Apple is going to drop the hammer in the 2H. Great to see. Get aggressive Mr. Cook!
Steve used to release products at Macworld in January but Tim likes to save everything for the second half (presumably so everything's fresh come the holiday gift season).
Unless the low cost iMac is intended to replace the mini, and that's the reason it's not on his timeline.
That's what I was thinking. There wasn't really any reason to avoid updating the Mini. It doesn't sell in very large volumes so what's the point? It works for people who want a quad-i7 to avoid buying an iMac that is over 2x the price but that's bad for Apple.
Some justification for the Mini is that it lets people who have a display and peripherals buy a Mac cheaply but the low unit volumes suggest people aren't going that route anyway. It's around 3% of Apple's Mac lineup.
To build the Mini into an iMac setup would take a $599 Mini, $100 decent keyboard and mouse, $200 display = $899. The iMac starts at $1299. If they started at $999, the Mini isn't necessary.
The iMac already sells in far larger volumes. The CPU in the entry iMac is $255, they make an education one with a $134 Core-i3 for $1099 (they drop the RAM to 4GB from 8GB).
Another slight adjustment in components could let them hit $999. They could do this by dropping the display quality but I'd rather they didn't do that. Possibly make the keyboard and mouse optional.
The Mini helps with OS X Server but they could switch to having an ARM server product running a variant of iOS rather than OS X.
That's what I was thinking. There wasn't really any reason to avoid updating the Mini. It doesn't sell in very large volumes so what's the point? It works for people who want a quad-i7 to avoid buying an iMac that is over 2x the price but that's bad for Apple.
All good points and I would add that some other manufacturers are quite a bit smaller than the mini now, e.g. Intel NUC, so if they did want to continue with the line, it would probably require a bit of redesign work, so presently they are at a decision point of recommitting or drop it, and maybe this low cost iMac is an indication of which way they went.
Mind you, the Mac Pro redesign was very nice, if the same level of newness of concept could be brought to the mini it might be nice to keep around.
It would be very unlikely that you would loose features. Remember Apple is in the drivers seat here, if they want to add fast RAM bus's, TB2 or whatever to the SoC they can. All they need to do is support two or more variants. Apples rapid development program indicates that this would be no problem at all. Frankly if they had to tie the SoC to an external GPU that wouldn't be a bad situation either. Then again another GPU upgrade in A8 might do the trick all by itself.
It isn't a question of can but a willingness to do so on Apples part. Frankly I would have mixed feelings about an A series processor in an existing Apple Mac product. If they want to deliver an ARM based device, ideally a laptop, it needs to be a new product. That simply to keep marketing coherent.
Steve used to release products at Macworld in January but Tim likes to save everything for the second half (presumably so everything's fresh come the holiday gift season).
You have no basis for that thought. The reality is Apple likes to release products to capture specific markets. So laptop releases come in late spring to be ready for back to school shopping. Right now their bigger problem is Intel and their screwed up release schedules. Apple would rather have Broadwell to launch with in June, I'm certain of that, but it won't happen. Unless of course we have been totally mislead.
Beyond that if any of the rumors about production ramps of A8 are true, new hardware won't be much farther away than 3 months. Of course what that hardware is, is another question. In the end I can see significant hardware releases around WWDC. As usual the release of developer information lets the cat out of the bag so to speak. So the news to announce and at times release hardware in conjunction with the software reveals. It is a cycle repeated again and again at Apple.
It would be very unlikely that you would loose features. Remember Apple is in the drivers seat here…
You lose a ton of hardware features on the architectural level moving from X86 to ARM right now. Never mind Thunderbolt. Apple still only has so much power, even when building their own chips.
Apple is not in a race to the bottom with landfill-grade low-cost crap. When will these f'ing anal-ysts learn that? Do they seriously want Apple to erode all their profit margins and high-end market reputation / perception just to gain more market share?
God these guys need to be put out of their misery and never again allowed to write another article!
Unless the low cost iMac is intended to replace the mini, and that's the reason it's not on his timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's what I was thinking. There wasn't really any reason to avoid updating the Mini. It doesn't sell in very large volumes so what's the point? It works for people who want a quad-i7 to avoid buying an iMac that is over 2x the price but that's bad for Apple.
Some justification for the Mini is that it lets people who have a display and peripherals buy a Mac cheaply but the low unit volumes suggest people aren't going that route anyway. It's around 3% of Apple's Mac lineup.
To build the Mini into an iMac setup would take a $599 Mini, $100 decent keyboard and mouse, $200 display = $899. The iMac starts at $1299. If they started at $999, the Mini isn't necessary.
The iMac already sells in far larger volumes. The CPU in the entry iMac is $255, they make an education one with a $134 Core-i3 for $1099 (they drop the RAM to 4GB from 8GB).
Another slight adjustment in components could let them hit $999. They could do this by dropping the display quality but I'd rather they didn't do that. Possibly make the keyboard and mouse optional.
The Mini helps with OS X Server but they could switch to having an ARM server product running a variant of iOS rather than OS X.
The current MacMini goes for $599 and $799. I'm sorry, but an "entry-level" iMac that is used to replace the MacMini has to start at no higher than $799. And how would they limit the specs in the offering in order to not cannibalize their existing higher-priced iMac line-up? It would have to be a Haswell-based chip. It would have to be Retina. It would have to have a minimum 4gb RAM and a decent graphics card. If it didn't have these minimum specs it would look like they're going backwards… in a slowing desktop market. Apple doesn't do that. And to offer an entry-level desktop for $1000+ makes no sense when someone can say, "The heck with it, I'll just get a basic Dell laptop for $499 instead."
The beauty of the MacMini is it's size, it's portability, it's power, and it's price! You can connect whatever monitor/keyboard/mouse/etc that you want. (Gee…just like the MacPro… Apple has no problem doing it there.) I have a monitor, I have a keyboard, I have a mouse. I just need a desktop Mac to hold all my music, photos, home videos, and various types of desktop-level processing.
It's frustrating for me because I have an old iMac that's not upgradeable (PowerPC stuck on Tiger) with the monitor portion deteriorated so badly that the entire screen is nothing but vertical lines, so I have another monitor attached to it so that I can work. I can't even connect or sync my iPad to it. But I'm still able to do all that I need to do on it, gerryrigged as it is. I don't want or need to spend $1000-2000 on a new computer.
Unless the low cost iMac is intended to replace the mini, and that's the reason it's not on his timeline.
Unless they do something stupid (like replacing the x86 chip with an ARM chip) the new 12" MBA will top the current 11": Same footprint yet thinner with a larger, retina display.
I've been reading through old AppleInsider.com stories, and it takes a bit of searching to find a case where Kuo was over 50% correct. You always introduce him with such praise as "a reliable source of information on unannounced Apple products", but he ends up being wrong as much as he is right.
For example, on June 8 2012 he predicted that Apple would add new 13- and 15-inch models between the Air and Pro (false) and that the Air/Pro suffixes would disappear in favor of the name "new Macbook" (false). This mythical Macbook, which was never produced, would be priced at $1199 for a 13-inch model with Retina display, have no optical drive, and have either a SSD or a HD.
In the same report, he also predicted that Apple would discontinue the 17-inch Macbook Pro (true). Then again, that same day he predicted that all Macbook Pros would be "gradually phased out, but remaining on shelves until 2013" (false).
You give him an awful lot of credit for somebody who is wrong at least as much as he is right. He's a lot better at predicting that poor-selling Apple products will be discontinued (not exactly a difficult task), than at predicting what new Macs will appear.
This new prediction seems so much more full of details than precious predictions.
It is funny, though, I must add, that kuo's predictions always repeat many of the rumors that have already been heard. Then when AI quotes them as verifying earlier rumors they make it sound like it is more likely to be true when, in reality, Kuo probably got the ideas from previous rumors.
You lose a ton of hardware features on the architectural level moving from X86 to ARM right now. Never mind Thunderbolt. Apple still only has so much power, even when building their own chips.
What hardware features? Apple can pick and choose what sort of hardware features to incorporate into their SoC. They can also leave out much that isn't relevant anymore. That frankly is Intels big problem, they spend a lot of transistors on backwards compatibility for features that don't mean much today.
Comments
And hundreds of features off the capabilities.
I'm hoping for the opposite. I'm expecting some insane advancements on the next iMac and when that happens, I'm planning to buy it.
Maybe 4K on an iMac is a pipe-dream just now, but at least retina display.
I'll pimp it up with 32 GB RAM and a 3 TB Fusion Drive and upgrade the Graphics Card and the processor as well.
Apple is going to drop the hammer in the 2H. Great to see. Get aggressive Mr. Cook!
Steve used to release products at Macworld in January but Tim likes to save everything for the second half (presumably so everything's fresh come the holiday gift season).
Great, but for Heaven's sake, somebody ask Ming-Chi about the freakin' Mac mini! This wait is getting OLD!!
Unless the low cost iMac is intended to replace the mini, and that's the reason it's not on his timeline.
That's what I was thinking. There wasn't really any reason to avoid updating the Mini. It doesn't sell in very large volumes so what's the point? It works for people who want a quad-i7 to avoid buying an iMac that is over 2x the price but that's bad for Apple.
Some justification for the Mini is that it lets people who have a display and peripherals buy a Mac cheaply but the low unit volumes suggest people aren't going that route anyway. It's around 3% of Apple's Mac lineup.
To build the Mini into an iMac setup would take a $599 Mini, $100 decent keyboard and mouse, $200 display = $899. The iMac starts at $1299. If they started at $999, the Mini isn't necessary.
The iMac already sells in far larger volumes. The CPU in the entry iMac is $255, they make an education one with a $134 Core-i3 for $1099 (they drop the RAM to 4GB from 8GB).
Another slight adjustment in components could let them hit $999. They could do this by dropping the display quality but I'd rather they didn't do that. Possibly make the keyboard and mouse optional.
The Mini helps with OS X Server but they could switch to having an ARM server product running a variant of iOS rather than OS X.
That's what I was thinking. There wasn't really any reason to avoid updating the Mini. It doesn't sell in very large volumes so what's the point? It works for people who want a quad-i7 to avoid buying an iMac that is over 2x the price but that's bad for Apple.
All good points and I would add that some other manufacturers are quite a bit smaller than the mini now, e.g. Intel NUC, so if they did want to continue with the line, it would probably require a bit of redesign work, so presently they are at a decision point of recommitting or drop it, and maybe this low cost iMac is an indication of which way they went.
Mind you, the Mac Pro redesign was very nice, if the same level of newness of concept could be brought to the mini it might be nice to keep around.
It would be very unlikely that you would loose features. Remember Apple is in the drivers seat here, if they want to add fast RAM bus's, TB2 or whatever to the SoC they can. All they need to do is support two or more variants. Apples rapid development program indicates that this would be no problem at all. Frankly if they had to tie the SoC to an external GPU that wouldn't be a bad situation either. Then again another GPU upgrade in A8 might do the trick all by itself.
It isn't a question of can but a willingness to do so on Apples part. Frankly I would have mixed feelings about an A series processor in an existing Apple Mac product. If they want to deliver an ARM based device, ideally a laptop, it needs to be a new product. That simply to keep marketing coherent.
You have no basis for that thought. The reality is Apple likes to release products to capture specific markets. So laptop releases come in late spring to be ready for back to school shopping. Right now their bigger problem is Intel and their screwed up release schedules. Apple would rather have Broadwell to launch with in June, I'm certain of that, but it won't happen. Unless of course we have been totally mislead.
Beyond that if any of the rumors about production ramps of A8 are true, new hardware won't be much farther away than 3 months. Of course what that hardware is, is another question. In the end I can see significant hardware releases around WWDC. As usual the release of developer information lets the cat out of the bag so to speak. So the news to announce and at times release hardware in conjunction with the software reveals. It is a cycle repeated again and again at Apple.
You lose a ton of hardware features on the architectural level moving from X86 to ARM right now. Never mind Thunderbolt. Apple still only has so much power, even when building their own chips.
God these guys need to be put out of their misery and never again allowed to write another article!
Want to make a lower cost iMac?
Offer one WITHOUT the screen.
Some of us want a DESKTOP processor in a desktop Mac.
Instead Apple us a laptop without a screen in the mini.
Offer one WITHOUT the screen.
Get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Unless the low cost iMac is intended to replace the mini, and that's the reason it's not on his timeline.
Quote:
That's what I was thinking. There wasn't really any reason to avoid updating the Mini. It doesn't sell in very large volumes so what's the point? It works for people who want a quad-i7 to avoid buying an iMac that is over 2x the price but that's bad for Apple.
Some justification for the Mini is that it lets people who have a display and peripherals buy a Mac cheaply but the low unit volumes suggest people aren't going that route anyway. It's around 3% of Apple's Mac lineup.
To build the Mini into an iMac setup would take a $599 Mini, $100 decent keyboard and mouse, $200 display = $899. The iMac starts at $1299. If they started at $999, the Mini isn't necessary.
The iMac already sells in far larger volumes. The CPU in the entry iMac is $255, they make an education one with a $134 Core-i3 for $1099 (they drop the RAM to 4GB from 8GB).
Another slight adjustment in components could let them hit $999. They could do this by dropping the display quality but I'd rather they didn't do that. Possibly make the keyboard and mouse optional.
The Mini helps with OS X Server but they could switch to having an ARM server product running a variant of iOS rather than OS X.
The current MacMini goes for $599 and $799. I'm sorry, but an "entry-level" iMac that is used to replace the MacMini has to start at no higher than $799. And how would they limit the specs in the offering in order to not cannibalize their existing higher-priced iMac line-up? It would have to be a Haswell-based chip. It would have to be Retina. It would have to have a minimum 4gb RAM and a decent graphics card. If it didn't have these minimum specs it would look like they're going backwards… in a slowing desktop market. Apple doesn't do that. And to offer an entry-level desktop for $1000+ makes no sense when someone can say, "The heck with it, I'll just get a basic Dell laptop for $499 instead."
The beauty of the MacMini is it's size, it's portability, it's power, and it's price! You can connect whatever monitor/keyboard/mouse/etc that you want. (Gee…just like the MacPro… Apple has no problem doing it there.) I have a monitor, I have a keyboard, I have a mouse. I just need a desktop Mac to hold all my music, photos, home videos, and various types of desktop-level processing.
It's frustrating for me because I have an old iMac that's not upgradeable (PowerPC stuck on Tiger) with the monitor portion deteriorated so badly that the entire screen is nothing but vertical lines, so I have another monitor attached to it so that I can work. I can't even connect or sync my iPad to it. But I'm still able to do all that I need to do on it, gerryrigged as it is. I don't want or need to spend $1000-2000 on a new computer.
Unless they do something stupid (like replacing the x86 chip with an ARM chip) the new 12" MBA will top the current 11": Same footprint yet thinner with a larger, retina display.
This new prediction seems so much more full of details than precious predictions.
It is funny, though, I must add, that kuo's predictions always repeat many of the rumors that have already been heard. Then when AI quotes them as verifying earlier rumors they make it sound like it is more likely to be true when, in reality, Kuo probably got the ideas from previous rumors.
What hardware features? Apple can pick and choose what sort of hardware features to incorporate into their SoC. They can also leave out much that isn't relevant anymore. That frankly is Intels big problem, they spend a lot of transistors on backwards compatibility for features that don't mean much today.