I would really love to see someone actually keep track of stuff like this.
Kuo has certainly been right on some of his predictions, but he throws around so much crap, it would be impossible for him to be wrong 100% of the time. But I sure haven't seen any evidence that he's any more accurate than any of the other neanderthal analysts.
Has he ever been accurate about things that aren't fairly obvious?
And once more Cook, the former world's best COO and nothing else, comes up with one off his "budget" ideas destined to fail just like the irrelevant iPhone 5C. Why does this remind me more and more of the late 90s?
Memo to Cook: Apple is about delivering the BEST; the moment you put "CHEAPER" as the priority, you undermine all the principles behind the company's fantastic recovery under SJ: design and deliver a great device, set up prices accordingly and create new demand/markets even when there is none at the beginning. Alas, it seems like what is important now is to have dinners with financial criminals like Mr Icahn...
In other words: FAIL.
When did Tim Cook say Apple was making a budget anything? The only thing that is FAIL is your post.
It was a disappointing redesign. Maybe the pointless thinning out and removal of the DVD drive has put people off, I know it made me reconsider and I kept hold of my 24" hoping for an eventual update that would make it worth getting.
Since Apple doesn't disclose shipments or sales by Mac model this analyst has no way of knowing if fewer than expected iMac's shipped. Also if Apple had data that showed their iMac customers were still using the DVD drive on a regular basis it would still be there. At the end of the day Apple is more obsessed about selling product than anything else. For the people that need a DVD drive from time to time you can go to best buy or amazon.com and get one for super cheap. You can even get blu-ray drives for less than $100. Plug it in when you need to use it, unplug it and store it away when you don't.
And once more Cook, the former world's best COO and nothing else, comes up with one of his "budget" ideas destined to fail just like the irrelevant iPhone 5C. Why does this remind me more and more of the late 90s?
Memo to Cook: Apple is about delivering the BEST; the moment you put "CHEAPER" as the priority, you undermine all the principles behind the company's fantastic recovery under SJ: design and deliver a great device, set up prices accordingly and create new demand/markets even when there is none at the beginning. Alas, it seems like what is important now is to have dinners with financial criminals like Mr Icahn...
In other words: FAIL.
In other word, you're a clueless troll with no knowledge of the current market, history, or the future. Great job at a sucking!
Thing is, the Mac Mini is specifically for switchers. BYODKM. They toss their trash Windows tower and plug a Mac Mini in its place. They even get to keep their cigarette-stained keyboards and their mice that are so greasy you have to wear gloves to use them.
A slightly cheaper iMac won’t do squat to get the morons who pay $200 for a computer every two years to buy a Mac. Apple apparently needs to better explain that the Mac Mini, at $600, will last five times longer than the Windows machine it replaced, without any maintenance during its lifetime.
Two decades happened to it. Welcome to the future, also known as modern day.
I think the 'two decades' has evolved to 'consumer -grade' computing. Tallest, what you're arguing is for the 'current PC' user. The iPhone wasn't for the 'current smartphone user' it was for the people who wanted a what a smartphone offered, but didn't want to think about it.
So let's not focus on the morons. Let's focus on their kids, or people who literally haven't been spending $200 on computers every 2 years (2nd and 3rd world). What's the computer for them?
My thought...
The problem with the 'mac mini' is the 'entry level' Mac... is that it's not the 'entry level iMac' (buy 1 box, unbox, turn on... you're computing). You don't want to need an 'IT' department in your house (GeekSquad? ), nor do you want to subscribe to CNET or Ars, or anything else to 'learn the best' monitors, keyboards, mice, and the difference between a minidisplayport and a thunderbolt cable. that's the iMac market. Not the 'switcher' and definitely not the moron. someone who values their time and doesn't want to 'learn' electronics.
So... from the past 2 decades... are we saying that the next low cost iMac is a iPad? Or is there an entry level iMac in the <$1000 range that can be discounted further for educational and NonProfits?
That is the big question... and if the answer is the iPad... then that basically says that OSX and Intel is dead. Not that that's bad, just that's a direction I think computer scientists and the development community [read: schools] (Hard (impossible) to develop 100% on a iPad, and therefore hard to teach programming on an iPad) need a roadmap as to how the iPad will support their needs.
In order to appeal to the school market, I'd say Apple needs a $799 iMac or a Mac mini plus display combination for the same or less.
But apple doesn't cater to the low end, and that tends to be what schools buy. So unless it is a machine with last year's or older specs, it will have to be crippled in some way (display, memory, HDD, etc.) for Apple to hold their margins.
Thats not entirely true. Our school just purchased a 27" iMac lab in its new STEM lab. Were going to receive 13" Macbook Pros with 128 GB SSD's in them this coming week. Our other iMac are 21.5" iMacs that aren't the educational model.
Yes, schools CAN choose the cheapest model available, its not what they always purchase. Schools don't need a $799 Mac. Its not going to make a district switch. It "may" make a current district buy more Macs, but I doubt it. There are still some pretty hard headed IT departments out there that won't touch a Mac (or MAC to them!). Its not easy adding a platform such as OS X into a Windows environment. I've done it in my school. Its definitely doable, but is a lot of work. It also requires training on both the IT end, and staff end. Not to mention, purchasing a Mac server (probably Mac mini Server) to manage the Macs unless you want to fart around with some kind of Active Directory OS X management system and then try and screw around with SCCM to make it work with Macs to image Macs instead of using Deploy Studio on a Mac Server.
Although Apple sort of did this with the iPhone 5C, I can't see Apple introducing a new iMac with last years specs. I don't think its the specs that make the iMac expensive. Now, we don't know this for sure, but I'm willing to bet there's isn't as much of a price difference between last year's 21.5" iMac (low end), and this year's. Yes, it does have newer technology but in the numbers Apple purchases parts I'm not convinced there's a significant price difference.
Thing is, the Mac Mini is specifically for switchers. BYODKM. They toss their trash Windows tower and plug a Mac Mini in its place. They even get to keep their cigarette-stained keyboards and their mice that are so greasy you have to wear gloves to use them.
A slightly cheaper iMac won’t do squat to get the morons who pay $200 for a computer every two years to buy a Mac. Apple apparently needs to better explain that the Mac Mini, at $600, will last five times longer than the Windows machine it replaced, without any maintenance during its lifetime.
Two decades happened to it. Welcome to the future, also known as modern day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
You're supposed to reuse the ones from your old PC.
I know this. Its my opinion that when they get a new PC, they expect to get everything new with the exception of a display. The idea was good, but I don't really see it working out to get switches very well. When I'm in an Apple store I see people buying 2 things...iMacs and MacBook Pros w/Retina displays.
Those same morons who pay $200 for a PC aren't going to spend $599 on a Mac either like you said. I can't see a cheap iMac really doing much for Apple.
I would much rather see them try and make a lower priced laptop and somehow now make it crappy which I know is hard and probably why you don't see one. People aren't buying desktops anymore these days, they buy laptops. An $899 iMac or whatever it may be isn't going to make people start buying desktop PC's again.
Crazy idea of the day (possibly stupid too)....What if Apple made a 21.5" iMac that ran on iOS 7 with the new 64-bit A7 chip and a touchscreen??? They wouldn't need a separate graphics card (maybe they would if the A7's graphics weren't sufficient), they wouldn't need the cooling, and they wouldn't need massive amounts of storage.
I suppose that, if Cook wants to keep his promise, the 22nd will also see the new MacPro. The 30" Cinema displays on my present MacPro are still going strong, but a nice Retina 30" will make me, and no doubt many others, very happy ! If I could make a wish : please make the displays re-orientate automatically when rotated%u2026..
…”budget" ideas destined to fail just like the irrelevant iPhone 5C.
1. 5C hasn’t “failed”. Shut up and educate yourself.
2. 5C isn’t “budget”. Shut up and educate yourself.
Why does this remind me more and more of the late 90s?
Because you’re lost in a drunken stupor and, having just watched Cocktail, are now confused out of your mind?
Originally Posted by brlawyer
Why don't you try to respond with arguments instead of insults?
Maybe have one first.
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Tallest, what you’re arguing is for the 'current PC' user. So let's not focus on the morons. Let's focus on their kids, or people who literally haven't been spending $200 on computers every 2 years (2nd and 3rd world). What's the computer for them?
The iMac, turned into a multitouch desktop, running OS XI. It wouldn’t be called ‘iMac’, and it wouldn’t be a Mac at all, but it would be for the next PC user.
…to ‘learn the best’…
They wouldn’t have to. Just plug in the crap they already have. That’s why the Mini still comes with a VGA adapter.
Absolutely not, always purchase all software, including Windows! It was and experiment, I have owned over 50 Mac back to Mac Plus... mostly for business. osX runs amazing well, far better then Windows 7 on the same hardware, and we were evaluating switching to windows.
Because it's almost unverifiable, any claimed history of Apple product ownership carries little weight.
Thunderbolt and hdmi? So does the majority of other computers on the market. I am sure my software will scream with intel intergrated graphics, great. Is it too much to ask for a desktop computer without laptop graphics? Sure you can hang as much storage off the back as you want, each with another power supply, great design no doubt. I just think the market that buys iMacs is the same market that buys laptops, there is nothing between $1000 and $2500 in Apples line up for someone who wants a desktop. An $900 iMac doesn't sound appealing to me.
I get the desire for an enthusiast tower, but holding out hope for it is like the people that still hold out hope that Elvis is still alive. Apple is dumping the pro tower. As it is, even big box stores are gradually pushing out the tower desktops.
I think the 'two decades' has evolved to 'consumer -grade' computing. Tallest, what you're arguing is for the 'current PC' user. The iPhone wasn't for the 'current smartphone user' it was for the people who wanted a what a smartphone offered, but didn't want to think about it.
So let's not focus on the morons. ...
I don't think it's correct or fair to say that the smart phone owners had to be smart to have them. You just had to really want one or need one to justify getting one. I think it's more accurate to say that the pitch wasn't properly made for consumers to want one.
I know this. Its my opinion that when they get a new PC, they expect to get everything new with the exception of a display. The idea was good, but I don't really see it working out to get switches very well. When I'm in an Apple store I see people buying 2 things...iMacs and MacBook Pros w/Retina displays.
...
Then why not complain that Apple doesn't throw in a shitty printer in the bundle, something a lot of consumers expected over the years? Most consumer desktop tower packages in the past seemed to include a display with it too. I personally don't like Apple's input devices, so they get relegated to second string duty at best. So I really don't see why the lack of accessories should be considered a show-stopper. There's no marketing anywhere that said the peripherals had to match the branding of the central box, and consumers seem to understand that.
1. 5C hasn’t “failed”. Shut up and educate yourself.
2. 5C isn’t “budget”. Shut up and educate yourself.
Maybe have one first.
1 - It has, no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise;
2 - It is the worst kind of budget, in fact - with a clear goal of reaching "emerging markets" even though it is as expensive as the iPhone 5 for them;
3 - I did - if you can't see it that's a different matter.
I can see Apple coming out with a more affordable iMac but never a cheap one. Maybe they'll come down to $1100, maybe, maybe $1000 but I'm doubtful anywhere near below that.
Honestly, Most of what people are doing they can do on tablets nowadays and so there isn't much reason to spend a ton on a desktop. Also, the most they can do at this point with a desktop is improve the hardware but again, there's not much point in doing that. Really, iMacs from 2, even 3 years ago could be sold today and be very capable.
It makes sense to lower the price, but I don't see Apple making a cheap or even greatly affordable all-in-one desktop. They would rather almost not play than to sell something with so-so margins.
1 - It has, no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise;
Prove you know how many sold. Prove you know how many were made. Prove you know the rate of sale.
2 - It is the worst kind of budget, in fact - with a clear goal of reaching "emerging markets" even though it is as expensive as the iPhone 5 for them;
Here’s a thought. Perhaps that’s because IT ISN’T TOOLED TOWARD EMERGING MARKETS AT ALL. Maybe it’s designed to be EXACTLY WHAT THE IPHONE 4S WAS LAST YEAR, EXCEPT WITH MORE OPTIONS. D’jever think about that? D’jever think that MAYBE it’s not designed to be a “cheap” phone in the first place? Maybe the 4S, still being sold, for LESS THAN THE 5C could have tipped you off to that. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that it’s not the cheapest phone Apple sells, isn’t marketed as a cheap phone, wasn’t presented as a cheap phone, and doesn’t operate like a cheap phone could have made you think it’s not supposed to be a cheap phone?!
And once more Cook, the former world's best COO and nothing else, comes up with one of his "budget" ideas destined to fail just like the irrelevant iPhone 5C. Why does this remind me more and more of the late 90s?
Memo to Cook: Apple is about delivering the BEST; the moment you put "CHEAPER" as the priority, you undermine all the principles behind the company's fantastic recovery under SJ: design and deliver a great device, set up prices accordingly and create new demand/markets even when there is none at the beginning. Alas, it seems like what is important now is to have dinners with financial criminals like Mr Icahn...
In other words: FAIL.
I don't think you're recalling apple history very well. Apple has always had a range of products that weren't all bleeding edge tech. IPod nano, MacBook, eMac, even iMac wasn't originally as high end as it is now. But the difference is rock solid design in each one.
And once more Cook, the former world's best COO and nothing else, comes up with one of his "budget" ideas destined to fail just like the irrelevant iPhone 5C. Why does this remind me more and more of the late 90s?
It's true, making budget products hasn't worked out for Apple in the past. There's a difference between designing a product you would want to use, and *then* using all your skill to manufacture it as cheaply as possible, vs. trying to design a cheap product to begin with. The former usually works out a lot better!
I personally think the iMac is very reasonably priced as is, especially the lower end one. If people still can't afford that, then get an iPad. Better to have an awesome tablet than a crappy PC...
Apple will get more aggressive on pricing its all-in-one iMac desktop in 2014, with a new "budget" model apparently slated to launch next year, according to analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities.
Is that why they haven't updated the mini to Haswell - instead phasing it out for a new budget iMac next year? Or will there be a completely redesigned mini resembling a shrunken version of the new Mac Pro coming out on the 22nd? I suspect the former, we'll see in just over a week...
Is that why they haven't updated the mini to Haswell - instead phasing it out for a new budget iMac next year? Or will there be a completely redesigned mini resembling a shrunken version of the new Mac Pro coming out on the 22nd alongside it? I suspect the former, we'll see in just over a week...
Unless said iMac is going to be $699, they’re not getting rid of the Mini.
Then why not complain that Apple doesn't throw in a shitty printer in the bundle, something a lot of consumers expected over the years? Most consumer desktop tower packages in the past seemed to include a display with it too. I personally don't like Apple's input devices, so they get relegated to second string duty at best. So I really don't see why the lack of accessories should be considered a show-stopper. There's no marketing anywhere that said the peripherals had to match the branding of the central box, and consumers seem to understand that.
Because its not how it seems. How many $200-300 PC's include a printer now days? Most don't even include a display. What I was trying to get at was, when you buy a new computer, its expected that you get a keyboard and a mouse. Doesn't matter whether or not you like or display what Apple supplies with it. What may seem like a bargain to some, can quickly turn people away when they find out that it doesn't have a keyboard, mouse. Then maybe they have a crappy display so they want to replace that and well now you're in iMac territory as far as price goes. This I think is why the Mac mini idea has never really worked out. I think the Mac mini solely exists so that Apple can claim they have a lower priced Mac and it sells just enough to it profitable.
Comments
And once more Cook, the former world's best COO and nothing else, comes up with one of his "budget" ideas destined to fail just like the irrelevant iPhone 5C. Why does this remind me more and more of the late 90s?
Memo to Cook: Apple is about delivering the BEST; the moment you put "CHEAPER" as the priority, you undermine all the principles behind the company's fantastic recovery under SJ: design and deliver a great device, set up prices accordingly and create new demand/markets even when there is none at the beginning. Alas, it seems like what is important now is to have dinners with financial criminals like Mr Icahn...
In other words: FAIL.
In other word, you're a clueless troll with no knowledge of the current market, history, or the future. Great job at a sucking!
Thing is, the Mac Mini is specifically for switchers. BYODKM. They toss their trash Windows tower and plug a Mac Mini in its place. They even get to keep their cigarette-stained keyboards and their mice that are so greasy you have to wear gloves to use them.
A slightly cheaper iMac won’t do squat to get the morons who pay $200 for a computer every two years to buy a Mac. Apple apparently needs to better explain that the Mac Mini, at $600, will last five times longer than the Windows machine it replaced, without any maintenance during its lifetime.
Two decades happened to it. Welcome to the future, also known as modern day.
I think the 'two decades' has evolved to 'consumer -grade' computing. Tallest, what you're arguing is for the 'current PC' user. The iPhone wasn't for the 'current smartphone user' it was for the people who wanted a what a smartphone offered, but didn't want to think about it.
So let's not focus on the morons. Let's focus on their kids, or people who literally haven't been spending $200 on computers every 2 years (2nd and 3rd world). What's the computer for them?
My thought...
The problem with the 'mac mini' is the 'entry level' Mac... is that it's not the 'entry level iMac' (buy 1 box, unbox, turn on... you're computing). You don't want to need an 'IT' department in your house (GeekSquad? ), nor do you want to subscribe to CNET or Ars, or anything else to 'learn the best' monitors, keyboards, mice, and the difference between a minidisplayport and a thunderbolt cable. that's the iMac market. Not the 'switcher' and definitely not the moron. someone who values their time and doesn't want to 'learn' electronics.
So... from the past 2 decades... are we saying that the next low cost iMac is a iPad? Or is there an entry level iMac in the <$1000 range that can be discounted further for educational and NonProfits?
That is the big question... and if the answer is the iPad... then that basically says that OSX and Intel is dead. Not that that's bad, just that's a direction I think computer scientists and the development community [read: schools] (Hard (impossible) to develop 100% on a iPad, and therefore hard to teach programming on an iPad) need a roadmap as to how the iPad will support their needs.
Why don't you try to respond with arguments instead of insults?
In order to appeal to the school market, I'd say Apple needs a $799 iMac or a Mac mini plus display combination for the same or less.
But apple doesn't cater to the low end, and that tends to be what schools buy. So unless it is a machine with last year's or older specs, it will have to be crippled in some way (display, memory, HDD, etc.) for Apple to hold their margins.
Thats not entirely true. Our school just purchased a 27" iMac lab in its new STEM lab. Were going to receive 13" Macbook Pros with 128 GB SSD's in them this coming week. Our other iMac are 21.5" iMacs that aren't the educational model.
Yes, schools CAN choose the cheapest model available, its not what they always purchase. Schools don't need a $799 Mac. Its not going to make a district switch. It "may" make a current district buy more Macs, but I doubt it. There are still some pretty hard headed IT departments out there that won't touch a Mac (or MAC to them!). Its not easy adding a platform such as OS X into a Windows environment. I've done it in my school. Its definitely doable, but is a lot of work. It also requires training on both the IT end, and staff end. Not to mention, purchasing a Mac server (probably Mac mini Server) to manage the Macs unless you want to fart around with some kind of Active Directory OS X management system and then try and screw around with SCCM to make it work with Macs to image Macs instead of using Deploy Studio on a Mac Server.
Although Apple sort of did this with the iPhone 5C, I can't see Apple introducing a new iMac with last years specs. I don't think its the specs that make the iMac expensive. Now, we don't know this for sure, but I'm willing to bet there's isn't as much of a price difference between last year's 21.5" iMac (low end), and this year's. Yes, it does have newer technology but in the numbers Apple purchases parts I'm not convinced there's a significant price difference.
Thing is, the Mac Mini is specifically for switchers. BYODKM. They toss their trash Windows tower and plug a Mac Mini in its place. They even get to keep their cigarette-stained keyboards and their mice that are so greasy you have to wear gloves to use them.
A slightly cheaper iMac won’t do squat to get the morons who pay $200 for a computer every two years to buy a Mac. Apple apparently needs to better explain that the Mac Mini, at $600, will last five times longer than the Windows machine it replaced, without any maintenance during its lifetime.
Two decades happened to it. Welcome to the future, also known as modern day.
You're supposed to reuse the ones from your old PC.
I know this. Its my opinion that when they get a new PC, they expect to get everything new with the exception of a display. The idea was good, but I don't really see it working out to get switches very well. When I'm in an Apple store I see people buying 2 things...iMacs and MacBook Pros w/Retina displays.
Those same morons who pay $200 for a PC aren't going to spend $599 on a Mac either like you said. I can't see a cheap iMac really doing much for Apple.
I would much rather see them try and make a lower priced laptop and somehow now make it crappy which I know is hard and probably why you don't see one. People aren't buying desktops anymore these days, they buy laptops. An $899 iMac or whatever it may be isn't going to make people start buying desktop PC's again.
Crazy idea of the day (possibly stupid too)....What if Apple made a 21.5" iMac that ran on iOS 7 with the new 64-bit A7 chip and a touchscreen??? They wouldn't need a separate graphics card (maybe they would if the A7's graphics weren't sufficient), they wouldn't need the cooling, and they wouldn't need massive amounts of storage.
The 30" Cinema displays on my present MacPro are still going strong, but a nice Retina 30" will make me, and no doubt many others, very happy ! If I could make a wish : please make the displays re-orientate automatically when rotated%u2026..
1. 5C hasn’t “failed”. Shut up and educate yourself.
2. 5C isn’t “budget”. Shut up and educate yourself.
Because you’re lost in a drunken stupor and, having just watched Cocktail, are now confused out of your mind?
Maybe have one first.
Tallest, what you’re arguing is for the 'current PC' user. So let's not focus on the morons. Let's focus on their kids, or people who literally haven't been spending $200 on computers every 2 years (2nd and 3rd world). What's the computer for them?
The iMac, turned into a multitouch desktop, running OS XI. It wouldn’t be called ‘iMac’, and it wouldn’t be a Mac at all, but it would be for the next PC user.
They wouldn’t have to. Just plug in the crap they already have. That’s why the Mini still comes with a VGA adapter.
…a nice Retina 30”…
Retina 27”, if anything at all.
Because it's almost unverifiable, any claimed history of Apple product ownership carries little weight.
I get the desire for an enthusiast tower, but holding out hope for it is like the people that still hold out hope that Elvis is still alive. Apple is dumping the pro tower. As it is, even big box stores are gradually pushing out the tower desktops.
I don't think it's correct or fair to say that the smart phone owners had to be smart to have them. You just had to really want one or need one to justify getting one. I think it's more accurate to say that the pitch wasn't properly made for consumers to want one.
Then why not complain that Apple doesn't throw in a shitty printer in the bundle, something a lot of consumers expected over the years? Most consumer desktop tower packages in the past seemed to include a display with it too. I personally don't like Apple's input devices, so they get relegated to second string duty at best. So I really don't see why the lack of accessories should be considered a show-stopper. There's no marketing anywhere that said the peripherals had to match the branding of the central box, and consumers seem to understand that.
1. 5C hasn’t “failed”. Shut up and educate yourself.
2. 5C isn’t “budget”. Shut up and educate yourself.
Maybe have one first.
1 - It has, no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise;
2 - It is the worst kind of budget, in fact - with a clear goal of reaching "emerging markets" even though it is as expensive as the iPhone 5 for them;
3 - I did - if you can't see it that's a different matter.
Honestly, Most of what people are doing they can do on tablets nowadays and so there isn't much reason to spend a ton on a desktop. Also, the most they can do at this point with a desktop is improve the hardware but again, there's not much point in doing that. Really, iMacs from 2, even 3 years ago could be sold today and be very capable.
It makes sense to lower the price, but I don't see Apple making a cheap or even greatly affordable all-in-one desktop. They would rather almost not play than to sell something with so-so margins.
1 - It has, no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise;
Prove you know how many sold. Prove you know how many were made. Prove you know the rate of sale.
Here’s a thought. Perhaps that’s because IT ISN’T TOOLED TOWARD EMERGING MARKETS AT ALL. Maybe it’s designed to be EXACTLY WHAT THE IPHONE 4S WAS LAST YEAR, EXCEPT WITH MORE OPTIONS. D’jever think about that? D’jever think that MAYBE it’s not designed to be a “cheap” phone in the first place? Maybe the 4S, still being sold, for LESS THAN THE 5C could have tipped you off to that. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that it’s not the cheapest phone Apple sells, isn’t marketed as a cheap phone, wasn’t presented as a cheap phone, and doesn’t operate like a cheap phone could have made you think it’s not supposed to be a cheap phone?!
3 - I did
So do some proving, bucko.
I don't think you're recalling apple history very well. Apple has always had a range of products that weren't all bleeding edge tech. IPod nano, MacBook, eMac, even iMac wasn't originally as high end as it is now. But the difference is rock solid design in each one.
And once more Cook, the former world's best COO and nothing else, comes up with one of his "budget" ideas destined to fail just like the irrelevant iPhone 5C. Why does this remind me more and more of the late 90s?
It's true, making budget products hasn't worked out for Apple in the past. There's a difference between designing a product you would want to use, and *then* using all your skill to manufacture it as cheaply as possible, vs. trying to design a cheap product to begin with. The former usually works out a lot better!
I personally think the iMac is very reasonably priced as is, especially the lower end one. If people still can't afford that, then get an iPad. Better to have an awesome tablet than a crappy PC...
Is that why they haven't updated the mini to Haswell - instead phasing it out for a new budget iMac next year? Or will there be a completely redesigned mini resembling a shrunken version of the new Mac Pro coming out on the 22nd? I suspect the former, we'll see in just over a week...
Unless said iMac is going to be $699, they’re not getting rid of the Mini.
Then why not complain that Apple doesn't throw in a shitty printer in the bundle, something a lot of consumers expected over the years? Most consumer desktop tower packages in the past seemed to include a display with it too. I personally don't like Apple's input devices, so they get relegated to second string duty at best. So I really don't see why the lack of accessories should be considered a show-stopper. There's no marketing anywhere that said the peripherals had to match the branding of the central box, and consumers seem to understand that.
Because its not how it seems. How many $200-300 PC's include a printer now days? Most don't even include a display. What I was trying to get at was, when you buy a new computer, its expected that you get a keyboard and a mouse. Doesn't matter whether or not you like or display what Apple supplies with it. What may seem like a bargain to some, can quickly turn people away when they find out that it doesn't have a keyboard, mouse. Then maybe they have a crappy display so they want to replace that and well now you're in iMac territory as far as price goes. This I think is why the Mac mini idea has never really worked out. I think the Mac mini solely exists so that Apple can claim they have a lower priced Mac and it sells just enough to it profitable.