This statement doesn't make sense at all. Apple will have the same kind of discount in buying 100,000 1.83 Yonahs or 100,000 1.86 Conroes. The discount is not in family of products, but in quantities of EACH model of chip.
The 2.0Ghz and 1.83Ghz Yonahs used in the iMac are the same as the 2.0Ghz and 1.83Ghz Yonahs in the MB and MBPs correct? Do you know the pricing of those chips if the difference is 100K vs 200K units?
Does Apple get a discount because they move more 17" WS LCD panels as a total? Dunno. But hopefully there is some synergy.
The savings may (or may not) be minor but they are selling 700K notebooks. Any savings is magnified.
That said, yes, I agree, they are likely to go Conroe next rev for the iMacs. The point is that its not necessarily as "simple" as some might say.
Now that I agree with. People can blindly follow or blindly oppose the status quo or the power structure or the whatever. You are speaking differently now than in your first post.
My point all along has been that some too easily believe that Apple always knows best. Often there is no evidence or solid reason to back it up such confidence. But as you point out there is the other side too. Some could believe that Apple does nothing right, but these are generally not Mac users.
Some might believe that. But not me. It however doesn't take a brain of Einstein's caliber to notice that since the beginning Apple has had a love affair with AIO Macs and has protected/nurtured them even through the non-Jobs era. Good or bad that's the historical picture and if you want to make projections then the most likely outcomes don't involve pricing that destroys the AIO Mac market.
And YES you DO miss the point of the quote. The full quote is:
Quote:
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
Congrats, you've obliquely invoked Godwin's law even through arguably he is condemning all forms of war and not just Nazis...however that's the most obvious example of folks marching joyfully to war in lockstep that Einstien might refer to.
Analogies will break down at some point but its fairly clear that simply being niche is not a death knell given that Apple has been niche for quite a while now.
...Vinea
I may have missed it, but I can't remember any one claiming that by not introducing an xMac would be the death knell for Apple.
On the other hand, several posters claim that an xMac would cannibalize iMac or Mac mini or Mac Pro sales, with the implication that Apple's profits may go down and still not gain market share. Simple answer for Apple stop selling the xMac.
And I also don't like car analogies, not because the analogy is inherently wrong, but inevitably the argument shifts from the topic at hand to whether the analogy is correct. I consider car analogies diversionary.
And Dell likely is carrying higher than 28% margins on the workstation that was compared. ...
Which makes them vulnerable. Is the cost difference enough to buy Windows Vista and run under Boot camp? Same goes for xServers. Kind of a unique opportunity for Apple to squeeze Windows box makers in a couple of markets.
#2: You make the claim that Apple spends more on case design than Dell, In the case of the Mac Pro, Apple actually sells these towers at below Dell's price points. So if Apple spends more on case design, and this is a significant expense, then how can Apple beat Dell's pricing. Simply put, I doubt that your insistence on case design has any real significant effect on the selling price.
he is talking about different comps. such as the iMac, where the design is more expensive because of the form factor[/QUOTE]
As has been pointed out over and over and over, AIOs exist in the PC world. They're a small niche, but they still seem to sell enough that the manufacturers keep making them. And those PC AIOs are pretty crap next to the iMac. The iMac is a great machine for a home entertainment system what with Front Row and all, and it's also attractive looking, it has fun extras, such as the iSight camera, and it's simple to set up, with a minimum of wires. The iMac has its place, and people will still buy it - it just isn't sufficiently well-suited to fit the needs of the entire mid-range desktop market.
and over and over and over, year after year after year. You pretty well distilled the argument down. It just amazes me that people can not see this. And I'll bet Apple sees this also and will ultimately offer an xMac or similar machine. Hopefully soon.
Like it or not, giving people too much choice can be bad for the bottom line. Again, does anyone complaining actually believe Apple hasn't researched the idea exhaustively? They know better than every one of you, and myself, what's best for Apple as a business.
If and when they feel the time is right, they'll roll out a consumer tower.
I don't have evidence, but in more than one of these threads here and at other websites it has been postulated that Apple does not do significant amounts of market research. I could be wrong here, no real evidence. On the other hand, if Apple is, as some one posted here, an innovative and future looking company that knows what consumers need and will over time educate them on their needs, just what exactly would the point of market research?
i know my parents cerainly don't have a disposable income...my mom and i saved up for my mac, and my dad lost his job recently, so don't even say that...it's not a toy...god, i hate people like you
Good luck, I know the feeling. I was laid off shortly after I was married and my wife became pregnant.
The point was that Apple's performance is not contrary to their desires for greater market share. They simply target share in the most profitable segments: mobile, lifestyle (upper end consumer) and professional. They also target share in the edu market.
The following statements can all be true:
Apple cares about Mac market share.
Mac's total market share is increasing.
Mac's desktop market share is declining.
Apple is happy with the way marketshare is trending (upwards as it happens).
With respect to the performance of the Mac desktops Apple had this to say at the 2006 Q3 conference call:
Quote:
Jonathan Hoopes - ThinkEquity
Thank you. Looking at the unit shipment levels between the Mac desktops and the notebooks, are we to understand then that the vergence was mainly a function of the pro community not having products there to upgrade into, or was it a function of the education? As we move forward into the September education period, do you expect desktops to regain some strength there?
Tim Cook
The main thing affecting desktops, frankly, are the compelling notebooks that we announced. So as the market is moving more notebook, Apple is leading the way and with the incredible announcement that we had with the MacBook Pro in Q2 and then the MacBook in Q3, there was just a very compelling reason to buy a laptop.
On the desktop side, the comparison there would be, on a pro business, is fairly slower than a year ago, as people await a PowerMac with an Intel chip and/or an application from a third-party developer.
The other thing that was happening was that the e-Mac was really at a close to an end-of-life last quarter, so sales on that were not as robust as they were a year ago.
Quote:
I may have missed it, but I can't remember any one claiming that by not introducing an xMac would be the death knell for Apple.
On the other hand, several posters claim that an xMac would cannibalize iMac or Mac mini or Mac Pro sales, with the implication that Apple's profits may go down and still not gain market share. Simple answer for Apple stop selling the xMac.
And I also don't like car analogies, not because the analogy is inherently wrong, but inevitably the argument shifts from the topic at hand to whether the analogy is correct. I consider car analogies diversionary.
The basis of Mr. H's opposition to car analogies is that roads and gas are common to all cars and without a large enough user base developers will stop developing the equivalent of roads and gas for the platform. That would lead to the destruction (or marginalization) of the platform.
In the extreme case this is correct. If the installed base for OSX falls too much there will be few developers for the platform. However, Apple can still be niche/boutique/whatever and not approach this point given their annual unit sales.
Therefore the analogies with upper end car manufacturers not having a complete end-to-end lineup or concentration on quality over price are applicable. Apple is steering toward a different market segment where share is an important component but not the overriding concern.
Besides, in a discussion/debate/flamewar there's no obligation to allow your opponent to define what arguments will or will not be used. Especially if they are going to object in such a obviously partisan manner.
and over and over and over, year after year after year. You pretty well distilled the argument down. It just amazes me that people can not see this. And I'll bet Apple sees this also and will ultimately offer an xMac or similar machine. Hopefully soon.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been nurturing its AIO lineup. It amazes me that people can not see this.
Can they depart from this strategy? For certain that they could. Will they? Seems unlikely with this CEO.
Has it helped them? Hard to say. They do stand out in a sea of towers and provide the brand with an obvious difference. Software differences are hard to visualize, even the GUI. A static screen shot of XP or Vista against OSX isn't all that visually large a difference.
Apple is happy with the way marketshare is trending (upwards as it happens).
But this could also be said, Apple only has a small segment of the total market share. So while desktop computers (especially Mac's) are declining in percentage of the total market there is still a lot of room for Apple to grow in desktop sales if they were to offer compelling products in that market space that would attract new consumers to buy a Mac over a Dell or HP. Also, Apple's desktop sales should pick up within the next 6 months with the release of the Mac Pro's and updates to the iMac and Mac Mini that make these models more competitive with the overall market. This is especially true if Apple successfully expands their consumer electronics devision with products that are able to capture the iPod experience in new product lines such as video content deliver and viewing or cell phones. This should allow them to take advantage of and hopefully increase the "Halo Effect" that they have enjoyed from the iPod as consumers are introduced to the Apple experience and this influences them to purchase a Mac instead of a Windows PC as their next home computer purchase.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been nurturing its AIO lineup. It amazes me that people can not see this....
This is true, but it is also true that the current MacPro now begins in a market space that is above that of the traditional PowerMac's entry priced unit. This is important because there are low end professional uses for these computers which are not well served by iMac's due to the limit's to the display size and lower RAM expansion, yet are not in need of the more expensive Quad core MacPro's for their daily work. The extra expense of the entry model MacPro's, being the only option in Mac's line could cause companies to put off planed purchases or purchase fewer computers during their next upgrade cycle.
Some might believe that. But not me. It however doesn't take a brain of Einstein's caliber to notice that since the beginning Apple has had a love affair with AIO Macs and has protected/nurtured them even through the non-Jobs era. Good or bad that's the historical picture and if you want to make projections then the most likely outcomes don't involve pricing that destroys the AIO Mac market. . .
Vinea
Excellent reply! Really. My respect for you just went up several notches. You do have an excellent mind, but like Jobs you may have a few blind spots. The only thing in this reply that I disagree with is your insistence that a mini tower would destroy the iMac. However, even here you pin point the pricing. The fact is, IMHO, that a mini tower does not need to be price so low as to take too many sales from the iMac. Some sales will be lost, true, but those are the Mac users who would rather have a mini tower than an iMac.
Okay, now for Einstein. I have a little game I play with quotations. It does not always show the whole quote in context. I really appreciate your posting the rest of it, which sounds like the Einstein I'm familiar with. The first two sentences did sound a bit out of character for this very humble and peace loving man. Thank you very much. Sincerely.
As has been pointed out over and over and over, AIOs exist in the PC world. They're a small niche, but they still seem to sell enough that the manufacturers keep making them. And those PC AIOs are pretty crap next to the iMac. . .
Which suggests an interesting sales strategy. Put an iMac in the Windows section of stores selling both Macs and PC. Have Windows installed and running. The price would be iMac's price plus price of Window OS. See whether it sells. The PC sales people could get the same commission as on other PCs. What a way to sneak a Mac into a house full of Windows computers. Wonder how long it would take the buyer to discover that it has another operating system installed, which allows use of the iLife applications?
One flaw in this long argument however is the fact that Apple will not sell an expandable Conroe tower for $999. Expect to see it around $1200 to $1500.
That alleviates that argument that it would cannibalize iMac sales.
One flaw in this long argument however is the fact that Apple will not sell an expandable Conroe tower for $999. Expect to see it around $1200 to $1500.
That alleviates that argument that it would cannibalize iMac sales.
I think that I would agree at the $1499+ range. The $1299 I think is kinda borderline.
I dunno but I think some folks get the impression that I'm personally a fan of the AIO form factor and I'm not.
It has certain advantages in some contexts but overall I think a mini-tower is more functional. My impression is that Jobs, as a visionary, disagrees with me and many other folks in this thread.
Personally, I lean toward a small form factor cube with a videocard slot as my "ideal" desktop Mac for home use...
This is true, but it is also true that the current MacPro now begins in a market space that is above that of the traditional PowerMac's entry priced unit. This is important because there are low end professional uses for these computers which are not well served by iMac's due to the limit's to the display size and lower RAM expansion, yet are not in need of the more expensive Quad core MacPro's for their daily work. The extra expense of the entry model MacPro's, being the only option in Mac's line could cause companies to put off planed purchases or purchase fewer computers during their next upgrade cycle.
I think that we will see a $1599 or $1699 Conroe based Mac Pro at some point. I think it will still be names "Mac Pro" so the "Family is Complete" line isn't complete fabrication.
That's not to say that I don't think new models will ever be released but I think the mini will get a bump to the A/V mini folks want rather than a new name appear for the near future.
Comments
This statement doesn't make sense at all. Apple will have the same kind of discount in buying 100,000 1.83 Yonahs or 100,000 1.86 Conroes. The discount is not in family of products, but in quantities of EACH model of chip.
The 2.0Ghz and 1.83Ghz Yonahs used in the iMac are the same as the 2.0Ghz and 1.83Ghz Yonahs in the MB and MBPs correct? Do you know the pricing of those chips if the difference is 100K vs 200K units?
Does Apple get a discount because they move more 17" WS LCD panels as a total? Dunno. But hopefully there is some synergy.
The savings may (or may not) be minor but they are selling 700K notebooks. Any savings is magnified.
That said, yes, I agree, they are likely to go Conroe next rev for the iMacs. The point is that its not necessarily as "simple" as some might say.
Vinea
Now that I agree with. People can blindly follow or blindly oppose the status quo or the power structure or the whatever. You are speaking differently now than in your first post.
My point all along has been that some too easily believe that Apple always knows best. Often there is no evidence or solid reason to back it up such confidence. But as you point out there is the other side too. Some could believe that Apple does nothing right, but these are generally not Mac users.
Some might believe that. But not me. It however doesn't take a brain of Einstein's caliber to notice that since the beginning Apple has had a love affair with AIO Macs and has protected/nurtured them even through the non-Jobs era. Good or bad that's the historical picture and if you want to make projections then the most likely outcomes don't involve pricing that destroys the AIO Mac market.
And YES you DO miss the point of the quote. The full quote is:
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
Congrats, you've obliquely invoked Godwin's law even through arguably he is condemning all forms of war and not just Nazis...however that's the most obvious example of folks marching joyfully to war in lockstep that Einstien might refer to.
Vinea
I'm moderately surprised someone is pushing $800 Conroes at the moment.
Vinea
Where are you guys finding these? I'm not able to configure anything that cheap with Conroe at the Dell web site.
Yes, because going from 4.3 percent to 4.6 percent is clearly a decline and not capturing share...
Vinea
The increase is very clearly due to laptop sales.
...
Analogies will break down at some point but its fairly clear that simply being niche is not a death knell given that Apple has been niche for quite a while now.
...Vinea
I may have missed it, but I can't remember any one claiming that by not introducing an xMac would be the death knell for Apple.
On the other hand, several posters claim that an xMac would cannibalize iMac or Mac mini or Mac Pro sales, with the implication that Apple's profits may go down and still not gain market share. Simple answer for Apple stop selling the xMac.
And I also don't like car analogies, not because the analogy is inherently wrong, but inevitably the argument shifts from the topic at hand to whether the analogy is correct. I consider car analogies diversionary.
......
And Dell likely is carrying higher than 28% margins on the workstation that was compared. ...
Which makes them vulnerable. Is the cost difference enough to buy Windows Vista and run under Boot camp? Same goes for xServers. Kind of a unique opportunity for Apple to squeeze Windows box makers in a couple of markets.
#2: You make the claim that Apple spends more on case design than Dell, In the case of the Mac Pro, Apple actually sells these towers at below Dell's price points. So if Apple spends more on case design, and this is a significant expense, then how can Apple beat Dell's pricing. Simply put, I doubt that your insistence on case design has any real significant effect on the selling price.
he is talking about different comps. such as the iMac, where the design is more expensive because of the form factor[/QUOTE]
OK. Point conceded. http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=441
...
As has been pointed out over and over and over, AIOs exist in the PC world. They're a small niche, but they still seem to sell enough that the manufacturers keep making them. And those PC AIOs are pretty crap next to the iMac. The iMac is a great machine for a home entertainment system what with Front Row and all, and it's also attractive looking, it has fun extras, such as the iSight camera, and it's simple to set up, with a minimum of wires. The iMac has its place, and people will still buy it - it just isn't sufficiently well-suited to fit the needs of the entire mid-range desktop market.
and over and over and over, year after year after year. You pretty well distilled the argument down. It just amazes me that people can not see this. And I'll bet Apple sees this also and will ultimately offer an xMac or similar machine. Hopefully soon.
Like it or not, giving people too much choice can be bad for the bottom line. Again, does anyone complaining actually believe Apple hasn't researched the idea exhaustively? They know better than every one of you, and myself, what's best for Apple as a business.
If and when they feel the time is right, they'll roll out a consumer tower.
I don't have evidence, but in more than one of these threads here and at other websites it has been postulated that Apple does not do significant amounts of market research. I could be wrong here, no real evidence. On the other hand, if Apple is, as some one posted here, an innovative and future looking company that knows what consumers need and will over time educate them on their needs, just what exactly would the point of market research?
i know my parents cerainly don't have a disposable income...my mom and i saved up for my mac, and my dad lost his job recently, so don't even say that...it's not a toy...god, i hate people like you
Good luck, I know the feeling. I was laid off shortly after I was married and my wife became pregnant.
The increase is very clearly due to laptop sales.
The point was that Apple's performance is not contrary to their desires for greater market share. They simply target share in the most profitable segments: mobile, lifestyle (upper end consumer) and professional. They also target share in the edu market.
The following statements can all be true:
Apple cares about Mac market share.
Mac's total market share is increasing.
Mac's desktop market share is declining.
Apple is happy with the way marketshare is trending (upwards as it happens).
With respect to the performance of the Mac desktops Apple had this to say at the 2006 Q3 conference call:
Jonathan Hoopes - ThinkEquity
Thank you. Looking at the unit shipment levels between the Mac desktops and the notebooks, are we to understand then that the vergence was mainly a function of the pro community not having products there to upgrade into, or was it a function of the education? As we move forward into the September education period, do you expect desktops to regain some strength there?
Tim Cook
The main thing affecting desktops, frankly, are the compelling notebooks that we announced. So as the market is moving more notebook, Apple is leading the way and with the incredible announcement that we had with the MacBook Pro in Q2 and then the MacBook in Q3, there was just a very compelling reason to buy a laptop.
On the desktop side, the comparison there would be, on a pro business, is fairly slower than a year ago, as people await a PowerMac with an Intel chip and/or an application from a third-party developer.
The other thing that was happening was that the e-Mac was really at a close to an end-of-life last quarter, so sales on that were not as robust as they were a year ago.
I may have missed it, but I can't remember any one claiming that by not introducing an xMac would be the death knell for Apple.
On the other hand, several posters claim that an xMac would cannibalize iMac or Mac mini or Mac Pro sales, with the implication that Apple's profits may go down and still not gain market share. Simple answer for Apple stop selling the xMac.
And I also don't like car analogies, not because the analogy is inherently wrong, but inevitably the argument shifts from the topic at hand to whether the analogy is correct. I consider car analogies diversionary.
The basis of Mr. H's opposition to car analogies is that roads and gas are common to all cars and without a large enough user base developers will stop developing the equivalent of roads and gas for the platform. That would lead to the destruction (or marginalization) of the platform.
In the extreme case this is correct. If the installed base for OSX falls too much there will be few developers for the platform. However, Apple can still be niche/boutique/whatever and not approach this point given their annual unit sales.
Therefore the analogies with upper end car manufacturers not having a complete end-to-end lineup or concentration on quality over price are applicable. Apple is steering toward a different market segment where share is an important component but not the overriding concern.
Besides, in a discussion/debate/flamewar there's no obligation to allow your opponent to define what arguments will or will not be used. Especially if they are going to object in such a obviously partisan manner.
Vinea
and over and over and over, year after year after year. You pretty well distilled the argument down. It just amazes me that people can not see this. And I'll bet Apple sees this also and will ultimately offer an xMac or similar machine. Hopefully soon.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been nurturing its AIO lineup. It amazes me that people can not see this.
Can they depart from this strategy? For certain that they could. Will they? Seems unlikely with this CEO.
Has it helped them? Hard to say. They do stand out in a sea of towers and provide the brand with an obvious difference. Software differences are hard to visualize, even the GUI. A static screen shot of XP or Vista against OSX isn't all that visually large a difference.
iMac vs Dell tower on the other hand...
Vinea
\\The following statements can all be true:
Apple cares about Mac market share.
Mac's total market share is increasing.
Mac's desktop market share is declining.
Apple is happy with the way marketshare is trending (upwards as it happens).
But this could also be said, Apple only has a small segment of the total market share. So while desktop computers (especially Mac's) are declining in percentage of the total market there is still a lot of room for Apple to grow in desktop sales if they were to offer compelling products in that market space that would attract new consumers to buy a Mac over a Dell or HP. Also, Apple's desktop sales should pick up within the next 6 months with the release of the Mac Pro's and updates to the iMac and Mac Mini that make these models more competitive with the overall market. This is especially true if Apple successfully expands their consumer electronics devision with products that are able to capture the iPod experience in new product lines such as video content deliver and viewing or cell phones. This should allow them to take advantage of and hopefully increase the "Halo Effect" that they have enjoyed from the iPod as consumers are introduced to the Apple experience and this influences them to purchase a Mac instead of a Windows PC as their next home computer purchase.
Over and over, and year after year it seems Apple has been nurturing its AIO lineup. It amazes me that people can not see this....
This is true, but it is also true that the current MacPro now begins in a market space that is above that of the traditional PowerMac's entry priced unit. This is important because there are low end professional uses for these computers which are not well served by iMac's due to the limit's to the display size and lower RAM expansion, yet are not in need of the more expensive Quad core MacPro's for their daily work. The extra expense of the entry model MacPro's, being the only option in Mac's line could cause companies to put off planed purchases or purchase fewer computers during their next upgrade cycle.
Some might believe that. But not me. It however doesn't take a brain of Einstein's caliber to notice that since the beginning Apple has had a love affair with AIO Macs and has protected/nurtured them even through the non-Jobs era. Good or bad that's the historical picture and if you want to make projections then the most likely outcomes don't involve pricing that destroys the AIO Mac market. . .
Vinea
Excellent reply! Really. My respect for you just went up several notches. You do have an excellent mind, but like Jobs you may have a few blind spots. The only thing in this reply that I disagree with is your insistence that a mini tower would destroy the iMac. However, even here you pin point the pricing. The fact is, IMHO, that a mini tower does not need to be price so low as to take too many sales from the iMac. Some sales will be lost, true, but those are the Mac users who would rather have a mini tower than an iMac.
Okay, now for Einstein. I have a little game I play with quotations. It does not always show the whole quote in context. I really appreciate your posting the rest of it, which sounds like the Einstein I'm familiar with. The first two sentences did sound a bit out of character for this very humble and peace loving man. Thank you very much. Sincerely.
As has been pointed out over and over and over, AIOs exist in the PC world. They're a small niche, but they still seem to sell enough that the manufacturers keep making them. And those PC AIOs are pretty crap next to the iMac. . .
Which suggests an interesting sales strategy. Put an iMac in the Windows section of stores selling both Macs and PC. Have Windows installed and running. The price would be iMac's price plus price of Window OS. See whether it sells. The PC sales people could get the same commission as on other PCs. What a way to sneak a Mac into a house full of Windows computers. Wonder how long it would take the buyer to discover that it has another operating system installed, which allows use of the iLife applications?
That alleviates that argument that it would cannibalize iMac sales.
One flaw in this long argument however is the fact that Apple will not sell an expandable Conroe tower for $999. Expect to see it around $1200 to $1500.
That alleviates that argument that it would cannibalize iMac sales.
I think that I would agree at the $1499+ range. The $1299 I think is kinda borderline.
I dunno but I think some folks get the impression that I'm personally a fan of the AIO form factor and I'm not.
It has certain advantages in some contexts but overall I think a mini-tower is more functional. My impression is that Jobs, as a visionary, disagrees with me and many other folks in this thread.
Personally, I lean toward a small form factor cube with a videocard slot as my "ideal" desktop Mac for home use...
Vinea
This is true, but it is also true that the current MacPro now begins in a market space that is above that of the traditional PowerMac's entry priced unit. This is important because there are low end professional uses for these computers which are not well served by iMac's due to the limit's to the display size and lower RAM expansion, yet are not in need of the more expensive Quad core MacPro's for their daily work. The extra expense of the entry model MacPro's, being the only option in Mac's line could cause companies to put off planed purchases or purchase fewer computers during their next upgrade cycle.
I think that we will see a $1599 or $1699 Conroe based Mac Pro at some point. I think it will still be names "Mac Pro" so the "Family is Complete" line isn't complete fabrication.
That's not to say that I don't think new models will ever be released but I think the mini will get a bump to the A/V mini folks want rather than a new name appear for the near future.
Viena