They clearly thought it made sense to use an Atom to compete with the Mini.
Looking at their marketing style, which takes a lot of influence from Apple, it's easy for me to feel convinced that this is what Apple's doing. Who can't imagine an Apple page advertising an Atom Mini after looking at that?
Shuttle has headless options above this that aren't workstations and they aren't the entire platform.
They hated them because they couldn't stream anything but quicktime media to them. They were not about to spend years converting all their media to quicktime/h264.
Nor did they want to hack the box and void warranty.
You don't need to hack the AppleTV anymore, nor void the warranty.
XBMC, a simple file that you put on a USB key, insert in AppleTV and reboot.
Now you can play any file format, watch IPTV and more. And if you ever need to take the unit back to Apple just do a reset to factory and you are back to normal. You can even plug a USB drive in it. I actually have all my media hanging of a Airport Extreme and stream it to my AppleTV.
It is quite brilliant. Just the thing Apple should have made if they really wanted it to sell well.
I believe this all relates to the iPhone. When apple started planning for the next iphone I believe they evaluated which processors they will have access to. Apple was not satisfied with the performance of these processors so they decided to improve the core of their software, to accelerate their hardware. Now they can leverage this software to make the mini an acceptable machine and make the profits they want. This makes sense as to why apple decided not to eliminate the mini all together as appleinsider used to believe.
the Atom is great for low-power applications, but doesn't have enough power for more demanding things like iLife even.
As someone who owns a netbook with an Atom N270 in it running OS X, I can confirm that the Atom is only about as powerful as the fastest G4 processors were (they both benchmark about the same). Point is, anything you would feel comfortable doing on a 1.67Ghz Powerbook G4 you can do comfortably on an Atom based system. Unfortunately, they benchmark about 60-70% slower than even a slow Core Duo based system.
What I could see them doing is something like the Sony Vaio P... a premium un-netbook priced at nearly a grand.
Well I can personally tell you with absolute precision the next MacMini WILL NOT run an Atom based CPU.
I have exactly what there stating on my desk at the office. It's half the speed of the 1st gen Core Solo mini, even though it's dual core.
And they can't use it for AppleTV either because it can't process HD content as well as the current Pentium M cpu.
WHY? So glad you asked, it can't run processes out of step/sync. And the low cache is horrid when you try to watch HD Movies.
Running OS X Vanilla this cpu/chip combo scores a low 45.84 on Xbench. A core solo runs a decent 79.xx with 1gb of ram. Performance on Ubuntu 64bit is good but it would be like offering a G4 in today's market.
They may make a Mac with that cpu but nothing mainstream for real hard work. A $299 mac that's Eco friendly (system uses 18 watts under operation, half when idle) to go along side their net book on the same chips and 10" screen (16:9 resolution BTW).
Replace the mini with that, might as well drop a 4cyl in the next corvette.
Just to be clear you have an Ion based netbook? One with a Nvidia 9400M and Atom 330? ...not the older 230 that runs at half the speed and not the 950 integrated graphics....
Now, that said I think it is far more likely that Apple would direct Ion a netbook or the AppleTV, but I think it'd run 1080P acceptably in doing so.
Putting this platform in a Netbook would exactly fit how Apple tends to do things because it would easily outclass most existing netbooks on a power (battery) vs performance curve. Apple wouoldn't put out prodcut that isn't geared toward thier growing content delivery business, namely iTunes Music & Video, so waiting to put out a netbook until there was hardware capable of meeting Apple's standard (Ion does that) makes perfect sense...
BTW, I think the netbook will get named in the "air" theme, so it'll be the Macbook Helium... just my random guess nothing more,,, plus it ties in nicely with the Atom/Ion theme....
i dont really have any problems with my appletv , sure it would be alot easier if i didnt have to convert alot of my stuff , but it doesnt bother me that much , ive also played a 1080p mkv file that was 10GB and it didnt shutter or freeze , and im doing all this on my 2.4ghz macbook.
Regarding the Apple TV. Great product. As for those who think you have to convert media files to play this then you haven't done your homework. It will play, sync and stream virtually any file without having to do anything at all to the hardware itself. Get a flash drive and install xbmc/boxee or just Perian. It's essentially the same as playing these files on any Mac. You need codecs for Quicktime to play them and installing them on an AppleTV takes under 10 minutes of your time.
The combination of a dual-core Atom processor plus Nvidia hardware playback gives you a device that can easily play back 1080p video. With CPU resources left over for other stuff.
You end up with a device that can match the most demanding media application, and would be smaller and cheaper than the current Mac Mini. The use of OpenCL might mean that it can out-perform the MacMini on tasks such as video encoding (by an order of magnitude).
Whether this is an AppleTV2 or a MacNano - I don't really care.
Current Apple TV: Single core Pentium, Northbridge, Southbridge, Graphics Chip for decode assist.
New Apple TV: Dual Core Atom, Integrated Northbridge with improved video decode.
That's a halving of major components, and motherboard area. It might not be cheaper overall, but it would be significantly more capable.
Personally I think that Apple should move to a fast ARM + PowerVR SGX solution which would be a lot cheaper, but they might still be a year off that chip being made by PA Semi.
As for the Mac Mini, I will not buy a fricking Atom based desktop computer as a primary system. I was hoping for a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo with 9400M, 2GB, 320GB ...
Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. While the Mini could stay within the same parameters, and grow in power, there might be room for a machine at roughly the Apple TV price point, but with additional features and 3D graphics. A sort of "Apple Console". A lightweight, flash-based (no disk drive) media center device, perhaps with gaming capability, definitely browsing and e-mail, with an App Store distribution model for software.
It would be a computer for people who don't use computers, or use them badly, as well as an entertainment hub for people who do use computers, but don't want to tie up a real machine with their TV.
A media center device using flash memory would be pointless unless it was only designed for streaming. There's very few reasons to use flash memory on a product that isn't designed to be mobile. The iPod Touch jumps from $299 to $399 going from 16GB to 32GB of flash memory. For that $100, you could get a 1TB hard drive. Which would you rather have in a media center: 32GB or 1000GB? Of course, this is Apple and going from a 40GB hard drive to a 160GB in an AppleTV costs $100 as well so who knows how outrageous a 1TB AppleTV would be priced.
I wonder how much cheaper Apple's computers would be if they would quit shoving mobile components into desktop computers...Apple really needs to get over their "smaller is better" philosophy for desktop computers. Would it really matter to anyone if the next iMac were to be 2cm thicker?
Current Apple TV: Single core Pentium, Northbridge, Southbridge, Graphics Chip for decode assist.
New Apple TV: Dual Core Atom, Integrated Northbridge with improved video decode.
That's a halving of major components, and motherboard area. It might not be cheaper overall, but it would be significantly more capable.
Personally I think that Apple should move to a fast ARM + PowerVR SGX solution which would be a lot cheaper, but they might still be a year off that chip being made by PA Semi.
As for the Mac Mini, I will not buy a fricking Atom based desktop computer as a primary system. I was hoping for a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo with 9400M, 2GB, 320GB ...
You may be closest to the mark here.
Intel Atom Z 5xx series all come with the SCH which included the SGX 535 and VXD graphics and video hardware acclerators. The Latest SCH can do 1080P. The relationships between PowerVR and both Intel and Apple are very strong. Perhaps and upgraded SGX545 could be on the cards, however my only concern here is that this particular SoC is in design and not in production yet. Will have to wait and see.
What if... they replace Mac mini with an 'iMac mini' using this Atom in a smaller screen than the iMac, maybe 15" or 17". OS could be somewhere between full OS X and a simplified iPhone/Apple TV version. Similar thing to an Eee Top or Shuttle X50.
In thinking how Apple could update the Mac Mini and the Apple TV - there is one idea that strikes me as sensible.
Sell the Mini 2 as a Media Server
Sell the AppleTV2 as a Media Client (for HD TVs).
Would need a better software package to make it work as a consumer product.
C.
The comments on the AppleTV/Mini convergence are missing one major marketing goal for the AppleTV that Apple will need to address to take it from a hobby and turn it into a product that can compete with the DVD player, and that is cost. Whatever Apple does to the AppleTV it needs to bring the cost down, not double the cost of the device. Blue Ray players are down around $200 now, so it does not make sense to do anything that would double the cost of the AppleTV when what they really need to do is bring it down closer to $100.
The Media Server idea is interesting, and something that I think will come in time. However it should be an extension of Time Capsule not another computer. Also, the AppleTV should not be dependent on such a device since that would drive up the cost of a useful system and make the products less attractive to the average consumer.
Comments
Have any of you seen this?
http://us.shuttle.com/X2700.aspx
They clearly thought it made sense to use an Atom to compete with the Mini.
Looking at their marketing style, which takes a lot of influence from Apple, it's easy for me to feel convinced that this is what Apple's doing. Who can't imagine an Apple page advertising an Atom Mini after looking at that?
Shuttle has headless options above this that aren't workstations and they aren't the entire platform.
They hated them because they couldn't stream anything but quicktime media to them. They were not about to spend years converting all their media to quicktime/h264.
Nor did they want to hack the box and void warranty.
You don't need to hack the AppleTV anymore, nor void the warranty.
XBMC, a simple file that you put on a USB key, insert in AppleTV and reboot.
Now you can play any file format, watch IPTV and more. And if you ever need to take the unit back to Apple just do a reset to factory and you are back to normal. You can even plug a USB drive in it. I actually have all my media hanging of a Airport Extreme and stream it to my AppleTV.
It is quite brilliant. Just the thing Apple should have made if they really wanted it to sell well.
+ Add a web browser
+ iTunes Games support
+ iChat support
More than enough for a ton of people out there.
the Atom is great for low-power applications, but doesn't have enough power for more demanding things like iLife even.
As someone who owns a netbook with an Atom N270 in it running OS X, I can confirm that the Atom is only about as powerful as the fastest G4 processors were (they both benchmark about the same). Point is, anything you would feel comfortable doing on a 1.67Ghz Powerbook G4 you can do comfortably on an Atom based system. Unfortunately, they benchmark about 60-70% slower than even a slow Core Duo based system.
What I could see them doing is something like the Sony Vaio P... a premium un-netbook priced at nearly a grand.
Well I can personally tell you with absolute precision the next MacMini WILL NOT run an Atom based CPU.
I have exactly what there stating on my desk at the office. It's half the speed of the 1st gen Core Solo mini, even though it's dual core.
And they can't use it for AppleTV either because it can't process HD content as well as the current Pentium M cpu.
WHY? So glad you asked, it can't run processes out of step/sync. And the low cache is horrid when you try to watch HD Movies.
Running OS X Vanilla this cpu/chip combo scores a low 45.84 on Xbench. A core solo runs a decent 79.xx with 1gb of ram. Performance on Ubuntu 64bit is good but it would be like offering a G4 in today's market.
They may make a Mac with that cpu but nothing mainstream for real hard work. A $299 mac that's Eco friendly (system uses 18 watts under operation, half when idle) to go along side their net book on the same chips and 10" screen (16:9 resolution BTW).
Replace the mini with that, might as well drop a 4cyl in the next corvette.
Just to be clear you have an Ion based netbook? One with a Nvidia 9400M and Atom 330? ...not the older 230 that runs at half the speed and not the 950 integrated graphics....
Now, that said I think it is far more likely that Apple would direct Ion a netbook or the AppleTV, but I think it'd run 1080P acceptably in doing so.
Putting this platform in a Netbook would exactly fit how Apple tends to do things because it would easily outclass most existing netbooks on a power (battery) vs performance curve. Apple wouoldn't put out prodcut that isn't geared toward thier growing content delivery business, namely iTunes Music & Video, so waiting to put out a netbook until there was hardware capable of meeting Apple's standard (Ion does that) makes perfect sense...
BTW, I think the netbook will get named in the "air" theme, so it'll be the Macbook Helium... just my random guess nothing more,,, plus it ties in nicely with the Atom/Ion theme....
Apple TV using the Atom? I could see that.
The Apple TV needs a little work:
1. It needs to be reshaped to take standard 3.5" drives. $329 for 160GB is no good.
2. It needs DVR capabilities.
I am typing this on a keyboard that takes up more desk surface than the macmini, looking on a 20" TFT that also takes up more space than the mini!
So if I really want to save space over the mini I have to
A. integrate the computer in the screen =iMac
B. Integrate the computer in the keyboard=
C. Integrate the computer with a small screen= netbook
D. Integrate the computer with a very much smaller screen= tablet, touch, iphone
Sure Apple could make a MacAir with a slower CPU, no optical drive and only one USB port and cut the size in half. But who would buy it
i dont really have any problems with my appletv , sure it would be alot easier if i didnt have to convert alot of my stuff , but it doesnt bother me that much , ive also played a 1080p mkv file that was 10GB and it didnt shutter or freeze , and im doing all this on my 2.4ghz macbook.
Regarding the Apple TV. Great product. As for those who think you have to convert media files to play this then you haven't done your homework. It will play, sync and stream virtually any file without having to do anything at all to the hardware itself. Get a flash drive and install xbmc/boxee or just Perian. It's essentially the same as playing these files on any Mac. You need codecs for Quicktime to play them and installing them on an AppleTV takes under 10 minutes of your time.
pmcd
You end up with a device that can match the most demanding media application, and would be smaller and cheaper than the current Mac Mini. The use of OpenCL might mean that it can out-perform the MacMini on tasks such as video encoding (by an order of magnitude).
Whether this is an AppleTV2 or a MacNano - I don't really care.
I just want one under my TV.
C.
Current Apple TV: Single core Pentium, Northbridge, Southbridge, Graphics Chip for decode assist.
New Apple TV: Dual Core Atom, Integrated Northbridge with improved video decode.
That's a halving of major components, and motherboard area. It might not be cheaper overall, but it would be significantly more capable.
Personally I think that Apple should move to a fast ARM + PowerVR SGX solution which would be a lot cheaper, but they might still be a year off that chip being made by PA Semi.
As for the Mac Mini, I will not buy a fricking Atom based desktop computer as a primary system. I was hoping for a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo with 9400M, 2GB, 320GB ...
Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. While the Mini could stay within the same parameters, and grow in power, there might be room for a machine at roughly the Apple TV price point, but with additional features and 3D graphics. A sort of "Apple Console". A lightweight, flash-based (no disk drive) media center device, perhaps with gaming capability, definitely browsing and e-mail, with an App Store distribution model for software.
It would be a computer for people who don't use computers, or use them badly, as well as an entertainment hub for people who do use computers, but don't want to tie up a real machine with their TV.
A media center device using flash memory would be pointless unless it was only designed for streaming. There's very few reasons to use flash memory on a product that isn't designed to be mobile. The iPod Touch jumps from $299 to $399 going from 16GB to 32GB of flash memory. For that $100, you could get a 1TB hard drive. Which would you rather have in a media center: 32GB or 1000GB? Of course, this is Apple and going from a 40GB hard drive to a 160GB in an AppleTV costs $100 as well so who knows how outrageous a 1TB AppleTV would be priced.
I wonder how much cheaper Apple's computers would be if they would quit shoving mobile components into desktop computers...Apple really needs to get over their "smaller is better" philosophy for desktop computers. Would it really matter to anyone if the next iMac were to be 2cm thicker?
Sell the Mini 2 as a Media Server
Sell the AppleTV2 as a Media Client (for HD TVs).
Would need a better software package to make it work as a consumer product.
C.
I could see this in the Apple TV.
Current Apple TV: Single core Pentium, Northbridge, Southbridge, Graphics Chip for decode assist.
New Apple TV: Dual Core Atom, Integrated Northbridge with improved video decode.
That's a halving of major components, and motherboard area. It might not be cheaper overall, but it would be significantly more capable.
Personally I think that Apple should move to a fast ARM + PowerVR SGX solution which would be a lot cheaper, but they might still be a year off that chip being made by PA Semi.
As for the Mac Mini, I will not buy a fricking Atom based desktop computer as a primary system. I was hoping for a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo with 9400M, 2GB, 320GB ...
You may be closest to the mark here.
Intel Atom Z 5xx series all come with the SCH which included the SGX 535 and VXD graphics and video hardware acclerators. The Latest SCH can do 1080P. The relationships between PowerVR and both Intel and Apple are very strong. Perhaps and upgraded SGX545 could be on the cards, however my only concern here is that this particular SoC is in design and not in production yet. Will have to wait and see.
In thinking how Apple could update the Mac Mini and the Apple TV - there is one idea that strikes me as sensible.
Sell the Mini 2 as a Media Server
Sell the AppleTV2 as a Media Client (for HD TVs).
Would need a better software package to make it work as a consumer product.
C.
The comments on the AppleTV/Mini convergence are missing one major marketing goal for the AppleTV that Apple will need to address to take it from a hobby and turn it into a product that can compete with the DVD player, and that is cost. Whatever Apple does to the AppleTV it needs to bring the cost down, not double the cost of the device. Blue Ray players are down around $200 now, so it does not make sense to do anything that would double the cost of the AppleTV when what they really need to do is bring it down closer to $100.
The Media Server idea is interesting, and something that I think will come in time. However it should be an extension of Time Capsule not another computer. Also, the AppleTV should not be dependent on such a device since that would drive up the cost of a useful system and make the products less attractive to the average consumer.