Basically I just wanted to say Matsu - you hit the nail on the head. I think anyone who disagrees is an Apple apologist type/zealot who thinks Apple has no secret motive and can do no wrong because they are one of the "good" companies.
I don't really understand this line of argument. Granting Matsu's line of speculation, and acknowledging the incredibly positive reception that the $499 price point has received, the cynical thing to believe would be that Apple would use the cheap parts, and so make more money per unit. We know that Apple engineered the thing to be profitable for them. It's no loss leader. That makes the question more interesting.
Clearly, there's more going on here than just component cost reduction.
I'm going to advance a hypothetical argument that inverts his. I'm not claiming that I'm "right," and he's "wrong," because we can't possibly know that—my intention is to show that there are other ways to see this.
The component "stacking" and the snap-on case assembly make the mini look for all the world like an iPod. What if Apple realized that the iPod design had been refined to a level of manufacturability that would really help the bottom line if applied to a Mac? Eyeballing it, it looks like the thing could be machine assembled all the way to the very end, which gives you significant cost reductions and excellent scalability and consistency of manufacture.
Say that "make this so we can build it like an iPod" was an early design goal. So, after-the-fact upgradability is the first thing to go out the window. Given that: There's no point in having two RAM slots, so that's gone, and if it's going to be small and unexpandable, you might as well take that as far as you can: Small means low-risk, non-threatening, no big commitment or imposition here. It also triggers geek fetishes in a bad way. If you look at the picture of the innards, there really is hardly any slack: The hard drive and optical drive stack up to about the height and width of the RAM chip, for instance. So, let's say that once the team had gotten the costs down, they were actually able to splurge on smaller parts to serve the additional goal of making the mini "sexy," or at least not risky, from a psychological and aesthetic point of view.
In brief, what if the design was driven by manufacturability as a major cost reduction (works for iPods: Compare the price of an iPod to the retail price of its drive!), and miniaturization (also an iPod characteristic)? User upgradability was not sacrificed to the latter, but to the former: If you build it so that a robot can just snap the case together, then good luck taking it back apart.
Quote:
I can't understand why anyone would think using slower/more expensive hard drives would have any benefit
Besides the fact that Apple can buy them in bulk, the slower hard drives have two other desirable characteristics: They run cool, and they run quiet. The drive in the mini has an 8MB cache, which means that most file accesses will be effectively RAM-to-RAM transactions, much faster than any transfer from a drive platter.
Quote:
They use those ide drives in their desktops which use quite a bit of those same drives they could be using with more space in them which would have let them STILL get a discount.
So you're saying that they're soaking the extra cost for no reason? Or that they'd have been able to offer the mini for $493.56 if only they'd shipped a bigger, hotter, cheaper drive?
Perhaps it's unbelievable to you, but it seems reasonable to me to assume that Apple had some reason to go with what appear to be pricier components in a low-end machine. What they did would only be cynical if the slower drives were cheaper. But they aren't.
As per usual, my comments are misconstrued: given the calm unbiased tenor of my posts, I fail to see why. HAHA...
Ola Amorph, Sure there's other stuff going on in the design process. Apple has certainly gone for the digital appliance look because they feel it is the best way to make the mini appealing enough without threatening their AIO business. Apple still wants you to buy AIO's. I believe that.
I also think that the whole story of the mini is not told, and given the impending ubiquity of high quality and cheap displays, the performance of the mini in the market will cause Apple to rethink the ideal computing form-factor for consumers.
However, I do not think that the reaction to the mini would be any less favorable if the device were a cube, say 6.5"^3, and incorporated a higher spec for the same 499-599 prices. There are benefits to that tact, not the least of which are the use of more robust desktop components. It also allows the power supply to come inboard, eliminating desktop clutter, while keeping the same footprint and leaving potential for more powerful internals in future revisions.
I'm not too concerned about it, really, if the mini does well, I expect to see more and more varied "appliance" macs... a "powermac mini" perhaps?
I'm just pointing out that, as sold, the mini isn't really a very good iLife capable mac, you can make it one,, but you have o spend some extra dosh to get there.
I don't really understand this line of argument. Granting Matsu's line of speculation, and acknowledging the incredibly positive reception that the $499 price point has received, the cynical thing to believe would be that Apple would use the cheap parts, and so make more money per unit. We know that Apple engineered the thing to be profitable for them. It's no loss leader. That makes the question more interesting.
Clearly, there's more going on here than just component cost reduction.
If you read over Matsu's postings he clearly states what Apples intent is - get people to buy iMacs after they buy a MiniMac - and if they don't buy an iMac - at least they bought a MiniMac. It's expensive/hard to find parts for such a machine like one gigabyte stick of ram and larger faster hard drives. So basically what they do is get a bigger discount on their laptop hard drives that they already buy and make it hard/expensive for the user to upgrade their MiniMac and basically you just go buy another mac and maybe you get another MiniMac or maybe you get one of those spiffy new iMacs where Apple probably makes more money.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
I'm going to advance a hypothetical argument that inverts his. I'm not claiming that I'm "right," and he's "wrong," because we can't possibly know that—my intention is to show that there are other ways to see this.
The component "stacking" and the snap-on case assembly make the mini look for all the world like an iPod. What if Apple realized that the iPod design had been refined to a level of manufacturability that would really help the bottom line if applied to a Mac? Eyeballing it, it looks like the thing could be machine assembled all the way to the very end, which gives you significant cost reductions and excellent scalability and consistency of manufacture.
Say that "make this so we can build it like an iPod" was an early design goal. So, after-the-fact upgradability is the first thing to go out the window. Given that: There's no point in having two RAM slots, so that's gone, and if it's going to be small and unexpandable, you might as well take that as far as you can: Small means low-risk, non-threatening, no big commitment or imposition here. It also triggers geek fetishes in a bad way. If you look at the picture of the innards, there really is hardly any slack: The hard drive and optical drive stack up to about the height and width of the RAM chip, for instance. So, let's say that once the team had gotten the costs down, they were actually able to splurge on smaller parts to serve the additional goal of making the mini "sexy," or at least not risky, from a psychological and aesthetic point of view.
In brief, what if the design was driven by manufacturability as a major cost reduction (works for iPods: Compare the price of an iPod to the retail price of its drive!), and miniaturization (also an iPod characteristic)? User upgradability was not sacrificed to the latter, but to the former: If you build it so that a robot can just snap the case together, then good luck taking it back apart.
I don't understand at all why you seem to think making it use a laptop hard drive or using only one ram slot make it easier for a robot to do it's job - I mean if this thing had four ram slots and a 3.5" hard drive with a slightly larger case configuring the machines to do such a thing seems very very trivial. Sexy? I mean - we all loved the cube and this thing is smaller than that - we are talking at best a few inches people - INCHES AT BEST - I am talking like AN INCH - ONE INCH. I just don't see them thinking yeah lets see how small we can make this thing so screw another ram slot - because that just saves SOOOOO much money and users love not being able to upgrade their machines especially the pc crowd we are trying to rope into buying a mac.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Besides the fact that Apple can buy them in bulk, the slower hard drives have two other desirable characteristics: They run cool, and they run quiet. The drive in the mini has an 8MB cache, which means that most file accesses will be effectively RAM-to-RAM transactions, much faster than any transfer from a drive platter.
So you're saying that they're soaking the extra cost for no reason? Or that they'd have been able to offer the mini for $493.56 if only they'd shipped a bigger, hotter, cheaper drive?
Apple buys every hard drive they buy in bulk so it doesn't matter. So what are we left with? Runs quiet? Newer hard drives are always coming up with ways to reduce sound - heat? They do that too - I saw a thread here or somewhere about a guy who swapped out his older slower drive with a newer one and it was cooler and sounded about just the same. Areial density is going up up up. What else are we left with - 8MB cache? That's nothing special - many hard drives have that. So what do we have left - they run slower and cost more money to the end user - but Apple can make it harder for the end user to upgrade and they get to have a discount on their laptop hard drives and use them in desktop machines.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Perhaps it's unbelievable to you, but it seems reasonable to me to assume that Apple had some reason to go with what appear to be pricier components in a low-end machine. What they did would only be cynical if the slower drives were cheaper. But they aren't.
Again - Matsu clearly stated why they went with such configurations. Good for them - bad for the user.
I don't understand at all why you seem to think making it use a laptop hard drive or using only one ram slot make it easier for a robot to do it's job
You have my reasoning exactly backward: The case assembly (borrowed from the iPod) makes it easier for the robot to do its job, and given that the case assembly is not easy to pry open, there's no point engineering the insides to be user upgradable.
That was my line of speculation: What if they started with "can we build a Mac the way we build an iPod?" From there, the very first step is to realize that the Mac wouldn't be any more internally upgradable than the iPod is. The design would proceed from there.
Quote:
I just don't see them thinking yeah lets see how small we can make this thing so screw another ram slot
Again, you have my reasoning backwards: As a direct consequence of the first design decision, the case isn't easy to open, so there's no point providing two RAM slots, so there's no point making the case bigger.
Quote:
Runs quiet? Newer hard drives are always coming up with ways to reduce sound - heat? They do that too
True. With the notebook drives more than with the desktop drives, because the notebook drives are under much more pressure to be cool and quiet.
Quote:
What else are we left with - 8MB cache? That's nothing special - many hard drives have that.
I never said it was. I did, however, say that it makes the spindle speed of the drive irrelevant in most cases.
Quote:
So what do we have left - they run slower and cost more money to the end user - but Apple can make it harder for the end user to upgrade and they get to have a discount on their laptop hard drives and use them in desktop machines.
To what end? Can you explain the iMac in these terms?
It seems much more obvious to me that they started with the realization that building the Mac mini like an iPod would be the major savings, and everything else followed from that.
Quote:
Again - Matsu clearly stated why they went with such configurations. Good for them - bad for the user.
Right, because Apple is part of a massive conspiracy against its users, because that's good for them. That's why the iMac isn't upgradable at all—oh, wait....
That kind of cynicism is cheap generally, and doesn't make any sense to me in this instance.
There is no evidence to support that. Even the furthest possible deviation from my analysis still puts desktop drives at the same cost (while offering a minimum of twice the storage, and superior speed)
If there were any economies of scale to be exploited in the use of 2.5" drives, other, far more cost conscious, manufacturers than Apple would have been using them in desktops for months! Likewise, if there were any real money to be saved in making a computer extra compact, those same manufacturers would already be doing so. They aren't, because there isn't. It's that simple.
"Interestingly, although using a 2.5-inch laptop drive might have seemed unnecessarily expensive, the word is that by the time Apple calculated the total cost of the less-expensive but larger 3.5-inch drives, the diminutive laptop drives turned out to be an overall cheaper approach. Apple also reportedly chose, when picking components, to avoid the least expensive ones because the cost of component failure ends up being greater than the extra component cost (not to mention that customers end up happier)."
You have my reasoning exactly backward: The case assembly (borrowed from the iPod) makes it easier for the robot to do its job, and given that the case assembly is not easy to pry open, there's no point engineering the insides to be user upgradable.
That was my line of speculation: What if they started with "can we build a Mac the way we build an iPod?" From there, the very first step is to realize that the Mac wouldn't be any more internally upgradable than the iPod is. The design would proceed from there.
I understand that are saying that making it possible for a machine to do it easy reduces cost/whatever - but what you are suggesting doesn't make it any "easier" for a machine to do it's job. Engineering a machine to not be easy to open doesn't equal easy for a robot to make - but if you check out that video that was just posted on the forums the machine actually is easy to open with a putty knife. I really don't know why you bring up the iPod - this machine has the ability to upgrade the ram and add blue tooth and airport extreme - all internally, by the user or technician it is still made to be upgradeable in some aspects - obviously not all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Again, you have my reasoning backwards: As a direct consequence of the first design decision, the case isn't easy to open, so there's no point providing two RAM slots, so there's no point making the case bigger.
Well like I said earlier it actually is easy to open so once again - they only made it hard/expensive to upgrade for the end user because it was good for them.
True. With the notebook drives more than with the desktop drives, because the notebook drives are under much more pressure to be cool and quiet.
I never said it was. I did, however, say that it makes the spindle speed of the drive irrelevant in most cases.
Yes notebook hard drives are under more pressure but - the difference isn't that much IMO when you sacrafice that much performance/ability to upgrade/price.
Spindle speed can make a difference in some things - I certainly would want more instead of less - especially at that speed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
It seems much more obvious to me that they started with the realization that building the Mac mini like an iPod would be the major savings, and everything else followed from that.
Right, because Apple is part of a massive conspiracy against its users, because that's good for them. That's why the iMac isn't upgradable at all—oh, wait....
That kind of cynicism is cheap generally, and doesn't make any sense to me in this instance.
I still don't get what "building an minimac like an iPod" means really? I mean - do you honestly think they sit in a board room and shoot philosophies back and forth over how they think building a new product would work out? You say major savings but - there are none - a fraction of a fraction smaller case - absolute minimal savings along with one ram slot while yes technically less money - I honestly think we are talking cents on the cost of an over all machine. They use laptop hard drives which cost more money and are slower - they could use new hard drives that are just as quiet and just as cool but are faster and are cheaper - but they dont? Why? I am not saying Apple has some secret agenda to have it out for their users but lets be honest - Apple is a company that is in this to make money - They do what is in their interest - not yours, if it happens to benefit you - all the better for you.
BTW - The iMac uses 7200 SATA drives... the kind you can get at best buy for a decent price and has two ram slots.
BTW - The iMac uses 7200 SATA drives... the kind you can get at best buy for a decent price and has two ram slots.
Okay, dude, he was being completely sarcastic about the user upgradeable iMac thing.
That's his point, you just seem to miss it everytime.
Apple clearly knows that it is a good thing to have user upgradeable products, particularly in their mainstream products.
They built the mini the way they did for a reason. And a reason that they've told us publically.
It's the cheapest f-ing mac ever made. That's its purpose. Anyone can have one.
It's purpose was not to be an ultimately upgradeable be-all-end-all-mac-of-doom!(tm)
And if they cut manufacturing costs so that a machine could just pop a lid on the top (CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN SCREWS!! WHICH IS WHAT AMORPH MEANS BY IPOD-LIKE CONSTRUCTION).
Snap-together, ultra fast construction. They can fly off the machine line.
"Interestingly, although using a 2.5-inch laptop drive might have seemed unnecessarily expensive, the word is that by the time Apple calculated the total cost of the less-expensive but larger 3.5-inch drives, the diminutive laptop drives turned out to be an overall cheaper approach. Apple also reportedly chose, when picking components, to avoid the least expensive ones because the cost of component failure ends up being greater than the extra component cost (not to mention that customers end up happier)."
Adam knows.
Adam can be just as wrong as you can, read your quote again. 2.5" drives turned out to be the overall cheaper approach, but somehow they avoided choosing the cheapest components? If the 2.5" drives are the cheapest, Apple certainly didn't avoid them. They did avoid 3.5" OTOH... But more crucially, no where does it compare like components. 40GB 2.5" drives as compared to what? 40GB 3.5", 80GB ??? Sorry, but here he's just repeating the PR line -- which can be tweaked in innumerable ways.
It's more like what I've been saying. Apple did NOT try to build the cheapest computer, but rather the cheapest computer that would define itself differently than the e/iMac. They're willing to take a hit on overall profitability per unit in order to protect that distinction because (for now) they think there's more money to be made in doing so. I contend that such a manouver was unneccessary, that the mini would be just as appealing (without any negligible effect on costs, and perhaps likely a favorable one) if it were made slightly more robust (RAM/airport/HDD). That would however, basically annihilate the eMac, and Apple isn't ready for that... yet.
Okay, dude, he was being completely sarcastic about the user upgradeable iMac thing.
That's his point, you just seem to miss it everytime.
Apple clearly knows that it is a good thing to have user upgradeable products, particularly in their mainstream products.
They built the mini the way they did for a reason. And a reason that they've told us publically.
It's the cheapest f-ing mac ever made. That's its purpose. Anyone can have one.
It's purpose was not to be an ultimately upgradeable be-all-end-all-mac-of-doom!(tm)
And if they cut manufacturing costs so that a machine could just pop a lid on the top (CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN SCREWS!! WHICH IS WHAT AMORPH MEANS BY IPOD-LIKE CONSTRUCTION).
Snap-together, ultra fast construction. They can fly off the machine line.
That makes sense to me.
I certainly don't feel screwed.
Ok fine - it's supposed to be cheap - then why use laptop hard drives that cost more money and are slower AND are smaller. It's cheaper to use tabs instead of screws and easier to open - cool... why not use a standard desktop hard drive then? You act like upgrading the hard drive turns this thing into an xserve or something - It's just a hard drive - people often do it.
Ok fine - it's supposed to be cheap - then why use laptop hard drives that cost more money and are slower AND are smaller. It's cheaper to use tabs instead of screws and easier to open - cool... why not use a standard desktop hard drive then? You act like upgrading the hard drive turns this thing into an xserve or something - It's just a hard drive - people often do it.
I thought we've already determined that the notebook drives were in fact, cheaper?
And that alone is enough reason.
My point is, on a product like this there's no real reason to give it massive expandability. Apple has no. motivation. at. all. to. do. so.
Just buy an external why don't you?
Anyone else who cares this much will either do that or just buy a different model.
I still don't get what "building an minimac like an iPod" means really? I mean - do you honestly think they sit in a board room and shoot philosophies back and forth over how they think building a new product would work out?
I'll give you the engineering perspective.
You design a product that is to be user serviceable in a totally different way than one that is non-user serviceable. Products like iPod and many of Apple's accessories are designed with minimal human involvement in manufacturing to keep costs down. They're designed with specific manufacturing equipment in mind. They're designed with specific components in mind - down to the screws. They're designed with specific service needs in mind (how long does it take a trained support guy to swap a hard drive?) This is especially true for low-cost items because the margins tend to be a little lower, and the net profit tends to be much smaller in dollars. Keep in mind that the 1 year warranty on the mini is the same as the 1 year warranty on the Powermac. If Apple profits $100 on the mini and $750 on the dual 2.5 (yeah, sorry, that's about what it is) the $100 has to cover the expected costs of doing HD replacements for a year that Apple affords $750 to do in the Powermac.
They factor *all* of this stuff in. By cutting the number of screws down in the mini, they save a minute or 5 minutes or whatever, which gets multiplied out by the replacement probability which gets factored across the whole profit margin. (I suspect the Applecare guys have a neato jig that they can stuff the mini on which pops the top in one move - maybe faster than opening the Powermac case.)
My guess is that after production and operations, Apple will get less than $50 per unit profit. That $50 exists because they saved $7 on the assembly line by eliminating screws and the equipment to install them, $5 by cutting out one person, $4 by reducing shipping costs, $1 with the easy to remove (for them) case, and on and on. And quite possibly by simplifying production, Apple gets the ability to expand manufacturing substantially should demand exceed projections (let's all hope).
From of production standpoint, this is the iPod of the mac world.
You design a product that is to be user serviceable in a totally different way than one that is non-user serviceable. Products like iPod and many of Apple's accessories are designed with minimal human involvement in manufacturing to keep costs down. They're designed with specific manufacturing equipment in mind. They're designed with specific components in mind - down to the screws. They're designed with specific service needs in mind (how long does it take a trained support guy to swap a hard drive?) This is especially true for low-cost items because the margins tend to be a little lower, and the net profit tends to be much smaller in dollars. Keep in mind that the 1 year warranty on the mini is the same as the 1 year warranty on the Powermac. If Apple profits $100 on the mini and $750 on the dual 2.5 (yeah, sorry, that's about what it is) the $100 has to cover the expected costs of doing HD replacements for a year that Apple affords $750 to do in the Powermac.
They factor *all* of this stuff in. By cutting the number of screws down in the mini, they save a minute or 5 minutes or whatever, which gets multiplied out by the replacement probability which gets factored across the whole profit margin. (I suspect the Applecare guys have a neato jig that they can stuff the mini on which pops the top in one move - maybe faster than opening the Powermac case.)
My guess is that after production and operations, Apple will get less than $50 per unit profit. That $50 exists because they saved $7 on the assembly line by eliminating screws and the equipment to install them, $5 by cutting out one person, $4 by reducing shipping costs, $1 with the easy to remove (for them) case, and on and on. And quite possibly by simplifying production, Apple gets the ability to expand manufacturing substantially should demand exceed projections (let's all hope).
From of production standpoint, this is the iPod of the mac world.
I never doubted that they sat down and pinched pennies and figured out exactly how to squeeze money out of this machine down to a T. What I do doubt is that this was some how "modeled" after the iPod - I just really don't see the connection.
I thought we've already determined that the notebook drives were in fact, cheaper?
And that alone is enough reason.
My point is, on a product like this there's no real reason to give it massive expandability. Apple has no. motivation. at. all. to. do. so.
Just buy an external why don't you?
Anyone else who cares this much will either do that or just buy a different model.
Oi.
No - all you did was give a link to a person saying that is what they heard - That doesn't prove anything except you have a link. And fine - lets just pretend that it was cheaper to use laptop hard drives right - How hard would it be to make the case an inch thicker so you could put your own 3.5" drive that you can grab from any best buy and upgrade it if you want? Not hard - at all... at all.
No - all you did was give a link to a person saying that is what they heard - That doesn't prove anything except you have a link. And fine - lets just pretend that it was cheaper to use laptop hard drives right - How hard would it be to make the case an inch thicker so you could put your own 3.5" drive that you can grab from any best buy and upgrade it if you want? Not hard - at all... at all.
Why would they do that?
Really, why? What's the point?
They'll lose, it looks like, your sale and maybe one or two others.
And those are sales that are outside their expected market anyway...
It doesn't make sense within the scope of this product release to bother.
They could have. I would have appreciated it.
But they didn't. I couldn't care less. It hardly matters for a machine like this. It's a cheap box for switchers and lite users.
Like the iPod, they didn't try to make something to be everything for everybody.
P.S: I'm amused that when ridiculing my emphasis on "at all" you do so by asking (again!) the question I addressed with that very point... Thanks so much for reading it.
I never doubted that they sat down and pinched pennies and figured out exactly how to squeeze money out of this machine down to a T. What I do doubt is that this was some how "modeled" after the iPod - I just really don't see the connection.
I think the connection is that Apple learned a lot about how to build and sell a low-cost product while preserving margins. Surely Apple mgmt looked at people buying $499 iPods in large numbers, overlooking the replaceable battery and other limitations (such as built-in this and that) over competing products. They watched a massive 3rd party market develop around the product by opening the hooks into the system. They learned how to service and support a small closed-box solution.
The mini really looks to me to be a product that is the result of setting out to build a new iPod, but with Mac guts. There are compromises in the components to achieve not only low cost, but also to create a unique product. There are PCs with similar form factor, but lack the expansion and performance of the mini. There are PCs that match the performance and expansion, but don't have the form factor, etc. The 3rd party market is assured by limiting what's built into the product but offering sufficient access to the system - DVI, Firewire are unique options in this space but you wouldn't see HTPC options without them. Not only will the 3rd party market develop, but it'll develop around the mini form factor - little square hard drive cases, little square breakout boxes, etc. The mini, being an essentially closed system means that it'll be a buy-and-forget product. People will buy 2, replace them often, etc. It'll be an impulse buy, a toy for many buyers.
There are a ton of parallels between the mini and iPod that don't exist between the mini and any other product except maybe the original iMac.
I never doubted that they sat down and pinched pennies and figured out exactly how to squeeze money out of this machine down to a T. What I do doubt is that this was some how "modeled" after the iPod - I just really don't see the connection.
Don't make that out to be more than it is.
The iPod is a buy-it-and-use-it item that works with whatever computer you have (well, Windows & Mac at least -- which covers almost all of them). The iPod is not designed to be user modifiable, or user serviceable (e.g. battery replacement). It is designed to be cheap to manufacture for Apple, have an appealing and user friendly design, and to make it to the end of its warranty period without issue as often as possible. It is designed for the under-$500 price point, with enough accessories to bait you into spending more.
The iMac mini is a buy-it-and-use-it item that works with whatever computer peripherals you have (display, keyboard, mouse, printer, cameras, networks). The iMac mini is not designed to be user modifiable, or user serviceable (e.g. RAM upgrades). It is designed to be cheap to manufacture for Apple, have an appealing and user friendly design, and to make it to the end of its warranty period without issue as often as possible. It is designed for the $500 price point, with enough options and accessories to bait you into spending more.
Now not designing it to be user serviceable is not the same as designing it to not be user serviceable. Apple hasn't gone out of their way to make it impossible (or even difficult) for the user to open -- not even as much as the original Mac which required special screw bits on long drivers. They just didn't pay it any mind when they were designing it to be optimal for machine assembly.
The hard disk issue (and all other engineering aspects) are more involved than many people seem to give credit for. This is true of most engineering, I find -- and generally its not worth wasting breath trying to explain all the details... especially since only the guys at Apple have all the details. I'm quite sure, however, that they carefully weighed all the factors of part costs, reliability, heat, power, rotational speed, seek rate, bandwidth, cache size, durability, ergonomic factors, etc before deciding to put a 2.5" drive into the mini. When they balanced all these factors against their goals, the answer was a 2.5" drive.
For me, what watching the video of opening the mini's case really drove was not anything about the opening of the case -- it was the size of this machine. This is nothing short of stunning. What a feat of engineering! And what would an extra half inch per side mean, besides more weight and more materials? Well, for one thing that extra size would hugely impact what it feels like when you hold this thing in your hand. When has that ever mattered before for a desktop computer? Why does it matter now? I can't answer that, but I bet the design guys at Apple have a bunch of ideas about it. Perhaps it is simply so that it can sit on top of any PC case, or sit between your keyboard and display. The point is that they developed a vision for the product that defines the product, and they produced a design that meets that vision. That alone makes it worth more than most hunk'o'junk PCs on the market.
I have to wonder what else those Apple design guys are up to over at the Infinte Loop.
When has that ever mattered before for a desktop computer? Why does it matter now? I can't answer that, but I bet the design guys at Apple have a bunch of ideas about it. Perhaps it is simply so that it can sit on top of any PC case, or sit between your keyboard and display. The point is that they developed a vision for the product that defines the product, and they produced a design that meets that vision. That alone makes it worth more than most hunk'o'junk PCs on the market.
I wonder who will be the first to stuff the mini into a full-height drive bay in their tower. I think it's a bit too big, but it's close...
Comments
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
Basically I just wanted to say Matsu - you hit the nail on the head. I think anyone who disagrees is an Apple apologist type/zealot who thinks Apple has no secret motive and can do no wrong because they are one of the "good" companies.
I don't really understand this line of argument. Granting Matsu's line of speculation, and acknowledging the incredibly positive reception that the $499 price point has received, the cynical thing to believe would be that Apple would use the cheap parts, and so make more money per unit. We know that Apple engineered the thing to be profitable for them. It's no loss leader. That makes the question more interesting.
Clearly, there's more going on here than just component cost reduction.
I'm going to advance a hypothetical argument that inverts his. I'm not claiming that I'm "right," and he's "wrong," because we can't possibly know that—my intention is to show that there are other ways to see this.
The component "stacking" and the snap-on case assembly make the mini look for all the world like an iPod. What if Apple realized that the iPod design had been refined to a level of manufacturability that would really help the bottom line if applied to a Mac? Eyeballing it, it looks like the thing could be machine assembled all the way to the very end, which gives you significant cost reductions and excellent scalability and consistency of manufacture.
Say that "make this so we can build it like an iPod" was an early design goal. So, after-the-fact upgradability is the first thing to go out the window. Given that: There's no point in having two RAM slots, so that's gone, and if it's going to be small and unexpandable, you might as well take that as far as you can: Small means low-risk, non-threatening, no big commitment or imposition here. It also triggers geek fetishes in a bad way.
In brief, what if the design was driven by manufacturability as a major cost reduction (works for iPods: Compare the price of an iPod to the retail price of its drive!), and miniaturization (also an iPod characteristic)? User upgradability was not sacrificed to the latter, but to the former: If you build it so that a robot can just snap the case together, then good luck taking it back apart.
I can't understand why anyone would think using slower/more expensive hard drives would have any benefit
Besides the fact that Apple can buy them in bulk, the slower hard drives have two other desirable characteristics: They run cool, and they run quiet. The drive in the mini has an 8MB cache, which means that most file accesses will be effectively RAM-to-RAM transactions, much faster than any transfer from a drive platter.
They use those ide drives in their desktops which use quite a bit of those same drives they could be using with more space in them which would have let them STILL get a discount.
So you're saying that they're soaking the extra cost for no reason? Or that they'd have been able to offer the mini for $493.56 if only they'd shipped a bigger, hotter, cheaper drive?
Perhaps it's unbelievable to you, but it seems reasonable to me to assume that Apple had some reason to go with what appear to be pricier components in a low-end machine. What they did would only be cynical if the slower drives were cheaper. But they aren't.
OPENING YOUR MAC MINI - THE MOVIE <">
/http://www.smashsworld.com/2005/01/taking-apart-mac-mini-how-to.php
Get it before it's banned!
Ola Amorph, Sure there's other stuff going on in the design process. Apple has certainly gone for the digital appliance look because they feel it is the best way to make the mini appealing enough without threatening their AIO business. Apple still wants you to buy AIO's. I believe that.
I also think that the whole story of the mini is not told, and given the impending ubiquity of high quality and cheap displays, the performance of the mini in the market will cause Apple to rethink the ideal computing form-factor for consumers.
However, I do not think that the reaction to the mini would be any less favorable if the device were a cube, say 6.5"^3, and incorporated a higher spec for the same 499-599 prices. There are benefits to that tact, not the least of which are the use of more robust desktop components. It also allows the power supply to come inboard, eliminating desktop clutter, while keeping the same footprint and leaving potential for more powerful internals in future revisions.
I'm not too concerned about it, really, if the mini does well, I expect to see more and more varied "appliance" macs... a "powermac mini" perhaps?
I'm just pointing out that, as sold, the mini isn't really a very good iLife capable mac, you can make it one,, but you have o spend some extra dosh to get there.
Originally posted by Amorph
I don't really understand this line of argument. Granting Matsu's line of speculation, and acknowledging the incredibly positive reception that the $499 price point has received, the cynical thing to believe would be that Apple would use the cheap parts, and so make more money per unit. We know that Apple engineered the thing to be profitable for them. It's no loss leader. That makes the question more interesting.
Clearly, there's more going on here than just component cost reduction.
If you read over Matsu's postings he clearly states what Apples intent is - get people to buy iMacs after they buy a MiniMac - and if they don't buy an iMac - at least they bought a MiniMac. It's expensive/hard to find parts for such a machine like one gigabyte stick of ram and larger faster hard drives. So basically what they do is get a bigger discount on their laptop hard drives that they already buy and make it hard/expensive for the user to upgrade their MiniMac and basically you just go buy another mac and maybe you get another MiniMac or maybe you get one of those spiffy new iMacs where Apple probably makes more money.
Originally posted by Amorph
I'm going to advance a hypothetical argument that inverts his. I'm not claiming that I'm "right," and he's "wrong," because we can't possibly know that—my intention is to show that there are other ways to see this.
The component "stacking" and the snap-on case assembly make the mini look for all the world like an iPod. What if Apple realized that the iPod design had been refined to a level of manufacturability that would really help the bottom line if applied to a Mac? Eyeballing it, it looks like the thing could be machine assembled all the way to the very end, which gives you significant cost reductions and excellent scalability and consistency of manufacture.
Say that "make this so we can build it like an iPod" was an early design goal. So, after-the-fact upgradability is the first thing to go out the window. Given that: There's no point in having two RAM slots, so that's gone, and if it's going to be small and unexpandable, you might as well take that as far as you can: Small means low-risk, non-threatening, no big commitment or imposition here. It also triggers geek fetishes in a bad way.
In brief, what if the design was driven by manufacturability as a major cost reduction (works for iPods: Compare the price of an iPod to the retail price of its drive!), and miniaturization (also an iPod characteristic)? User upgradability was not sacrificed to the latter, but to the former: If you build it so that a robot can just snap the case together, then good luck taking it back apart.
I don't understand at all why you seem to think making it use a laptop hard drive or using only one ram slot make it easier for a robot to do it's job - I mean if this thing had four ram slots and a 3.5" hard drive with a slightly larger case configuring the machines to do such a thing seems very very trivial. Sexy? I mean - we all loved the cube and this thing is smaller than that - we are talking at best a few inches people - INCHES AT BEST - I am talking like AN INCH - ONE INCH. I just don't see them thinking yeah lets see how small we can make this thing so screw another ram slot - because that just saves SOOOOO much money and users love not being able to upgrade their machines especially the pc crowd we are trying to rope into buying a mac.
Originally posted by Amorph
Besides the fact that Apple can buy them in bulk, the slower hard drives have two other desirable characteristics: They run cool, and they run quiet. The drive in the mini has an 8MB cache, which means that most file accesses will be effectively RAM-to-RAM transactions, much faster than any transfer from a drive platter.
So you're saying that they're soaking the extra cost for no reason? Or that they'd have been able to offer the mini for $493.56 if only they'd shipped a bigger, hotter, cheaper drive?
Apple buys every hard drive they buy in bulk so it doesn't matter. So what are we left with? Runs quiet? Newer hard drives are always coming up with ways to reduce sound - heat? They do that too - I saw a thread here or somewhere about a guy who swapped out his older slower drive with a newer one and it was cooler and sounded about just the same. Areial density is going up up up. What else are we left with - 8MB cache? That's nothing special - many hard drives have that. So what do we have left - they run slower and cost more money to the end user - but Apple can make it harder for the end user to upgrade and they get to have a discount on their laptop hard drives and use them in desktop machines.
Originally posted by Amorph
Perhaps it's unbelievable to you, but it seems reasonable to me to assume that Apple had some reason to go with what appear to be pricier components in a low-end machine. What they did would only be cynical if the slower drives were cheaper. But they aren't.
Again - Matsu clearly stated why they went with such configurations. Good for them - bad for the user.
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
I don't understand at all why you seem to think making it use a laptop hard drive or using only one ram slot make it easier for a robot to do it's job
You have my reasoning exactly backward: The case assembly (borrowed from the iPod) makes it easier for the robot to do its job, and given that the case assembly is not easy to pry open, there's no point engineering the insides to be user upgradable.
That was my line of speculation: What if they started with "can we build a Mac the way we build an iPod?" From there, the very first step is to realize that the Mac wouldn't be any more internally upgradable than the iPod is. The design would proceed from there.
I just don't see them thinking yeah lets see how small we can make this thing so screw another ram slot
Again, you have my reasoning backwards: As a direct consequence of the first design decision, the case isn't easy to open, so there's no point providing two RAM slots, so there's no point making the case bigger.
Runs quiet? Newer hard drives are always coming up with ways to reduce sound - heat? They do that too
True. With the notebook drives more than with the desktop drives, because the notebook drives are under much more pressure to be cool and quiet.
What else are we left with - 8MB cache? That's nothing special - many hard drives have that.
I never said it was. I did, however, say that it makes the spindle speed of the drive irrelevant in most cases.
So what do we have left - they run slower and cost more money to the end user - but Apple can make it harder for the end user to upgrade and they get to have a discount on their laptop hard drives and use them in desktop machines.
To what end? Can you explain the iMac in these terms?
It seems much more obvious to me that they started with the realization that building the Mac mini like an iPod would be the major savings, and everything else followed from that.
Again - Matsu clearly stated why they went with such configurations. Good for them - bad for the user.
Right, because Apple is part of a massive conspiracy against its users, because that's good for them. That's why the iMac isn't upgradable at all—oh, wait....
That kind of cynicism is cheap generally, and doesn't make any sense to me in this instance.
Originally posted by Matsu
There is no evidence to support that. Even the furthest possible deviation from my analysis still puts desktop drives at the same cost (while offering a minimum of twice the storage, and superior speed)
If there were any economies of scale to be exploited in the use of 2.5" drives, other, far more cost conscious, manufacturers than Apple would have been using them in desktops for months! Likewise, if there were any real money to be saved in making a computer extra compact, those same manufacturers would already be doing so. They aren't, because there isn't. It's that simple.
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07952
"Interestingly, although using a 2.5-inch laptop drive might have seemed unnecessarily expensive, the word is that by the time Apple calculated the total cost of the less-expensive but larger 3.5-inch drives, the diminutive laptop drives turned out to be an overall cheaper approach. Apple also reportedly chose, when picking components, to avoid the least expensive ones because the cost of component failure ends up being greater than the extra component cost (not to mention that customers end up happier)."
Adam knows.
Originally posted by Amorph
You have my reasoning exactly backward: The case assembly (borrowed from the iPod) makes it easier for the robot to do its job, and given that the case assembly is not easy to pry open, there's no point engineering the insides to be user upgradable.
That was my line of speculation: What if they started with "can we build a Mac the way we build an iPod?" From there, the very first step is to realize that the Mac wouldn't be any more internally upgradable than the iPod is. The design would proceed from there.
I understand that are saying that making it possible for a machine to do it easy reduces cost/whatever - but what you are suggesting doesn't make it any "easier" for a machine to do it's job. Engineering a machine to not be easy to open doesn't equal easy for a robot to make - but if you check out that video that was just posted on the forums the machine actually is easy to open with a putty knife. I really don't know why you bring up the iPod - this machine has the ability to upgrade the ram and add blue tooth and airport extreme - all internally, by the user or technician it is still made to be upgradeable in some aspects - obviously not all.
Originally posted by Amorph
Again, you have my reasoning backwards: As a direct consequence of the first design decision, the case isn't easy to open, so there's no point providing two RAM slots, so there's no point making the case bigger.
Well like I said earlier it actually is easy to open so once again - they only made it hard/expensive to upgrade for the end user because it was good for them.
http://www.smashsworld.com/uploads/macminidl.php
There is the movie to open it.
Originally posted by Amorph
True. With the notebook drives more than with the desktop drives, because the notebook drives are under much more pressure to be cool and quiet.
I never said it was. I did, however, say that it makes the spindle speed of the drive irrelevant in most cases.
Yes notebook hard drives are under more pressure but - the difference isn't that much IMO when you sacrafice that much performance/ability to upgrade/price.
Spindle speed can make a difference in some things - I certainly would want more instead of less - especially at that speed.
Originally posted by Amorph
It seems much more obvious to me that they started with the realization that building the Mac mini like an iPod would be the major savings, and everything else followed from that.
Right, because Apple is part of a massive conspiracy against its users, because that's good for them. That's why the iMac isn't upgradable at all—oh, wait....
That kind of cynicism is cheap generally, and doesn't make any sense to me in this instance.
I still don't get what "building an minimac like an iPod" means really? I mean - do you honestly think they sit in a board room and shoot philosophies back and forth over how they think building a new product would work out? You say major savings but - there are none - a fraction of a fraction smaller case - absolute minimal savings along with one ram slot while yes technically less money - I honestly think we are talking cents on the cost of an over all machine. They use laptop hard drives which cost more money and are slower - they could use new hard drives that are just as quiet and just as cool but are faster and are cheaper - but they dont? Why? I am not saying Apple has some secret agenda to have it out for their users but lets be honest - Apple is a company that is in this to make money - They do what is in their interest - not yours, if it happens to benefit you - all the better for you.
BTW - The iMac uses 7200 SATA drives... the kind you can get at best buy for a decent price and has two ram slots.
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
BTW - The iMac uses 7200 SATA drives... the kind you can get at best buy for a decent price and has two ram slots.
Okay, dude, he was being completely sarcastic about the user upgradeable iMac thing.
That's his point, you just seem to miss it everytime.
Apple clearly knows that it is a good thing to have user upgradeable products, particularly in their mainstream products.
They built the mini the way they did for a reason. And a reason that they've told us publically.
It's the cheapest f-ing mac ever made. That's its purpose. Anyone can have one.
It's purpose was not to be an ultimately upgradeable be-all-end-all-mac-of-doom!(tm)
And if they cut manufacturing costs so that a machine could just pop a lid on the top (CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN SCREWS!! WHICH IS WHAT AMORPH MEANS BY IPOD-LIKE CONSTRUCTION).
Snap-together, ultra fast construction. They can fly off the machine line.
That makes sense to me.
I certainly don't feel screwed.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07952
"Interestingly, although using a 2.5-inch laptop drive might have seemed unnecessarily expensive, the word is that by the time Apple calculated the total cost of the less-expensive but larger 3.5-inch drives, the diminutive laptop drives turned out to be an overall cheaper approach. Apple also reportedly chose, when picking components, to avoid the least expensive ones because the cost of component failure ends up being greater than the extra component cost (not to mention that customers end up happier)."
Adam knows.
Adam can be just as wrong as you can, read your quote again. 2.5" drives turned out to be the overall cheaper approach, but somehow they avoided choosing the cheapest components? If the 2.5" drives are the cheapest, Apple certainly didn't avoid them. They did avoid 3.5" OTOH... But more crucially, no where does it compare like components. 40GB 2.5" drives as compared to what? 40GB 3.5", 80GB ??? Sorry, but here he's just repeating the PR line -- which can be tweaked in innumerable ways.
It's more like what I've been saying. Apple did NOT try to build the cheapest computer, but rather the cheapest computer that would define itself differently than the e/iMac. They're willing to take a hit on overall profitability per unit in order to protect that distinction because (for now) they think there's more money to be made in doing so. I contend that such a manouver was unneccessary, that the mini would be just as appealing (without any negligible effect on costs, and perhaps likely a favorable one) if it were made slightly more robust (RAM/airport/HDD). That would however, basically annihilate the eMac, and Apple isn't ready for that... yet.
Originally posted by iRobot
Okay, dude, he was being completely sarcastic about the user upgradeable iMac thing.
That's his point, you just seem to miss it everytime.
Apple clearly knows that it is a good thing to have user upgradeable products, particularly in their mainstream products.
They built the mini the way they did for a reason. And a reason that they've told us publically.
It's the cheapest f-ing mac ever made. That's its purpose. Anyone can have one.
It's purpose was not to be an ultimately upgradeable be-all-end-all-mac-of-doom!(tm)
And if they cut manufacturing costs so that a machine could just pop a lid on the top (CHEAPER AND FASTER THAN SCREWS!! WHICH IS WHAT AMORPH MEANS BY IPOD-LIKE CONSTRUCTION).
Snap-together, ultra fast construction. They can fly off the machine line.
That makes sense to me.
I certainly don't feel screwed.
Ok fine - it's supposed to be cheap - then why use laptop hard drives that cost more money and are slower AND are smaller. It's cheaper to use tabs instead of screws and easier to open - cool... why not use a standard desktop hard drive then? You act like upgrading the hard drive turns this thing into an xserve or something - It's just a hard drive - people often do it.
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
Ok fine - it's supposed to be cheap - then why use laptop hard drives that cost more money and are slower AND are smaller. It's cheaper to use tabs instead of screws and easier to open - cool... why not use a standard desktop hard drive then? You act like upgrading the hard drive turns this thing into an xserve or something - It's just a hard drive - people often do it.
I thought we've already determined that the notebook drives were in fact, cheaper?
And that alone is enough reason.
My point is, on a product like this there's no real reason to give it massive expandability. Apple has no. motivation. at. all. to. do. so.
Just buy an external why don't you?
Anyone else who cares this much will either do that or just buy a different model.
Oi.
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
I still don't get what "building an minimac like an iPod" means really? I mean - do you honestly think they sit in a board room and shoot philosophies back and forth over how they think building a new product would work out?
I'll give you the engineering perspective.
You design a product that is to be user serviceable in a totally different way than one that is non-user serviceable. Products like iPod and many of Apple's accessories are designed with minimal human involvement in manufacturing to keep costs down. They're designed with specific manufacturing equipment in mind. They're designed with specific components in mind - down to the screws. They're designed with specific service needs in mind (how long does it take a trained support guy to swap a hard drive?) This is especially true for low-cost items because the margins tend to be a little lower, and the net profit tends to be much smaller in dollars. Keep in mind that the 1 year warranty on the mini is the same as the 1 year warranty on the Powermac. If Apple profits $100 on the mini and $750 on the dual 2.5 (yeah, sorry, that's about what it is) the $100 has to cover the expected costs of doing HD replacements for a year that Apple affords $750 to do in the Powermac.
They factor *all* of this stuff in. By cutting the number of screws down in the mini, they save a minute or 5 minutes or whatever, which gets multiplied out by the replacement probability which gets factored across the whole profit margin. (I suspect the Applecare guys have a neato jig that they can stuff the mini on which pops the top in one move - maybe faster than opening the Powermac case.)
My guess is that after production and operations, Apple will get less than $50 per unit profit. That $50 exists because they saved $7 on the assembly line by eliminating screws and the equipment to install them, $5 by cutting out one person, $4 by reducing shipping costs, $1 with the easy to remove (for them) case, and on and on. And quite possibly by simplifying production, Apple gets the ability to expand manufacturing substantially should demand exceed projections (let's all hope).
From of production standpoint, this is the iPod of the mac world.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
I'll give you the engineering perspective.
You design a product that is to be user serviceable in a totally different way than one that is non-user serviceable. Products like iPod and many of Apple's accessories are designed with minimal human involvement in manufacturing to keep costs down. They're designed with specific manufacturing equipment in mind. They're designed with specific components in mind - down to the screws. They're designed with specific service needs in mind (how long does it take a trained support guy to swap a hard drive?) This is especially true for low-cost items because the margins tend to be a little lower, and the net profit tends to be much smaller in dollars. Keep in mind that the 1 year warranty on the mini is the same as the 1 year warranty on the Powermac. If Apple profits $100 on the mini and $750 on the dual 2.5 (yeah, sorry, that's about what it is) the $100 has to cover the expected costs of doing HD replacements for a year that Apple affords $750 to do in the Powermac.
They factor *all* of this stuff in. By cutting the number of screws down in the mini, they save a minute or 5 minutes or whatever, which gets multiplied out by the replacement probability which gets factored across the whole profit margin. (I suspect the Applecare guys have a neato jig that they can stuff the mini on which pops the top in one move - maybe faster than opening the Powermac case.)
My guess is that after production and operations, Apple will get less than $50 per unit profit. That $50 exists because they saved $7 on the assembly line by eliminating screws and the equipment to install them, $5 by cutting out one person, $4 by reducing shipping costs, $1 with the easy to remove (for them) case, and on and on. And quite possibly by simplifying production, Apple gets the ability to expand manufacturing substantially should demand exceed projections (let's all hope).
From of production standpoint, this is the iPod of the mac world.
I never doubted that they sat down and pinched pennies and figured out exactly how to squeeze money out of this machine down to a T. What I do doubt is that this was some how "modeled" after the iPod - I just really don't see the connection.
Originally posted by iRobot
I thought we've already determined that the notebook drives were in fact, cheaper?
And that alone is enough reason.
My point is, on a product like this there's no real reason to give it massive expandability. Apple has no. motivation. at. all. to. do. so.
Just buy an external why don't you?
Anyone else who cares this much will either do that or just buy a different model.
Oi.
No - all you did was give a link to a person saying that is what they heard - That doesn't prove anything except you have a link. And fine - lets just pretend that it was cheaper to use laptop hard drives right - How hard would it be to make the case an inch thicker so you could put your own 3.5" drive that you can grab from any best buy and upgrade it if you want? Not hard - at all... at all.
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
No - all you did was give a link to a person saying that is what they heard - That doesn't prove anything except you have a link. And fine - lets just pretend that it was cheaper to use laptop hard drives right - How hard would it be to make the case an inch thicker so you could put your own 3.5" drive that you can grab from any best buy and upgrade it if you want? Not hard - at all... at all.
Why would they do that?
Really, why? What's the point?
They'll lose, it looks like, your sale and maybe one or two others.
And those are sales that are outside their expected market anyway...
It doesn't make sense within the scope of this product release to bother.
They could have. I would have appreciated it.
But they didn't. I couldn't care less. It hardly matters for a machine like this. It's a cheap box for switchers and lite users.
Like the iPod, they didn't try to make something to be everything for everybody.
P.S: I'm amused that when ridiculing my emphasis on "at all" you do so by asking (again!) the question I addressed with that very point... Thanks so much for reading it.
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
I never doubted that they sat down and pinched pennies and figured out exactly how to squeeze money out of this machine down to a T. What I do doubt is that this was some how "modeled" after the iPod - I just really don't see the connection.
I think the connection is that Apple learned a lot about how to build and sell a low-cost product while preserving margins. Surely Apple mgmt looked at people buying $499 iPods in large numbers, overlooking the replaceable battery and other limitations (such as built-in this and that) over competing products. They watched a massive 3rd party market develop around the product by opening the hooks into the system. They learned how to service and support a small closed-box solution.
The mini really looks to me to be a product that is the result of setting out to build a new iPod, but with Mac guts. There are compromises in the components to achieve not only low cost, but also to create a unique product. There are PCs with similar form factor, but lack the expansion and performance of the mini. There are PCs that match the performance and expansion, but don't have the form factor, etc. The 3rd party market is assured by limiting what's built into the product but offering sufficient access to the system - DVI, Firewire are unique options in this space but you wouldn't see HTPC options without them. Not only will the 3rd party market develop, but it'll develop around the mini form factor - little square hard drive cases, little square breakout boxes, etc. The mini, being an essentially closed system means that it'll be a buy-and-forget product. People will buy 2, replace them often, etc. It'll be an impulse buy, a toy for many buyers.
There are a ton of parallels between the mini and iPod that don't exist between the mini and any other product except maybe the original iMac.
in an affordable machine but it blows away the 300MHz G3 tower
I purchased 6 years ago for $2,600.
Originally posted by PeePeeSee
I never doubted that they sat down and pinched pennies and figured out exactly how to squeeze money out of this machine down to a T. What I do doubt is that this was some how "modeled" after the iPod - I just really don't see the connection.
Don't make that out to be more than it is.
The iPod is a buy-it-and-use-it item that works with whatever computer you have (well, Windows & Mac at least -- which covers almost all of them). The iPod is not designed to be user modifiable, or user serviceable (e.g. battery replacement). It is designed to be cheap to manufacture for Apple, have an appealing and user friendly design, and to make it to the end of its warranty period without issue as often as possible. It is designed for the under-$500 price point, with enough accessories to bait you into spending more.
The iMac mini is a buy-it-and-use-it item that works with whatever computer peripherals you have (display, keyboard, mouse, printer, cameras, networks). The iMac mini is not designed to be user modifiable, or user serviceable (e.g. RAM upgrades). It is designed to be cheap to manufacture for Apple, have an appealing and user friendly design, and to make it to the end of its warranty period without issue as often as possible. It is designed for the $500 price point, with enough options and accessories to bait you into spending more.
Now not designing it to be user serviceable is not the same as designing it to not be user serviceable. Apple hasn't gone out of their way to make it impossible (or even difficult) for the user to open -- not even as much as the original Mac which required special screw bits on long drivers. They just didn't pay it any mind when they were designing it to be optimal for machine assembly.
The hard disk issue (and all other engineering aspects) are more involved than many people seem to give credit for. This is true of most engineering, I find -- and generally its not worth wasting breath trying to explain all the details... especially since only the guys at Apple have all the details. I'm quite sure, however, that they carefully weighed all the factors of part costs, reliability, heat, power, rotational speed, seek rate, bandwidth, cache size, durability, ergonomic factors, etc before deciding to put a 2.5" drive into the mini. When they balanced all these factors against their goals, the answer was a 2.5" drive.
For me, what watching the video of opening the mini's case really drove was not anything about the opening of the case -- it was the size of this machine. This is nothing short of stunning. What a feat of engineering! And what would an extra half inch per side mean, besides more weight and more materials? Well, for one thing that extra size would hugely impact what it feels like when you hold this thing in your hand. When has that ever mattered before for a desktop computer? Why does it matter now? I can't answer that, but I bet the design guys at Apple have a bunch of ideas about it. Perhaps it is simply so that it can sit on top of any PC case, or sit between your keyboard and display. The point is that they developed a vision for the product that defines the product, and they produced a design that meets that vision. That alone makes it worth more than most hunk'o'junk PCs on the market.
I have to wonder what else those Apple design guys are up to over at the Infinte Loop.
Originally posted by Programmer
When has that ever mattered before for a desktop computer? Why does it matter now? I can't answer that, but I bet the design guys at Apple have a bunch of ideas about it. Perhaps it is simply so that it can sit on top of any PC case, or sit between your keyboard and display. The point is that they developed a vision for the product that defines the product, and they produced a design that meets that vision. That alone makes it worth more than most hunk'o'junk PCs on the market.
I wonder who will be the first to stuff the mini into a full-height drive bay in their tower. I think it's a bit too big, but it's close...
Originally posted by johnsonwax
I wonder who will be the first to stuff the mini into a full-height drive bay in their tower. I think it's a bit too big, but it's close...
It'd only require a pretty basic casemod... and if you mounted a KVM inside?
Oooh... sexy.