I quoted specs almost identical to the previous Mini G4.
Hard Drive prices have gone down so thats a wash.
A 64Mb Graphics card now should cost no more than the previous card.
If Apple spent more for a Core Single chip than the G4 than they are morons.
If they can charge only $100 more for a Mini WITH Airport, Bluetooth, and a remote they should be able to charge $499 for My Mini.
You haven't accounted for the difference in cpu prices. The same machine as the old one with the new cpu would be about $100 more, as long as Apple doesn't eat all of that for every machine they sell. Do you think they would do that?
Come on, guys. Hardware prices go down, not up. A 80Gb Hard Drive costs what a 60Gb cost a year ago. Same goes with RAM, same goes with optical drives, etc etc. Prices go down, not up.
And if Apple is paying $100 more for a Core SOLO, then they are idiots.
Like the other poster just said, why couldn't they use a Pentium M?
Better yet, why didn't they just stick to the PowerPC, which Mac users were perfectly happy with? Where are the benefits? Integrated Video Card? Higher Prices?
Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.
The price for the cpu is a bit high. Maybe $40 cheaper, going by Intel's mass pricing schedules.
The rest is also too high, it's true.
But they don't get iWork for free. By law, one division of a company must charge another fair market value for a part or service. So, whatever Apple charges a company or distributer must be charged for the software. The computer division "buys" the part from the software division.
None of that includes the other costs I mentioned which MUST be added in.
Also, distributers get the product for less than Apple sells it for at their own facilities. The distributers then sell them at a higher price to the stores.
That difference must also be accounted for. Apple might sell the $599 product to the distrib for $450, who then sells it to CompUsa for $525. That's approximate, of course. I'm not privy to Apple's numbers, but it's about right.
So, as Apple sells almost 50% of their product through their own organization, those prices must then be averaged with the list that Apple sells it at to arrive at the true wholesale price.
It's complex, because Apple must make a profit on that wholesale price as well, though a much smaller one.
Don't forget that the price also takes into account the costs of the rest of the company as well. It must pay for a certain percentage of the employees, rent, electricity costs, etc. Also insurance, medical plans, advertising. In short all of the expenses that a company has. Including, we don't want to forget, warrantee costs.
So, the cost of the parts is only a piece of the costs associated in building the product.
And speaking of building the product, Apple has to pay the companies who actually do build the products.
Come on, guys. Hardware prices go down, not up. A 80Gb Hard Drive costs what a 60Gb cost a year ago. Same goes with RAM, same goes with optical drives, etc etc. Prices go down, not up.
And if Apple is paying $100 more for a Core SOLO, then they are idiots.
Like the other poster just said, why couldn't they use a Pentium M?
Better yet, why didn't they just stick to the PowerPC, which Mac users were perfectly happy with? Where are the benefits? Integrated Video Card? Higher Prices?
They do. You're right. But we can compare to what Apple upgraded the Mini to a short while ago with their "silent" upgrade, not to what they were selling a year ago.
They aren't idiots for switching to Intel, just because the chips cost more. Staying on the PPC was company suicide. That's very clear.
IBM stated that they weren't going to continue development of the G5 in the direction Apple needed. And Freescale... Well, they don't make desktop chips. They haven't for several years. The chips Apple was buying from them are embedded chips. designed for automobiles, copiers, etc.
This will straighten itself out in the end. Apple was selling about 200 thousand Mini's a quarter, more last quarter. They will do better than that.
Wow... I actually found something I like about Macmini. I'm surprised to see CoreDuo CPU on a 478 socket. Once the faster intel CoreDuo comes out.... you can make your macmini faster. However, IGP still sucks, I already have few friends holding off on long waited intel macmini because of the IGP. I'm also one of them. Anyway, check out the 478 socket on the macmini intel reference board.
Fix it, Apple. Get a real graphics card in there and lower the price back to $499.
G4 Mac Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd
- 512MB RAM
Price: $599
Intel Core Solo Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 60GB hdd
- 512MB RAM
Price: $599
Considering the increased cost of the CPU, additional USB ports, audio IN addition, drastically better FSB, FrontRow with Apple Remote, etc...I think this is an EXCELLENT deal.
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.
They do. You just don't get them in the USA.
Their Smart city cars are about £7000 here in the UK after taxes. It's not a bad corollary with the Mac Mini either. The Smart is impractical for many people because it's too small and you can buy cheaper, uglier cars with less style for about the same money or less built by Kia or some other Asian manufacturer.
The Mac Mini is now clearly targeted towards someone who already has a PC or for grandma/grandpa who doesn't know jack about computers. Something in the math there which Apple did which showed them Intel GMA = $50 more profit per machine. Something in the research as well which showed Apple, look, there are people into games, and then there are those who want a computer for other stuff.... I had a point here somewhere but umm,..... never mind, carry on.....
The Mac Mini is now clearly targeted towards someone who already has a PC or for grandma/grandpa who doesn't know jack about computers. Something in the math there which Apple did which showed them Intel GMA = $50 more profit per machine. Something in the research as well which showed Apple, look, there are people into games, and then there are those who want a computer for other stuff.... I had a point here somewhere but umm,..... never mind, carry on.....
You do realize that the GMA950 actually out performs the 9200. (it is a performance upgrade over the G4 Mini's graphics-wise)
The number of people who ideally want a machine with just one PCI-E slot, but when they find out they can't get it, but a Power Mac instead, is very, very small.
People buy Power Macs because they can take 8 gigs (or is it 16 gigs now?) of EEC-RAM, two hard-drives (more if you get a third party hard drive mounting to go inside the G5 tower), and can have 4 processor cores.
And in the middle is the iMac. Nowt wrong with that either. IME People after midrange computers never, ever upgrade them internally.
The problem is, you get nerds saying not to buy all in one computers "because they can't be upgraded" even if the economics of doing so rarely makes sense. By the time someone may want to upgrade their computer ie. around the 2 years mark, CPU sockets, card slots, memory tech and even hard drives have moved on enough that you'd be buying old technology to keep a computer limping along. Selling your old iMac and buying a new one is cheaper as a whole.
I hear it all the time from acquaintances that say they don't but Mac because they asked a 'computer expert' and were told Macs weren't compatible and couldn't be upgraded. Both untruths where it actually matters.
Gamers of course are a law unto themselves but anyone considering a Mac Mini for gaming over an XBox wants their head seeing to.
And in the middle is the iMac. Nowt wrong with that either. IME People after midrange computers never, ever upgrade them internally.
I don't want to take anything away from the iMac, I think it is Apple's best value machine they have ever made. But you have to concede that it has a built-in display, which many people just do not want. Displays can last a lot longer than computers.
I still don't get why there is such reluctance amongst some of you for Apple to just give its customers that little bit more choice. It doesn't mean Apple have to sacrifice their aesthetics.
As someone else said, too sweet. Take out the wireless and drop the HD to 60 GB, and you've got something that Apple could make a profit off. Having said that, I'm glad that Apple didn't go with the previous-generation Pentium-M, and continue to hope that they are waiting for a Celeron 4xx to introduce a cheaper mini.
I still don't get why there is such reluctance amongst some of you for Apple to just give its customers that little bit more choice. It doesn't mean Apple have to sacrifice their aesthetics.
I say wait and see what Apple does with the PowerMac line. They may surprise you.
I don't want to take anything away from the iMac, I think it is Apple's best value machine they have ever made. But you have to concede that it has a built-in display, which many people just do not want. Displays can last a lot longer than computers.
Sure. But holding on to that 1024x768 crt for 4 years just to save £100 doesn't really make sense. The low end iMac isn't much more expensive than the high end Mini and you get a beautiful screen and much more with it.
Or to be less obtuse, I was using a 1024x768 LCD with crap viewing angles and dimmer backlight 2 years ago. Now I have a 1440x900 widescreen iMac screen. Who knows what monitors will be like in 2 years time. Both OSX and Windows are shifting to device independent resolutions. At that point, I'll probably buy another new iMac.
It's not an issue for the mid range.
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
Sure. But holding on to that 1024x768 crt for 4 years just to save £100 doesn't really make sense. The low end iMac isn't much more expensive than the high end Mini and you get a beautiful screen and much more with it.
Or to be less obtuse, I was using a 1024x768 LCD with crap viewing angles and dimmer backlight 2 years ago. Now I have a 1440x900 widescreen iMac screen. Who knows what monitors will be like in 2 years time. Both OSX and Windows are shifting to device independent resolutions. At that point, I'll probably buy another new iMac.
It's not an issue for the mid range.
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
But what if you want a bigger screen. I may not want to upgrade in a year or 2 but want an iMac power computer with a 23 - 30" screen - I can only do this via a PM & I don't need all that performance or such a big machine.....
I noticed how you can't build to order a 7200 rpm dive for the new Mac Mini, but you can build to order a 100GB 7200 rpm drive for the Mac Book Pro.
Does anyone possibly know of a 3rd party 7200 rpm hard drive that would fit inside the Mac mini? Also, by doing so, would that or would that not void the warranty?
Comments
Originally posted by steve666
I quoted specs almost identical to the previous Mini G4.
Hard Drive prices have gone down so thats a wash.
A 64Mb Graphics card now should cost no more than the previous card.
If Apple spent more for a Core Single chip than the G4 than they are morons.
If they can charge only $100 more for a Mini WITH Airport, Bluetooth, and a remote they should be able to charge $499 for My Mini.
You haven't accounted for the difference in cpu prices. The same machine as the old one with the new cpu would be about $100 more, as long as Apple doesn't eat all of that for every machine they sell. Do you think they would do that?
And if Apple is paying $100 more for a Core SOLO, then they are idiots.
Like the other poster just said, why couldn't they use a Pentium M?
Better yet, why didn't they just stick to the PowerPC, which Mac users were perfectly happy with? Where are the benefits? Integrated Video Card? Higher Prices?
Originally posted by steve666
Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.
The price for the cpu is a bit high. Maybe $40 cheaper, going by Intel's mass pricing schedules.
The rest is also too high, it's true.
But they don't get iWork for free. By law, one division of a company must charge another fair market value for a part or service. So, whatever Apple charges a company or distributer must be charged for the software. The computer division "buys" the part from the software division.
None of that includes the other costs I mentioned which MUST be added in.
Also, distributers get the product for less than Apple sells it for at their own facilities. The distributers then sell them at a higher price to the stores.
That difference must also be accounted for. Apple might sell the $599 product to the distrib for $450, who then sells it to CompUsa for $525. That's approximate, of course. I'm not privy to Apple's numbers, but it's about right.
So, as Apple sells almost 50% of their product through their own organization, those prices must then be averaged with the list that Apple sells it at to arrive at the true wholesale price.
It's complex, because Apple must make a profit on that wholesale price as well, though a much smaller one.
Don't forget that the price also takes into account the costs of the rest of the company as well. It must pay for a certain percentage of the employees, rent, electricity costs, etc. Also insurance, medical plans, advertising. In short all of the expenses that a company has. Including, we don't want to forget, warrantee costs.
So, the cost of the parts is only a piece of the costs associated in building the product.
And speaking of building the product, Apple has to pay the companies who actually do build the products.
Take two aspirins, and call me in the morning.
It's important to have a good CFO.
Originally posted by steve666
Come on, guys. Hardware prices go down, not up. A 80Gb Hard Drive costs what a 60Gb cost a year ago. Same goes with RAM, same goes with optical drives, etc etc. Prices go down, not up.
And if Apple is paying $100 more for a Core SOLO, then they are idiots.
Like the other poster just said, why couldn't they use a Pentium M?
Better yet, why didn't they just stick to the PowerPC, which Mac users were perfectly happy with? Where are the benefits? Integrated Video Card? Higher Prices?
They do. You're right. But we can compare to what Apple upgraded the Mini to a short while ago with their "silent" upgrade, not to what they were selling a year ago.
They aren't idiots for switching to Intel, just because the chips cost more. Staying on the PPC was company suicide. That's very clear.
IBM stated that they weren't going to continue development of the G5 in the direction Apple needed. And Freescale... Well, they don't make desktop chips. They haven't for several years. The chips Apple was buying from them are embedded chips. designed for automobiles, copiers, etc.
This will straighten itself out in the end. Apple was selling about 200 thousand Mini's a quarter, more last quarter. They will do better than that.
Judging by the negative reaction from many people (not necessarily on this biased board), Apple did not come out with a winner.
Fix it, Apple. Get a real graphics card in there and lower the price back to $499.
Originally posted by steve666
Fix it, Apple. Get a real graphics card in there and lower the price back to $499.
G4 Mac Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd
- 512MB RAM
Price: $599
Intel Core Solo Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 60GB hdd
- 512MB RAM
Price: $599
Considering the increased cost of the CPU, additional USB ports, audio IN addition, drastically better FSB, FrontRow with Apple Remote, etc...I think this is an EXCELLENT deal.
Intel Pentium M Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd (3.5")
- 512MB RAM
- x1300 64mb graphic card
Price: $499
Now *THAT* would be a sweet deal for $499.
Originally posted by backtomac
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.
They do. You just don't get them in the USA.
Their Smart city cars are about £7000 here in the UK after taxes. It's not a bad corollary with the Mac Mini either. The Smart is impractical for many people because it's too small and you can buy cheaper, uglier cars with less style for about the same money or less built by Kia or some other Asian manufacturer.
Originally posted by sunilraman
How about:
Intel Pentium M Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd (3.5")
- 512MB RAM
- x1300 64mb graphic card
Price: $499
Now *THAT* would be a sweet deal for $499.
Such a great deal that I doubt Apple could turn a decent profit.
Originally posted by steve666
Your prices are all wrong, dude. Apple doesnt pay anywhere near what you're quoting, and Apple doesnt pay a dime to include iWork.
Of course they do. Or do you think Apple's programmers work for free?
Originally posted by sunilraman
The Mac Mini is now clearly targeted towards someone who already has a PC or for grandma/grandpa who doesn't know jack about computers. Something in the math there which Apple did which showed them Intel GMA = $50 more profit per machine. Something in the research as well which showed Apple, look, there are people into games, and then there are those who want a computer for other stuff.... I had a point here somewhere but umm,..... never mind, carry on.....
You do realize that the GMA950 actually out performs the 9200. (it is a performance upgrade over the G4 Mini's graphics-wise)
Originally posted by Mr. H
The number of people who ideally want a machine with just one PCI-E slot, but when they find out they can't get it, but a Power Mac instead, is very, very small.
People buy Power Macs because they can take 8 gigs (or is it 16 gigs now?) of EEC-RAM, two hard-drives (more if you get a third party hard drive mounting to go inside the G5 tower), and can have 4 processor cores.
And in the middle is the iMac. Nowt wrong with that either. IME People after midrange computers never, ever upgrade them internally.
The problem is, you get nerds saying not to buy all in one computers "because they can't be upgraded" even if the economics of doing so rarely makes sense. By the time someone may want to upgrade their computer ie. around the 2 years mark, CPU sockets, card slots, memory tech and even hard drives have moved on enough that you'd be buying old technology to keep a computer limping along. Selling your old iMac and buying a new one is cheaper as a whole.
I hear it all the time from acquaintances that say they don't but Mac because they asked a 'computer expert' and were told Macs weren't compatible and couldn't be upgraded. Both untruths where it actually matters.
Gamers of course are a law unto themselves but anyone considering a Mac Mini for gaming over an XBox wants their head seeing to.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And in the middle is the iMac. Nowt wrong with that either. IME People after midrange computers never, ever upgrade them internally.
I don't want to take anything away from the iMac, I think it is Apple's best value machine they have ever made. But you have to concede that it has a built-in display, which many people just do not want. Displays can last a lot longer than computers.
I still don't get why there is such reluctance amongst some of you for Apple to just give its customers that little bit more choice. It doesn't mean Apple have to sacrifice their aesthetics.
Originally posted by sunilraman
How about:
Intel Pentium M Mini, with:
- Airport
- Bluetooth
- 80GB hdd (3.5")
- 512MB RAM
- x1300 64mb graphic card
Price: $499
Now *THAT* would be a sweet deal for $499.
As someone else said, too sweet. Take out the wireless and drop the HD to 60 GB, and you've got something that Apple could make a profit off. Having said that, I'm glad that Apple didn't go with the previous-generation Pentium-M, and continue to hope that they are waiting for a Celeron 4xx to introduce a cheaper mini.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I still don't get why there is such reluctance amongst some of you for Apple to just give its customers that little bit more choice. It doesn't mean Apple have to sacrifice their aesthetics.
I say wait and see what Apple does with the PowerMac line. They may surprise you.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I don't want to take anything away from the iMac, I think it is Apple's best value machine they have ever made. But you have to concede that it has a built-in display, which many people just do not want. Displays can last a lot longer than computers.
Sure. But holding on to that 1024x768 crt for 4 years just to save £100 doesn't really make sense. The low end iMac isn't much more expensive than the high end Mini and you get a beautiful screen and much more with it.
Or to be less obtuse, I was using a 1024x768 LCD with crap viewing angles and dimmer backlight 2 years ago. Now I have a 1440x900 widescreen iMac screen. Who knows what monitors will be like in 2 years time. Both OSX and Windows are shifting to device independent resolutions. At that point, I'll probably buy another new iMac.
It's not an issue for the mid range.
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sure. But holding on to that 1024x768 crt for 4 years just to save £100 doesn't really make sense. The low end iMac isn't much more expensive than the high end Mini and you get a beautiful screen and much more with it.
Or to be less obtuse, I was using a 1024x768 LCD with crap viewing angles and dimmer backlight 2 years ago. Now I have a 1440x900 widescreen iMac screen. Who knows what monitors will be like in 2 years time. Both OSX and Windows are shifting to device independent resolutions. At that point, I'll probably buy another new iMac.
It's not an issue for the mid range.
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
But what if you want a bigger screen. I may not want to upgrade in a year or 2 but want an iMac power computer with a 23 - 30" screen - I can only do this via a PM & I don't need all that performance or such a big machine.....
Does anyone possibly know of a 3rd party 7200 rpm hard drive that would fit inside the Mac mini? Also, by doing so, would that or would that not void the warranty?
Thanks in advance.