The market appears to be there for a $499 Mac mini, so the the only two questions left is whether Apple wants to enter that price-point again, or is capable of manufacturing a machine for that price. It certainly managed to build them right up to about last Tuesday when it finally replaced the $499 Mac mini with this new design.
There isn't a real business case for re-entering the $499 market. What's the advantage for Apple to trash ASPs and sell $499 machines instead $799 machines? Would it really double Mac sales?
Apple is already going to lose more valuable iMac sales to Mini sales as the new minis have very high bang for the buck.
And did Apple lose the edu market to Chromebooks or Google Docs? You aren't going to beat $200 chromebooks with a $500 Mac when the $300 iPads can't make a significant dent.
Services.
You still need to show that the $500 price point would sufficiently increase Mac sales so that it's a positive outcome even counting service income. What's more, the buyers of $500 PCs are likely not as good a demographic for services than $800 PC buyers...just like the buyers of $100 Android phones are not as good a demographic for services as $600+ iPhone buyers.
So that's still not a good business case for introducing a $500 mini and trashing your $1200 iMac sales when the $300 iPad already exists and is positioned within the Apple product line for the edu/low end market.
And iOS devices trounce MacOS devices in volume. So service income is largely dominated by iPads (ie cars) than Macs (trucks) anyway.
Apple's services income is largely dominated by iPhones
But when Steve Jobs was young, a computer would have been this cutting edge thing that hardly anyone knew about, and I can imagine seeing one for the first time would totally have blown his mind. That would have been why he wanted them in every school, not to have a computer as such, but because it would expand kids minds like education should. But today a computer wouldn't do that, it is too commonplace. A modern equivalent to what Jobs was talking about might be to take the kids on a field trip to SpaceX.
But on the topic of what device kids should use in school, why just not use their own phone.
Something Apple could do is customise Siri for specific classes. You don't need a fully general AI if the query domain is very limited, we have seen this as Apple has added music expertise and sports score expertise to Siri over time. Well what could be more laid out ahead of time than an official school curriculum? Siri could be programmed with e.g. all queries for grade 3 math, and then a homepod could be put in each grade 3 math classroom.
And a $199 model could serve even greater audience. Don't get me even started on a $99 model...
You guys are so stupid its all about market share "if we sell 1 billion at a penny profit" . I mean look at all those other companies destroying Apple. /s
I seriously disagree with this. I hope Apple never compromises on the Mac again. The $800 Mac Mini is an excellent machine. The $200-400 is served by the iPad. Btw the iPad has the NVME storage that is in the Mac Mini.
The iPad Pro does, the sixth does not have the same speed. Was the 2012 Mac mini compromised for $599?
Yes. It doesn't perform anywhere near as well as the new Minis. Not to mention, the old Mini came standard with an HDD while the new one comes standard with high-speed PCI-e SSD
I seriously disagree with this. I hope Apple never compromises on the Mac again. The $800 Mac Mini is an excellent machine. The $200-400 is served by the iPad. Btw the iPad has the NVME storage that is in the Mac Mini.
It doesn't matter that the new Mac Mini is an excellent machine. People are looking for the right machine for the right price.
Consider writing an RFP. I can't imagine an Apple Mac mini ever being the appropriate choice, unless Apple would respond with a Mac Mini at half the cost it is currently pricing it at for a 128GB version.
I seriously disagree with this. I hope Apple never compromises on the Mac again. The $800 Mac Mini is an excellent machine. The $200-400 is served by the iPad. Btw the iPad has the NVME storage that is in the Mac Mini.
The iPad Pro does, the sixth does not have the same speed. Was the 2012 Mac mini compromised for $599?
Yes. It doesn't perform anywhere near as well as the new Minis. Not to mention, the old Mini came standard with an HDD while the new one comes standard with high-speed PCI-e SSD
I should have been more clear. Not compromised NOW, compromised in 2012.
The $500 model is coming. In fact, it could even be a $300 model. All apple has to do is take the AppleTV, put a newer chip in it like the A11 or A12X, then add more flash storage. Smaller, faster, cheaper (but only runs App Store/marzipan apps).
Unfortunately Apple under Cook is way too greedy for that. The iPhone has convinced them that people are more than willing to pay crazy high prices for an Apple product so why should they release an iPhone or Mac aimed towards education or lower income buyers. If people stopped paying the crazy high prices then Apple would have to lower their margins. But until then Apple has zero incentives to make affordable products for education or anyone else.
Poppycock. Apple's margins aren't that high compared to other markets (you oughta see what furniture markup is -- 100% is typical). That the market bears the price of Apple's premium products speaks volumes -- they're not too high.
The original Mini came out in 2005 at $500. In today's dollars that's at least $650. So for $150 (800-650) they dropped the laptop components and put in desktop components, plus high-speed controllers and I/O. That's worth 150 bucks. If you can't afford 150 bucks, you're not in the game.
The market appears to be there for a $499 Mac mini, so the the only two questions left is whether Apple wants to enter that price-point again, or is capable of manufacturing a machine for that price. It certainly managed to build them right up to about last Tuesday when it finally replaced the $499 Mac mini with this new design.
There isn't a real business case for re-entering the $499 market. What's the advantage for Apple to trash ASPs and sell $499 machines instead $799 machines? Would it really double Mac sales?
Apple is already going to lose more valuable iMac sales to Mini sales as the new minis have very high bang for the buck.
And did Apple lose the edu market to Chromebooks or Google Docs? You aren't going to beat $200 chromebooks with a $500 Mac when the $300 iPads can't make a significant dent.
Services.
Apple isn't going to release netbooks in order to collect services. In 2005 desktops-to-laptops was an 80/20 split. Today it's the other way around... Consumer desktops are becoming less common and notebooks and iPads and smartphones are picking up more use cases. They won't do low-margin to chase a downward-trending market segment. Aka, a "race to the bottom". Not how Apple rolls.
I seriously disagree with this. I hope Apple never compromises on the Mac again. The $800 Mac Mini is an excellent machine. The $200-400 is served by the iPad. Btw the iPad has the NVME storage that is in the Mac Mini.
The iPad Pro does, the sixth does not have the same speed. Was the 2012 Mac mini compromised for $599?
Yes. It doesn't perform anywhere near as well as the new Minis. Not to mention, the old Mini came standard with an HDD while the new one comes standard with high-speed PCI-e SSD
I should have been more clear. Not compromised NOW, compromised in 2012.
While I get what you're trying to say, virtually every engineering endeavor has compromises. The 5400 RPM drive was ridiculous the day I bought it, and a compromise I was unwilling to live with in my October 2012 i5 mini. I believe the mid 2012 MacBook Airs were all SSD, I would have gladly given up the 512GB spinny disk for 128GB SSD.
The market appears to be there for a $499 Mac mini, so the the only two questions left is whether Apple wants to enter that price-point again, or is capable of manufacturing a machine for that price. It certainly managed to build them right up to about last Tuesday when it finally replaced the $499 Mac mini with this new design.
There isn't a real business case for re-entering the $499 market. What's the advantage for Apple to trash ASPs and sell $499 machines instead $799 machines? Would it really double Mac sales?
Apple is already going to lose more valuable iMac sales to Mini sales as the new minis have very high bang for the buck.
And did Apple lose the edu market to Chromebooks or Google Docs? You aren't going to beat $200 chromebooks with a $500 Mac when the $300 iPads can't make a significant dent.
Services.
I don't think Apple would degrade the user experience with a $499 Mac by putting in inferior / cheaper / slower components into it just so it can make up for it in the services area. Apple is the entire widget, both hardware / software / and now services.
If I'm a new Mac user and I go on the cheap and buy the $499 model, only to pull whatever hair I have left because it's so damn slow, I don't care how good the services might be. Apple I think knows that and would rather have a better - albeit more expensive - unit to start with.
And a $199 model could serve even greater audience. Don't get me even started on a $99 model...
Nope. $199 and $99 are too compromised. There's a reason we picked $499.
Not for an AppleTV like mini...and that's been possible for a few years no and Apple has made no move to make a ARM based home server or edu desktop.
In what way would a $200 A10X 4GB RAM 32GB SSD EduMini be "compromised"? Nothing really.
Of course Mac sales would take a huge hit but maybe you could make it up on volume. It would still cheapen the MacOS brand.
4GB of RAM, and 32GB of storage is pretty compromising. I generally like where you're going, though.
Also 32 GB of storage is pretty cheap these days. In the case of recent A series SoC there is little cost beyond the memory device itself because the rest of an “SSD” is built into Apples A series chip. I would not be surprised if Apple could do an A series Mac with chip costs well under $100. I’d have to look up the numbers but I would not be surprised to find that 64 GB is easily. Just looking at the RETAIL price of SSD should confirm this. Now of course there are additional costs but a 40% margin is real possibility at $200.
And a $199 model could serve even greater audience. Don't get me even started on a $99 model...
Nope. $199 and $99 are too compromised. There's a reason we picked $499.
Not for an AppleTV like mini...and that's been possible for a few years no and Apple has made no move to make a ARM based home server or edu desktop.
In what way would a $200 A10X 4GB RAM 32GB SSD EduMini be "compromised"? Nothing really.
Of course Mac sales would take a huge hit but maybe you could make it up on volume. It would still cheapen the MacOS brand.
4GB of RAM, and 32GB of storage is pretty compromising. I generally like where you're going, though.
Also 32 GB of storage is pretty cheap these days. In the case of recent A series SoC there is little cost beyond the memory device itself because the rest of an “SSD” is built into Apples A series chip. I would not be surprised if Apple could do an A series Mac with chip costs well under $100. I’d have to look up the numbers but I would not be surprised to find that 64 GB is easily. Just looking at the RETAIL price of SSD should confirm this. Now of course there are additional costs but a 40% margin is real possibility at $200.
Yes! The prices of SSDs have been dropping for the last few months and it will continue in to next year. It's fantastic honestly.
I have the $499 Mac mini. The hard drive was so slow that it was unbearable - almost unusable! Swapping out for an SSD was $100 and it made it very useable, even for Final Cut X if you can believe that. My iMac video card failed and it costs more in parts to fix than buying this 1 year old Mac Mini on Craigslist ($350) in anticipation for the eventual upgrade that Apple would offer. I learned in this hardware failure that I won’t buy an iMac again for our primary machine despite having had 5 previous models. Why? All other components on the machine are in perfect shape but I can’t use it without being creative. (Didn’t have Remote Desktop installed prior to the failure). We have 3 other mac laptops in the house. (All MacBook Air). My view is that the $799 model should have 512GB of storage. A budget model that used the same chassis but installed a slower, but still very performant 2.5” SSD would be acceptable to me if Apple offered it, even with “slower” SSD for 512GB and the same $799 price. Can I use an external hard drive instead? Sure. Yet I shouldn’t have to. My current mini will be relegated to a media server, DVR and network storage for backups very soon.
Last note: the SSD should have not been soldered to the logic board. SSDs do fail. Best not to use the internal SSD for video scratch disk and use external to assure longevity due to fewer write cycles. Users also do want to increase storage later. This is a mini, not a laptop. Opening it up should be expected.
I’m very happy that the memory is upgradable. I’ll probably get the new mini once more performance tests are out. Yet I’m not happy about the price of SSD storage if I bump it back up to 512. May have to settle on 256 and external storage.
I object to the argument that Apple is charging more an more for their product. Find an inflation calculator and enter what price you paid for your mac 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and 5 years ago. I think that inflation-adjusted apple's pricing is not increasing as dramatically as people think.
If inflation is confusing, think about how much you would spend on lunch about 15 years ago...$8? $5? now it is difficult to get out for lunch for less than $20.
Lastly, think about how much more processing power is vs years ago. I'd say not only is processing power greater but it is now much MUCH greater than the software needs of the vast majority of people. For example, I remember when running MS office was a chore for the computer...now the processing is WAY more than needed for that basic task.
(the $2,499 I spent on a G4 tower in 1999 would cost me $3,787 today.) (the iPhone 3G 8GB cost $599 in 2008, that's $702 in today's dollars, compare to the XR today at $749 but vastly superior)
The problem with your argument is that the Windows PC’s and competing Android phones have got cheaper, or stayed the same price, whilst offering far more than they did 5 or more years ago.
Apple was never “cheap” and nor should they be. But their current obsession with increasing margins every generation is now at the point where they are pricing out a fair chunk of the market.
I’ve switched a lot of people to the Mac, I’m a major advocate for Apple, but I’m struggling now to justify a Mac over a Windows competitor and it’s all because of price.
Not so long ago when someone was looking at a £500 Windows notebook you could talk them around to an £800 Mac. For that extra £300 you get attention to detail, premium build materials and Mac OS.
But with the starting point of £1200 for the new MacBook Air I can no longer justify the extra expense to people. It’s a beautiful machine, but it’s not £700 better than a £500 Windows based notebook.
Apple might be happy selling less for more, but I think it’s going to bite them in the arse sooner rather than later.
Exactly this. Both Windows and PCs have improved markedly in the last few years and include things Apple misses out, the things that make the computer convenient; the things people actually want, namely ports. PCs are no longer poor value, there are some excellent machines out there. Looking at it another way, you can buy two mid-range PCs for the price of a mid-range iMac, or another way - if a £500 PC dies after 3 years whereas a Mac might last 6, a new PC after 3 years would be quite a bit better spec-wise than the 3 year old Mac, making the Mac even worse value.
The Apple price apologists keep making excuses that are more and more irrational in an attempt to justify Apple's price increases - usually something along the lines of "you arent the target market", or "why are you here get a PC and be happy", when the general public's bemusement at the prices of Apple gear tells the real story. The apologists always seem to dismiss the point I often make about marketshare importance, and Apple's apparent ignorance of it, whereby developers will jump ship if the market is too small, and then the platform essentially implodes - Apple circa 1995.
I seriously disagree with this. I hope Apple never compromises on the Mac again. The $800 Mac Mini is an excellent machine. The $200-400 is served by the iPad. Btw the iPad has the NVME storage that is in the Mac Mini.
The iPad Pro does, the sixth does not have the same speed. Was the 2012 Mac mini compromised for $599?
With a hard drive ,yes the 2014 Mac Mini was compromised. For 2012 I think SSD prices kept it an okay machine. I believe Apple switched all iOS devices to NVMe since the A9 in the 6S ,SE & iPad 5(2017).
You realise the top-tier £2249 27" iMac still only comes with a fusion drive by default? It's embarrassing. If cost was a consideration for Apple choosing a HDD over a SSD in the price sensitive 2014 Mini, why does the high margin flagship 2018 iMac still have a HDD?
I used to run a network of around 120 Macs in a secondary school in the UK. Initially almost all the kids would say how crap the Macs were, how they were stupid, expensive, dumb, whatever. After a couple of weeks, the vast majority would about-face and actually begin to enjoy using them, and would actively seek out a free Mac over a PC. And by the end of the academic year, a fair number of students would end up buying their own Macs. Some of those students have since gone on to be Apple advocates, and to write software for iOS and Mac.
The halo effect is real, and a small loss to Apple in the short term in providing discounted Macs (pocket change for them, they snap up $100m companies like a kid eats sweets) is extremely beneficial to the entire Apple ecosystem, and will ultimately increase sales for Apple.
Unfortunately now, Macs are so expensive the students (or their parents) can't afford them, and the schools are in the same boat. The eMac used to be £400 for schools, now the cheapest AIO Mac is more than double that, and only slightly less than double with inflation factored in. They're just not good value for money anymore, no matter what excuses apologists try and make.
I think we can safely say that AppleInsider’s argument for a $499 Mac Mini won't even get a preliminary glance from Apple. Entry level this, workstation that, Apple missed the boat, Apple is greedy, Apple doesn’t care about poor people. It’s the new mantra the desktop fans like to blather on about. If you haven’t figured out by now that the iPad is Apple’s entry level computer then there’s no hope for you. A $429 iPad (9.7 inch with 128GB) will out perform that $499 HP plastic box at Walmart any day.
Performance, looks, durability yes, productivity? Nope. Remember an iPad needs a keyboard to become anywhere near as productive as a laptop, and in one shot you've exceeded the price of that plastic box. And even if you do have a keyboard, there's still things you can't do on iPad, or are just hellishly awkward. It's fine as a consumption device, but as a creation tool for anything but the arts or perhaps creative writing, it is hamstrung by iOS.
The mini is now a specialize machine for professionals - that is why it is black. Apple is no longer interested in Wintel switchers. There are interested in Android switchers. The consumer desktop is the iMac - period. 60% of Apple's revenue is from iPhone - less then 12% is from Mac. Cook & Co can do arithmetic. Students do not use desktop machines, they use portables of various kids. Only old folks like me still like desktops with their big screens for our old eyes .
Comments
Consider writing an RFP. I can't imagine an Apple Mac mini ever being the appropriate choice, unless Apple would respond with a Mac Mini at half the cost it is currently pricing it at for a 128GB version.
The original Mini came out in 2005 at $500. In today's dollars that's at least $650. So for $150 (800-650) they dropped the laptop components and put in desktop components, plus high-speed controllers and I/O. That's worth 150 bucks. If you can't afford 150 bucks, you're not in the game.
Apple isn't going to release netbooks in order to collect services. In 2005 desktops-to-laptops was an 80/20 split. Today it's the other way around... Consumer desktops are becoming less common and notebooks and iPads and smartphones are picking up more use cases. They won't do low-margin to chase a downward-trending market segment. Aka, a "race to the bottom". Not how Apple rolls.
If I'm a new Mac user and I go on the cheap and buy the $499 model, only to pull whatever hair I have left because it's so damn slow, I don't care how good the services might be. Apple I think knows that and would rather have a better - albeit more expensive - unit to start with.
Last note: the SSD should have not been soldered to the logic board. SSDs do fail. Best not to use the internal SSD for video scratch disk and use external to assure longevity due to fewer write cycles. Users also do want to increase storage later. This is a mini, not a laptop. Opening it up should be expected.
I’m very happy that the memory is upgradable. I’ll probably get the new mini once more performance tests are out. Yet I’m not happy about the price of SSD storage if I bump it back up to 512. May have to settle on 256 and external storage.
The Apple price apologists keep making excuses that are more and more irrational in an attempt to justify Apple's price increases - usually something along the lines of "you arent the target market", or "why are you here get a PC and be happy", when the general public's bemusement at the prices of Apple gear tells the real story. The apologists always seem to dismiss the point I often make about marketshare importance, and Apple's apparent ignorance of it, whereby developers will jump ship if the market is too small, and then the platform essentially implodes - Apple circa 1995.
You realise the top-tier £2249 27" iMac still only comes with a fusion drive by default? It's embarrassing. If cost was a consideration for Apple choosing a HDD over a SSD in the price sensitive 2014 Mini, why does the high margin flagship 2018 iMac still have a HDD?
I used to run a network of around 120 Macs in a secondary school in the UK. Initially almost all the kids would say how crap the Macs were, how they were stupid, expensive, dumb, whatever. After a couple of weeks, the vast majority would about-face and actually begin to enjoy using them, and would actively seek out a free Mac over a PC. And by the end of the academic year, a fair number of students would end up buying their own Macs. Some of those students have since gone on to be Apple advocates, and to write software for iOS and Mac.
The halo effect is real, and a small loss to Apple in the short term in providing discounted Macs (pocket change for them, they snap up $100m companies like a kid eats sweets) is extremely beneficial to the entire Apple ecosystem, and will ultimately increase sales for Apple.
Unfortunately now, Macs are so expensive the students (or their parents) can't afford them, and the schools are in the same boat. The eMac used to be £400 for schools, now the cheapest AIO Mac is more than double that, and only slightly less than double with inflation factored in. They're just not good value for money anymore, no matter what excuses apologists try and make.
Like Chuck D once asked, how low can you go?