Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.
I wish I knew the actual sales numbers, and what numbers Apple considers viable. Until then, all anyone can do is guess. Eventually, the Mini will go the way of all lines, and AI will be able to say they were right (as will some who post here).
Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.
They move the mini to a desktop cpu and make it bigger with room for desktop HD and ram as well as pci-e slots and still make money with a low end cpu at the same price as the mini is now.
Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.
Intel is going to continue manufacturing and selling those processors for at least another 12 months.
I setup an AppleTV at my parents and am forced to use wireless. It works fine for sync or stream, but sometimes it can take a while for a sync to latch on... if I could use the nice clear/unused coax cable I have next to it I would.
I think it would be FAB if they started building Ethernet-over-mains into products like Apple TV. Imagine - no more cables but it would be capable of both WiFi and Ethernet protocols.
The mini has historically been a little obsolete compared to other Apple models. It had the slowest G4, it had Core Duo when everything else was Core 2, it still has the older GMA950 IGP.
Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?
Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?
It depends on your point of view.
The Mac Mini is still more modern than many PCs you can buy and it's quite a bargain given it's small form.
For what I've used them for in the past - small office servers - the spec is also way more than we needed, so a less advanced model would be nice too, even one using Celerons.
Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?
They aren't obsolete specs. That would be if they continued to use PPC chips. They are somewhat slower, and use integrated graphics, as most PC's still do.
They move the mini to a desktop cpu and make it bigger with room for desktop HD and ram as well as pci-e slots and still make money with a low end cpu at the same price as the mini is now.
An xMac, eh? I figured as much.
Not enough profit margin at $599.
If more expensive, people would just buy the iMac instead.
I have yet to hear what the average customer would use PCI slots for. Even with the original Macintosh II, 95% of the buyers only had the single video card (that came with the computer) in there.
For what I've used them for in the past - small office servers - the spec is also way more than we needed, so a less advanced model would be nice too, even one using Celerons.
I guess it's a double-edged sword, there are some people who would like a low-spec cheaper version, but Apple might not want to be seen to be selling low spec stuff.
How easy would it be for Apple to start using Celeron processors anyway? I guess if you wanted a low-spec Mac for a low price, your best bet would be eBay.
Total nonsense. It's been shown over and over and over that an xMac would have at least the same profit margin as a Mac Mini, if not higher. It's not hard - you use cheaper components (desktop components are cheaper than laptop ones) but your manufacturing and shipping costs go up a bit because you need slightly more raw materials for the casework and the machine will be bigger and heavier.
As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping Apple from releasing an xMac is fear of cannibalising the iMac and, to a lesser extent, the Mac Pro.
Total nonsense. It's been shown over and over and over that an xMac would have at least the same profit margin as a Mac Mini, if not higher. It's not hard - you use cheaper components (desktop components are cheaper than laptop ones) but your manufacturing and shipping costs go up a bit because you need slightly more raw materials for the casework and the machine will be bigger and heavier.
As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping Apple from releasing an xMac is fear of cannibalising the iMac and, to a lesser extent, the Mac Pro.
It's not that simple. Apple isn't producing PC clones running OS X, and they never will.
If Apple did produce an xMac, it would still cost more. I'd love them to produce one that started, in a basic form, at $899.
No matter what, I can't see it going lower than that. Apple will not use a standard, cheap case. It will be something custom that will always look better, and cost more. They will also offer their keyboards and mice, which would be part of the package, unlike with the Mini, and that will raise the costs, which is why it's NOT with the Mini.
Are laptop components (laptop HDDs, laptop CPUs, laptop motherboard chipsets, laptop RAM, laptop optical drives) more expensive than their desktop counterparts?
If you think not, please provide some evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple will not use a standard, cheap case.
They don't have to use a standard cheap case. Does the Mini use a standard cheap case? No, it doesn't, and yet is is less than $899. It's a custom case full of laptop components. So I say make a larger custom case (costlier than the Mini's) and fill it with desktop components (cheaper than the Mini's).
How easy would it be for Apple to start using Celeron processors anyway? I guess if you wanted a low-spec Mac for a low price, your best bet would be eBay.
It's a drop in replacement.
eBay is no place to procure your IT requirements in a corporate environment.
Are laptop components (laptop HDDs, laptop CPUs, laptop motherboard chipsets, laptop RAM, laptop optical drives) more expensive than their desktop counterparts?
If you think not, please provide some evidence.
The components aren't more expensive for the Mini, except for the HDD, which is the 2.5" laptop size.
Other than for that, component prices are about the same.
If you don't believe that, you are the one who has to show pricing, as you are making the claim.
Also, what you are also forgetting, in addition the charge for the keyboard and mouse, which you have ignored, is that people will be demanding, and expecting a "real" video card, with the attendent costs involved. No one will properly accept an xMac without at least one slot for a replaceable card. Add costs for the larger mobo, and attendent components to make that possible, as well as the card.
Even if Apple chose to have integrated graphics as the default mode for the cheapest model, people would still be buying a card.
Add at least $125 for the card, and additional for the bigger mobo and larger case. From Apple's Mini customize page, you will have to add $98 for the keyboard and mouse, so add that price to the total.
And then, would people accept the same processor that the Mini has, or would they demand equality with the iMac? I think the latter, at least, as people have been consistently demanding a desktop cpu for an xMac, that's the least they would accept. Add at least another $100 for the faster, more capable chips.
Also, people will want 4 GB RAM capability. Add costs on the mobo for the extra slots and circuits.
Now, for all of this, they need a bigger power supply. Add the costs for that in as well.
Quote:
They don't have to use a standard cheap case. Does the Mini use a standard cheap case? No, it doesn't, and yet is is less than $899. It's a custom case full of laptop components. So I say make a larger custom case (costlier than the Mini's) and fill it with desktop components (cheaper than the Mini's).
The Mini case costs very little, as it's very small, and mostly plastic. Not so for something bigger. Would Apple go for the all aluminum case? Very possible. That's not cheap, you could certainly add $50 for it over what the case for the Mini costs now. If not, they would likely go polycarbonate again. That also costs more.
The components aren't more expensive for the Mini, except for the HDD, which is the 2.5" laptop size.
Other than for that, component prices are about the same.
If you don't believe that, you are the one who has to show pricing, as you are making the claim.
And then, would people accept the same processor that the Mini has, or would they demand equality with the iMac? I think the latter, at least, as people have been consistently demanding a desktop cpu for an xMac, that's the least they would accept. Add at least another $100 for the faster, more capable chips.
Sorry, but you really are talking nonsense.
The Mac Mini currently uses exclusively laptop components:
Laptop CPU (merom)
Laptop RAM (So-dimms)
Laptop HDD (2.5") (you acknowledged this)
Laptop motherboard chipset (Napa)
Laptop slot-loading optical drive
Taking each in turn:
The cheaper mini uses the 1.83 GHz Merom, this costs $241 in quantities of 1000. The desktop Core 2 Duo costs $113 for the 2.2 GHz E4500 (intel processor price list here). That obliterates your paragraph about desktop processors costing $100 more. The whole point is that desktop processors cost less and are more powerful at the same time.
Laptop RAM always costs more. Obviously I've only got access to retail prices, but comparing 1 GiB of Corsair laptop RAM to 1 GiB of Corsair desktop RAM at Newegg you get $24.99 for the laptop RAM and $19.99 for the desktop RAM.
Laptop motherboard chipset: unfortunately, Intel don't publish their motherboard chipset prices, however, it is clear that the laptop motherboard chipsets have a more advanced manufacturing process (they have the same capabilities as desktop chipsets but run at much lower power) and are therefore highly likely to cost more than their desktop counterparts, just as laptop CPUs costs more than their desktop counterparts.
The optical drive is another one where it's difficult to compare prices (there are very few laptop optical drives at retail so they cost about 5 times more than retail desktop drives), but given that all other laptop components cost more than their desktop equivalents, you'd expect the trend to continue with optical drives. And you yourself often say that smaller = more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Also, what you are also forgetting, in addition the charge for the keyboard and mouse, which you have ignored, is that people will be demanding, and expecting a "real" video card, with the attendent costs involved. No one will properly accept an xMac without at least one slot for a replaceable card. Add costs for the larger mobo, and attendent components to make that possible, as well as the card.
See later for the keyboard and mouse issue. The xMac would have integrated graphics onboard for the $599 model, and an empty PCIe slot. The higher models would have this slot filled with a higher-performance graphics card.
This allows people to upgrade the graphics in the cheapest xMac after-market if they so desire. And yes Lundy, I agree that 99% of people won't do that, but at least they now have the option (and their geek friend who advises them on computer purchases tells them that upgradeability is a must and therefore the current Mini is a no-no).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Even if Apple chose to have integrated graphics as the default mode for the cheapest model, people would still be buying a card.
Only if they wanted one. That's a choice the Mini doesn't even give you in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Add at least $125 for the card, and additional for the bigger mobo and larger case. From Apple's Mini customize page, you will have to add $98 for the keyboard and mouse, so add that price to the total.
$125 for the graphics card . This isn't 2001. Here's one at retail for $36.99 ($26.99 after rebate): inexpensive graphics card.
On the keyboard and mouse front: you have to add those costs to the costs of the Mini too, so I don't get what you are on about here?
All I'm saying is that you can take a $599 mini, make it big enough to fit desktop components inside and you end up with a more powerful, more expandable machine for the same sale price with approximately equal profit margin. The cost of Apple's keyboard and mouse do not enter into the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Also, people will want 4 GB RAM capability. Add costs on the mobo for the extra slots and circuits.
You can get 2 GiB desktop RAM modules so we are talking one extra slot. The larger motherboard area and extra slot costs are easily offset by the lower motherboard chipset costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The Mini case costs very little, as it's very small, and mostly plastic. Not so for something bigger. Would Apple go for the all aluminum case? Very possible. That's not cheap, you could certainly add $50 for it over what the case for the Mini costs now. If not, they would likely go polycarbonate again. That also costs more.
It's about 70% plastic and 30% metal, assuming the rear is 90% plastic.
I already acknowledged that a larger case would cost more. But the Mini remains as tangible evidence that custom case does not automatically negate a $599 selling price.
The Mac Mini currently uses exclusively laptop components:
Laptop CPU (merom)
Laptop RAM (So-dimms)
Laptop HDD (2.5") (you acknowledged this)
Laptop motherboard chipset (Napa)
Laptop slot-loading optical drive
Taking each in turn:
The cheaper mini uses the 1.83 GHz Merom, this costs $241 in quantities of 1000. The desktop Core 2 Duo costs $113 for the 2.2 GHz E4500 (intel processor price list here). That obliterates your paragraph about desktop processors costing $100 more. The whole point is that desktop processors cost less and are more powerful at the same time.
You're not looking at the right chips.
An xMac would need more powerful chips than the 2.2 GHz version you mentioned. If, as I said, they stuck with the iMac chips, at higher speeds than the paltry 2 GHz model that is the top of the Mini line, but the bottom of the iMac line, prices are higher.
If we took the newer T7800 2.6 GHz chip, instead of the current higher speed Extreme 2.8 GHz model, we're still talking about $795 in 1,000 quantities. The 2.4 GHz models is less, of course, but the newer 2.8 GHz model, the same speed as used in the top iMac now, costs more.
Obviously, Apple, and other big manufacturers get much lower pricing that the single bin price, and Penyrn chips are cheaper GHz for GHz.
I wasn't particularly talking about desktop chips as costing more, but higher performance chips that might be used. I mentioned desktop chips, because that's what most people wanting an xMac have mentioned. I brought that up to show that these machines would have to be more powerful than the Mini to be attractive to most people who would want one. Apple would not likely use desktop chips, and so the more expensive mobile chips would be used. I should have been more specific, but I thought you knew what I meant.
Quote:
Laptop RAM always costs more. Obviously I've only got access to retail prices, but comparing 1 GiB of Corsair laptop RAM to 1 GiB of Corsair desktop RAM at Newegg you get $24.99 for the laptop RAM and $19.99 for the desktop RAM.
Yes, about five dollars. Not exactly a big deal. It costs much more to make a bigger mobo with more slots and components, than it does to buy one stick of mobile memory over the desktop equivalent.
Quote:
Laptop motherboard chipset: unfortunately, Intel don't publish their motherboard chipset prices, however, it is clear that the laptop motherboard chipsets have a more advanced manufacturing process (they have the same capabilities as desktop chipsets but run at much lower power) and are therefore highly likely to cost more than their desktop counterparts, just as laptop CPUs costs more than their desktop counterparts.
Well, I certainly don't agree with that, as it makes no sense. The more advanced processes cost LESS, not more.
Quote:
The optical drive is another one where it's difficult to compare prices (there are very few laptop optical drives at retail so they cost about 5 times more than retail desktop drives), but given that all other laptop components cost more than their desktop equivalents, you'd expect the trend to continue with optical drives. And you yourself often say that smaller = more expensive.
Apple uses a portable slot drive in the iMac, and so pricing would be the same there as well. Besides, the portable drives don't cost significantly more than any other slim slot drive.
Quote:
See later for the keyboard and mouse issue. The xMac would have integrated graphics onboard for the $599 model, and an empty PCIe slot. The higher models would have this slot filled with a higher-performance graphics card.
Here, you're not justifying anything. You're just giving a model and a price.
Quote:
This allows people to upgrade the graphics in the cheapest xMac after-market if they so desire. And yes Lundy, I agree that 99% of people won't do that, but at least they now have the option (and their geek friend who advises them on computer purchases tells them that upgradeability is a must and therefore the current Mini is a no-no).
Only if they wanted one. That's a choice the Mini doesn't even give you in the first place.
In the case of the xMac, they certainly would want a real graphics card. One of the main reasons people give for this machine is gaming, or a lower cost PS or FCP workstation. If Apple offered this with disabable integrated graphics it would only serve to sell it at an unrealistically low price. Apple would then offer at least one card.
Quote:
$125 for the graphics card . This isn't 2001. Here's one for $36.99 ($26.99 after rebate): inexpensive graphics card.
You're joking, right? Show me any graphics card that Apple offers that's even close to a low price of $125. Just how many people will be buying your favorite $36 card? One?
Quote:
On the keyboard and mouse front: you have to add those costs to the costs of the Mini too, so I don't get what you are on about here?
It's pretty obvious. Most people buying a Mini already have a computer. That's why Apple doesn't sell it with a keyboard and mouse. I know Mac people who moved to a Mini from older machines, and didn't buy keyboards and mice. Same thing with some PC people, though two did eventually spend $29.95 for the white one.
If Apple sells the xMac, they will sell it with the mouse and keyboard, as it won't be an entry model as the Mini is.
Quote:
All I'm saying is that you can take a $599 mini, make it big enough to fit desktop components inside and you end up with a more powerful, more expandable machine for the same sale price with approximately equal profit margin. The cost of Apple's keyboard and mouse do not enter into the equation.
I know what you're saying, but you're wrong.
Quote:
You can get 2 GiB desktop RAM modules so we are talking one extra slot. The larger motherboard area and extra slot costs are easily offset by the lower motherboard chipset costs.
Wrong again. The costs are not lower.
Quote:
It's about 70% plastic and 30% metal, assuming the rear is 90% plastic.
Yes, as I said, it's mostly plastic.
Quote:
I already acknowledged that a larger case would cost more. But the Mini remains as tangible evidence that custom case does not automatically negate a $599 selling price.
The Mini case needs almost no structural support, as it's small, flat, and very simple. A mini tower is very different.
You're also forgetting the bigger power supply, and cooling needs for more powerful cpu's and graphics cards. That adds to the cost as well.
Comments
Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.
I wish I knew the actual sales numbers, and what numbers Apple considers viable. Until then, all anyone can do is guess. Eventually, the Mini will go the way of all lines, and AI will be able to say they were right (as will some who post here).
Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.
By "18 months", you meant "9 months", of course.
They shouldn't do anything to it though
Meaning what?
Except that Intel are phasing out the Merom and expecting everyone to move to Penryn. The mini *has* to be updated soon therefore, or dropped entirely, but it seems unlikely they'd drop it despite AppleInsider saying so for the past 18 months or so.
Intel is going to continue manufacturing and selling those processors for at least another 12 months.
I setup an AppleTV at my parents and am forced to use wireless. It works fine for sync or stream, but sometimes it can take a while for a sync to latch on... if I could use the nice clear/unused coax cable I have next to it I would.
I think it would be FAB if they started building Ethernet-over-mains into products like Apple TV. Imagine - no more cables but it would be capable of both WiFi and Ethernet protocols.
The mini has historically been a little obsolete compared to other Apple models. It had the slowest G4, it had Core Duo when everything else was Core 2, it still has the older GMA950 IGP.
Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?
Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?
It depends on your point of view.
The Mac Mini is still more modern than many PCs you can buy and it's quite a bargain given it's small form.
For what I've used them for in the past - small office servers - the spec is also way more than we needed, so a less advanced model would be nice too, even one using Celerons.
Indeed, and I'm guessing that's how they will keep it (a little behind other Mac products, that is). After all, the idea behind the Mini is to be a cheap PC alternative. By giving the Mini slightly obsolete specs then the price can be kept down and sell higher volumes... non?
They aren't obsolete specs. That would be if they continued to use PPC chips. They are somewhat slower, and use integrated graphics, as most PC's still do.
They move the mini to a desktop cpu and make it bigger with room for desktop HD and ram as well as pci-e slots and still make money with a low end cpu at the same price as the mini is now.
An xMac, eh? I figured as much.
Not enough profit margin at $599.
If more expensive, people would just buy the iMac instead.
I have yet to hear what the average customer would use PCI slots for. Even with the original Macintosh II, 95% of the buyers only had the single video card (that came with the computer) in there.
For what I've used them for in the past - small office servers - the spec is also way more than we needed, so a less advanced model would be nice too, even one using Celerons.
I guess it's a double-edged sword, there are some people who would like a low-spec cheaper version, but Apple might not want to be seen to be selling low spec stuff.
How easy would it be for Apple to start using Celeron processors anyway? I guess if you wanted a low-spec Mac for a low price, your best bet would be eBay.
An xMac, eh? I figured as much.
Not enough profit margin at $599.
Total nonsense. It's been shown over and over and over that an xMac would have at least the same profit margin as a Mac Mini, if not higher. It's not hard - you use cheaper components (desktop components are cheaper than laptop ones) but your manufacturing and shipping costs go up a bit because you need slightly more raw materials for the casework and the machine will be bigger and heavier.
As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping Apple from releasing an xMac is fear of cannibalising the iMac and, to a lesser extent, the Mac Pro.
Total nonsense. It's been shown over and over and over that an xMac would have at least the same profit margin as a Mac Mini, if not higher. It's not hard - you use cheaper components (desktop components are cheaper than laptop ones) but your manufacturing and shipping costs go up a bit because you need slightly more raw materials for the casework and the machine will be bigger and heavier.
As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping Apple from releasing an xMac is fear of cannibalising the iMac and, to a lesser extent, the Mac Pro.
It's not that simple. Apple isn't producing PC clones running OS X, and they never will.
If Apple did produce an xMac, it would still cost more. I'd love them to produce one that started, in a basic form, at $899.
No matter what, I can't see it going lower than that. Apple will not use a standard, cheap case. It will be something custom that will always look better, and cost more. They will also offer their keyboards and mice, which would be part of the package, unlike with the Mini, and that will raise the costs, which is why it's NOT with the Mini.
People seem to be forgetting that as well.
It's not that simple.
Sure it is.
Answer me this:
Are laptop components (laptop HDDs, laptop CPUs, laptop motherboard chipsets, laptop RAM, laptop optical drives) more expensive than their desktop counterparts?
If you think not, please provide some evidence.
Apple will not use a standard, cheap case.
They don't have to use a standard cheap case. Does the Mini use a standard cheap case? No, it doesn't, and yet is is less than $899. It's a custom case full of laptop components. So I say make a larger custom case (costlier than the Mini's) and fill it with desktop components (cheaper than the Mini's).
How easy would it be for Apple to start using Celeron processors anyway? I guess if you wanted a low-spec Mac for a low price, your best bet would be eBay.
It's a drop in replacement.
eBay is no place to procure your IT requirements in a corporate environment.
Sure it is.
Answer me this:
Are laptop components (laptop HDDs, laptop CPUs, laptop motherboard chipsets, laptop RAM, laptop optical drives) more expensive than their desktop counterparts?
If you think not, please provide some evidence.
The components aren't more expensive for the Mini, except for the HDD, which is the 2.5" laptop size.
Other than for that, component prices are about the same.
If you don't believe that, you are the one who has to show pricing, as you are making the claim.
Also, what you are also forgetting, in addition the charge for the keyboard and mouse, which you have ignored, is that people will be demanding, and expecting a "real" video card, with the attendent costs involved. No one will properly accept an xMac without at least one slot for a replaceable card. Add costs for the larger mobo, and attendent components to make that possible, as well as the card.
Even if Apple chose to have integrated graphics as the default mode for the cheapest model, people would still be buying a card.
Add at least $125 for the card, and additional for the bigger mobo and larger case. From Apple's Mini customize page, you will have to add $98 for the keyboard and mouse, so add that price to the total.
And then, would people accept the same processor that the Mini has, or would they demand equality with the iMac? I think the latter, at least, as people have been consistently demanding a desktop cpu for an xMac, that's the least they would accept. Add at least another $100 for the faster, more capable chips.
Also, people will want 4 GB RAM capability. Add costs on the mobo for the extra slots and circuits.
Now, for all of this, they need a bigger power supply. Add the costs for that in as well.
They don't have to use a standard cheap case. Does the Mini use a standard cheap case? No, it doesn't, and yet is is less than $899. It's a custom case full of laptop components. So I say make a larger custom case (costlier than the Mini's) and fill it with desktop components (cheaper than the Mini's).
The Mini case costs very little, as it's very small, and mostly plastic. Not so for something bigger. Would Apple go for the all aluminum case? Very possible. That's not cheap, you could certainly add $50 for it over what the case for the Mini costs now. If not, they would likely go polycarbonate again. That also costs more.
The components aren't more expensive for the Mini, except for the HDD, which is the 2.5" laptop size.
Other than for that, component prices are about the same.
If you don't believe that, you are the one who has to show pricing, as you are making the claim.
And then, would people accept the same processor that the Mini has, or would they demand equality with the iMac? I think the latter, at least, as people have been consistently demanding a desktop cpu for an xMac, that's the least they would accept. Add at least another $100 for the faster, more capable chips.
Sorry, but you really are talking nonsense.
The Mac Mini currently uses exclusively laptop components:
Laptop CPU (merom)
Laptop RAM (So-dimms)
Laptop HDD (2.5") (you acknowledged this)
Laptop motherboard chipset (Napa)
Laptop slot-loading optical drive
Taking each in turn:
The cheaper mini uses the 1.83 GHz Merom, this costs $241 in quantities of 1000. The desktop Core 2 Duo costs $113 for the 2.2 GHz E4500 (intel processor price list here). That obliterates your paragraph about desktop processors costing $100 more. The whole point is that desktop processors cost less and are more powerful at the same time.
Laptop RAM always costs more. Obviously I've only got access to retail prices, but comparing 1 GiB of Corsair laptop RAM to 1 GiB of Corsair desktop RAM at Newegg you get $24.99 for the laptop RAM and $19.99 for the desktop RAM.
Laptop motherboard chipset: unfortunately, Intel don't publish their motherboard chipset prices, however, it is clear that the laptop motherboard chipsets have a more advanced manufacturing process (they have the same capabilities as desktop chipsets but run at much lower power) and are therefore highly likely to cost more than their desktop counterparts, just as laptop CPUs costs more than their desktop counterparts.
The optical drive is another one where it's difficult to compare prices (there are very few laptop optical drives at retail so they cost about 5 times more than retail desktop drives), but given that all other laptop components cost more than their desktop equivalents, you'd expect the trend to continue with optical drives. And you yourself often say that smaller = more expensive.
Also, what you are also forgetting, in addition the charge for the keyboard and mouse, which you have ignored, is that people will be demanding, and expecting a "real" video card, with the attendent costs involved. No one will properly accept an xMac without at least one slot for a replaceable card. Add costs for the larger mobo, and attendent components to make that possible, as well as the card.
See later for the keyboard and mouse issue. The xMac would have integrated graphics onboard for the $599 model, and an empty PCIe slot. The higher models would have this slot filled with a higher-performance graphics card.
This allows people to upgrade the graphics in the cheapest xMac after-market if they so desire. And yes Lundy, I agree that 99% of people won't do that, but at least they now have the option (and their geek friend who advises them on computer purchases tells them that upgradeability is a must and therefore the current Mini is a no-no).
Even if Apple chose to have integrated graphics as the default mode for the cheapest model, people would still be buying a card.
Only if they wanted one. That's a choice the Mini doesn't even give you in the first place.
Add at least $125 for the card, and additional for the bigger mobo and larger case. From Apple's Mini customize page, you will have to add $98 for the keyboard and mouse, so add that price to the total.
$125 for the graphics card
On the keyboard and mouse front: you have to add those costs to the costs of the Mini too, so I don't get what you are on about here?
All I'm saying is that you can take a $599 mini, make it big enough to fit desktop components inside and you end up with a more powerful, more expandable machine for the same sale price with approximately equal profit margin. The cost of Apple's keyboard and mouse do not enter into the equation.
Also, people will want 4 GB RAM capability. Add costs on the mobo for the extra slots and circuits.
You can get 2 GiB desktop RAM modules so we are talking one extra slot. The larger motherboard area and extra slot costs are easily offset by the lower motherboard chipset costs.
The Mini case costs very little, as it's very small, and mostly plastic. Not so for something bigger. Would Apple go for the all aluminum case? Very possible. That's not cheap, you could certainly add $50 for it over what the case for the Mini costs now. If not, they would likely go polycarbonate again. That also costs more.
It's about 70% plastic and 30% metal, assuming the rear is 90% plastic.
I already acknowledged that a larger case would cost more. But the Mini remains as tangible evidence that custom case does not automatically negate a $599 selling price.
Sorry, but you really are talking nonsense.
The Mac Mini currently uses exclusively laptop components:
Laptop CPU (merom)
Laptop RAM (So-dimms)
Laptop HDD (2.5") (you acknowledged this)
Laptop motherboard chipset (Napa)
Laptop slot-loading optical drive
Taking each in turn:
The cheaper mini uses the 1.83 GHz Merom, this costs $241 in quantities of 1000. The desktop Core 2 Duo costs $113 for the 2.2 GHz E4500 (intel processor price list here). That obliterates your paragraph about desktop processors costing $100 more. The whole point is that desktop processors cost less and are more powerful at the same time.
You're not looking at the right chips.
An xMac would need more powerful chips than the 2.2 GHz version you mentioned. If, as I said, they stuck with the iMac chips, at higher speeds than the paltry 2 GHz model that is the top of the Mini line, but the bottom of the iMac line, prices are higher.
If we took the newer T7800 2.6 GHz chip, instead of the current higher speed Extreme 2.8 GHz model, we're still talking about $795 in 1,000 quantities. The 2.4 GHz models is less, of course, but the newer 2.8 GHz model, the same speed as used in the top iMac now, costs more.
Obviously, Apple, and other big manufacturers get much lower pricing that the single bin price, and Penyrn chips are cheaper GHz for GHz.
I wasn't particularly talking about desktop chips as costing more, but higher performance chips that might be used. I mentioned desktop chips, because that's what most people wanting an xMac have mentioned. I brought that up to show that these machines would have to be more powerful than the Mini to be attractive to most people who would want one. Apple would not likely use desktop chips, and so the more expensive mobile chips would be used. I should have been more specific, but I thought you knew what I meant.
Laptop RAM always costs more. Obviously I've only got access to retail prices, but comparing 1 GiB of Corsair laptop RAM to 1 GiB of Corsair desktop RAM at Newegg you get $24.99 for the laptop RAM and $19.99 for the desktop RAM.
Yes, about five dollars. Not exactly a big deal. It costs much more to make a bigger mobo with more slots and components, than it does to buy one stick of mobile memory over the desktop equivalent.
Laptop motherboard chipset: unfortunately, Intel don't publish their motherboard chipset prices, however, it is clear that the laptop motherboard chipsets have a more advanced manufacturing process (they have the same capabilities as desktop chipsets but run at much lower power) and are therefore highly likely to cost more than their desktop counterparts, just as laptop CPUs costs more than their desktop counterparts.
Well, I certainly don't agree with that, as it makes no sense. The more advanced processes cost LESS, not more.
The optical drive is another one where it's difficult to compare prices (there are very few laptop optical drives at retail so they cost about 5 times more than retail desktop drives), but given that all other laptop components cost more than their desktop equivalents, you'd expect the trend to continue with optical drives. And you yourself often say that smaller = more expensive.
Apple uses a portable slot drive in the iMac, and so pricing would be the same there as well. Besides, the portable drives don't cost significantly more than any other slim slot drive.
See later for the keyboard and mouse issue. The xMac would have integrated graphics onboard for the $599 model, and an empty PCIe slot. The higher models would have this slot filled with a higher-performance graphics card.
Here, you're not justifying anything. You're just giving a model and a price.
This allows people to upgrade the graphics in the cheapest xMac after-market if they so desire. And yes Lundy, I agree that 99% of people won't do that, but at least they now have the option (and their geek friend who advises them on computer purchases tells them that upgradeability is a must and therefore the current Mini is a no-no).
Only if they wanted one. That's a choice the Mini doesn't even give you in the first place.
In the case of the xMac, they certainly would want a real graphics card. One of the main reasons people give for this machine is gaming, or a lower cost PS or FCP workstation. If Apple offered this with disabable integrated graphics it would only serve to sell it at an unrealistically low price. Apple would then offer at least one card.
$125 for the graphics card
You're joking, right? Show me any graphics card that Apple offers that's even close to a low price of $125. Just how many people will be buying your favorite $36 card? One?
On the keyboard and mouse front: you have to add those costs to the costs of the Mini too, so I don't get what you are on about here?
It's pretty obvious. Most people buying a Mini already have a computer. That's why Apple doesn't sell it with a keyboard and mouse. I know Mac people who moved to a Mini from older machines, and didn't buy keyboards and mice. Same thing with some PC people, though two did eventually spend $29.95 for the white one.
If Apple sells the xMac, they will sell it with the mouse and keyboard, as it won't be an entry model as the Mini is.
All I'm saying is that you can take a $599 mini, make it big enough to fit desktop components inside and you end up with a more powerful, more expandable machine for the same sale price with approximately equal profit margin. The cost of Apple's keyboard and mouse do not enter into the equation.
I know what you're saying, but you're wrong.
You can get 2 GiB desktop RAM modules so we are talking one extra slot. The larger motherboard area and extra slot costs are easily offset by the lower motherboard chipset costs.
Wrong again. The costs are not lower.
It's about 70% plastic and 30% metal, assuming the rear is 90% plastic.
Yes, as I said, it's mostly plastic.
I already acknowledged that a larger case would cost more. But the Mini remains as tangible evidence that custom case does not automatically negate a $599 selling price.
The Mini case needs almost no structural support, as it's small, flat, and very simple. A mini tower is very different.
You're also forgetting the bigger power supply, and cooling needs for more powerful cpu's and graphics cards. That adds to the cost as well.