Your original point was that Apple knows it's customer base. Mine was that it doesn't know it's base as well as some may think.
And that's an incredibly foolish position to take - even for an AI troll.
Apple earns around 30% of the entire PC industry's profits. They are the most profitable PC maker - by far. They have 90% of the PC sales over $1 K by some reports.
The have released a long string of products which have been great successes and which are widely acclaimed -- and then copied. They haven't had a flop for ages. (Even a flop by Apple standards would be a very successful product by most standards, anyway).
Yet you think you know more about Apple's customer base than they do. That is such an incredibly stupid comment that it doesn't even need a response.
Beautiful little device... and I understand that it would be difficult to fit the board and cooling requirements of a discrete GPU in the tiny case and that they would rather have Nvidia's 9400 than Intel's graphics, but still, spending close to $1000 on a computer with a Core 2 Duo "Penryn" chip which hasn't seen anything but minor modifications since 2007 is pretty bad.
Your original point was that Apple knows it's customer base. Mine was that it doesn't know it's base as well as some may think.
Are you kidding me?!?
Apple's profit margins blow doors on the rest of the industry. The real question would be to all the other companies: "Why aren't you guys as profitable as Apple?"
As a longtime AAPL shareholder, I have decided that it's ridiculous trying to second-guess Apple's senior management team. They do a better job than anyone else in increasing shareholder value. I am happy to receive my annual proxy ballot and re-elect the board of directors every year (including Steve Jobs, the CEO who draws $1 in salary per year).
Apple knows its customer base better than any other S&P 500 or Russell 2000 company.
By jacking up the price, Apple has made the mini a lot less attractive. Are they getting greedy? Do they really need high margins on this thing? The mini is about cost effectiveness. Its supposed to be a low cost way to get you into the Apple camp... But at $700? Come on, I can get an iMac for just a little more. Even if they want to pitch this as a media center, its overpriced. For example,
you can get a BD player with Netflix streaming for under $200. The Boxee Box is probably going to be around $200. A PS3 box which plays BlueRay disks and does Netflix is under $500.
So, what are they thinking?
Hmmm, remember the Cube?
I think the Mini does a little more than a Boxee box or a PS3. IT'S A COMPUTER!
And I can get a Kia equipped with just as many wheels and seats as a BMW, so the Kia must be every bit as good, right?
Build an HP Pavilion with 8GB RAM, Bluetooth, Core i3, NVIDIA 320, 6 in 1 card reader, 500 GB hard drive, and the free keyboard and mouse and compare it to the Mac Mini with the same things other than the inferior processor, no keyboard or mouse. The price is very different.
Try the same with the HP Slimline with nearly the same level of components as the Mini and you will save money. Personally I prefer the AMD chip options, but you can choose Intel chips.
I bet Kias are just as reliable as BMWs or even better. If somebody wants a car to bring them and their family around town, to work, and to do shopping, the Kia can do everything a BMW can do. The difference is the need for attention or status. A Kia can do the same job for much less money. There are several levels of Kias today. They even have adjustable leather seats and AIR CONDITIONING!
My twenty month old Mac Book battery has expanded and is breaking the case. I just discovered it this week. Apple won't accept this as a defective battery. Imagine that! I've used the Mac Book as a desktop since getting it. I discharge the battery once per month as Apple instructed. So when you make the comparison between a Kia and a BMW I tend to want a Kia and keep the rest of the money in my pocket for other things.
I'm really glad I experienced Leopard. It is a wonderful OS. I'm using my HP computer right now running Vista. I've never hated a thing more than Vista. I've found that there are several features of Ubuntu Linux that do some of my favorite things that Leopard does, only better. Once my Mac Book is back in shape I'm moving all of my files off of it and switching to a dual boot Linux/Vista setup. I'm keeping Vista just because I want iTunes for syncing with my future iPad or perhaps a newer much larger iPod Touch (fingers crossed).
You're assuming that Apple has decided that it has grabbed all the "switchers" it can grab. If 10% of the market is Mac (notebook and desktop) then the remaining 90% of the market would have to be non-Mac or a potential switcher. Oh, and I never said anything with respect to pricing, old or new. Has Apple figured out that the Mac Mini has found a niche among home entertainment PC types? Has it determined that switchers are just as likely to go for a lower end Macbook or iMac? Probably yes to both.
You are making some irrational assumptions here. If there is even one person who has not "switched" then that is a potential Mac customer. the problem with your comment is that they have to decide that they have grabbed all they can grab. Why can't the simply be using a more effective method for getting switcher? Do you really think the Mac mini is the most popular machine for switchers when notebooks are the most sought offer type of PC sold and most common Mac sold? I don't. It seems more likely to me that they don't see the Mac mini as the golden child for potential switchers or that, as stated earlier, they simply weren't buying the $600 version. Then there is the cost to profit ratio of going after every last potential Mac switcher. You get to a point that it ends up costing you money, not making you money, which is the point. There are plenty of other possibilities that come before "Apple are big doodie heads that don't know how to run a business" but those are most relevant here.
Even worse is your argument that Apple is going after 100% of the PC market OS marketshare. IF that were true they would have licensed their OS back in the 80's. Even when they were on their last leg and big, rich vendors like Dell and Compaq were begging to get out from under Microsoft's thumb they still didn't license their OS despite it obviously being a ticket to rapid marketshare growth. It's impossible for Apple to ever gain even a 50% of the desktop OS marketshare (beating Windows) with their business model. This should be easily understood without anyone having to explain it. Take what 50% per quarter would mean in terms on OS licenses, now turn that exact number into Macs. That is 2x as many PCs as HP sells and they are number one in the world with budget PCs. now figure how much revenue and profit that is considering the average Mac sale is around $1,200. That's even without figuring the impossible production issues they'd have trying to produce 10x as many Macs per quarter all using the same components that even caused a delay in this last release.
It's simply foolish to remove Apple's HW aspect from their Mac sales and then imply that they want to overtake MS' Windows monopoly yet ignoring that they could license their OS to any and all OEMS if they wanted to.
Quote:
Really not sure where you were headed here. Did you mean to denigrate Boxee, XBMC or Plex? All three work fine (in that order) for the non-technical members of my family. Unboxing and connecting the Mac Mini took about 5 minutes. Installing Plex and a few other tools was another 15 minutes. Many well written articles on the intraweb on best practices. If someone has made the decision to acquire a media center computer (much less knows what one is) they're motivated and are doing some homework. And I think one of the pitfalls of the technically minded (us) is that we underestimate the ability and understanding of the "non-technical".
You overestimate the the technical abilities and desire for the average to tinker with their system. They want it to work. Based on your statements above it's clear you don't think the iPhone shook up the iPhone business by making a simple device that the average person could understand. Or you probably think that they bought it because its pretty because they are sheep. Who the hell knows, but I'm not going to tell my mother or grandmother that the Mac Mini makes a great HTPC or MEA for $700 and then have them figure how to search for, install and run MC software. That's insane on that face of it. The AppleTV, PS3, XBOX, TiVo, Popcorn Hour, Scientific Atlanta, etc. all are designed to interact with your TV out of the box using a 10-Foot User Interface. You can pat yourself on the back and say how easy it is all you want, but we both the reality of what you're talking about.
Quote:
I would argue that Mac Mini's are an even more attractive option than a Windows PC for folks that want their media center computer to "just work", although Windows 7 does seem to be a major step forward for MSFT. The Mini is physically attractive (or at least not unattractive) and has a very small form factor. My only gripe is that I bought my last one 60 days before the refresh.
It's expensive and you can buy Windows Media Center that is designed with the HTPC in mind and you build your own for $700 with a BRD, Core-i7, tuner card, etc., so no, I don't think many would find it a more attractive option. Apple simply doesn't play in that market with their Macs.
Quote:
As for AppleTV, I think it has been a sales disappointment because left unhacked, it's little more than an iTunes device. Not that there isn't a lot of value there for $229, it just doesn't address everything someone would want or soon discovers they want in a media center device.
I'm sure it's been a dissapoinement yet I think it's also by far the most profitable MEA that has been release. It's 2010 and that 1GHz Pentium M processor and anemic GPU have got to go. Remember it hasn't been updated since it first debuted. It seems obvious that the next one will be much smaller and use an A4 with iOS sans Cocoa Touch.
Note the unusual way the AppleTV was brought to us. Jobs offered a teaser demo in late 2006 for the AppleTV, then know as iTV. When have they ever done that? Sounds to me like this was for the content owners to show that they had a secure method for digital distribution. For comparison, Google didn't even buy YouTube until the month after 'iTV' was demoed. Then they showcased it in 2007 right before the iPhone announcement. Another failure here because it was bound to get overshadowed by the iPhone. Then it was delayed a month and year after it as released we still only had the Disney umbrella for content distribution. To me this speaks volumes as to why it has never gotten out of "hobby" mode and why it's only "hobbled" along. The content owners played hardball and won, so Apple was never able to come to the living room as planned.
But they can't give it up. Even if they have to create another place holder for 3 years they have to have something there, which is why the AppleTV has been set to rot. it's still a great interface (v2.x notwithstanding) and now there is enough focus on that segment and enough has changed that I think they can make it work. I expect something out this Fall during the iPod/iTunes Special Event.
Apple's new aluminum unibody Mac mini retains its role as the company's low price, compact PC and server
Except that it fails dismally at "low price". And for the price it's woefully underpowered.
And why does apple even think that the "role" of a compact desktop even exists? I'm not sure if apple is obsessed with size, even when it's irrelevant, or if they are just using "compact" as an excuse to jack up the price and ship a machine that's a MUCH worse value than comparable hardware on the PC side.
$500-$600, this would be an easy buy. In this economic climate, I do not plan on buying a new computer any time soon. the specs looks great on this machine though, and the case looks great too! anyway, cutting back on the apple spending. we have to survive, and save cash.
Um, the iMac doesn't use "12-year" old "monitor technology." Show me an IPS monitor from 1998 with the iMac's resolution, contrast and color reproduction. Show me a 2004 CPU and GPU like the iMac has for its price. You mean that the iMac is an old CONCEPT --in which case, you should be logically consistent with your poor argument and prize netbooks above all computers because they are a newer concepts.
I also chuckle at your spiel about how the iMac is a terrible deal "over the long haul," yet in the same post tell us how much more powerful the Mini will be in a few years. Will the new powerful Mini then make this current one a "poor deal" in the "long haul" too?
If you think that in terms of specs, the Mini can even touch a $699 HTPC, then you need to do some research. I am speaking only about the specs like you mentioned, omitting build quality and the premium that OS X should, IMO, demand over PCs.
What I meant by the 12-year reference is that today's good quality LCD panels should have a life span of about 12 years, if not longer. In other words, you're combining an LCD panel capable of lasting about 12 years with a computer that will not, that is provided you don't sink serious money into periodic maintenance. If you're OK with the iMac being your computer for more than a decade and are willing to spend money to keep the thing current, then the iMac makes sense.
Possibly because it's an incredibly obvious, gaping hole in the spec sheet of every Mac? Or are you happy with standard def video?
Well, since I don't use my computer as my home entertainment system, yes, quite happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
I'm not really seeing much reason to choose the Mini over the Zino...
I believe the specs of the Zino were reviewed against the Mini in a thread the other day and found to not measure up at all. But, I definitely think the Zino is probably the perfect machine for you.
Build an HP Pavilion with 8GB RAM, Bluetooth, Core i3, NVIDIA 320, 6 in 1 card reader, 500 GB hard drive, and the free keyboard and mouse and compare it to the Mac Mini with the same things other than the inferior processor, no keyboard or mouse. The price is very different.
Silly argument. An office desk costs less than an HDTV. Would you like to compare any other dissimilar objects?
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Except that it fails dismally at "low price". And for the price it's woefully underpowered.
You were responding to someone talking about the Mini server. The Mac Mini server is $999 including full unlimited client licenses. For Windows, you're going to pay $2200 just for the client licenses - not counting hardware or the server software itself. So exactly which Windows system can you get that's more powerful than that for $999 with unlimited client licenses?
Why? Apple offers a range of computers. They're not expecting to be able to please everyone, but they have iMacs, Mac Pros, a couple of laptops, and the Mini. Expecting each line to meet all of YOUR expectations is foolish.
Yeesh, what was that all about?
No, I don't expect all of Apple's hardware to meet everyone's expectations.
BUT I do question relegating a desktop model to a laptop processor and a slow HD because the case just had to be impossibly small. Seriously, why?? The next thing Apple's gonna obsess about is the weight of their desktops (which might not be a bad thing with the Mac Pro topping 41 lbs).
Anyway I can only conclude that Apple's engineers are masochists. Why else would you make each & every product the mother of challenges?
No, I don't expect all of Apple's hardware to meet everyone's expectations.
Then why are you spending so much time and energy railing against the Mini because it doesn't meet YOUR expectations of what a computer should be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider
BUT I do question relegating a desktop model to a laptop processor and a slow HD because the case just had to be impossibly small. Seriously, why?? The next thing Apple's gonna obsess about is the weight of their desktops (which might not be a bad thing with the Mac Pro topping 41 lbs).
Anyway I can only conclude that Apple's engineers are masochists. Why else would you make each & every product the mother of challenges?
What part of 'different computers for different customers' don't you understand?
Some people apparently like the Mini's feature set, including its size. Apparently, there is a significant number of people who want a tiny computer - and are willing to pay a premium for small size. The fact that YOU don't like it is irrelevant. Get it?
Yawn...I've been an Apple consumer since 1978. If they archived details, my name will be found amongst the very first Apple (then) Mac owners. I almost bought a Lisa, but sense got the better of me. As it will with Iteration One of the iPad. I still refuse to buy a smartphone as all the telecoms companies are making arses of all their customers.
That you didn't buy a Lisa wasn't "sense" as much as a lack of need for one. When we bought our Lisas we saved a significant amount of money vs the old way of doing things. So even at the rather high costs it was a good investment for us. It may have been $10,000 each, but a contemporary Wang word processor station was $5000...and with LisaDraw and LisaProject we were doing significant engineering as amazing as that sounds.
Quote:
As I implied, Jobs can't stand the smell of lower paid plebs
Which is pretty bogus given that Jobs' intent has always to build computers "for the rest of us."
That doesn't imply build computers at the lowest price possible but to build computers more easily accessible to non-nerds. Hiding complexity has a higher cost than not hiding complexity.
With the iPad he's finally gotten very close to achieving his goals with the original Mac. In a couple revs of the hardware (A4 and SSDs) and it may have enough computing/storage power to be master device without any serious compromises.
Will it be cheaper than the scads of Android based tablets? No, but it will be far more usable in my opinion. The TCO of the Apple ecosystem should actually be lower in the long run given the lack of hassle. Unless you feel your time is a zero cost item.
Even lower paid plebs don't believe that.
And as "expensive" as folks make Apple products out to be even a burger flipping high school kid can make $3,400 over the summer at minimum wage. Yes, he or she may have other plans for that money but $699 for a computer is certainly not some unobtainable goal for "normal" folks.
Silly argument. An office desk costs less than an HDTV. Would you like to compare any other dissimilar objects?
What's wrong with your mind? The Mini with added 8 GB RAM, the same NVIDIA 320 video chip, the larger (inferior 5400 RPM) hard drive, Bluetooth, Wireless LAN /N are the same things offered on the HP Pavilion. Just because they are different shapes doesn't mean they are different things. THEY ARE BOTH DESKTOP COMPUTERS!
The Mini configured that way costs approximately $1450.00 without a keyboard or mouse. The Pavilion costs just under $1000.00 and comes with a newer Core i3 processor, a full size 7200 RPM hard drive, a keyboard and mouse. That's a huge difference.
Configure a basic Mini and a basic Slimline HP and the HP is less expensive.
Whatva rip off. Cmon. Make a $1499 core i7 machine with express and pci express slots for the gamers, musicians, editors in the making. Headless. Apple would dobver well. Regardless off what people say about desktops as it would kill off a lot if c desktop sales if it had sli video as people would use bootcamp.
Time to get with the time and stop BEng afraid of losing you 2% pro market.
I'm not sure how Apple authors the installation recovery disks that ship with a system (i.e., whether or not they're only compatible with the latest hardware or not). Without a doubt, they are not generic OS X installation disks.
The best disks to have, I have like 3, are the genius install imaging disks.
And that's an incredibly foolish position to take - even for an AI troll.
So I point out that you didn't read (or comprehend apparently) my post and now I'm an AI troll? Nice. What do we call people that don't read posts before they comment / respond incompletely and incoherently? And then make a bad situation worse by doing the exact same thing over again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple earns around 30% of the entire PC industry's profits. They are the most profitable PC maker - by far. They have 90% of the PC sales over $1 K by some reports.
The have released a long string of products which have been great successes and which are widely acclaimed -- and then copied. They haven't had a flop for ages. (Even a flop by Apple standards would be a very successful product by most standards, anyway).
Yet you think you know more about Apple's customer base than they do. That is such an incredibly stupid comment that it doesn't even need a response.
You're right. Your post doesn't deserve a response but I'll humor you. The whole Apple vs. PC argument is beyond old and tired. I own and use both and like both. Do your homework and breakdown meaningful Apple computer sales and computer market metrics and we'll talk. Maybe you should throw in percentage of sales of computers in an aluminum unibody case too. The context of the comment and the discussion was about computers and not the complete Apple enterprise. You could (and should have) distilled down even further and realized it was all about the Mac Mini and the AppleTV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
Are you kidding me?!?
Apple's profit margins blow doors on the rest of the industry. The real question would be to all the other companies: "Why aren't you guys as profitable as Apple?"
As a longtime AAPL shareholder, I have decided that it's ridiculous trying to second-guess Apple's senior management team. They do a better job than anyone else in increasing shareholder value. I am happy to receive my annual proxy ballot and re-elect the board of directors every year (including Steve Jobs, the CEO who draws $1 in salary per year).
Apple knows its customer base better than any other S&P 500 or Russell 2000 company.
See above
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
You are making some irrational assumptions here. If there is even one person who has not "switched" then that is a potential Mac customer. the problem with your comment is that they have to decide that they have grabbed all they can grab. Why can't the simply be using a more effective method for getting switcher? Do you really think the Mac mini is the most popular machine for switchers when notebooks are the most sought offer type of PC sold and most common Mac sold? I don't. It seems more likely to me that they don't see the Mac mini as the golden child for potential switchers or that, as stated earlier, they simply weren't buying the $600 version. Then there is the cost to profit ratio of going after every last potential Mac switcher. You get to a point that it ends up costing you money, not making you money, which is the point. There are plenty of other possibilities that come before "Apple are big doodie heads that don't know how to run a business" but those are most relevant here.
Apple are not "doodie heads". They have enjoyed phenomenal overall / global success for a variety of reasons as I touched on earlier. We're talking about the Mac Mini and its original main purpose. To get non Mac types to sample Apple. Only they know how effective the Mini has been as an intro Mac.
I have to assume that with the addition of the HDMI port to the Mac Mini, (the only Mac and the 2nd Apple device to have one) Apple now also believes and recognizes that the Mac Mini is a popular home media PC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Even worse is your argument that Apple is going after 100% of the PC market OS marketshare. IF that were true they would have licensed their OS back in the 80's. Even when they were on their last leg and big, rich vendors like Dell and Compaq were begging to get out from under Microsoft's thumb they still didn't license their OS despite it obviously being a ticket to rapid marketshare growth. It's impossible for Apple to ever gain even a 50% of the desktop OS marketshare (beating Windows) with their business model. This should be easily understood without anyone having to explain it. Take what 50% per quarter would mean in terms on OS licenses, now turn that exact number into Macs. That is 2x as many PCs as HP sells and they are number one in the world with budget PCs. now figure how much revenue and profit that is considering the average Mac sale is around $1,200. That's even without figuring the impossible production issues they'd have trying to produce 10x as many Macs per quarter all using the same components that even caused a delay in this last release.
Apple is trying to grab as much market share as it can possible get. Only they are doing so on their terms and they're only willing to go so far. If 1 in 10 people use your product then the market breaks down as 10% customers and 90% prospective customers. It's that simple. Will Apple ever achieve anything close to 100% market share? Of course not. Even if such a thing were possible they are not willing to do the sorts of things (and risk its core business / customers) necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Based on your statements above it's clear you don't think the iPhone shook up the iPhone business by making a simple device that the average person could understand. Or you probably think that they bought it because its pretty because they are sheep. Who the hell knows, but I'm not going to tell my mother or grandmother that the Mac Mini makes a great HTPC or MEA for $700 and then have them figure how to search for, install and run MC software. That's insane on that face of it. The AppleTV, PS3, XBOX, TiVo, Popcorn Hour, Scientific Atlanta, etc. all are designed to interact with your TV out of the box using a 10-Foot User Interface. You can pat yourself on the back and say how easy it is all you want, but we both the reality of what you're talking about.
It's expensive and you can buy Windows Media Center that is designed with the HTPC in mind and you build your own for $700 with a BRD, Core-i7, tuner card, etc., so no, I don't think many would find it a more attractive option. Apple simply doesn't play in that market with their Macs.
I'm sure it's been a dissapoinement yet I think it's also by far the most profitable MEA that has been release. It's 2010 and that 1GHz Pentium M processor and anemic GPU have got to go. Remember it hasn't been updated since it first debuted. It seems obvious that the next one will be much smaller and use an A4 with iOS sans Cocoa Touch.
Note the unusual way the AppleTV was brought to us. Jobs offered a teaser demo in late 2006 for the AppleTV, then know as iTV. When have they ever done that? Sounds to me like this was for the content owners to show that they had a secure method for digital distribution. For comparison, Google didn't even buy YouTube until the month after 'iTV' was demoed. Then they showcased it in 2007 right before the iPhone announcement. Another failure here because it was bound to get overshadowed by the iPhone. Then it was delayed a month and year after it as released we still only had the Disney umbrella for content distribution. To me this speaks volumes as to why it has never gotten out of "hobby" mode and why it's only "hobbled" along. The content owners played hardball and won, so Apple was never able to come to the living room as planned.
But they can't give it up. Even if they have to create another place holder for 3 years they have to have something there, which is why the AppleTV has been set to rot. it's still a great interface (v2.x notwithstanding) and now there is enough focus on that segment and enough has changed that I think they can make it work. I expect something out this Fall during the iPod/iTunes Special Event.
Apple is trying to grab as much market share as it can possible get. Only they are doing so on their terms and they're only willing to go so far. If 1 in 10 people use your product then the market breaks down as 10% customers and 90% prospective customers.
It's really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apple's trying to grab as much market as they can within their business model, which is vastly different from MS'. If licensing OS X to all OEMs is their goal or they would have done it. Until they start doing that there is no way their focus is to grab Windows share of desktop OS sales. You're again failing to understand what Apple's market it, but instead projecting MS' goals with Windows on Apple's goal with Mac OS X.
PS: 1 in 10 people is not even close to the truth. There are nearly 7 billion in the world. Is Apple marketing Macs to all of these people?
Comments
Your original point was that Apple knows it's customer base. Mine was that it doesn't know it's base as well as some may think.
And that's an incredibly foolish position to take - even for an AI troll.
Apple earns around 30% of the entire PC industry's profits. They are the most profitable PC maker - by far. They have 90% of the PC sales over $1 K by some reports.
The have released a long string of products which have been great successes and which are widely acclaimed -- and then copied. They haven't had a flop for ages. (Even a flop by Apple standards would be a very successful product by most standards, anyway).
Yet you think you know more about Apple's customer base than they do. That is such an incredibly stupid comment that it doesn't even need a response.
Your original point was that Apple knows it's customer base. Mine was that it doesn't know it's base as well as some may think.
Are you kidding me?!?
Apple's profit margins blow doors on the rest of the industry. The real question would be to all the other companies: "Why aren't you guys as profitable as Apple?"
As a longtime AAPL shareholder, I have decided that it's ridiculous trying to second-guess Apple's senior management team. They do a better job than anyone else in increasing shareholder value. I am happy to receive my annual proxy ballot and re-elect the board of directors every year (including Steve Jobs, the CEO who draws $1 in salary per year).
Apple knows its customer base better than any other S&P 500 or Russell 2000 company.
By jacking up the price, Apple has made the mini a lot less attractive. Are they getting greedy? Do they really need high margins on this thing? The mini is about cost effectiveness. Its supposed to be a low cost way to get you into the Apple camp... But at $700? Come on, I can get an iMac for just a little more. Even if they want to pitch this as a media center, its overpriced. For example,
you can get a BD player with Netflix streaming for under $200. The Boxee Box is probably going to be around $200. A PS3 box which plays BlueRay disks and does Netflix is under $500.
So, what are they thinking?
Hmmm, remember the Cube?
I think the Mini does a little more than a Boxee box or a PS3. IT'S A COMPUTER!
And I can get a Kia equipped with just as many wheels and seats as a BMW, so the Kia must be every bit as good, right?
Build an HP Pavilion with 8GB RAM, Bluetooth, Core i3, NVIDIA 320, 6 in 1 card reader, 500 GB hard drive, and the free keyboard and mouse and compare it to the Mac Mini with the same things other than the inferior processor, no keyboard or mouse. The price is very different.
Try the same with the HP Slimline with nearly the same level of components as the Mini and you will save money. Personally I prefer the AMD chip options, but you can choose Intel chips.
I bet Kias are just as reliable as BMWs or even better. If somebody wants a car to bring them and their family around town, to work, and to do shopping, the Kia can do everything a BMW can do. The difference is the need for attention or status. A Kia can do the same job for much less money. There are several levels of Kias today. They even have adjustable leather seats and AIR CONDITIONING!
My twenty month old Mac Book battery has expanded and is breaking the case. I just discovered it this week. Apple won't accept this as a defective battery. Imagine that! I've used the Mac Book as a desktop since getting it. I discharge the battery once per month as Apple instructed. So when you make the comparison between a Kia and a BMW I tend to want a Kia and keep the rest of the money in my pocket for other things.
I'm really glad I experienced Leopard. It is a wonderful OS. I'm using my HP computer right now running Vista. I've never hated a thing more than Vista. I've found that there are several features of Ubuntu Linux that do some of my favorite things that Leopard does, only better. Once my Mac Book is back in shape I'm moving all of my files off of it and switching to a dual boot Linux/Vista setup. I'm keeping Vista just because I want iTunes for syncing with my future iPad or perhaps a newer much larger iPod Touch (fingers crossed).
I love Leopard OS X not Apple hardware.
You're assuming that Apple has decided that it has grabbed all the "switchers" it can grab. If 10% of the market is Mac (notebook and desktop) then the remaining 90% of the market would have to be non-Mac or a potential switcher. Oh, and I never said anything with respect to pricing, old or new. Has Apple figured out that the Mac Mini has found a niche among home entertainment PC types? Has it determined that switchers are just as likely to go for a lower end Macbook or iMac? Probably yes to both.
You are making some irrational assumptions here. If there is even one person who has not "switched" then that is a potential Mac customer. the problem with your comment is that they have to decide that they have grabbed all they can grab. Why can't the simply be using a more effective method for getting switcher? Do you really think the Mac mini is the most popular machine for switchers when notebooks are the most sought offer type of PC sold and most common Mac sold? I don't. It seems more likely to me that they don't see the Mac mini as the golden child for potential switchers or that, as stated earlier, they simply weren't buying the $600 version. Then there is the cost to profit ratio of going after every last potential Mac switcher. You get to a point that it ends up costing you money, not making you money, which is the point. There are plenty of other possibilities that come before "Apple are big doodie heads that don't know how to run a business" but those are most relevant here.
Even worse is your argument that Apple is going after 100% of the PC market OS marketshare. IF that were true they would have licensed their OS back in the 80's. Even when they were on their last leg and big, rich vendors like Dell and Compaq were begging to get out from under Microsoft's thumb they still didn't license their OS despite it obviously being a ticket to rapid marketshare growth. It's impossible for Apple to ever gain even a 50% of the desktop OS marketshare (beating Windows) with their business model. This should be easily understood without anyone having to explain it. Take what 50% per quarter would mean in terms on OS licenses, now turn that exact number into Macs. That is 2x as many PCs as HP sells and they are number one in the world with budget PCs. now figure how much revenue and profit that is considering the average Mac sale is around $1,200. That's even without figuring the impossible production issues they'd have trying to produce 10x as many Macs per quarter all using the same components that even caused a delay in this last release.
It's simply foolish to remove Apple's HW aspect from their Mac sales and then imply that they want to overtake MS' Windows monopoly yet ignoring that they could license their OS to any and all OEMS if they wanted to.
Really not sure where you were headed here. Did you mean to denigrate Boxee, XBMC or Plex? All three work fine (in that order) for the non-technical members of my family. Unboxing and connecting the Mac Mini took about 5 minutes. Installing Plex and a few other tools was another 15 minutes. Many well written articles on the intraweb on best practices. If someone has made the decision to acquire a media center computer (much less knows what one is) they're motivated and are doing some homework. And I think one of the pitfalls of the technically minded (us) is that we underestimate the ability and understanding of the "non-technical".
You overestimate the the technical abilities and desire for the average to tinker with their system. They want it to work. Based on your statements above it's clear you don't think the iPhone shook up the iPhone business by making a simple device that the average person could understand. Or you probably think that they bought it because its pretty because they are sheep. Who the hell knows, but I'm not going to tell my mother or grandmother that the Mac Mini makes a great HTPC or MEA for $700 and then have them figure how to search for, install and run MC software. That's insane on that face of it. The AppleTV, PS3, XBOX, TiVo, Popcorn Hour, Scientific Atlanta, etc. all are designed to interact with your TV out of the box using a 10-Foot User Interface. You can pat yourself on the back and say how easy it is all you want, but we both the reality of what you're talking about.
I would argue that Mac Mini's are an even more attractive option than a Windows PC for folks that want their media center computer to "just work", although Windows 7 does seem to be a major step forward for MSFT. The Mini is physically attractive (or at least not unattractive) and has a very small form factor. My only gripe is that I bought my last one 60 days before the refresh.
It's expensive and you can buy Windows Media Center that is designed with the HTPC in mind and you build your own for $700 with a BRD, Core-i7, tuner card, etc., so no, I don't think many would find it a more attractive option. Apple simply doesn't play in that market with their Macs.
As for AppleTV, I think it has been a sales disappointment because left unhacked, it's little more than an iTunes device. Not that there isn't a lot of value there for $229, it just doesn't address everything someone would want or soon discovers they want in a media center device.
I'm sure it's been a dissapoinement yet I think it's also by far the most profitable MEA that has been release. It's 2010 and that 1GHz Pentium M processor and anemic GPU have got to go. Remember it hasn't been updated since it first debuted. It seems obvious that the next one will be much smaller and use an A4 with iOS sans Cocoa Touch.
Note the unusual way the AppleTV was brought to us. Jobs offered a teaser demo in late 2006 for the AppleTV, then know as iTV. When have they ever done that? Sounds to me like this was for the content owners to show that they had a secure method for digital distribution. For comparison, Google didn't even buy YouTube until the month after 'iTV' was demoed. Then they showcased it in 2007 right before the iPhone announcement. Another failure here because it was bound to get overshadowed by the iPhone. Then it was delayed a month and year after it as released we still only had the Disney umbrella for content distribution. To me this speaks volumes as to why it has never gotten out of "hobby" mode and why it's only "hobbled" along. The content owners played hardball and won, so Apple was never able to come to the living room as planned.
But they can't give it up. Even if they have to create another place holder for 3 years they have to have something there, which is why the AppleTV has been set to rot. it's still a great interface (v2.x notwithstanding) and now there is enough focus on that segment and enough has changed that I think they can make it work. I expect something out this Fall during the iPod/iTunes Special Event.
Apple's new aluminum unibody Mac mini retains its role as the company's low price, compact PC and server
Except that it fails dismally at "low price". And for the price it's woefully underpowered.
And why does apple even think that the "role" of a compact desktop even exists? I'm not sure if apple is obsessed with size, even when it's irrelevant, or if they are just using "compact" as an excuse to jack up the price and ship a machine that's a MUCH worse value than comparable hardware on the PC side.
Um, the iMac doesn't use "12-year" old "monitor technology." Show me an IPS monitor from 1998 with the iMac's resolution, contrast and color reproduction. Show me a 2004 CPU and GPU like the iMac has for its price. You mean that the iMac is an old CONCEPT --in which case, you should be logically consistent with your poor argument and prize netbooks above all computers because they are a newer concepts.
I also chuckle at your spiel about how the iMac is a terrible deal "over the long haul," yet in the same post tell us how much more powerful the Mini will be in a few years. Will the new powerful Mini then make this current one a "poor deal" in the "long haul" too?
If you think that in terms of specs, the Mini can even touch a $699 HTPC, then you need to do some research. I am speaking only about the specs like you mentioned, omitting build quality and the premium that OS X should, IMO, demand over PCs.
What I meant by the 12-year reference is that today's good quality LCD panels should have a life span of about 12 years, if not longer. In other words, you're combining an LCD panel capable of lasting about 12 years with a computer that will not, that is provided you don't sink serious money into periodic maintenance. If you're OK with the iMac being your computer for more than a decade and are willing to spend money to keep the thing current, then the iMac makes sense.
For me, it doesn't.
Possibly because it's an incredibly obvious, gaping hole in the spec sheet of every Mac? Or are you happy with standard def video?
Well, since I don't use my computer as my home entertainment system, yes, quite happy.
I'm not really seeing much reason to choose the Mini over the Zino...
I believe the specs of the Zino were reviewed against the Mini in a thread the other day and found to not measure up at all. But, I definitely think the Zino is probably the perfect machine for you.
Build an HP Pavilion with 8GB RAM, Bluetooth, Core i3, NVIDIA 320, 6 in 1 card reader, 500 GB hard drive, and the free keyboard and mouse and compare it to the Mac Mini with the same things other than the inferior processor, no keyboard or mouse. The price is very different.
Silly argument. An office desk costs less than an HDTV. Would you like to compare any other dissimilar objects?
Except that it fails dismally at "low price". And for the price it's woefully underpowered.
You were responding to someone talking about the Mini server. The Mac Mini server is $999 including full unlimited client licenses. For Windows, you're going to pay $2200 just for the client licenses - not counting hardware or the server software itself. So exactly which Windows system can you get that's more powerful than that for $999 with unlimited client licenses?
Why? Apple offers a range of computers. They're not expecting to be able to please everyone, but they have iMacs, Mac Pros, a couple of laptops, and the Mini. Expecting each line to meet all of YOUR expectations is foolish.
Yeesh, what was that all about?
No, I don't expect all of Apple's hardware to meet everyone's expectations.
BUT I do question relegating a desktop model to a laptop processor and a slow HD because the case just had to be impossibly small. Seriously, why?? The next thing Apple's gonna obsess about is the weight of their desktops (which might not be a bad thing with the Mac Pro topping 41 lbs).
Anyway I can only conclude that Apple's engineers are masochists. Why else would you make each & every product the mother of challenges?
Yeesh, what was that all about?
No, I don't expect all of Apple's hardware to meet everyone's expectations.
Then why are you spending so much time and energy railing against the Mini because it doesn't meet YOUR expectations of what a computer should be?
BUT I do question relegating a desktop model to a laptop processor and a slow HD because the case just had to be impossibly small. Seriously, why?? The next thing Apple's gonna obsess about is the weight of their desktops (which might not be a bad thing with the Mac Pro topping 41 lbs).
Anyway I can only conclude that Apple's engineers are masochists. Why else would you make each & every product the mother of challenges?
What part of 'different computers for different customers' don't you understand?
Some people apparently like the Mini's feature set, including its size. Apparently, there is a significant number of people who want a tiny computer - and are willing to pay a premium for small size. The fact that YOU don't like it is irrelevant. Get it?
Yawn...I've been an Apple consumer since 1978. If they archived details, my name will be found amongst the very first Apple (then) Mac owners. I almost bought a Lisa, but sense got the better of me. As it will with Iteration One of the iPad. I still refuse to buy a smartphone as all the telecoms companies are making arses of all their customers.
That you didn't buy a Lisa wasn't "sense" as much as a lack of need for one. When we bought our Lisas we saved a significant amount of money vs the old way of doing things. So even at the rather high costs it was a good investment for us. It may have been $10,000 each, but a contemporary Wang word processor station was $5000...and with LisaDraw and LisaProject we were doing significant engineering as amazing as that sounds.
As I implied, Jobs can't stand the smell of lower paid plebs
Which is pretty bogus given that Jobs' intent has always to build computers "for the rest of us."
That doesn't imply build computers at the lowest price possible but to build computers more easily accessible to non-nerds. Hiding complexity has a higher cost than not hiding complexity.
With the iPad he's finally gotten very close to achieving his goals with the original Mac. In a couple revs of the hardware (A4 and SSDs) and it may have enough computing/storage power to be master device without any serious compromises.
Will it be cheaper than the scads of Android based tablets? No, but it will be far more usable in my opinion. The TCO of the Apple ecosystem should actually be lower in the long run given the lack of hassle. Unless you feel your time is a zero cost item.
Even lower paid plebs don't believe that.
And as "expensive" as folks make Apple products out to be even a burger flipping high school kid can make $3,400 over the summer at minimum wage. Yes, he or she may have other plans for that money but $699 for a computer is certainly not some unobtainable goal for "normal" folks.
Silly argument. An office desk costs less than an HDTV. Would you like to compare any other dissimilar objects?
What's wrong with your mind?
The Mini configured that way costs approximately $1450.00 without a keyboard or mouse. The Pavilion costs just under $1000.00 and comes with a newer Core i3 processor, a full size 7200 RPM hard drive, a keyboard and mouse. That's a huge difference.
Configure a basic Mini and a basic Slimline HP and the HP is less expensive.
Time to get with the time and stop BEng afraid of losing you 2% pro market.
I don't know.
I'm not sure how Apple authors the installation recovery disks that ship with a system (i.e., whether or not they're only compatible with the latest hardware or not). Without a doubt, they are not generic OS X installation disks.
The best disks to have, I have like 3, are the genius install imaging disks.
The best disks to have, I have like 3, are the genius install imaging disks.
That's very nice, but they're not available to Joe Consumer.
Would you like to tell where he/she can find a copy? Or are you gonna be a prick about it and say "sorry, these are mine"?
And that's an incredibly foolish position to take - even for an AI troll.
So I point out that you didn't read (or comprehend apparently) my post and now I'm an AI troll? Nice. What do we call people that don't read posts before they comment / respond incompletely and incoherently? And then make a bad situation worse by doing the exact same thing over again?
Apple earns around 30% of the entire PC industry's profits. They are the most profitable PC maker - by far. They have 90% of the PC sales over $1 K by some reports.
The have released a long string of products which have been great successes and which are widely acclaimed -- and then copied. They haven't had a flop for ages. (Even a flop by Apple standards would be a very successful product by most standards, anyway).
Yet you think you know more about Apple's customer base than they do. That is such an incredibly stupid comment that it doesn't even need a response.
You're right. Your post doesn't deserve a response but I'll humor you. The whole Apple vs. PC argument is beyond old and tired. I own and use both and like both. Do your homework and breakdown meaningful Apple computer sales and computer market metrics and we'll talk. Maybe you should throw in percentage of sales of computers in an aluminum unibody case too. The context of the comment and the discussion was about computers and not the complete Apple enterprise. You could (and should have) distilled down even further and realized it was all about the Mac Mini and the AppleTV.
Are you kidding me?!?
Apple's profit margins blow doors on the rest of the industry. The real question would be to all the other companies: "Why aren't you guys as profitable as Apple?"
As a longtime AAPL shareholder, I have decided that it's ridiculous trying to second-guess Apple's senior management team. They do a better job than anyone else in increasing shareholder value. I am happy to receive my annual proxy ballot and re-elect the board of directors every year (including Steve Jobs, the CEO who draws $1 in salary per year).
Apple knows its customer base better than any other S&P 500 or Russell 2000 company.
See above
You are making some irrational assumptions here. If there is even one person who has not "switched" then that is a potential Mac customer. the problem with your comment is that they have to decide that they have grabbed all they can grab. Why can't the simply be using a more effective method for getting switcher? Do you really think the Mac mini is the most popular machine for switchers when notebooks are the most sought offer type of PC sold and most common Mac sold? I don't. It seems more likely to me that they don't see the Mac mini as the golden child for potential switchers or that, as stated earlier, they simply weren't buying the $600 version. Then there is the cost to profit ratio of going after every last potential Mac switcher. You get to a point that it ends up costing you money, not making you money, which is the point. There are plenty of other possibilities that come before "Apple are big doodie heads that don't know how to run a business" but those are most relevant here.
Apple are not "doodie heads". They have enjoyed phenomenal overall / global success for a variety of reasons as I touched on earlier. We're talking about the Mac Mini and its original main purpose. To get non Mac types to sample Apple. Only they know how effective the Mini has been as an intro Mac.
I have to assume that with the addition of the HDMI port to the Mac Mini, (the only Mac and the 2nd Apple device to have one) Apple now also believes and recognizes that the Mac Mini is a popular home media PC.
Even worse is your argument that Apple is going after 100% of the PC market OS marketshare. IF that were true they would have licensed their OS back in the 80's. Even when they were on their last leg and big, rich vendors like Dell and Compaq were begging to get out from under Microsoft's thumb they still didn't license their OS despite it obviously being a ticket to rapid marketshare growth. It's impossible for Apple to ever gain even a 50% of the desktop OS marketshare (beating Windows) with their business model. This should be easily understood without anyone having to explain it. Take what 50% per quarter would mean in terms on OS licenses, now turn that exact number into Macs. That is 2x as many PCs as HP sells and they are number one in the world with budget PCs. now figure how much revenue and profit that is considering the average Mac sale is around $1,200. That's even without figuring the impossible production issues they'd have trying to produce 10x as many Macs per quarter all using the same components that even caused a delay in this last release.
Apple is trying to grab as much market share as it can possible get. Only they are doing so on their terms and they're only willing to go so far. If 1 in 10 people use your product then the market breaks down as 10% customers and 90% prospective customers. It's that simple. Will Apple ever achieve anything close to 100% market share? Of course not. Even if such a thing were possible they are not willing to do the sorts of things (and risk its core business / customers) necessary.
Based on your statements above it's clear you don't think the iPhone shook up the iPhone business by making a simple device that the average person could understand. Or you probably think that they bought it because its pretty because they are sheep. Who the hell knows, but I'm not going to tell my mother or grandmother that the Mac Mini makes a great HTPC or MEA for $700 and then have them figure how to search for, install and run MC software. That's insane on that face of it. The AppleTV, PS3, XBOX, TiVo, Popcorn Hour, Scientific Atlanta, etc. all are designed to interact with your TV out of the box using a 10-Foot User Interface. You can pat yourself on the back and say how easy it is all you want, but we both the reality of what you're talking about.
It's expensive and you can buy Windows Media Center that is designed with the HTPC in mind and you build your own for $700 with a BRD, Core-i7, tuner card, etc., so no, I don't think many would find it a more attractive option. Apple simply doesn't play in that market with their Macs.
I'm sure it's been a dissapoinement yet I think it's also by far the most profitable MEA that has been release. It's 2010 and that 1GHz Pentium M processor and anemic GPU have got to go. Remember it hasn't been updated since it first debuted. It seems obvious that the next one will be much smaller and use an A4 with iOS sans Cocoa Touch.
Note the unusual way the AppleTV was brought to us. Jobs offered a teaser demo in late 2006 for the AppleTV, then know as iTV. When have they ever done that? Sounds to me like this was for the content owners to show that they had a secure method for digital distribution. For comparison, Google didn't even buy YouTube until the month after 'iTV' was demoed. Then they showcased it in 2007 right before the iPhone announcement. Another failure here because it was bound to get overshadowed by the iPhone. Then it was delayed a month and year after it as released we still only had the Disney umbrella for content distribution. To me this speaks volumes as to why it has never gotten out of "hobby" mode and why it's only "hobbled" along. The content owners played hardball and won, so Apple was never able to come to the living room as planned.
But they can't give it up. Even if they have to create another place holder for 3 years they have to have something there, which is why the AppleTV has been set to rot. it's still a great interface (v2.x notwithstanding) and now there is enough focus on that segment and enough has changed that I think they can make it work. I expect something out this Fall during the iPod/iTunes Special Event.
Umm... Ok.
Apple is trying to grab as much market share as it can possible get. Only they are doing so on their terms and they're only willing to go so far. If 1 in 10 people use your product then the market breaks down as 10% customers and 90% prospective customers.
It's really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Apple's trying to grab as much market as they can within their business model, which is vastly different from MS'. If licensing OS X to all OEMs is their goal or they would have done it. Until they start doing that there is no way their focus is to grab Windows share of desktop OS sales. You're again failing to understand what Apple's market it, but instead projecting MS' goals with Windows on Apple's goal with Mac OS X.
PS: 1 in 10 people is not even close to the truth. There are nearly 7 billion in the world. Is Apple marketing Macs to all of these people?