@Marvin, while I'd like the mini you describe it strikes me as un-Apple with the offboard MXM card and RAID array.
It's just a bit too unwieldy as a machine. Perhaps if the HD2000 didn't suck so badly it could leave everything else to 3rd party.
Apple themselves advertise the RAID system with the iMac:
The GPU option they could offer themselves but wouldn't have to. I certainly wouldn't see them offering as many options - likely just low, mid and high with a single Quadro option - but 3rd party manufacturers can come on board and offer these things.
GPU manufacturers really need to wake up to this. There are over 200 million laptops sold every year and Intel graphics are in half of them. If they all have Thunderbolt and can use an external MXM card while still being ultra-portable, the market for those cards is significant.
Apple themselves advertise the RAID system with the iMac:
The GPU option they could offer themselves but wouldn't have to. I certainly wouldn't see them offering as many options - likely just low, mid and high with a single Quadro option - but 3rd party manufacturers can come on board and offer these things.
GPU manufacturers really need to wake up to this. There are over 200 million laptops sold every year and Intel graphics are in half of them. If they all have Thunderbolt and can use an external MXM card while still being ultra-portable, the market for those cards is significant.
I suspect that GPU manufactures have already considered this concept and have discounted its value. Especially in connection with the Mini, as such an arrangement would lead to low performance high cost systems. If someone is seriously into gaming they will simply buys gaming laptop or go with desktop machine built to their needs.
Could well be that what a large percentage of potential Mac purchasers are looking for is not in sync with what produces the most profit for Apple, as Apple perceives it at this time. But Apple needs to take care to remember what got it to where it is today. To me it's providing a better user experience with price a secondary consideration that has made Apple more successful than many competitors.
The way I see it, Apple doesn't want an x-Mac that could fatally cripple the sales of the Mac Pro and hurt sales of the iMac. Let's face it, if instead of the Mini, Apple offered an x-Mac that was more or less a monitorless iMac, more than a few would seriously consider that machine over Apple's all-in-one and many pro scenarios could do just fine with a $1,500 x-Mac in place of a $2,500 Mac Pro. To be fair, it's no small thing to bring out a product that could, potentially, kill off Apple's robust pro offering. Not to be done with ease and it's hard to say if Apple would ever consider doing it.
Still, it is a product that many have long been asking for. On paper it makes sense. Who knows, maybe its time has come.
So much for the idea that the iPad will cause a desktop resurgence. No PC required means even less need for a desktop at all.
I think many folks would be fine with just aTVs, iPads and maybe time capsule as a router.
The one thing I'm not sold on is the deal with the filesystem. They said they tried hard to get rid of the filesystem so people don't have to learn it, which is fine in some ways but it's not just about learning it. Personal data means a lot to users and some people like to know it's protected both in terms of privacy and integrity.
I don't want my decades of files hidden away from me where I don't know if they're backed up or if some of them are being shunted onto a server in the middle of nowhere. Rather than ignore a filing system that people are well accustomed to by now, I think a better solution is to rethink it and make it more accessible to people.
Most people don't need to see their Library, root directory, system folder or any of the unix stuff, so have a simplified filesystem that behaves like the iTunes iOS app and uses just a handful of main categories. That's not hard to deal with at all. It's certainly far easier than getting an image out of one image editing app and opening it in another under iOS by syncing all the time.
The cloud storage will solve some of this but it's not going to work well for the likes of iMovie and probably not Garageband either. Anyone with even a moderately slow broadband uplink knows how long you can wait for 100MB+ upload.
I'd say the untethered iOS is another step towards merging Lion and iOS but there needs to be a few more before standard desktops can be removed from the equation. The direction they are going with Lion Server will make for some interesting changes too because it means both the Minis could ship with standard Lion and you'd just get the server add-on over the App Store for any machine.
The one thing I'm not sold on is the deal with the filesystem. They said they tried hard to get rid of the filesystem so people don't have to learn it, which is fine in some ways but it's not just about learning it. Personal data means a lot to users and some people like to know it's protected both in terms of privacy and integrity.
I don't want my decades of files hidden away from me where I don't know if they're backed up or if some of them are being shunted onto a server in the middle of nowhere. Rather than ignore a filing system that people are well accustomed to by now, I think a better solution is to rethink it and make it more accessible to people.
Most people don't need to see their Library, root directory, system folder or any of the unix stuff, so have a simplified filesystem that behaves like the iTunes iOS app and uses just a handful of main categories. That's not hard to deal with at all. It's certainly far easier than getting an image out of one image editing app and opening it in another under iOS by syncing all the time.
The cloud storage will solve some of this but it's not going to work well for the likes of iMovie and probably not Garageband either. Anyone with even a moderately slow broadband uplink knows how long you can wait for 100MB+ upload.
I'd say the untethered iOS is another step towards merging Lion and iOS but there needs to be a few more before standard desktops can be removed from the equation. The direction they are going with Lion Server will make for some interesting changes too because it means both the Minis could ship with standard Lion and you'd just get the server add-on over the App Store for any machine.
Apple is going down the road of iTunes/iOS/cloud...there's no turning back.
And if people actually starting using iPads as their primary computers, they aren't going to create very large files, due to the limited processing, garbage cameras, and storage capacity, and like my netbook, I couldn't do any serious photo editing without wanting to slit my wrists after awhile...there's nothing like having a large monitor (or two), USB ports, tons of local storage, and the CPU power to not have to sit around an wait, etc.
For those that only need e-mail, web, FB, the iPad + cloud would probably suffice, as they don't do anything demanding anyhow.
Someday, I think we'll come to a point where all our computers will be our phones that just dock into a monitor/mult-port station, but current phones and tablets aren't there yet, and the broadband infrastructure isn't up to speed either.
Lion Server sounds interesting, as I could use a small NAS/backup server, and my Mini plus a few external drives could work I think.
For those that only need e-mail, web, FB, the iPad + cloud would probably suffice, as they don't do anything demanding anyhow.
Yes. I'd guess a good number of users are in this category and currently own computers they are barely using.
As far as photo editing goes, I'm thinking that eye-fi to iCloud for simple editing via the iPad might be a nice lightweight workflow for point and shoots.
I've been so lazy these days that for the kid soccer pics I did some crops and dumped them into a iPhoto slide show and stuck them up on the mobileme gallery for the other parents. No more shooting raw, doing post, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever the camera gives me to simple jpeg workflow into iPhoto.
I can imagine most folks could go this route. It's amazing how much kids can cure OCD.
The cloud storage will solve some of this but it's not going to work well for the likes of iMovie and probably not Garageband either. Anyone with even a moderately slow broadband uplink knows how long you can wait for 100MB+ upload.
If TimeCapsule could handle local upload to it's HDD and push it to the cloud overnight that works well enough.
A TimeCapsule Express would be an interesting product...3g + wifi hotspot with a 300gb 2.5" drive and iCloud caching and a 8 hr battery.
If it had the same month to month data plan as the iPad that would be pretty neat little device for the post PC ecosystem.
For the life of me I don't understand these posts, you clearly indicate that the Mini is effectively outdated yet you contemplate a purchase. You know it would be stupid to do so yet you write in indicating it is a problem for you.
Let me say this: if you recognize that the Mini is too outdated to be a good buy stop thinking about buying one.
[snip]
One last thing your current Mac is grossly outdated, anything you buy today, even an AIR, would significantly out perform it. So all this posturing about what the new hardware has or doesn't have is a bit silly. The common advice of buying when you need to still holds true.
The mini blows. But I may buy it. Silly? No. I need an entry level computer. That means I choose between a $550 Dell or a $700 Mac Mini. Either way leaves me unhappy. If you'll lend me $500 I'll happily buy another 13" MBP.
Maybe it's time to reconsider the point of having a Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. The reason is that Thunderbolt would allow for externals to be viable for high-performance use.
I
So basically, kill off the current Mini (except in server form), kill off the Mac Pro, and replace both with a device configurable to meet the needs of current Mac Mini and Mac Pro customers.
You forgot MBA . SO WHILE I kinda agree a little with you about the mac mini server situation .
I feel that the MBP will keep at least 2 forms including superdrive optical long batter life . including high heat !!!
but i also can see apple expanding the MBA into a strong more powerful role . If the clouds and mac app store and itunes will be our holy grail Then a MBA can ram up a lot more power using the above mentioned clouds app store stuff.
I wonder what will happen to The White plastic classic model in all this ??? Expasnsion for our new 3rd world buyers ?? and even their school systems ??
The mini blows. But I may buy it. Silly? No. I need an entry level computer.
I'd like a simple desktop that could easily be maintained as a home server and do double duty as a desktop work station. The Mini isn't to bad as a server though it needs to be easier to get to the disks. The problem as a desktop is the graphics are pretty sucky.
That is why I'm a big proponent of the AMD Llano that is arriving on the market this month. It stresses performance where most user need it the most, that is in the GPU. So even thought the CPU might be a bit slower than the Intel offerings it really doesn't make much of a difference with modern software. Especially when that software uses any sort of graphics beyond mainstream 2D or GPU acceleration of user code.
I know this is wild wishful thinking on my part but I'm really hoping the delay with the Mini update is due to a switch to an AMD Fusion processor. Honestly it is almost like AMD and Apple designed their systems to complement each other when you look at Llano and them look at GCD and OpenCL in Mac OS.
Quote:
That means I choose between a $550 Dell or a $700 Mac Mini. Either way leaves me unhappy. If you'll lend me $500 I'll happily buy another 13" MBP.
Well I'm actually hoping you won't be unhappy if you wait for the refreshed Mini. I can't imagine it being anything less that a big step forward in most regards. Oh by the way I have a MBP, nice machine but it isn't a desktop computer by any means. Of course the Min doesn't fit the definition for many people either so this discussion won't go anywhere.
If a just plain Mac emerged that makes more sense than offering the Mini/Mac Pro, what possible reason would there be for Apple to not bring such a product to market...
The answer is simple. Apple does not want to compete head-to-head with a mainstream PCs, as their premium pricing would be exposed. With the Macmini the consumer says "oooo it's so high-tech and tiny, I don't mind paying more for that." With the iMac the consumer says "oooo it's so convenient and easy to set up an all-in-one machine, I'll pay more for that!"
If Apple made a mid-range headless machine, the consumer would say "ewwwww, I have to pay how much more for this Apple computer that has the same specs as a $300 Walmart computer??"
The Mini and the Macbook, on paper, seem like excessively expensive products considering they're both using previous-gen components. The Macbook, with 4GB of RAM and a 320GB hard drive, i.e. the same specs as the Macbook Pro, is $1,199 here in Canada vs. the Macbook Pro 13" which comes in at $1,249. I mean $50 difference, really? And the Mini might start at $699 but all you have to do is boost the memory to 4GB, step up to a 2.66Ghz previous-gen processor, toss in a keyboard and magic mouse to climb to $1082. Even considering the Mini uses costlier laptop components, compared to the laptops, something is out of whack. No expensive battery technology, no monitor, and yet the Mini is all of $167 cheaper than the Macbook Pro and $112 less than the Macbook.
By decontenting both the Macbook and the Mini, Apple gives the impression that pricing is appropriately lower for last-gen tech and yet in truth, Apple is charging just as much for its Core 2 Duo machines as they are the Sandy Bridge products like the Macbook Pros. How can this be?
We can't really claim that the Mini is a $699 machine when Apple doesn't provide some very basic pieces without which the Mini is unusable. Even if you buy the notion that the Mini is a desktop spinoff of Apple's laptops, the numbers don't add up. Surely the battery and monitor that comes with the Macbook Pro is worth more than $167 and when you consider the Pro has a far better processor, you have to wonder what's going on.
Right now you'd have to be quite naive to consider buying the Macbook since the Pro is pretty much the same price, with comparable specs. There is no similar option for potential Mini buyers but even a Sandy Bridge refresh seems rather like not enough to justify the price.
Apple is charging so much because it can. If all Apple delivers in the next few weeks is a Sandy Bridge refresh for the Mini, a price reduction is in order or at the very least the minimum RAM needs to climb to 4GB. Otherwise, the Mini will amount to a poor deal that Mac customers are being forced to turn to because there is no other way to get a headless Mac for less than $2,400.
Apple charges what they want there is no regulation what they charge.The Mini will probably have Sandy Bridge soon.
If Apple made a mid-range headless machine, the consumer would say "ewwwww, I have to pay how much more for this Apple computer that has the same specs as a $300 Walmart computer??"
I have only bought Macs but I find nothing below the Mac Pro I really want to purchase. I certainly don't need a Mac Pro but I want more than what the Mini offers. And all in ones just don't trip my trigger but that is the only mid range choice Apple is willing to offer me.
I'd gladly pay $1499 for iMac parts in a mid size case big enough for two hard drives and an optical drive that is easy to open and easy to swap drives and memory. And please put some easy to reach jacks on the front like the Mac Pro.
I'll pay a premium not to get stuck with Apple's choice of monitor and to have an easy to open case. Apple would make sales and make extra money because they would be savings the cost of buying the monitor but I would still be paying for at least half that monitor at $1499.
Lack of a mid range headless machine is what is making me after 18 years of using Macs to walk away. I can probably get by the rest of the year with my old PowerMac G4. I bought it because it was easy to open not because of its size. I don't want an even bigger and heavier Mac Pro as a replacement but the Mac Pro is the only Mac where function triumphs over form. the only Mac that thinks of the needs of the end user.
I have only bought Macs but I find nothing below the Mac Pro I really want to purchase. I certainly don't need a Mac Pro but I want more than what the Mini offers. And all in ones just don't trip my trigger but that is the only mid range choice Apple is willing to offer me.
I'd gladly pay $1499 for iMac parts in a mid size case big enough for two hard drives and an optical drive that is easy to open and easy to swap drives and memory. And please put some easy to reach jacks on the front like the Mac Pro.
I'll pay a premium not to get stuck with Apple's choice of monitor and to have an easy to open case. Apple would make sales and make extra money because they would be savings the cost of buying the monitor but I would still be paying for at least half that monitor at $1499.
Lack of a mid range headless machine is what is making me after 18 years of using Macs to walk away. I can probably get by the rest of the year with my old PowerMac G4. I bought it because it was easy to open not because of its size. I don't want an even bigger and heavier Mac Pro as a replacement but the Mac Pro is the only Mac where function triumphs over form. the only Mac that thinks of the needs of the end user.
You do know that you can easily add HDDs via either the USB or FireWire ports on the mini, right?? Not to mention the probability of the Sandy bridge refresh bringing Thunderbolt to the mini?And the RAM is an easy swap with the access door on the bottom of the mini? As for graphics & CPU speed, whatever the Sandy Bridge refresh brings will be light years ahead of your aged PowerMac G4? Plus, you still get to use Mac OS X, as opposed to Windows sludge?!
Comments
@Marvin, while I'd like the mini you describe it strikes me as un-Apple with the offboard MXM card and RAID array.
It's just a bit too unwieldy as a machine. Perhaps if the HD2000 didn't suck so badly it could leave everything else to 3rd party.
Apple themselves advertise the RAID system with the iMac:
The GPU option they could offer themselves but wouldn't have to. I certainly wouldn't see them offering as many options - likely just low, mid and high with a single Quadro option - but 3rd party manufacturers can come on board and offer these things.
GPU manufacturers really need to wake up to this. There are over 200 million laptops sold every year and Intel graphics are in half of them. If they all have Thunderbolt and can use an external MXM card while still being ultra-portable, the market for those cards is significant.
Apple themselves advertise the RAID system with the iMac:
I wish Apple would make a Mac the size of that RAID.
Apple themselves advertise the RAID system with the iMac:
The GPU option they could offer themselves but wouldn't have to. I certainly wouldn't see them offering as many options - likely just low, mid and high with a single Quadro option - but 3rd party manufacturers can come on board and offer these things.
GPU manufacturers really need to wake up to this. There are over 200 million laptops sold every year and Intel graphics are in half of them. If they all have Thunderbolt and can use an external MXM card while still being ultra-portable, the market for those cards is significant.
I suspect that GPU manufactures have already considered this concept and have discounted its value. Especially in connection with the Mini, as such an arrangement would lead to low performance high cost systems. If someone is seriously into gaming they will simply buys gaming laptop or go with desktop machine built to their needs.
The way I see it, Apple doesn't want an x-Mac that could fatally cripple the sales of the Mac Pro and hurt sales of the iMac. Let's face it, if instead of the Mini, Apple offered an x-Mac that was more or less a monitorless iMac, more than a few would seriously consider that machine over Apple's all-in-one and many pro scenarios could do just fine with a $1,500 x-Mac in place of a $2,500 Mac Pro. To be fair, it's no small thing to bring out a product that could, potentially, kill off Apple's robust pro offering. Not to be done with ease and it's hard to say if Apple would ever consider doing it.
Still, it is a product that many have long been asking for. On paper it makes sense. Who knows, maybe its time has come.
I think many folks would be fine with just aTVs, iPads and maybe time capsule as a router.
So much for the idea that the iPad will cause a desktop resurgence. No PC required means even less need for a desktop at all.
I think many folks would be fine with just aTVs, iPads and maybe time capsule as a router.
The one thing I'm not sold on is the deal with the filesystem. They said they tried hard to get rid of the filesystem so people don't have to learn it, which is fine in some ways but it's not just about learning it. Personal data means a lot to users and some people like to know it's protected both in terms of privacy and integrity.
I don't want my decades of files hidden away from me where I don't know if they're backed up or if some of them are being shunted onto a server in the middle of nowhere. Rather than ignore a filing system that people are well accustomed to by now, I think a better solution is to rethink it and make it more accessible to people.
Most people don't need to see their Library, root directory, system folder or any of the unix stuff, so have a simplified filesystem that behaves like the iTunes iOS app and uses just a handful of main categories. That's not hard to deal with at all. It's certainly far easier than getting an image out of one image editing app and opening it in another under iOS by syncing all the time.
The cloud storage will solve some of this but it's not going to work well for the likes of iMovie and probably not Garageband either. Anyone with even a moderately slow broadband uplink knows how long you can wait for 100MB+ upload.
I'd say the untethered iOS is another step towards merging Lion and iOS but there needs to be a few more before standard desktops can be removed from the equation. The direction they are going with Lion Server will make for some interesting changes too because it means both the Minis could ship with standard Lion and you'd just get the server add-on over the App Store for any machine.
The one thing I'm not sold on is the deal with the filesystem. They said they tried hard to get rid of the filesystem so people don't have to learn it, which is fine in some ways but it's not just about learning it. Personal data means a lot to users and some people like to know it's protected both in terms of privacy and integrity.
I don't want my decades of files hidden away from me where I don't know if they're backed up or if some of them are being shunted onto a server in the middle of nowhere. Rather than ignore a filing system that people are well accustomed to by now, I think a better solution is to rethink it and make it more accessible to people.
Most people don't need to see their Library, root directory, system folder or any of the unix stuff, so have a simplified filesystem that behaves like the iTunes iOS app and uses just a handful of main categories. That's not hard to deal with at all. It's certainly far easier than getting an image out of one image editing app and opening it in another under iOS by syncing all the time.
The cloud storage will solve some of this but it's not going to work well for the likes of iMovie and probably not Garageband either. Anyone with even a moderately slow broadband uplink knows how long you can wait for 100MB+ upload.
I'd say the untethered iOS is another step towards merging Lion and iOS but there needs to be a few more before standard desktops can be removed from the equation. The direction they are going with Lion Server will make for some interesting changes too because it means both the Minis could ship with standard Lion and you'd just get the server add-on over the App Store for any machine.
Apple is going down the road of iTunes/iOS/cloud...there's no turning back.
And if people actually starting using iPads as their primary computers, they aren't going to create very large files, due to the limited processing, garbage cameras, and storage capacity, and like my netbook, I couldn't do any serious photo editing without wanting to slit my wrists after awhile...there's nothing like having a large monitor (or two), USB ports, tons of local storage, and the CPU power to not have to sit around an wait, etc.
For those that only need e-mail, web, FB, the iPad + cloud would probably suffice, as they don't do anything demanding anyhow.
Someday, I think we'll come to a point where all our computers will be our phones that just dock into a monitor/mult-port station, but current phones and tablets aren't there yet, and the broadband infrastructure isn't up to speed either.
Lion Server sounds interesting, as I could use a small NAS/backup server, and my Mini plus a few external drives could work I think.
For those that only need e-mail, web, FB, the iPad + cloud would probably suffice, as they don't do anything demanding anyhow.
Yes. I'd guess a good number of users are in this category and currently own computers they are barely using.
As far as photo editing goes, I'm thinking that eye-fi to iCloud for simple editing via the iPad might be a nice lightweight workflow for point and shoots.
I've been so lazy these days that for the kid soccer pics I did some crops and dumped them into a iPhoto slide show and stuck them up on the mobileme gallery for the other parents. No more shooting raw, doing post, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever the camera gives me to simple jpeg workflow into iPhoto.
I can imagine most folks could go this route. It's amazing how much kids can cure OCD.
The cloud storage will solve some of this but it's not going to work well for the likes of iMovie and probably not Garageband either. Anyone with even a moderately slow broadband uplink knows how long you can wait for 100MB+ upload.
If TimeCapsule could handle local upload to it's HDD and push it to the cloud overnight that works well enough.
A TimeCapsule Express would be an interesting product...3g + wifi hotspot with a 300gb 2.5" drive and iCloud caching and a 8 hr battery.
If it had the same month to month data plan as the iPad that would be pretty neat little device for the post PC ecosystem.
So much for the idea that the iPad will cause a desktop resurgence. No PC required means even less need for a desktop at all.
So much for Apple's "Back to the Mac" slogan, huh?
So much for Apple's "Back to the Mac" slogan, huh?
MacBooks are macs too but I'd be Lion if I didn't admit I'm not waiting for the new Mini.
?something like this:
Especially if the outboard GFX & HDD/RAID boxes matched the footprint of the Mac box?
Be a nice little Home Server / Media server stack?!
Especially if the outboard GFX & HDD/RAID boxes matched the footprint of the Mac box?
Be a nice little Home Server / Media server stack?!
If Apple offered a stack-able component system Mac Mini I would probably never complain about the lack of a mid sized Mac again.
For the life of me I don't understand these posts, you clearly indicate that the Mini is effectively outdated yet you contemplate a purchase. You know it would be stupid to do so yet you write in indicating it is a problem for you.
Let me say this: if you recognize that the Mini is too outdated to be a good buy stop thinking about buying one.
[snip]
One last thing your current Mac is grossly outdated, anything you buy today, even an AIR, would significantly out perform it. So all this posturing about what the new hardware has or doesn't have is a bit silly. The common advice of buying when you need to still holds true.
The mini blows. But I may buy it. Silly? No. I need an entry level computer. That means I choose between a $550 Dell or a $700 Mac Mini. Either way leaves me unhappy. If you'll lend me $500 I'll happily buy another 13" MBP.
Maybe it's time to reconsider the point of having a Mac Mini and the Mac Pro. The reason is that Thunderbolt would allow for externals to be viable for high-performance use.
I
So basically, kill off the current Mini (except in server form), kill off the Mac Pro, and replace both with a device configurable to meet the needs of current Mac Mini and Mac Pro customers.
You forgot MBA . SO WHILE I kinda agree a little with you about the mac mini server situation .
I feel that the MBP will keep at least 2 forms including superdrive optical long batter life . including high heat !!!
but i also can see apple expanding the MBA into a strong more powerful role . If the clouds and mac app store and itunes will be our holy grail Then a MBA can ram up a lot more power using the above mentioned clouds app store stuff.
I wonder what will happen to The White plastic classic model in all this ??? Expasnsion for our new 3rd world buyers ?? and even their school systems ??
just talking
9
ps the mac mini has great uses world wide .
The mini blows. But I may buy it. Silly? No. I need an entry level computer.
I'd like a simple desktop that could easily be maintained as a home server and do double duty as a desktop work station. The Mini isn't to bad as a server though it needs to be easier to get to the disks. The problem as a desktop is the graphics are pretty sucky.
That is why I'm a big proponent of the AMD Llano that is arriving on the market this month. It stresses performance where most user need it the most, that is in the GPU. So even thought the CPU might be a bit slower than the Intel offerings it really doesn't make much of a difference with modern software. Especially when that software uses any sort of graphics beyond mainstream 2D or GPU acceleration of user code.
I know this is wild wishful thinking on my part but I'm really hoping the delay with the Mini update is due to a switch to an AMD Fusion processor. Honestly it is almost like AMD and Apple designed their systems to complement each other when you look at Llano and them look at GCD and OpenCL in Mac OS.
That means I choose between a $550 Dell or a $700 Mac Mini. Either way leaves me unhappy. If you'll lend me $500 I'll happily buy another 13" MBP.
Well I'm actually hoping you won't be unhappy if you wait for the refreshed Mini. I can't imagine it being anything less that a big step forward in most regards. Oh by the way I have a MBP, nice machine but it isn't a desktop computer by any means. Of course the Min doesn't fit the definition for many people either so this discussion won't go anywhere.
If a just plain Mac emerged that makes more sense than offering the Mini/Mac Pro, what possible reason would there be for Apple to not bring such a product to market...
The answer is simple. Apple does not want to compete head-to-head with a mainstream PCs, as their premium pricing would be exposed. With the Macmini the consumer says "oooo it's so high-tech and tiny, I don't mind paying more for that." With the iMac the consumer says "oooo it's so convenient and easy to set up an all-in-one machine, I'll pay more for that!"
If Apple made a mid-range headless machine, the consumer would say "ewwwww, I have to pay how much more for this Apple computer that has the same specs as a $300 Walmart computer??"
The Mini and the Macbook, on paper, seem like excessively expensive products considering they're both using previous-gen components. The Macbook, with 4GB of RAM and a 320GB hard drive, i.e. the same specs as the Macbook Pro, is $1,199 here in Canada vs. the Macbook Pro 13" which comes in at $1,249. I mean $50 difference, really? And the Mini might start at $699 but all you have to do is boost the memory to 4GB, step up to a 2.66Ghz previous-gen processor, toss in a keyboard and magic mouse to climb to $1082. Even considering the Mini uses costlier laptop components, compared to the laptops, something is out of whack. No expensive battery technology, no monitor, and yet the Mini is all of $167 cheaper than the Macbook Pro and $112 less than the Macbook.
By decontenting both the Macbook and the Mini, Apple gives the impression that pricing is appropriately lower for last-gen tech and yet in truth, Apple is charging just as much for its Core 2 Duo machines as they are the Sandy Bridge products like the Macbook Pros. How can this be?
We can't really claim that the Mini is a $699 machine when Apple doesn't provide some very basic pieces without which the Mini is unusable. Even if you buy the notion that the Mini is a desktop spinoff of Apple's laptops, the numbers don't add up. Surely the battery and monitor that comes with the Macbook Pro is worth more than $167 and when you consider the Pro has a far better processor, you have to wonder what's going on.
Right now you'd have to be quite naive to consider buying the Macbook since the Pro is pretty much the same price, with comparable specs. There is no similar option for potential Mini buyers but even a Sandy Bridge refresh seems rather like not enough to justify the price.
Apple is charging so much because it can. If all Apple delivers in the next few weeks is a Sandy Bridge refresh for the Mini, a price reduction is in order or at the very least the minimum RAM needs to climb to 4GB. Otherwise, the Mini will amount to a poor deal that Mac customers are being forced to turn to because there is no other way to get a headless Mac for less than $2,400.
Apple charges what they want there is no regulation what they charge.The Mini will probably have Sandy Bridge soon.
If Apple made a mid-range headless machine, the consumer would say "ewwwww, I have to pay how much more for this Apple computer that has the same specs as a $300 Walmart computer??"
I have only bought Macs but I find nothing below the Mac Pro I really want to purchase. I certainly don't need a Mac Pro but I want more than what the Mini offers. And all in ones just don't trip my trigger but that is the only mid range choice Apple is willing to offer me.
I'd gladly pay $1499 for iMac parts in a mid size case big enough for two hard drives and an optical drive that is easy to open and easy to swap drives and memory. And please put some easy to reach jacks on the front like the Mac Pro.
I'll pay a premium not to get stuck with Apple's choice of monitor and to have an easy to open case. Apple would make sales and make extra money because they would be savings the cost of buying the monitor but I would still be paying for at least half that monitor at $1499.
Lack of a mid range headless machine is what is making me after 18 years of using Macs to walk away. I can probably get by the rest of the year with my old PowerMac G4. I bought it because it was easy to open not because of its size. I don't want an even bigger and heavier Mac Pro as a replacement but the Mac Pro is the only Mac where function triumphs over form. the only Mac that thinks of the needs of the end user.
I have only bought Macs but I find nothing below the Mac Pro I really want to purchase. I certainly don't need a Mac Pro but I want more than what the Mini offers. And all in ones just don't trip my trigger but that is the only mid range choice Apple is willing to offer me.
I'd gladly pay $1499 for iMac parts in a mid size case big enough for two hard drives and an optical drive that is easy to open and easy to swap drives and memory. And please put some easy to reach jacks on the front like the Mac Pro.
I'll pay a premium not to get stuck with Apple's choice of monitor and to have an easy to open case. Apple would make sales and make extra money because they would be savings the cost of buying the monitor but I would still be paying for at least half that monitor at $1499.
Lack of a mid range headless machine is what is making me after 18 years of using Macs to walk away. I can probably get by the rest of the year with my old PowerMac G4. I bought it because it was easy to open not because of its size. I don't want an even bigger and heavier Mac Pro as a replacement but the Mac Pro is the only Mac where function triumphs over form. the only Mac that thinks of the needs of the end user.
You do know that you can easily add HDDs via either the USB or FireWire ports on the mini, right?? Not to mention the probability of the Sandy bridge refresh bringing Thunderbolt to the mini?And the RAM is an easy swap with the access door on the bottom of the mini? As for graphics & CPU speed, whatever the Sandy Bridge refresh brings will be light years ahead of your aged PowerMac G4? Plus, you still get to use Mac OS X, as opposed to Windows sludge?!