Closing the book on Apple's Mac mini

1232425262729»

Comments

  • Reply 561 of 575
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post


    I think the prices are a near definite. They hardly ever change the price range of an existing product. More likely is that the specs I mentioned are a little high, although they are perfectly in line with the MacBook updates.



    Slightly slower chips, 120GB drive on the base model maybe, but I can't see Combo Drive being sold any more (unless I'm naive!). If they up the price however I'd be rather fuming, as I'm sure a lot of other people would be.



    For your specs, the prices would have to be higher.
  • Reply 562 of 575
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    For your specs, the prices would have to be higher.



    What specs would you expect for those prices then?
  • Reply 563 of 575
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post


    What specs would you expect for those prices then?





    I haven't looked at the equivalent parts to what is now being offered, so I honestly can't give you numbers yet. But, the parts you listed are more expensive than those Apple is presently using. Whatever specs Apple would move to, the parts supplied would have to cost no more.
  • Reply 564 of 575
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    sorry guys, but posters like us on websites like this just aren't typical. we are not typical home consumers, and we are not typical business buyers either. it is just not about the specs for the vast majority.



    the Mini's specs are fine for general business desktop use. power using, hot graphics, etc. just are not needed there. but the price is not OK. they are used to buying whitebox PC's and loading XP for about 1/2 the price of the MIni. Apple would have to offer big bulk purchase discounts to compete with that mindset. but it doesn't. yes, the Macs last longer and take less IT time to keep running, but that doesn't show up in a single year's budget, whereas the one-time extra costs of adding Macs does. in business, it's all about dollars, not specs.



    home consumers are looking for features they want to use first, subjective factors like style and ease of use next, and then comparing prices. iLife sells a lot of Macs. style sells a lot of Macs (the Mini's small size and neatness is very appealing to some). OS X's ease of use sells a lot of Macs. but specs don't.



    we here are among the 10%-20% or so who really do care about specs and technical software considerations. but as a consumer product company, Apple isn't designing Mini's for guys like us. we'll never be completely happy with the Mini. and that isn't going to change, so just go with it gracefully ...



    that said, the Mini is a great little medium priced general purpose computer. and show me a PC at ANY price that can run both Leopard and Vista (in fact, with its built in Windows driver support, Boot Camp runs Vista better than most PC's).



    that makes it one of the greatest computers of all time.
  • Reply 565 of 575
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Even while at the top of its game, Apple Inc. can seemingly find faults with just about anything, including a bit of itself. The Mac maker is constantly evaluating the market segments in which it wishes to participate and those which it does not. It's an application of love-hate methodology that inevitably produces its share of casualties.



    Take, for instance, the firm's petite line of headless desktop computers known as Mac minis. They retail between $599 and $799, catering to the once critical sub-$800 PC market. Conspicuously, it was that precise market segment in which Apple executives asserted little interest just months before introducing the first Mac mini at the Macworld trade show in January of 2005. Maybe management wasn't fibbing after all.



    Since then, the Mac mini has been treated to a rather mundane life-cycle. It has seen just four updates since inception, one of which was so insignificant in Apple's own eyes that the company didn't even bother to draft a press release. Even now, the current minis' 1.66GHz and 1.83GHz Core Duo processors are a far cry from the silicon offered in the rest of Apple's PC offerings. And rightfully so, as the company has seen lower margins from the units, which never gained the sales traction of its more fully equipped iMacs and MacBooks.



    Some have gone so far as to call the mini Apple's bastard child; the neglected Mac that never was. At the same time, the history behind its creation and the reasons for its seeming abandonment are comparatively fuzzy. There is some speculation that Apple conceived the Mac mini under pressure from shareholders who wanted a sub-$800 Mac, but never really saw much in the design itself. It's almost as if the mini stood in direct contrast to Apple's fundamentals from the get-go.



    In at least one instance, during the winter months of 2005 and early 2006, Apple began toying with concepts to more closely tie the mini to the essential nature of its business. The most public of those, per AppleInsider reports, was a plan to include a built-in iPod dock atop the high-end models. But just like every other bright idea Apple had for the tiny Mac, it was shelved and transformed under more economical standards into a project that would eventually emerge as Apple TV.



    In fact, it was about that time in early 2006 when Apple TV really began to take shape inside Apple and the development of the mini began its slow, inevitable decline. Not coincidentally, Apple TV turned out a lot like a next-generation mini, with the stripping-out of the optical disc drive representing the essence of Apple's long-term digital media strategy.







    Still, the mini has had its share of selling points. Due to its small footprint and low cost, it was immediately nominated by seasoned techies as the perfect media server for the living room. Some even went as far as installing the the tiny Mac in their vehicles. But with the advent of Apple TV, Apple seems to have shoved the diminutive device into the far corner of what had already been a niche audience.



    Therefore, it comes as little surprise that sources, for whom AppleInsider holds the utmost respect, are now pointing towards the mini's impending demise. For it's according to those people that the miniature Mac will soon follow in the wake of its similarly-proportioned counterparts of years past: the PowerBook 2400, the PowerMac G4 Cube, and, most recently, the 12-inch PowerBook.



    Whether Apple will squeeze another revision from the mini, and how long it plans to allow existing models to linger, are both unclear. But as the extended Memorial Day break dawns upon us, the point being driven should be clear:



    Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead.



    I sincerely believe you are wrong
  • Reply 566 of 575
    cubitcubit Posts: 846member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by drumrobot View Post


    I sincerely believe you are wrong



    Indeed, that AppleInsider post was put up 05-24-2007, 10:11 AM



    Shows what comes from looking into the crystal ball. And I say that as someone who purchased all of the above, except that 12" powerbook-- I did buy the PowerBook 100 "by Sony", though...
  • Reply 567 of 575
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    So... Having read that AI article from 2007... I'm wondering if said author has taken on a wider knowledge of industry since then? Even in 2007 it was obvious that the Mac Mini still had a long long future as a server. I guess the wisdom of Apple "Insider" doesn't include knowledge of the way these products are commonly used?



    Ask any of the owners of Mac Mini server farms all over the world what the future of the Mac Mini is. They'll laugh out loud if you suggest that it's a dead product. Years ago or yesterday.



    The Mac Mini is a more common and valuable server product than the XServe. Yes, it really is
  • Reply 568 of 575
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead.



    Poor Mac Mini. I can't believe it died like this.





    Oh wait.
  • Reply 569 of 575
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    The title is interesting... It was written at a time when it did look like the Mac mini was destined to be killed off. Times change.
  • Reply 570 of 575
  • Reply 571 of 575
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    applezilla wrote: »

    Still time to get one as a collectible.
  • Reply 572 of 575
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member

    Quote:



    On the Future of the Mac Mini ?


    Kasper Jade, AppleInsider:


    Therefore, it comes as little surprise that sources, for whom AppleInsider holds the utmost respect, are now pointing towards the mini’s impending demise. […]


    Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead.


    I’d be worried if this article weren’t from 2007.





     


    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/01/22/mac-mini


     



     


    I have no idea why Gruber picked this out today.  Did Kasper pee in his cherrios or something happen to the mini? 

  • Reply 573 of 575
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member


    Do you guys really believe hiding my post here means anything after you guys got fireballed?

  • Reply 574 of 575
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    nht wrote: »
    Do you guys really believe hiding my post here means anything after you guys got fireballed?

    ?

    Your other post is visible. I saw it yesterday. I don't see any posts marked as deleted.
  • Reply 575 of 575


    Originally Posted by nht View Post

    Do you guys really believe hiding my post here means anything after you guys got fireballed?


     


    I just moved it here because it's directly relevant to this thread (since it's THE thread) and it had already been necro'd by someone else earlier. Nothing hidden about it. Look, I'm even bumping it back up by replying again. It's now at the top of the New Posts page as well as the subforum in which it resides.


     


    If the site owners wanted to hide their mistakes or their blatant lies (like the despicable people at MacOSRumors do), they would have long ago edited this entire thread or deleted it outright. Or even not long ago; since it just came to light again, they would have acted on it after Gruber's post. 

Sign In or Register to comment.