would still be available.
2) There's nothing preventing video transcoding on a SSD that's not NVMe.
3) I'd be fine with a macOS chromebook. And how is this cheapening the macOS brand, given that there was a $499 mini for the last four years?
How do you know that Apple won't discount the $799 Mac Mini to $499 for education? This is why your project doesn't hold water.
The $799 mini educational price in volume is $749. I could see exceptions as low as $699, but not to every customer. To answer the larger question of how do we know? We have people we talk to about it.
This is right. It's not that Apple couldn't discount the Mini dramatically it's just that they don't care. They gave up on education. The Mini is an HTPC. A tinker box. A rack-mount capable mini server. A poor-man's workstation. All of the above. Each market is tiny but together it might be big enough to allow the Mini to trundle along until its next lack-luster update 4 years from now.
However the initial promise of the Mini is long dead. A cheap-headless, jack of all trades, Trojan-Horse Mac it ain't. Cuz it ain't cheap. And it's not super capable on the low end and that pretty much undermines half of the promise.
Comments
I never intended my statement to apply solely to desktops. But the number of customers primarily using MacBooks with external monitors isn’t likely that large. Those that are have many excellent and inexpensive options available to them. They may not all look like Apple products, but again, we’re talking about a black rectangle. Would 10% of Apple hardware buyers actually spend well over the market value to buy a matching Apple display that doesn’t offer any significant features over others in the market? I’m not even sure 10% of Apple hardware buyers are using a second display, or even as a primary one. While I agree with you that it would be an excellent branding option, I’m not sure it would really pay off for Apple at present. While such a business might make a billion, the profit would be quite slim, and the costs substantial. Since Apple is all about profit margins, a $1bb business doesn’t look so good unless Apple is pocketing the lionshare of that in profits. I’m not sure they would, even if 10% of their customers bought in.
Printers are a much more significant obstacle for user experience. Displays are about equal. Few have ever plugged in a modern monitor that didn’t just work, but a printer can be a major headache. Moreover, printers tend to sit in prominent spaces in offices for easy access, and their design is critical for fitting into that environment. And monitors all tend to look about the same — black rectangles. While one must always have a display, and therefore it is a much more critical part of a user interface, only a very small percentage of Apple devices need one, as most are built-in. The percentage who need an extra display for the majority of devices sold which have their own display is even smaller.
I also, though, get the impression they really thought iOS was going to more rapidly replace the Mac than it has. I say this for a few reasons... first, the amount of effort in messaging about being a 'computer' and leadership talking about how they are using iOS as their primary OS and such. But, also some of the iOS transitions we've seen recently, like adding more access to manage files and such. I think they are finally realizing that their philosophy of how iOS is the 'next thing' was being hampered by misunderstandings of crucial workflow differences (and deficiencies in iOS).
So, it might well be the case they both were contained in terms of what they could do, coupled with a real lack of effort given some plan of iOS being the successor. That also makes sense in light of the iMac Pro (which they did seem to be working on over this time). Maybe the plan was to have some 'pro' laptops and then the iMac Pro as the Mac line. After they realized it wasn't going to go down quite like that, they started once again on some of the other models.
You're absolutely correct that redesigning the mini shouldn't have taken so long. But, what gives me hope is that they didn't just update the CPU and maybe ports and give us another dual-core i5 machine. They seem to have 'done their homework' and really produced a great machine. The mini didn't need a massive redesign effort, but it needed what it got.
Aside from user-community xMac wishes, I really can't imagine them having done much better on the mini refresh/redesign. It exceeded my expectations. It has been a long time since I've said that.
Just keep in mind that there is a huge difference between having a product range that addresses a wide audience, and a price-race to the bottom. I'm more of an Apple-tech changing the world guy, than a, look at the fashion I can afford, kind of guy. As long as Apple makes great stuff, I'd like to see it at the lowest price possible (and still give Apple a health profit margin), not head toward gilded exclusive club pricing (which seems more like what they are doing these days).
Some might, but virtualshift's premise is faulty, though. I'm currently using a MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM and getting along just fine aside from a few things I'd like to be able to do, such as VMs. 8 GB is plenty of RAM for like 90% of users... even many pro users. 16 GB is as much as most of the pro machines (like the laptops) were LIMITED to until super recently. 8 GB is a perfectly reasonable amount of base RAM.
Storage, as well. 128 GB is fine, unless you NEED more. I'm certainly going to get 16 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage, minimally, but a lot of people don't need that, or need one or the other for specific purposes (i.e.: they might need lots of RAM, but only 128 GB storage, etc.)
Again, my only complaint is that they don't have a lower low-end model that is a bit closer match to an updated version of the previous gen at a lower price-point. ex: 8 GB RAM, 128 GB storage (maybe just internal normal SSD if it saves cost), 2-core i5, etc. for ~ $200 less. I'd not buy that, but it would open the mini to an even broader market.
Hmm, I'd like to believe that... but I wonder what evidence you see of this? The companies of the world seem to be churning out more crap than ever.
Something changed in 2014 or 2015, and we seem to be sliding back to crap-gadgets being super-prevalent again. I'm not even sure what factors led up to it.
The cheapest iMac that features a 27" 5K LED monitor, i5 quad-core CPU, 8GB RAM, 256 GB SSD) is $1721 (without the bundled keyboard and mouse). Subtract from $1721 the cost of the actual computer parts (based on the price of the 2018 Mac Mini ($799) similarly equipped: i3 quad-core CPU, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD), and you get $922. Then, add the cost of the parts required for the monitor's Thunderbolt capability, and you will get to the sweet spot of about $999. Based on these calculations, it's easy to see that the LG monitor is overpriced by about $400, given the fact that it is housed in an ugly plastic body. The fair price for the LG 5K UltraFine monitor is $899, not $1299.
If Apple released their own 27" 5K LED monitor based on the current iMac design, they would not lose much of the ASP compared to the ASP that they are selling their lowest-end iMac at. In fact, a lot of folks would prefer buying a Mac Mini to pair it with the Apple's 5K LED monitor instead of buying an iMac because the former combination makes much more sense, as the computer can be upgraded within a couple years while the monitor can be kept for 10 years.
The 5K monitor will probably be relevant for the next 10 years, as the 1080p monitors still being sold have been around for at least a decade now or perhaps even longer. The component costs for such a monitor will be reduced with time, so the ASP of such a monitor will be gradually increasing for years to come.
Of course, Apple can also release a higher-end professional-level monitor and charge $2000 or more for it, but there needs to be a sub-$1000 27" 5K LED monitor from Apple that works flawlessly with the current generation of Thunderbolt Macs and also looks good on the desk unlike the ugly LG UltraFie monitor. The most mind-blowing part of this is that Apple doesn't need to invest anything to design such a monitor. They can literally reuse the current iMac body and the current iMac display panel or they can spend a few million dollars and shrink the depth and the bezels of the current iMac body design for the 5K monitor. In latter case, the ROI would be ridiculously high, as Apple can literally sell over a million monitors in just the first quarter it goes on sale.
Nope the Dream lives on; I just expect that it will take 5 - 7 years to evolve MacOs and iOS to that point. Marzipan is just the start.
I wish Apple would price their other gadgets with the same approach. We shouldn't complain about the price of the Apple TV. Let's instead focus on how ridiculously overpriced the iPhones and Macs are. If Apple can drop $200 off their current low-end Macs by using their own chips, that would make a tremendous difference. Apple should also stop gouging for upgrades in RAM and SSD. I'm actually surprised they are getting away with that sort of strategy by soldering in RAM and SSD and then gouging for anything but the lowest-end configuration. If the government can't punish Tim Cook for this sort of extortion, the customers will. It's time for the shareholders to sound an alarm.
I believe Apple hit a home run with the new MacMini. The only issue it that it is really a MacMini Pro now and not the Switcher/Entry-Level computer of the past.
And iOS devices trounce MacOS devices in volume. So service income is largely dominated by iPads (ie cars) than Macs (trucks) anyway.
My question is should I keep the maxed out Mini or go with iMac Pro? When adding a monitor with Mini it is almost reaching the price of iMac Pro.
And, it's not even like you can necessarily buy the higher end brands and spend your way out of the crap anymore, as much of the higher end stuff has been impacted as well.
While I'm not sure I'm in the market for that much monitor right now, I agree with your points. If they can sell an iMac 5k for what they do, they can certainly sell just the display part at a 'reasonable' price and still make a good profit. While there are tons of other monitors out there, a lot of them would look like junk compared to something Apple would make. And, as you say, a display like that is a much longer term investment.
Yep, which shows the pricing isn't really all that based on the cost of the parts. But, if it is Apple-part pricing vs what Apple has to pay a 3rd-party (Intel), it at least gives them more flexibility.
Same here. I wonder how many of us there are (aside from all the special-use applications it seems aimed at).
I think the iMac will be just fine, especially if they update it appropriately. While I'm not a fan of all-in-ones, I'm sure the average consumer is. So, those who aren't quite ready to buy into Apple's iOS-is-the-new-computer stuff would probably get an iMac. Once you start adding a reasonably good screen in and such, the mini doesn't look like as good of a deal anymore to someone who doesn't value multiple video inputs, or a specific monitor setup... or wants a really clean desk setup.
The problem with the analogy, though IMO, is that I don't quite know what the OS represents when it comes to cars. I'm a heck of a lot more locked into the Apple eco-system than I am picking a different brand of car.
Apple never wanted the market. Most school districts have very specific purchase controls. The middlemen push HPs and Lenovos (and to a lesser extent, Dells).
Apple can't compete with Wintels in education...at all.
The old CRT bondi-blue and fruit colored iMacs could. They were sub 1000 and they included a mouse/kb and screen, backed by great service.
But the new Minis have none of that really. No mouse/kb or screen. 800 dollars for a Core i3-powered system that costs 500 dollars to assemble off the shelf is just too expensive. Tacking on a mouse/kb and screen makes that system cost almost 1000 dollars. That's between 200-400 more than the avg Lenovo thinkcentre in most pubic schools. Worse is that most software licenses get nuked and have to be repurchased.
For Apple to succeed in education, they'd need to really want to succeed there. It sounds circuitous but it's not. They'd need a 500 dollar Mini with a purchaseable screen option and mouse/kb for 6-700 dollars that could at least compete with Wintel offerings.
OR they'd need a compelling killer app for their 1100 iMacs that could justify the 2x price of the average public school computer. However neither of those cases are present this day.
This is right. It's not that Apple couldn't discount the Mini dramatically it's just that they don't care. They gave up on education. The Mini is an HTPC. A tinker box. A rack-mount capable mini server. A poor-man's workstation. All of the above. Each market is tiny but together it might be big enough to allow the Mini to trundle along until its next lack-luster update 4 years from now.
However the initial promise of the Mini is long dead. A cheap-headless, jack of all trades, Trojan-Horse Mac it ain't. Cuz it ain't cheap. And it's not super capable on the low end and that pretty much undermines half of the promise.