razmataz

Not everyone is lining up dozens of these.  It would be nice for home users to fit a mini in a 1U in a small server + AV rackmount.  For example, 5.6 x 5.6 x 1.6 is 5x5x2 with some some change to spare. I'm thinking they must have tried this every possible way before they settled on this current form. Is there a hard constraint that the footprint be square?  

I was intending to rackmount this puppy with a 10Gbps ethernet port. But at 2 inches tall, this new mac mini > 1U (1.75"). Is there a way to strip down some height so that it fits in a 1U space (1.75")? I thought they made a point in their presentation to show that previous Minis have been rackmounted. So I'm hoping there is a solution to this? Thanks.
 

CheeseFreeze said:

... not an Apple product and without the Apple design thinking behind it ...

Although SEIKO does have low end stuff to make some products widely accessible, it remains that SEIKO is one of the premier brands mixing technology and style in the world: watches, eyewear, etc. Those colors might seem garish today but in the 80's that was the bee's knees, just look at the Apple logo of yesteryear. The beige box Macs of the day would not score too many points today either.  But a classic SEIKO self-winding watch still holds fray today from both a technological and style standpoint. And it can still be had at a reasonable price with the right options. I can't think of anything that Apple has made which has kept as much relevance over time, but that's expected. And if it used AppleTalk then clearly it leaned on Apple "thinking", heck this thing pretty much had notifications...

darelrex said:

... Are Apple and Google allowed to charge their commission for companies that use alternate payment portals? Because I think that's what's going to happen in the USA ...

Why should Apple or Google be privy to the details of transaction between an end user and another company? For all the talk of privacy and security, this would fly in the face of it, so I'm not seeing it. Given the ruling, seems that would require a warrant in other circumstances.  Maybe it is time to come up with a different model in light of the ruling? Perhaps charge a fee for hosting the apps, the bandwidth requirements (based on the number of downloads, uploads, etc.), updates, some types of Google or Apple IP used, the App review process, etc. But that would not nearly be as lucrative, although it is still possible to make good money. More of a cloud hosting service model. And also the App review process might have to be documented if a nominal fee is charged for it. 

I'm seeing this as Apple wanting to keep the market segmented so they can keep on selling you three devices: an iPhone, an iPad, and a Mac. It is a triple bonanza. If not already, very soon the iPhone or the iPad will be powerful enough for the Mac/PC compute needs of most users, quite capable of running both at the the same time if the need be. The CPU is there, the solid state storage is there, the RAM density is maybe lacking for the more powerful use cases. What some seem to be suggesting is making the Mac a very niche product by giving most of its capabilities to the iPad. Without some serious external pressure from competitors, I don't see the incentive to do that, not any time soon. Oddly enough I think it is the iPhone and IPad that are much harder to merge due to the screen size difference. That would require a thin device whose screen can be made bigger if the need be (unfolded, etc.). But again, that goes against the interest of profit, breaks the simplicity of keeping things the same way they are now while needlessly introducing risk. Yes, the latest devices allow for new capabilities not possible recently. Just have something at the ready and very stable in case competition comes knocking. Even then, because of the ecosystem, they would have a few years to react to it.