Airport and Bluetooth are "free" with the Intel chipset Apple's using as I understand it (which is why they now support 802.11a having rubbished it for so long.)
I doubt the remote costs Apple more than $10.
So I don't think what you mention would reduce the costs to Apple by $100.
Much as I liked the fact there was a $499 Mac mini in the original line-up, I can't remember ever seeing the $499 one and saying "Yeah, I like/I'd recommend that." I think Apple's sane in starting at $600 for a full-featured model. They're not quite sane for releasing Core Solo based stuff *now* when we're still waiting for Universal Binaries, and the lack of accelerated graphics in the medium end ($800) model, even as an option, is a major turn-off for me. But the pricing I don't have an issue with.
The only way I can see for them to produce a cheaper Mac mini would be to spec it something like this:
Core Solo
Smallest drive available (probably 40G)
256Mb of RAM
No optical drive (use Firewire or USB)
Ethernet/BT/Airport/Crap Integrated Graphics/4 USB ports/etc
Even then, savings are from the second, third, and fourth items, and given the prices Apple pays, I'd be surprised if the saving averages more than $10 per item (maybe $20 for the RAM), so this (awful!) Mac mini probably couldn't sell profitably for $499.
I've said elsewhere, if I were Apple I'd have:
- Kept the Mac mini G4 versions for the low end, at least until next year or when Microsoft releases a UB of Office X, whichever is sooner.
- Released the Core Duo version at $800 as they did, today.
- Released a better Core Duo with a proper, iMac-like, graphics chip, and a gig of RAM, for $999 today. Both Core Duo versions could be a half inch higher than the machines they replace to ensure they have the space.
- When the G4 is fully obsoleted (see first point), replace that with a Core Solo version.
They're, all in all, in too much of a hurry to eliminate the PowerPCs from their lines. I don't think the time is right to release Core Solo based machines, and I especially think they'll harm the credibility of the platform if they do that on what was once the machine aimed at switchers and the rest of us.
IMHO, these are TRUE statements, MacMini Duo was rushed without thinking what it is meant... rather they shd hv released MacBook and once Yonah price are cheaper they shd hv released the $499 mac mini version with Solo
$499, i love the price point (whatever the specs may be)
MacBook will be attactive to most of us, see the last page of AnandTech review of Aopen MiniPC as well, they reflect the same feeling about MiniPC/MacMini/SmallFormFactor machines ....
if these machines were costlier people decide to choose a laptop than choosing a MiniPC/MacMini
Only the best of breed HTPCs beat current $200 upconverting DVD players like the Oppo IMHO. Yes, in the best of breed they will likely run PureVideo over ATI Catalyst these days as near as I can tell.
Vinea
Actually, Oppo has beaten even the top of the line DVD players that cost over $3k and there's no way that any HTPC at $3k range will beat Oppo video playback performance. This shows very simple point that software emulation in video playback isn't enough for high quality video playback. Most GPU chip manufacturers design their chip around 3D performance and few just started to improved on video playback quality. However, Intel IGP GMA950 isn't one of them yet, and new to be release GMA965 still lacks alot of features but going towards the right direction, though.
Anyway, I do own oppo dvd player as well as some denon dvd players, and $200 gets you very far in the videophile world, thanks to oppo. Maybe I should give up on HTPC as well. Atleaset I'm going to hold off on the current Macmini. Actually, compared to Macmini, intel-imacs look very attractive. You get so much for $500 more(17" monitor, faster CPU, mouse, keyboard, isight cam, faster and bigger HD, better optical drive, alot better GPU that has potential for good video playback), but I don't need the monitor and I need it in the smaller enclosure.
>One change to the Mac mini?s architecture appears even more controversial than the processor swap: The switch from ATI?s Radeon 9200 graphics with dedicated memory to integrated Intel graphics that use 64MB of system memory have some users up in arms. And while the debate continues, Macworld?s initial results show the new minis lagging behind their predecessors in Unreal Tournament 2004 by a couple of frames per second.<
That's a disgrace. Its performance was pathetic before now its just laughable.
Apple-you screwed us over by using an Integrated Video Card.
You said it sucked a few days ago, now all of a sudden it doesn't?
Memo to Steve Jobs-there's a limit to what you can get away with.
Call the sucker onto the mat and let him know he fucked up. Don't put up with his arrogance.
Apple-you screwed us over by using an Integrated Video Card.
I disagree. Apple screwed people over by not having the option for a decent video card. Most users just don't care about the GPU.
Quote:
Originally posted by bitemymac
This shows very simple point that software emulation in video playback isn't enough for high quality video playback.
fnrg (that's the sound of my brain hurting). It does not show this.
It does show that:
Mid-range and high-end GPU video de-interlacers and scalers are O.K., but not great.
Any HTPC software de-interlacers and scalers aren't that great either. That does not mean that they could not be better.
It also shows that you do not need expensive hardware to obtain a very high quality video signal.
On the software vs. hardware deinterlacer front, think of it like this:
At its simplest, a video de-interlacer and scaler is a block that has one signal input, and one signal output. It receives an interlaced, low resolution digital video signal in, does a load of maths, and spits out a progressive, high resolution digital video signal.
That "load of maths" can equally well be performed in software running on a CPU, or with dedicated hardware. Both solutions can perform exactly the same "load of maths", and therefore have exactly the same output signal quality.
CPUs and dedicated hardware have their own plus points and minus points, so the choice of how to perform the maths is a compromise. CPUs are extremely flexible, they can be programmed to do pretty much anything, the trade-off is that for a given function they are slow compared to dedicated hardware for that single function.
Dedicated hardware, however, is limited because it can only do that one thing that it was designed for. Another drawback of dedicated hardware is that once implemented, it cannot be modified or tweaked.
So, in the case of the Mac mini, it would seem that whilst there is a dedicated piece of hardware to do de-interlacing and scaling, that dedicated piece of hardware isn't that good at doing the job. So, it would be a better choice to do it in software on the CPU. The only question is, is the processor fast enough to perform de-interlacing and scaling in real-time at a higher quality than the piece of dedicated hardware? I would think, that as long as it doesn't have to do anything else, the Duo should be able to cope.
>One change to the Mac mini?s architecture appears even more controversial than the processor swap: The switch from ATI?s Radeon 9200 graphics with dedicated memory to integrated Intel graphics that use 64MB of system memory have some users up in arms. And while the debate continues, Macworld?s initial results show the new minis lagging behind their predecessors in Unreal Tournament 2004 by a couple of frames per second.<
That's a disgrace. Its performance was pathetic before now its just laughable.
Apple-you screwed us over by using an Integrated Video Card.
You said it sucked a few days ago, now all of a sudden it doesn't?
Memo to Steve Jobs-there's a limit to what you can get away with.
Call the sucker onto the mat and let him know he fucked up. Don't put up with his arrogance.
What's really interesting is that if you compare the performance of Intel CoreDuo to AMD64 X2 and DualCore G5, they all performace very similarly at the same clock speed. Each design slightly edges out each other in certain benchmarks, but in overall, they are pretty similar per clock. Now, they use this hottie intel cpu in the mini, and decide to hinder the performance by going with IGP. Obviously, they don't want mini to out perform imacs, but at the moment, they really do need mini to out sell anything else in the market to expand OS X user base....... I think Steve Jobs is loosing it. Jobs gone mad!
What's really interesting is that if you compare the performance of Intel CoreDuo to AMD64 X2 and DualCore G5, they all performace very similarly at the same clock speed. Each design slightly edges out each other in certain benchmarks, but in overall, they are pretty similar per clock. Now, they use this hottie intel cpu in the mini, and decide to hinder the performance by going with IGP. Obviously, they don't want mini to out perform imacs, but at the moment, they really do need mini to out sell anything else in the market to expand OS X user base....... I think Steve Jobs is loosing it. Jobs gone mad!
Exactly. And Apple needs to hear about it from all of us. He's turning the beloved Mac into a PC! Integrated Graphics in a Mac? Unacceptable. More expensive? Equally unacceptable.
Apple needs to keep the $499 price point. The new Mini is a huge letdown, a flop.
Apple screwed people over by not having the option for a decent video card. Most users just don't care about the GPU.
Apple is screwing over people who don't care about the GPU?
Quote:
Obviously, they don't want mini to out perform imacs, but at the moment, they really do need mini to out sell anything else in the market to expand OS X user base......
No they need the iMac to sell really well. I don't think they have have any delusion it will out sell anything else in the market.
You computer nerds really have no sense of business.
Quote:
The new Mini is a huge letdown, a flop.
Yes Steve666, you've said this many times in many ways, to people who have absolutely no control over it.
Apple is screwing over people who don't care about the GPU?
You really like twisting words, don't you? I said most users don't care about the GPU. Those people have not been screwed over by IGP. All users - most users = some users. Those users have been screwed over by no GPU upgradeability.
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
You computer nerds really have no sense of business.
If you'd like to find my post on page 14, where I detailed a profitable, configurable, $499 machine, and explain to me why that machine would either not be profitable, or be a bad idea for Apple to make for some other reason, then please, be my guest.
Dedicated hardware, however, is limited because it can only do that one thing that it was designed for. Another drawback of dedicated hardware is that once implemented, it cannot be modified or tweaked.
So, in the case of the Mac mini, it would seem that whilst there is a dedicated piece of hardware to do de-interlacing and scaling, that dedicated piece of hardware isn't that good at doing the job. So, it would be a better choice to do it in software on the CPU. The only question is, is the processor fast enough to perform de-interlacing and scaling in real-time at a higher quality than the piece of dedicated hardware? I would think, that as long as it doesn't have to do anything else, the Duo should be able to cope.
Yup, dedicated hardware is inflexible, but it is best at doing what's designed to do. Look at how well and smoothly iPod can decode MPEG4 as an example.
I also would like to beleive that software teaming with powerful cpu can do everything from sound, video, and etc. But we're not there yet, actually still very far from it. Hence we still need specialized hardware to do decoding, deinterlacing, and other specialized tasks to help the CPU. In a perfect world. We just need a super fast clock single core cpu to do everything, but it's not feasible with todays technology and having two core seems to show better efficency at certain tasks than having one fast core. Also having other specialized core hardware chip to manage sound, video, data management, and etc. seems to make the whole system more efficient and effective with current technology. Hence, software emulation to do a good job replacing the specialized hardware is still not effective.
Make a living sticking up for Apple screwing its customers.
Sticking up for Apple huh? You think that's what I've been doing in this thread?
Look, you have to face reality. You have provided nothing, absolutely nothing, to demonstrate that Apple could produce the computer you desire for $499.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
Don't take this the wrong way, but for future reference, it's
"Intents and purposes"
Thanks.
Vinea
Originally posted by peharri
Airport and Bluetooth are "free" with the Intel chipset Apple's using as I understand it (which is why they now support 802.11a having rubbished it for so long.)
I doubt the remote costs Apple more than $10.
So I don't think what you mention would reduce the costs to Apple by $100.
Much as I liked the fact there was a $499 Mac mini in the original line-up, I can't remember ever seeing the $499 one and saying "Yeah, I like/I'd recommend that." I think Apple's sane in starting at $600 for a full-featured model. They're not quite sane for releasing Core Solo based stuff *now* when we're still waiting for Universal Binaries, and the lack of accelerated graphics in the medium end ($800) model, even as an option, is a major turn-off for me. But the pricing I don't have an issue with.
The only way I can see for them to produce a cheaper Mac mini would be to spec it something like this:
Core Solo
Smallest drive available (probably 40G)
256Mb of RAM
No optical drive (use Firewire or USB)
Ethernet/BT/Airport/Crap Integrated Graphics/4 USB ports/etc
Even then, savings are from the second, third, and fourth items, and given the prices Apple pays, I'd be surprised if the saving averages more than $10 per item (maybe $20 for the RAM), so this (awful!) Mac mini probably couldn't sell profitably for $499.
I've said elsewhere, if I were Apple I'd have:
- Kept the Mac mini G4 versions for the low end, at least until next year or when Microsoft releases a UB of Office X, whichever is sooner.
- Released the Core Duo version at $800 as they did, today.
- Released a better Core Duo with a proper, iMac-like, graphics chip, and a gig of RAM, for $999 today. Both Core Duo versions could be a half inch higher than the machines they replace to ensure they have the space.
- When the G4 is fully obsoleted (see first point), replace that with a Core Solo version.
They're, all in all, in too much of a hurry to eliminate the PowerPCs from their lines. I don't think the time is right to release Core Solo based machines, and I especially think they'll harm the credibility of the platform if they do that on what was once the machine aimed at switchers and the rest of us.
IMHO, these are TRUE statements, MacMini Duo was rushed without thinking what it is meant... rather they shd hv released MacBook and once Yonah price are cheaper they shd hv released the $499 mac mini version with Solo
$499, i love the price point (whatever the specs may be)
MacBook will be attactive to most of us, see the last page of AnandTech review of Aopen MiniPC as well, they reflect the same feeling about MiniPC/MacMini/SmallFormFactor machines ....
if these machines were costlier people decide to choose a laptop than choosing a MiniPC/MacMini
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/sho...px?i=2707&p=12
I don't. Apple's DVD player sucks quality-wise.
Pretty extreme assessment.
Yes there are other DVD applications that de-interlace better, but that does not mean Apple DVD player is just all around bad.
(i.e. software DVD player sucks in comparison to PC software DVD players).
In the film/video industy most eveyone is using Apple DVD Player for viewing on computer. I've never heard serious complaints.
Originally posted by kcmac
This was such a friendly place until the "switchers" showed up.
I don't know if you were referring to me, but I've been using a Mac since 1993. It was my first computer, so it wasn't a switch, either
Originally posted by vinea
Only the best of breed HTPCs beat current $200 upconverting DVD players like the Oppo IMHO. Yes, in the best of breed they will likely run PureVideo over ATI Catalyst these days as near as I can tell.
Vinea
Actually, Oppo has beaten even the top of the line DVD players that cost over $3k and there's no way that any HTPC at $3k range will beat Oppo video playback performance. This shows very simple point that software emulation in video playback isn't enough for high quality video playback. Most GPU chip manufacturers design their chip around 3D performance and few just started to improved on video playback quality. However, Intel IGP GMA950 isn't one of them yet, and new to be release GMA965 still lacks alot of features but going towards the right direction, though.
Anyway, I do own oppo dvd player as well as some denon dvd players, and $200 gets you very far in the videophile world, thanks to oppo. Maybe I should give up on HTPC as well. Atleaset I'm going to hold off on the current Macmini. Actually, compared to Macmini, intel-imacs look very attractive. You get so much for $500 more(17" monitor, faster CPU, mouse, keyboard, isight cam, faster and bigger HD, better optical drive, alot better GPU that has potential for good video playback), but I don't need the monitor and I need it in the smaller enclosure.
>One change to the Mac mini?s architecture appears even more controversial than the processor swap: The switch from ATI?s Radeon 9200 graphics with dedicated memory to integrated Intel graphics that use 64MB of system memory have some users up in arms. And while the debate continues, Macworld?s initial results show the new minis lagging behind their predecessors in Unreal Tournament 2004 by a couple of frames per second.<
That's a disgrace. Its performance was pathetic before now its just laughable.
Apple-you screwed us over by using an Integrated Video Card.
You said it sucked a few days ago, now all of a sudden it doesn't?
Memo to Steve Jobs-there's a limit to what you can get away with.
Call the sucker onto the mat and let him know he fucked up. Don't put up with his arrogance.
Originally posted by steve666
Apple-you screwed us over by using an Integrated Video Card.
I disagree. Apple screwed people over by not having the option for a decent video card. Most users just don't care about the GPU.
Originally posted by bitemymac
This shows very simple point that software emulation in video playback isn't enough for high quality video playback.
fnrg (that's the sound of my brain hurting). It does not show this.
It does show that:
Mid-range and high-end GPU video de-interlacers and scalers are O.K., but not great.
Any HTPC software de-interlacers and scalers aren't that great either. That does not mean that they could not be better.
It also shows that you do not need expensive hardware to obtain a very high quality video signal.
On the software vs. hardware deinterlacer front, think of it like this:
At its simplest, a video de-interlacer and scaler is a block that has one signal input, and one signal output. It receives an interlaced, low resolution digital video signal in, does a load of maths, and spits out a progressive, high resolution digital video signal.
That "load of maths" can equally well be performed in software running on a CPU, or with dedicated hardware. Both solutions can perform exactly the same "load of maths", and therefore have exactly the same output signal quality.
CPUs and dedicated hardware have their own plus points and minus points, so the choice of how to perform the maths is a compromise. CPUs are extremely flexible, they can be programmed to do pretty much anything, the trade-off is that for a given function they are slow compared to dedicated hardware for that single function.
Dedicated hardware, however, is limited because it can only do that one thing that it was designed for. Another drawback of dedicated hardware is that once implemented, it cannot be modified or tweaked.
So, in the case of the Mac mini, it would seem that whilst there is a dedicated piece of hardware to do de-interlacing and scaling, that dedicated piece of hardware isn't that good at doing the job. So, it would be a better choice to do it in software on the CPU. The only question is, is the processor fast enough to perform de-interlacing and scaling in real-time at a higher quality than the piece of dedicated hardware? I would think, that as long as it doesn't have to do anything else, the Duo should be able to cope.
Originally posted by steve666
From MacCentral:
>One change to the Mac mini?s architecture appears even more controversial than the processor swap: The switch from ATI?s Radeon 9200 graphics with dedicated memory to integrated Intel graphics that use 64MB of system memory have some users up in arms. And while the debate continues, Macworld?s initial results show the new minis lagging behind their predecessors in Unreal Tournament 2004 by a couple of frames per second.<
That's a disgrace. Its performance was pathetic before now its just laughable.
Apple-you screwed us over by using an Integrated Video Card.
You said it sucked a few days ago, now all of a sudden it doesn't?
Memo to Steve Jobs-there's a limit to what you can get away with.
Call the sucker onto the mat and let him know he fucked up. Don't put up with his arrogance.
What's really interesting is that if you compare the performance of Intel CoreDuo to AMD64 X2 and DualCore G5, they all performace very similarly at the same clock speed. Each design slightly edges out each other in certain benchmarks, but in overall, they are pretty similar per clock. Now, they use this hottie intel cpu in the mini, and decide to hinder the performance by going with IGP. Obviously, they don't want mini to out perform imacs, but at the moment, they really do need mini to out sell anything else in the market to expand OS X user base....... I think Steve Jobs is loosing it. Jobs gone mad!
Originally posted by bitemymac
What's really interesting is that if you compare the performance of Intel CoreDuo to AMD64 X2 and DualCore G5, they all performace very similarly at the same clock speed. Each design slightly edges out each other in certain benchmarks, but in overall, they are pretty similar per clock. Now, they use this hottie intel cpu in the mini, and decide to hinder the performance by going with IGP. Obviously, they don't want mini to out perform imacs, but at the moment, they really do need mini to out sell anything else in the market to expand OS X user base....... I think Steve Jobs is loosing it. Jobs gone mad!
Exactly. And Apple needs to hear about it from all of us. He's turning the beloved Mac into a PC! Integrated Graphics in a Mac? Unacceptable. More expensive? Equally unacceptable.
Apple needs to keep the $499 price point. The new Mini is a huge letdown, a flop.
Originally posted by steve666
Apple needs to keep the $499 price point. The new Mini is a huge letdown, a flop.
What you want for $499 is not possible without Apple making a loss.
(Assuming that what you want is still what you posted earlier, basically the current $599 model but with a 64 MB GPU)
Apple screwed people over by not having the option for a decent video card. Most users just don't care about the GPU.
Apple is screwing over people who don't care about the GPU?
Obviously, they don't want mini to out perform imacs, but at the moment, they really do need mini to out sell anything else in the market to expand OS X user base......
No they need the iMac to sell really well. I don't think they have have any delusion it will out sell anything else in the market.
You computer nerds really have no sense of business.
The new Mini is a huge letdown, a flop.
Yes Steve666, you've said this many times in many ways, to people who have absolutely no control over it.
Originally posted by Mr. H
What you want for $499 is not possible without Apple making a loss.
(Assuming that what you want is still what you posted earlier, basically the current $599 model but with a 64 MB GPU)
No remote.
It is very doable. Apple's margins are the highest in the industry.
Laptops are the fastest growing segment and cost more.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Apple is screwing over people who don't care about the GPU?
You really like twisting words, don't you? I said most users don't care about the GPU. Those people have not been screwed over by IGP. All users - most users = some users. Those users have been screwed over by no GPU upgradeability.
Originally posted by TenoBell
You computer nerds really have no sense of business.
If you'd like to find my post on page 14, where I detailed a profitable, configurable, $499 machine, and explain to me why that machine would either not be profitable, or be a bad idea for Apple to make for some other reason, then please, be my guest.
Originally posted by steve666
No remote.
It is very doable. Apple's margins are the highest in the industry.
dude, you are living in a dreamworld. Is it fun there?
Originally posted by Mr. H
Dedicated hardware, however, is limited because it can only do that one thing that it was designed for. Another drawback of dedicated hardware is that once implemented, it cannot be modified or tweaked.
So, in the case of the Mac mini, it would seem that whilst there is a dedicated piece of hardware to do de-interlacing and scaling, that dedicated piece of hardware isn't that good at doing the job. So, it would be a better choice to do it in software on the CPU. The only question is, is the processor fast enough to perform de-interlacing and scaling in real-time at a higher quality than the piece of dedicated hardware? I would think, that as long as it doesn't have to do anything else, the Duo should be able to cope.
Yup, dedicated hardware is inflexible, but it is best at doing what's designed to do. Look at how well and smoothly iPod can decode MPEG4 as an example.
I also would like to beleive that software teaming with powerful cpu can do everything from sound, video, and etc. But we're not there yet, actually still very far from it. Hence we still need specialized hardware to do decoding, deinterlacing, and other specialized tasks to help the CPU. In a perfect world. We just need a super fast clock single core cpu to do everything, but it's not feasible with todays technology and having two core seems to show better efficency at certain tasks than having one fast core. Also having other specialized core hardware chip to manage sound, video, data management, and etc. seems to make the whole system more efficient and effective with current technology. Hence, software emulation to do a good job replacing the specialized hardware is still not effective.
Originally posted by Mr. H
dude, you are living in a dreamworld. Is it fun there?
I'm living in a dreamworld? You make a living sticking up for Apple screwing its customers.
They fucked up, admit it, its OK. They've fucked up before. Admit it, it'll be good for you.
Originally posted by steve666
Make a living sticking up for Apple screwing its customers.
Sticking up for Apple huh? You think that's what I've been doing in this thread?
Look, you have to face reality. You have provided nothing, absolutely nothing, to demonstrate that Apple could produce the computer you desire for $499.