The notion that Apple will be making a TV is dead. Deal with that.
I don't think the Mini is dead, it's just deliberately held down. I get the impression they are trying to protect the iMac but mainly it will be a about profits. The margins are lower so they choose to push the same hardware longer.
Even if they tore off the head from the Macbook, dropped the battery and sold it, I would buy one as a home desktop. The speakers would be better than the current Mini at least. It needs to keep firewire though.
Productt Mac mini
Recommendation: Don't Buy - Updates soon
Last Release: August 07, 2007
Days Since Update 437 (Avg = 188)
It's actually only been just over a year since it was updated to be fair - although was that just a CPU increase? I can't remember now. The Mac Pro update took over a year to update once too - they only bumped the CPU up in the middle. The Mini hasn't been updated that many times in its whole lifetime so it's difficult to set trends on it. It just seems so much longer when Apple pays more attention to their favorite models.
If Apple do one more round of iMac and Mac Pro updates without touching the Mini, I think it will add strength to the fact that Apple are now run by complete jackasses and mean the Mini is pretty much done as a viable desktop.
If we reach next July and no updates, it's over. They stopped orders for the processors in them this May and will stop shipping next July:
So for the last 6 months, Apple have just been eating away at their quota. No more new orders placed. They simply have to run out eventually. It's kind of a catch-22 though. If they don't sell enough then they won't update, if they don't update, fewer people will buy.
The Core i7 is coming in November for the Mac Pro and the iMac is reaching the end of its update cycle. I would hope that the Mini will tag along on the back of either one of those updates. Given that the Mac Pro will likely be just a CPU improvement (albeit a huge one), the Mini is more likely to tag onto the iMac update like it did one time before.
It should get 2GB Ram, Penryn, Nvidia chips, faster drives, displayport, magsafe, all metal shell. This will hold it steady for another year and give me a happy Christmas for the first time in a long while.
I don't see them doing them all together and I reckon the Mini and iMac would make more sense to update before Christmas for consumers and update the Pro in January like they did this year. It will be a sound-bite for Jobs at MW to say they've transitioned their whole lineup to environmentally friendly material and a consistent look.
They better not put a black top on the Mini though. Silver top with a white logo only.
The notion that Apple will be making a TV is dead. Deal with that.
I don't think the Mini is dead, it's just deliberately held down. I get the impression they are trying to protect the iMac but mainly it will be a about profits. The margins are lower so they choose to push the same hardware longer.
Even if they tore off the head from the Macbook, dropped the battery and sold it, I would buy one as a home desktop. The speakers would be better than the current Mini at least. It needs to keep firewire though.
Productt Mac mini
Recommendation: Don't Buy - Updates soon
Last Release: August 07, 2007
Days Since Update 437 (Avg = 188)
It's actually only been just over a year since it was updated to be fair - although was that just a CPU increase? I can't remember now. The Mac Pro update took over a year to update once too - they only bumped the CPU up in the middle. The Mini hasn't been updated that many times in its whole lifetime so it's difficult to set trends on it. It just seems so much longer when Apple pays more attention to their favorite models.
If Apple do one more round of iMac and Mac Pro updates without touching the Mini, I think it will add strength to the fact that Apple are now run by complete jackasses and mean the Mini is pretty much done as a viable desktop.
If we reach next July and no updates, it's over. They stopped orders for the processors in them this May and will stop shipping next July:
So for the last 6 months, Apple have just been eating away at their quota. No more new orders placed. They simply have to run out eventually. It's kind of a catch-22 though. If they don't sell enough then they won't update, if they don't update, fewer people will buy.
The Core i7 is coming in November for the Mac Pro and the iMac is reaching the end of its update cycle. I would hope that the Mini will tag along on the back of either one of those updates. Given that the Mac Pro will likely be just a CPU improvement (albeit a huge one), the Mini is more likely to tag onto the iMac update like it did one time before.
It should get 2GB Ram, Penryn, Nvidia chips, faster drives, displayport, magsafe, all metal shell. This will hold it steady for another year and give me a happy Christmas for the first time in a long while.
I don't see them doing them all together and I reckon the Mini and iMac would make more sense to update before Christmas for consumers and update the Pro in January like they did this year. It will be a sound-bite for Jobs at MW to say they've transitioned their whole lineup to environmentally friendly material and a consistent look.
They better not put a black top on the Mini though. Silver top with a white logo only.
Looking at the cabling provided on the new 24" LED Cinema Display, one would think that MagSafe on a new Mac mini would make sense, and it would get away from that ugly power brick the mini currently uses...
Looking at the cabling provided on the new 24" LED Cinema Display, one would think that MagSafe on a new Mac mini would make sense, and it would get away from that ugly power brick the mini currently uses...
It would hopefully have some sort of catch to keep it firmly in place in order to prevent accidental disconnections.
Okay, how about this: the Mac Pro updated at MacWorld with a new environmental brick design and the one more thing looks the same but smaller. Mac mini. I don't know, I got nothing.
Apple's lineup looks about the same if you take the Mini out, so apparently professionals are the only ones who don't need a new monitor.
This is sort of like that year they made all the PowerMacs with dual processors, and you had to buy an iMac if all you needed was one. Can't a guy just buy a normal mid range Mac?
Looking at the cabling provided on the new 24" LED Cinema Display, one would think that MagSafe on a new Mac mini would make sense, and it would get away from that ugly power brick the mini currently uses...
Do you seriously believe that many Mac mini buyers would also be in the market for a $900 LCD?
Do you seriously believe that many Mac mini buyers would also be in the market for a $900 LCD?
Let's face it the Mini doesn't make sense economically as it is now. If Apple goes the route of a MagSafe Mini they are then able to unbundle the power supply. This leads to the appearance of a much lower cost introductory machine.
From the standpoint of standardized part a MagSafe mini would be a win also as Apple could sell the same old laptop power supplies for it. The biggest problem on the Mini would be in planned disconnects, these could be handled with an alarm and a super capacitor. A latch might help but then you loose the biggest reason to use MagSafe in the first place. Frankly the issue with disconnects isn't much worst than what you have on the Mini now.
In any event I think many here need to look at the newly debuted products again because they are telegraphing what MWSF will look like. For one I expect a rapid transition to Display Port. I would also not be surprised to see a Mini replacement that is incredibly small. Small enough to clip on the back of a monitor. A step up from there would be a Mini type machine that is slightly more substantial than the current.
The thing is if you think about Atom and some of intels Laptop chips coming you will realize that there are all sorts of possibilities for extremely compact designs. The only limitation on size would be the RAM module if they used one.
Let's face it the Mini doesn't make sense economically as it is now. If Apple goes the route of a MagSafe Mini they are then able to unbundle the power supply. This leads to the appearance of a much lower cost introductory machine.
From the standpoint of standardized part a MagSafe mini would be a win also as Apple could sell the same old laptop power supplies for it. The biggest problem on the Mini would be in planned disconnects, these could be handled with an alarm and a super capacitor. A latch might help but then you loose the biggest reason to use MagSafe in the first place. Frankly the issue with disconnects isn't much worst than what you have on the Mini now.
In any event I think many here need to look at the newly debuted products again because they are telegraphing what MWSF will look like. For one I expect a rapid transition to Display Port. I would also not be surprised to see a Mini replacement that is incredibly small. Small enough to clip on the back of a monitor. A step up from there would be a Mini type machine that is slightly more substantial than the current.
The thing is if you think about Atom and some of intels Laptop chips coming you will realize that there are all sorts of possibilities for extremely compact designs. The only limitation on size would be the RAM module if they used one.
Dave
The Atom uses the same or weak gpu as the mini has now and dose not even have gig-e. Max 1gb of ram. Not only that IT IS SLOWER.
Apple can't do that then they are just asking for efix and Pystar to beat them.
Let's face it the Mini doesn't make sense economically as it is now. If Apple goes the route of a MagSafe Mini they are then able to unbundle the power supply. This leads to the appearance of a much lower cost introductory machine.
From the standpoint of standardized part a MagSafe mini would be a win also as Apple could sell the same old laptop power supplies for it. The biggest problem on the Mini would be in planned disconnects, these could be handled with an alarm and a super capacitor. A latch might help but then you loose the biggest reason to use MagSafe in the first place. Frankly the issue with disconnects isn't much worst than what you have on the Mini now.
In any event I think many here need to look at the newly debuted products again because they are telegraphing what MWSF will look like. For one I expect a rapid transition to Display Port. I would also not be surprised to see a Mini replacement that is incredibly small. Small enough to clip on the back of a monitor. A step up from there would be a Mini type machine that is slightly more substantial than the current.
The thing is if you think about Atom and some of intels Laptop chips coming you will realize that there are all sorts of possibilities for extremely compact designs. The only limitation on size would be the RAM module if they used one.
Dave
This is too complicated. If they want to leverage the costs by using a MB Magsafe power adapter for the Mac Mini, they just have to include an adaptor in which the Magsafe connector (from the power adaptor or the display cable) is plugged in and locked, and on the other end a standard power plug to the Mac mini.
I also expect a rapid transition to (mini) Displayport on all Macs and the release on another (expensive) 20" LED-BL stand-alone display ($599) as well as LED-BL inclusion on the future iMacs (expect another (small) price increase, just like what happened for the new 13" MacBooks).
For the Mac mini, the size limitation is not the RAM module(s) but the drives (optical and HDD). Unless Apple choose to take away the optical and/or replace the 2.5" HDD with a 1.8" one, they cannot make the Mac mini really smaller, IMO.
I agree with others, Atom+current chipset is not powerful to compete with even the current Mac mini. Until Snow Leopard (that is supposed to be able to better handle multiple cores) and a better chipset from Intel, I don't think Apple will use Atom on any Mac.
The Atom uses the same or weak gpu as the mini has now and dose not even have gig-e
There are a couple bthings to note. First there are different variants of Atom and the support chips that work with it. Second Apple doesn't even use Intel gig-E laptop chips instead use Broad com. Besides Intel is working continiusly on the Atom line, there is no reason why they could be working on a special for Apple.
Quote:
Max 1gb of ram.
Where did that come from?
Quote:
Not only that IT IS SLOWER.
Only if you look at single thread performance. That clock for clock. If you up the clock rate by half yet keep the power profile manageable. It more about prformance perwatt than anything.
Quote:
Apple can't do that then they are just asking for efix and Pystar to beat them.
I don't know about that if Apple can offer up a power efficent and usable computer for $250 I think a lot of people would sign up. In any event your profit come not from what you can sell something at but what it costs you to buy!
In the past I've gotten 2 to 3 computer chassis out of a monitor. Of course that is due inpart to fast moving technology and personal needs. The reality is though that CPU tech changes faster than display tech.
Frankly that is what makes Apples new monitor interesting and desirable. It marks a shift in technology with an eye on the future. That means a monitor that might actually be useful with 2-3 generations of computing hardware.
I know some are disappointed with the lack of backward compatibility but breaking with the pack takes strong leadership and I see this as one move that Apple got right. I don't say that lightly either as I'm an owner of a MBP new early this year. I would love to hook up this new monitor to that MBP, but realize that isn't going to happen as Apple is showing a little leadership here.
Apple wants to push its customers into buying the next highest margin product. If there's going to be an iMac update soon, then I guess it's safe to say that there won't be a Mini update until after Christmas, if ever, since it would lure away people who might otherwise convince themselves to buy an iMac.
I remember having mixed feelings about the Mini's launch. It didn't seem like an Apple thing to do, to purposefully design something low cost. It seemed like they were acknowledging the fact they didn't really want you to buy it. They wanted you to try it and see the glorious light that an all-in-one Mac could bring.
I've never been really angry at Apple for there marketing and business decisions, but I sort of am now. They opened the low cost / efficiency door, perhaps dishonestly, and now it looks like they're shutting it.
The only thing I can imagine them doing that would make it okay, is if they were holding off for environmental reasons as well. Efficiency, low cost, and a clean evironment often go together, which is why their ignorance of the Mini is so puzzling. Maybe what they really want is for people to buy their easily recyclable and green displays and they're holding back on the Mini until they're released? Otherwise people will keep buying monitors that aren't as environmentally friendly.
I don't know, though. I could really be scraping the bottom of the barrel of ideas on this one, but it sounds okay to my Eco-libertarian ears.
Apple wants to push its customers into buying the next highest margin product. If there's going to be an iMac update soon, then I guess it's safe to say that there won't be a Mini update until after Christmas, if ever, since it would lure away people who might otherwise convince themselves to buy an iMac.
I'm not sure about that because if they continue to sell the Mini the way it is, Jobs can't go on stage at MW and talk about being environmentally friendly across the lineup. The Mini still has plastic in it. Plus they bumped up the Mini one time the iMac was updated. It's true it wasn't explicit so there is the impression Apple don't want you to buy it.
Not to mention, there will be a push for GPU computing so there will be Nvidia chips across the lineup. I can see the low end iMac ATI chips being replaced with the Nvidia 9400M and possibly the 9800M GT in the higher end models. If the Mini doesn't get the Nvidia integrated chip then it simply won't be able to do any of this stuff and it will be quite obvious that Apple are holding it down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phong
Maybe what they really want is for people to buy their easily recyclable and green displays and they're holding back on the Mini until they're released? Otherwise people will keep buying monitors that aren't as environmentally friendly.
Well, they already make a Cinema display that they say is made for the Macbook. I'm not sure exactly which Macbook owners would buy a $900 display but they could say the same for the Mini if they include Mini-Displayport.
I don't think Apple would mind if people bought a $600 Mini vs a $1100 iMac if they also bought a $900 display with it.
Comments
The Mac mini is dead. Deal with it.
Ok so efix and Psystar are free to fill that gap.
The Mac mini is dead. Deal with it.
The mini dead. Long live the mini!
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...amily/mac_mini
The Mac mini is dead. Deal with it.
The notion that Apple will be making a TV is dead. Deal with that.
I don't think the Mini is dead, it's just deliberately held down. I get the impression they are trying to protect the iMac but mainly it will be a about profits. The margins are lower so they choose to push the same hardware longer.
Even if they tore off the head from the Macbook, dropped the battery and sold it, I would buy one as a home desktop. The speakers would be better than the current Mini at least. It needs to keep firewire though.
Product
Recommendation: Don't Buy - Updates soon
Last Release: August 07, 2007
Days Since Update 437 (Avg = 188)
It's actually only been just over a year since it was updated to be fair - although was that just a CPU increase? I can't remember now. The Mac Pro update took over a year to update once too - they only bumped the CPU up in the middle. The Mini hasn't been updated that many times in its whole lifetime so it's difficult to set trends on it. It just seems so much longer when Apple pays more attention to their favorite models.
If Apple do one more round of iMac and Mac Pro updates without touching the Mini, I think it will add strength to the fact that Apple are now run by complete jackasses and mean the Mini is pretty much done as a viable desktop.
If we reach next July and no updates, it's over. They stopped orders for the processors in them this May and will stop shipping next July:
http://www.slashgear.com/intel-to-di...-2-duo-299953/
So for the last 6 months, Apple have just been eating away at their quota. No more new orders placed. They simply have to run out eventually. It's kind of a catch-22 though. If they don't sell enough then they won't update, if they don't update, fewer people will buy.
The Core i7 is coming in November for the Mac Pro and the iMac is reaching the end of its update cycle. I would hope that the Mini will tag along on the back of either one of those updates. Given that the Mac Pro will likely be just a CPU improvement (albeit a huge one), the Mini is more likely to tag onto the iMac update like it did one time before.
It should get 2GB Ram, Penryn, Nvidia chips, faster drives, displayport, magsafe, all metal shell. This will hold it steady for another year and give me a happy Christmas for the first time in a long while.
I don't see them doing them all together and I reckon the Mini and iMac would make more sense to update before Christmas for consumers and update the Pro in January like they did this year. It will be a sound-bite for Jobs at MW to say they've transitioned their whole lineup to environmentally friendly material and a consistent look.
They better not put a black top on the Mini though. Silver top with a white logo only.
The Mac mini is dead. Deal with it.
The notion that Apple will be making a TV is dead. Deal with that.
I don't think the Mini is dead, it's just deliberately held down. I get the impression they are trying to protect the iMac but mainly it will be a about profits. The margins are lower so they choose to push the same hardware longer.
Even if they tore off the head from the Macbook, dropped the battery and sold it, I would buy one as a home desktop. The speakers would be better than the current Mini at least. It needs to keep firewire though.
Product
Recommendation: Don't Buy - Updates soon
Last Release: August 07, 2007
Days Since Update 437 (Avg = 188)
It's actually only been just over a year since it was updated to be fair - although was that just a CPU increase? I can't remember now. The Mac Pro update took over a year to update once too - they only bumped the CPU up in the middle. The Mini hasn't been updated that many times in its whole lifetime so it's difficult to set trends on it. It just seems so much longer when Apple pays more attention to their favorite models.
If Apple do one more round of iMac and Mac Pro updates without touching the Mini, I think it will add strength to the fact that Apple are now run by complete jackasses and mean the Mini is pretty much done as a viable desktop.
If we reach next July and no updates, it's over. They stopped orders for the processors in them this May and will stop shipping next July:
http://www.slashgear.com/intel-to-di...-2-duo-299953/
So for the last 6 months, Apple have just been eating away at their quota. No more new orders placed. They simply have to run out eventually. It's kind of a catch-22 though. If they don't sell enough then they won't update, if they don't update, fewer people will buy.
The Core i7 is coming in November for the Mac Pro and the iMac is reaching the end of its update cycle. I would hope that the Mini will tag along on the back of either one of those updates. Given that the Mac Pro will likely be just a CPU improvement (albeit a huge one), the Mini is more likely to tag onto the iMac update like it did one time before.
It should get 2GB Ram, Penryn, Nvidia chips, faster drives, displayport, magsafe, all metal shell. This will hold it steady for another year and give me a happy Christmas for the first time in a long while.
I don't see them doing them all together and I reckon the Mini and iMac would make more sense to update before Christmas for consumers and update the Pro in January like they did this year. It will be a sound-bite for Jobs at MW to say they've transitioned their whole lineup to environmentally friendly material and a consistent look.
They better not put a black top on the Mini though. Silver top with a white logo only.
magsafe on a desktop?
magsafe on a desktop?
Looking at the cabling provided on the new 24" LED Cinema Display, one would think that MagSafe on a new Mac mini would make sense, and it would get away from that ugly power brick the mini currently uses...
Looking at the cabling provided on the new 24" LED Cinema Display, one would think that MagSafe on a new Mac mini would make sense, and it would get away from that ugly power brick the mini currently uses...
It would hopefully have some sort of catch to keep it firmly in place in order to prevent accidental disconnections.
Apple's lineup looks about the same if you take the Mini out, so apparently professionals are the only ones who don't need a new monitor.
This is sort of like that year they made all the PowerMacs with dual processors, and you had to buy an iMac if all you needed was one. Can't a guy just buy a normal mid range Mac?
Looking at the cabling provided on the new 24" LED Cinema Display, one would think that MagSafe on a new Mac mini would make sense, and it would get away from that ugly power brick the mini currently uses...
Do you seriously believe that many Mac mini buyers would also be in the market for a $900 LCD?
Do you seriously believe that many Mac mini buyers would also be in the market for a $900 LCD?
Let's face it the Mini doesn't make sense economically as it is now. If Apple goes the route of a MagSafe Mini they are then able to unbundle the power supply. This leads to the appearance of a much lower cost introductory machine.
From the standpoint of standardized part a MagSafe mini would be a win also as Apple could sell the same old laptop power supplies for it. The biggest problem on the Mini would be in planned disconnects, these could be handled with an alarm and a super capacitor. A latch might help but then you loose the biggest reason to use MagSafe in the first place. Frankly the issue with disconnects isn't much worst than what you have on the Mini now.
In any event I think many here need to look at the newly debuted products again because they are telegraphing what MWSF will look like. For one I expect a rapid transition to Display Port. I would also not be surprised to see a Mini replacement that is incredibly small. Small enough to clip on the back of a monitor. A step up from there would be a Mini type machine that is slightly more substantial than the current.
The thing is if you think about Atom and some of intels Laptop chips coming you will realize that there are all sorts of possibilities for extremely compact designs. The only limitation on size would be the RAM module if they used one.
Dave
Do you seriously believe that many Mac mini buyers would also be in the market for a $900 LCD?
Until Apple reveals a new 20" LED Cinema Display, the only choice for a matching Apple monitor would be the 24" LED Cinema Display...
And the 20" model would still be US$599, if they follow the same pricing as they did with the 24" makeover, so still expensive.
But you want your kit to match, don't you...?!?
Let's face it the Mini doesn't make sense economically as it is now. If Apple goes the route of a MagSafe Mini they are then able to unbundle the power supply. This leads to the appearance of a much lower cost introductory machine.
From the standpoint of standardized part a MagSafe mini would be a win also as Apple could sell the same old laptop power supplies for it. The biggest problem on the Mini would be in planned disconnects, these could be handled with an alarm and a super capacitor. A latch might help but then you loose the biggest reason to use MagSafe in the first place. Frankly the issue with disconnects isn't much worst than what you have on the Mini now.
In any event I think many here need to look at the newly debuted products again because they are telegraphing what MWSF will look like. For one I expect a rapid transition to Display Port. I would also not be surprised to see a Mini replacement that is incredibly small. Small enough to clip on the back of a monitor. A step up from there would be a Mini type machine that is slightly more substantial than the current.
The thing is if you think about Atom and some of intels Laptop chips coming you will realize that there are all sorts of possibilities for extremely compact designs. The only limitation on size would be the RAM module if they used one.
Dave
The Atom uses the same or weak gpu as the mini has now and dose not even have gig-e. Max 1gb of ram. Not only that IT IS SLOWER.
Apple can't do that then they are just asking for efix and Pystar to beat them.
Let's face it the Mini doesn't make sense economically as it is now. If Apple goes the route of a MagSafe Mini they are then able to unbundle the power supply. This leads to the appearance of a much lower cost introductory machine.
From the standpoint of standardized part a MagSafe mini would be a win also as Apple could sell the same old laptop power supplies for it. The biggest problem on the Mini would be in planned disconnects, these could be handled with an alarm and a super capacitor. A latch might help but then you loose the biggest reason to use MagSafe in the first place. Frankly the issue with disconnects isn't much worst than what you have on the Mini now.
In any event I think many here need to look at the newly debuted products again because they are telegraphing what MWSF will look like. For one I expect a rapid transition to Display Port. I would also not be surprised to see a Mini replacement that is incredibly small. Small enough to clip on the back of a monitor. A step up from there would be a Mini type machine that is slightly more substantial than the current.
The thing is if you think about Atom and some of intels Laptop chips coming you will realize that there are all sorts of possibilities for extremely compact designs. The only limitation on size would be the RAM module if they used one.
Dave
This is too complicated. If they want to leverage the costs by using a MB Magsafe power adapter for the Mac Mini, they just have to include an adaptor in which the Magsafe connector (from the power adaptor or the display cable) is plugged in and locked, and on the other end a standard power plug to the Mac mini.
I also expect a rapid transition to (mini) Displayport on all Macs and the release on another (expensive) 20" LED-BL stand-alone display ($599) as well as LED-BL inclusion on the future iMacs (expect another (small) price increase, just like what happened for the new 13" MacBooks).
For the Mac mini, the size limitation is not the RAM module(s) but the drives (optical and HDD). Unless Apple choose to take away the optical and/or replace the 2.5" HDD with a 1.8" one, they cannot make the Mac mini really smaller, IMO.
I agree with others, Atom+current chipset is not powerful to compete with even the current Mac mini. Until Snow Leopard (that is supposed to be able to better handle multiple cores) and a better chipset from Intel, I don't think Apple will use Atom on any Mac.
oct 14 was for notebooks mini will be seen at macworld 09 for sure
It will never be seen. Obviously, and as Apple well knows, only pros buy a computer without a monitor.
The Atom uses the same or weak gpu as the mini has now and dose not even have gig-e
There are a couple bthings to note. First there are different variants of Atom and the support chips that work with it. Second Apple doesn't even use Intel gig-E laptop chips instead use Broad com. Besides Intel is working continiusly on the Atom line, there is no reason why they could be working on a special for Apple.
Max 1gb of ram.
Where did that come from?
Not only that IT IS SLOWER.
Only if you look at single thread performance. That clock for clock. If you up the clock rate by half yet keep the power profile manageable. It more about prformance perwatt than anything.
Apple can't do that then they are just asking for efix and Pystar to beat them.
I don't know about that if Apple can offer up a power efficent and usable computer for $250 I think a lot of people would sign up. In any event your profit come not from what you can sell something at but what it costs you to buy!
Dave
h
It will never be seen. Obviously, and as Apple well knows, only pros buy a computer without a monitor.
This is both true and infuriating.
This is both true and infuriating.
In the past I've gotten 2 to 3 computer chassis out of a monitor. Of course that is due inpart to fast moving technology and personal needs. The reality is though that CPU tech changes faster than display tech.
Frankly that is what makes Apples new monitor interesting and desirable. It marks a shift in technology with an eye on the future. That means a monitor that might actually be useful with 2-3 generations of computing hardware.
I know some are disappointed with the lack of backward compatibility but breaking with the pack takes strong leadership and I see this as one move that Apple got right. I don't say that lightly either as I'm an owner of a MBP new early this year. I would love to hook up this new monitor to that MBP, but realize that isn't going to happen as Apple is showing a little leadership here.
Dave
I remember having mixed feelings about the Mini's launch. It didn't seem like an Apple thing to do, to purposefully design something low cost. It seemed like they were acknowledging the fact they didn't really want you to buy it. They wanted you to try it and see the glorious light that an all-in-one Mac could bring.
I've never been really angry at Apple for there marketing and business decisions, but I sort of am now. They opened the low cost / efficiency door, perhaps dishonestly, and now it looks like they're shutting it.
The only thing I can imagine them doing that would make it okay, is if they were holding off for environmental reasons as well. Efficiency, low cost, and a clean evironment often go together, which is why their ignorance of the Mini is so puzzling. Maybe what they really want is for people to buy their easily recyclable and green displays and they're holding back on the Mini until they're released? Otherwise people will keep buying monitors that aren't as environmentally friendly.
I don't know, though. I could really be scraping the bottom of the barrel of ideas on this one, but it sounds okay to my Eco-libertarian ears.
Apple wants to push its customers into buying the next highest margin product. If there's going to be an iMac update soon, then I guess it's safe to say that there won't be a Mini update until after Christmas, if ever, since it would lure away people who might otherwise convince themselves to buy an iMac.
I'm not sure about that because if they continue to sell the Mini the way it is, Jobs can't go on stage at MW and talk about being environmentally friendly across the lineup. The Mini still has plastic in it. Plus they bumped up the Mini one time the iMac was updated. It's true it wasn't explicit so there is the impression Apple don't want you to buy it.
Not to mention, there will be a push for GPU computing so there will be Nvidia chips across the lineup. I can see the low end iMac ATI chips being replaced with the Nvidia 9400M and possibly the 9800M GT in the higher end models. If the Mini doesn't get the Nvidia integrated chip then it simply won't be able to do any of this stuff and it will be quite obvious that Apple are holding it down.
Maybe what they really want is for people to buy their easily recyclable and green displays and they're holding back on the Mini until they're released? Otherwise people will keep buying monitors that aren't as environmentally friendly.
Well, they already make a Cinema display that they say is made for the Macbook. I'm not sure exactly which Macbook owners would buy a $900 display but they could say the same for the Mini if they include Mini-Displayport.
I don't think Apple would mind if people bought a $600 Mini vs a $1100 iMac if they also bought a $900 display with it.