The bottom line is that even after having puzzled over this for a couple of years now, I remain fully convinced that this CNC-machining business does not actually have much at all to do with maximizing margins as a percentage of operating costs. Rather, I am convinced that all it is really about is an obsession with making products that strive to a certain subjective sort of quality, with absolute indifference to any business reality. This is my opinion, and like everyone else, I am entitled to have and to share my opinion.
It has got to do with marketing, product design, and Apple's vision. Steve openly says that the design and vision drives most of what Apple does. It so happens that Steve can run a business pretty well alongside the right people covering the different areas. And he never says it openly, which is further proof of, him being an absolute marketing genius.
That said though, the unibody for the laptop line is definitely form and function coming together. There is no comparable build quality (but note - not necessarily component and replacement part quality) in the laptop arena. If you've used the plastic MacBooks, the non-unibody MacBook Pro, when it comes to the unibody, it really is stunning. It's far from perfect when it comes to components failing, replacing certain components and servicing, because sometimes you have to replace the entire unibody which is one whole piece of aluminium, recyclable or whatever, to replace. Also, the area where the CD/DVD slot is somewhat softer, mine is squeezed somewhat from I don't know how, there are no other real indications of damage due to drops.
Apple's brilliance is both amazing and infuriating, compelling and confusing, inspiring and frustrating all at the same time.
To sum up, I agree, CNC-machining unibody etc was NEVER about reducing costs. NEVER.
[Is it about the environment? Maybe, maybe not...]
Apple evaluates all the options out there. They could build a computer in a cardboard box. They could build the legendary midi-Mac. They could build a Mini with BD. They could build a Mac Pro with 8 six-core processors. And so on.
Now, based on their 30 years of experience and best marketing skills in the industry, they have chosen a product range. This range was selected as being their evaluation of what would yield them the greatest profits by satisfying the largest number of customers. They've demonstrated an uncanny ability to do this - at least based on results over the last 5 years or so.
You were making a great point up until you typed the part in bold. Apple only cares about the greatest profits (as it should be, that isn't a dig). You are foolish to assume the greatest profits come with the largest amount of customers.
The design was chosen it to make it look cool. Its price was raised to increase profits. Steve knows his users and his users are form over function idiots as a rule. They rather pay a lot of money for a cool looking under powered computer, than have a basic looking mid-tower with a 3 year in home warranty, more RAM, bigger faster HD, and better CPU/GPU performance.
If you think about it, the same logic lead a bunch of people into buying SUVs when they would have been better served with something more practical.
Mac Mini buyer = SUV buyer (in terms of intelligence at least)
I don't really want to replace one BRD with another if that one is working fine. I certainly don't want two on the same TV.
True, but then there are many of us who have not yet made the jump to a BRD player. Sure they have come down in price, but for me it's not a matter of price. It's a matter of limited space and limited connections. My DVD player was removed to make room for a mini. And there is no room for a standalone BRD player. So either TiVo makes a unit with blu-ray (like they licensed others to do with DVD players) or Apple adds blu-ray to either AppleTV or the mini.
I still think it would be a great long-term strategy for Apple to use a blu-ray player in the AppleTV as a Trogan horse to get units into living rooms. Then let the convenience of online movies build it's own momentum.
... I just did a trial buy on Apple's site... $1,934 for the base configuration + 27" Apple monitor, Apple wireless keyboard & magic mouse, iWork, and AppleCare. Yikes. ...
Which 27" display is that?
And, if that's what you need to buy, the iMac is definitely a better deal. The Mini has always been targeted at users who already have a monitor+keyboard+mouse.
The bottom line is that even after having puzzled over this for a couple of years now, I remain fully convinced that this CNC-machining business does not actually have much at all to do with maximizing margins as a percentage of operating costs. Rather, I am convinced that all it is really about is an obsession with making products that strive to a certain subjective sort of quality, with absolute indifference to any business reality. This is my opinion, and like everyone else, I am entitled to have and to share my opinion.
I think Apple care about profits, but they also care about the quality of their products and the reputation of their brand. They try to make as much profit as possible from the kind of products they want to build, rather than build the products that will make the most money. It comes down to whether $$$ are something that enables you to do what you want to do, or something that controls what you do.
I love the new Mac Mini design, but as is often the case with newly-redesigned products the first generation has poor bang for the buck. I expect the next revision will correct that, with either improved specs or a lowered price or both. With the iPad, my need for a laptop has diminished to almost zero, but my 24" LED Display has ruled out an iMac as a possibility. With this revision to the Mac Mini, it's finally a serious option as a home computer that can handle pro work (dedicated graphics and user-accessible memory). This first version though has roughly the same specs as my 1.5 year-old MacBook Pro, so it's going to need a revision or two before it would actually be an upgrade from my current computer. My only hesitation is the 5400RPM drive, and how difficult it may or may not be to replace that with a 7200rpm drive.
1 - It is the same size, area wise, as the Apple TV. Did Apple do this so they could be stacked nice and neat? If so, why?
2 - Reason for HDMI. Is it so games can be played on HDTVs (sound and video using one cable)
Future updates to other Apple products and services
3 - Will the Apple TV get an A4 processor and be able to play 1080p video?
4 - Will the iTunes Store offer 1080p video? Gotta give the the Apple TV gigabit ethernet.
5 - (See #1) An Apple TV on top of a Mac mini server would look sweet. Everything would be stored on the Mac mini and the Apple TV would be the hardware equivalent of the iTunes application. The Apple TV gets FireWire 800 so the two can be connected. Turn the current HDMI connector 90 degrees and put a FireWire connector between it and the component video and the FireWire ports will be aligned vertically.
I think Apple care about profits, but they also care about the quality of their products and the reputation of their brand. They try to make as much profit as possible from the kind of products they want to build, rather than build the products that will make the most money. It comes down to whether $$$ are something that enables you to do what you want to do, or something that controls what you do.
It's actually simpler than that. Apple maximizes profits by maximizing user experience. They have found that it is often more profitable for them to use a more expensive component - if it improves the user experience in some way. Basically, Apple is doing what most businesses should be doing - focusing on the long term relationship with the customer rather than next week's profits.
So if you are buying this for a desktop system, rather than a HTPC, why not just save up an extra $200 and buy a white MacBook instead? That way you can output to your desktop monitor, hookup your keyboard and mouse and still have portability too.
Looking thru the Apple Store, you have to spend $1800 with Apple (15" MBP) to be able to purchase an i5 chip. Anything cheaper runs on c2d. That is just ridiculous
And, if that's what you need to buy, the iMac is definitely a better deal. The Mini has always been targeted at users who already have a monitor+keyboard+mouse.
Whoops, my bad. Meant the 24". Was thinking of the 27" iMac. Even still though.
Then why buy a Mini in the first place then? I see coflicting arguments. Also, at least according to some here, every product other than Apple is sheer crap. If that's the sentiment, then yes, a buyer (lets say first time) would have to buy the whole Apple arrangement to get the full "asthetic."
If you've already got the monitor+keyboard+mouse, it's not a bad deal. $300 less than a MacBook, $500 less than entry iMac. Or, if you want to run it headless as a server.
If you've already got the monitor+keyboard+mouse, it's not a bad deal. $300 less than a MacBook, $500 less than entry iMac. Or, if you want to run it headless as a server.
Maybe some of the Mac mini redesign is to roll off the iPad success. Those who have an iPad may carry that around if they don't really need a laptop. Then at home, pop in a new ultra-sexy Mac mini into their desktop setup. Boom!
iPad's the bait, Mac mini the hook, iMac the upsell.
For me though, I definitely need a MacBook/Pro. I just connect my 13" MacBook Aluminium 2ghz to an external monitor a few times a week at home or at work.
Though I've been playing with a friends 15" non-unibody MacBook Pro. Them 15" screen really helps, may not need an external monitor. But, back to the cost of the 15" ... Hmm
I think that's what people have a problem with. Apple prioritized miniaturization, but for a stationary machine that seems to be an unsavory (and unnecessary) compromise. By shrinking the form factor Apple has both boxed themselves in a corner in terms of user-expandability AND added to the production costs. And for what?
You are talking like a computer geek. Computer geeks aren't the audience that this product is aimed at. Try this experiment: Take your wife or girlfriend to Best Buy and parade her by the biggest, baddest, PC in the store, then have her walk by the new Mac Mini and ask her which one she would rather have in her house. I assure you, a dissertation on bus speed and expansion slots is not going be very persuasive on her.
Oh, and if you do try this experiment, I hope you enjoy your new Mac Mini!
You are talking like a computer geek. Computer geeks aren't the audience that this product is aimed at. Try this experiment: Take your wife or girlfriend to Best Buy and parade her by the biggest, baddest, PC in the store, then have her walk by the new Mac Mini and ask her which one she would rather have in her house. I assure you, a dissertation on bus speed and expansion slots is not going be very persuasive on her.
Oh, and if you do try this experiment, I hope you enjoy your new Mac Mini!
The problem is once you show her the iMac, you're done for. Mac mini is nice but the cables! Argh that would kill the beautiful design... And pairing up the Mac mini with poor-looking monitors, keyboard and cheap mice, that makes Jonny Ive cry at night.
Try 1.4" thick. It's not a press release, it's a report.
I hate it when marketing does that. I don't need someone to tell me that it's thin. The dimension tells me that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaisersoze
Quality is always a subjective thing, but even if that were not the case, i.e., even if there were universal agreement that the CNC-machined approach adds genuine value to the machines, the defensive argument that has been offered is still logically disjointed. The reason is simply that there is not one scintilla of proof that computers have to be built this way lest margins suffer. I reiterate: there is not a scintilla of proof of this.
Really? Have you compared the rigidity of Apple notebooks with competing notebooks? You don't think that they make money by using build quality as a selling point? How about the weight savings from using the shell as part of the structure? Computers don't have to be built that way, but it seems to be a winning strategy for Apple. Unibody is probably hard to copycat.
The machining costs money, but then, it also simplifies assembly too and reduces other production costs, the shell eliminates a lot of the internal brackets and braces that would be necessary, each of those brackets and braces required a series of dies and fixtures to produce.
I don't know if the increase in the mini price is worth it, but with respect to the rest of the line, maybe Apple can make more money by selling less expensive computers, but they're making plenty of money now, and Apple's computer sales are growing about as fast as they can. Increasing sales too quickly can have problems, such as customer service and warranty problems.
Pointing to competitors probably isn't going to help, because they're in a race to the bottom with diminishing margins. I don't think it makes sense to say that Apple can win at that game when everyone else is skating by doing just that.
Why this is a good deal is that this is NOT JUST a home theater box. It's a small computer that I can easily hook to my flat screen TV. With a wireless kbd and the new touch mouse this makes a great cowputer for the living room. My itunes collection can play via the stereo. The videos I have in my collection can play. I can play games. I can surf the web. I'm just not sure if I want the server version or the regular one. My wife has been asking for an apple computer and this is just perfect for her.
Looks good, but $100 more than than what the low end was previously is a bit much. At $499 it would be worth it. It is just $200 too much. Especially when I can buy a MacBook for $999 and get a keyboard and mouse (err trackpad). Apple's too greedy on the Mac Mini.
Comments
Is that thing sticking its tongue out at me?
Yes, when you said you're too expensive it did that. Then is said: "What you gonna do about it?"
but for a MINIMUM of six benjamins
7 actually. $699+tax
The bottom line is that even after having puzzled over this for a couple of years now, I remain fully convinced that this CNC-machining business does not actually have much at all to do with maximizing margins as a percentage of operating costs. Rather, I am convinced that all it is really about is an obsession with making products that strive to a certain subjective sort of quality, with absolute indifference to any business reality. This is my opinion, and like everyone else, I am entitled to have and to share my opinion.
It has got to do with marketing, product design, and Apple's vision. Steve openly says that the design and vision drives most of what Apple does. It so happens that Steve can run a business pretty well alongside the right people covering the different areas. And he never says it openly, which is further proof of, him being an absolute marketing genius.
That said though, the unibody for the laptop line is definitely form and function coming together. There is no comparable build quality (but note - not necessarily component and replacement part quality) in the laptop arena. If you've used the plastic MacBooks, the non-unibody MacBook Pro, when it comes to the unibody, it really is stunning. It's far from perfect when it comes to components failing, replacing certain components and servicing, because sometimes you have to replace the entire unibody which is one whole piece of aluminium, recyclable or whatever, to replace. Also, the area where the CD/DVD slot is somewhat softer, mine is squeezed somewhat from I don't know how, there are no other real indications of damage due to drops.
Apple's brilliance is both amazing and infuriating, compelling and confusing, inspiring and frustrating all at the same time.
To sum up, I agree, CNC-machining unibody etc was NEVER about reducing costs. NEVER.
[Is it about the environment? Maybe, maybe not...]
...
Let's go through the process:
Apple evaluates all the options out there. They could build a computer in a cardboard box. They could build the legendary midi-Mac. They could build a Mini with BD. They could build a Mac Pro with 8 six-core processors. And so on.
Now, based on their 30 years of experience and best marketing skills in the industry, they have chosen a product range. This range was selected as being their evaluation of what would yield them the greatest profits by satisfying the largest number of customers. They've demonstrated an uncanny ability to do this - at least based on results over the last 5 years or so.
You were making a great point up until you typed the part in bold. Apple only cares about the greatest profits (as it should be, that isn't a dig). You are foolish to assume the greatest profits come with the largest amount of customers.
The design was chosen it to make it look cool. Its price was raised to increase profits. Steve knows his users and his users are form over function idiots as a rule. They rather pay a lot of money for a cool looking under powered computer, than have a basic looking mid-tower with a 3 year in home warranty, more RAM, bigger faster HD, and better CPU/GPU performance.
If you think about it, the same logic lead a bunch of people into buying SUVs when they would have been better served with something more practical.
Mac Mini buyer = SUV buyer (in terms of intelligence at least)
-kpluck
I don't really want to replace one BRD with another if that one is working fine. I certainly don't want two on the same TV.
True, but then there are many of us who have not yet made the jump to a BRD player. Sure they have come down in price, but for me it's not a matter of price. It's a matter of limited space and limited connections. My DVD player was removed to make room for a mini. And there is no room for a standalone BRD player. So either TiVo makes a unit with blu-ray (like they licensed others to do with DVD players) or Apple adds blu-ray to either AppleTV or the mini.
I still think it would be a great long-term strategy for Apple to use a blu-ray player in the AppleTV as a Trogan horse to get units into living rooms. Then let the convenience of online movies build it's own momentum.
... I just did a trial buy on Apple's site... $1,934 for the base configuration + 27" Apple monitor, Apple wireless keyboard & magic mouse, iWork, and AppleCare. Yikes. ...
Which 27" display is that?
And, if that's what you need to buy, the iMac is definitely a better deal. The Mini has always been targeted at users who already have a monitor+keyboard+mouse.
The bottom line is that even after having puzzled over this for a couple of years now, I remain fully convinced that this CNC-machining business does not actually have much at all to do with maximizing margins as a percentage of operating costs. Rather, I am convinced that all it is really about is an obsession with making products that strive to a certain subjective sort of quality, with absolute indifference to any business reality. This is my opinion, and like everyone else, I am entitled to have and to share my opinion.
I think Apple care about profits, but they also care about the quality of their products and the reputation of their brand. They try to make as much profit as possible from the kind of products they want to build, rather than build the products that will make the most money. It comes down to whether $$$ are something that enables you to do what you want to do, or something that controls what you do.
2 - Reason for HDMI. Is it so games can be played on HDTVs (sound and video using one cable)
Future updates to other Apple products and services
3 - Will the Apple TV get an A4 processor and be able to play 1080p video?
4 - Will the iTunes Store offer 1080p video? Gotta give the the Apple TV gigabit ethernet.
5 - (See #1) An Apple TV on top of a Mac mini server would look sweet. Everything would be stored on the Mac mini and the Apple TV would be the hardware equivalent of the iTunes application. The Apple TV gets FireWire 800 so the two can be connected. Turn the current HDMI connector 90 degrees and put a FireWire connector between it and the component video and the FireWire ports will be aligned vertically.
dedicated graphics
It's the shared memory/integrated version of the 320M. But still twice as fast as the current 9400M supposedly.
I think Apple care about profits, but they also care about the quality of their products and the reputation of their brand. They try to make as much profit as possible from the kind of products they want to build, rather than build the products that will make the most money. It comes down to whether $$$ are something that enables you to do what you want to do, or something that controls what you do.
It's actually simpler than that. Apple maximizes profits by maximizing user experience. They have found that it is often more profitable for them to use a more expensive component - if it improves the user experience in some way. Basically, Apple is doing what most businesses should be doing - focusing on the long term relationship with the customer rather than next week's profits.
Looking thru the Apple Store, you have to spend $1800 with Apple (15" MBP) to be able to purchase an i5 chip. Anything cheaper runs on c2d. That is just ridiculous
Which 27" display is that?
And, if that's what you need to buy, the iMac is definitely a better deal. The Mini has always been targeted at users who already have a monitor+keyboard+mouse.
Whoops, my bad. Meant the 24". Was thinking of the 27" iMac. Even still though.
Then why buy a Mini in the first place then? I see coflicting arguments. Also, at least according to some here, every product other than Apple is sheer crap. If that's the sentiment, then yes, a buyer (lets say first time) would have to buy the whole Apple arrangement to get the full "asthetic."
Then why buy a Mini in the first place then?
If you've already got the monitor+keyboard+mouse, it's not a bad deal. $300 less than a MacBook, $500 less than entry iMac. Or, if you want to run it headless as a server.
If you've already got the monitor+keyboard+mouse, it's not a bad deal. $300 less than a MacBook, $500 less than entry iMac. Or, if you want to run it headless as a server.
Maybe some of the Mac mini redesign is to roll off the iPad success. Those who have an iPad may carry that around if they don't really need a laptop. Then at home, pop in a new ultra-sexy Mac mini into their desktop setup. Boom!
iPad's the bait, Mac mini the hook, iMac the upsell.
For me though, I definitely need a MacBook/Pro. I just connect my 13" MacBook Aluminium 2ghz to an external monitor a few times a week at home or at work.
Though I've been playing with a friends 15" non-unibody MacBook Pro. Them 15" screen really helps, may not need an external monitor. But, back to the cost of the 15" ... Hmm
Originally Posted by Dlux
I think that's what people have a problem with. Apple prioritized miniaturization, but for a stationary machine that seems to be an unsavory (and unnecessary) compromise. By shrinking the form factor Apple has both boxed themselves in a corner in terms of user-expandability AND added to the production costs. And for what?
You are talking like a computer geek. Computer geeks aren't the audience that this product is aimed at. Try this experiment: Take your wife or girlfriend to Best Buy and parade her by the biggest, baddest, PC in the store, then have her walk by the new Mac Mini and ask her which one she would rather have in her house. I assure you, a dissertation on bus speed and expansion slots is not going be very persuasive on her.
Oh, and if you do try this experiment, I hope you enjoy your new Mac Mini!
You are talking like a computer geek. Computer geeks aren't the audience that this product is aimed at. Try this experiment: Take your wife or girlfriend to Best Buy and parade her by the biggest, baddest, PC in the store, then have her walk by the new Mac Mini and ask her which one she would rather have in her house. I assure you, a dissertation on bus speed and expansion slots is not going be very persuasive on her.
Oh, and if you do try this experiment, I hope you enjoy your new Mac Mini!
The problem is once you show her the iMac, you're done for. Mac mini is nice but the cables! Argh that would kill the beautiful design... And pairing up the Mac mini with poor-looking monitors, keyboard and cheap mice, that makes Jonny Ive cry at night.
Try 1.4" thick. It's not a press release, it's a report.
I hate it when marketing does that. I don't need someone to tell me that it's thin. The dimension tells me that.
Quality is always a subjective thing, but even if that were not the case, i.e., even if there were universal agreement that the CNC-machined approach adds genuine value to the machines, the defensive argument that has been offered is still logically disjointed. The reason is simply that there is not one scintilla of proof that computers have to be built this way lest margins suffer. I reiterate: there is not a scintilla of proof of this.
Really? Have you compared the rigidity of Apple notebooks with competing notebooks? You don't think that they make money by using build quality as a selling point? How about the weight savings from using the shell as part of the structure? Computers don't have to be built that way, but it seems to be a winning strategy for Apple. Unibody is probably hard to copycat.
The machining costs money, but then, it also simplifies assembly too and reduces other production costs, the shell eliminates a lot of the internal brackets and braces that would be necessary, each of those brackets and braces required a series of dies and fixtures to produce.
I don't know if the increase in the mini price is worth it, but with respect to the rest of the line, maybe Apple can make more money by selling less expensive computers, but they're making plenty of money now, and Apple's computer sales are growing about as fast as they can. Increasing sales too quickly can have problems, such as customer service and warranty problems.
Pointing to competitors probably isn't going to help, because they're in a race to the bottom with diminishing margins. I don't think it makes sense to say that Apple can win at that game when everyone else is skating by doing just that.