CarmB

melgross said:

CarmB said:

wizard69 said:

The problem I see is that if you think the eGPU is the right solution then it is very likely that you purchased the wrong hardware in the first place.   It perplexes me to no end that somebody would buy a Mac Mini and then attach an eGPU to it.    I can almost understand with a laptop, especially if the eGPU box can also fill the roll of a dock but why do that with a desktop?   Makes no sense to me.

The only argument that really holds with me is that Apple doesn't make a mid-range desktop machine.   That sorta make sense as Apple has this silly belief that the iMac fits every need on the desktop.   In my case when Apple doesn't have what I need i just build a Linux box that fits the purpose.   That way I don't have to compromise with hardware that marginally meets a need.

Clearly, it makes more sense for Apple to go back to offering a mid-range desktop machine rather than compromise the unified approach that allows the M1 to deliver some rather surprising performance. My guess is that with the direction it’s going in with its own processor technology,  delivering that mid-range desktop option would be easier than ever. To me, there’s profit to be made in offering an upgrade option to the base Mini on account of consumers who really don’t need the extra power will spend more to acquire it anyway. I’m guilty of opting for overkill on more than a few occasions. It’s less about how many customers need more performance than the new M1 Mini offers and more about how many customers would gladly pay more for a more powerful option. There is a difference. 

It’s not that simple. We don’t know how far, and in what direction(s) Apple has designed this concept to expand into. This first, least expensive chip is likely the simplest one Apple will make.

If the basic concept has been demonstrated to work beyond Apple’s wildest expectations, it’s obvious that it will progress to develop more powerful variations to be offered to more demanding users. It’s not as if Apple is likely to develop a different operating system and basic approach to system design to deliver more performance. Rather, it’s going to expand on what is the starting point that is the M1. The more capable variants will use the same software and so the basic architecture will likely be employed across the product range, since the software is optimized for a particular system design approach. To then veer off and alter the basic approach, an approach that seems to be rather effective, makes no sense. It’s also improbable that as it launches the M1, Apple is in danger of running out of runway. Apple plays the long game, always. 

Seems to me the main reason that so many were interested in using an external GPU on the Intel Mini is the poor quality of the onboard integrated graphics. The M1 Mini ships with a dramatically better integrated GPU solution which, for many, means there is no need to go to the trouble of adding an external graphics card. If you need a more capable GPU, I wonder if the Mac Mini is the right product to even be considering. 

The question, I suppose, is just exactly how many Mac Mini buyers will find that the integrated graphics will provide the performance needed for the Mini to be a good option. If there is a small percentage who need more power, the better approach to making an external GPU usable is for Apple to release an upgrade version - let’s call it the Mac Mini Pro - and slot that between the Mini and the Mac Pro. If that upgraded version is not enough, then clearly we are talking a genuine pro user requiring the ability to do more customizing of the hardware. 

So the M1 Mini is offered to meet the needs of a large percentage of non-professionals, an upgraded variant is offered to meet the needs of more demanding non-professionals and finally a model designed for the pro customer is developed. Make the pro version the one that can accommodate customization and deliver enough performance in the two non-pro offerings to meet the needs of a substantial number of consumers.

Really, having to add an external GPU to the Mini in order to get acceptable performance is a flaw of the Intel version that Apple seems to have addressed with the M1 version. Given a choice between a Mini that does not allow for a graphics upgrade yet serves up sufficient graphics muscle and one that can be upgraded yet comes with poor graphics performance baked in, the former clearly is an improvement over the latter. Sure the graphics performance on the base M1 Mini might be a drawback for some but a Pro version of the Mini serving up even more performance would go a long way towards satisfying a good many consumers and at a cost that would be an improvement over having to pay for an external GPU to plug into the Mini. As well, my guess is that Apple would sell a ton of the beefed up Mini to consumers who don’t even need the extra horsepower yet want it anyway. The only way this approach would fail would be if the resulting performance was too anemic to truly meet the needs of the buyer. Based on a good many reviews to date,  it appears that the level of performance of even the just-released M1 Mini, is good enough to please a large percentage of Mini buyers. If the machine comfortably handles what you regularly throw at it, upgradability is rendered irrelevant. 

22july2013 said:

focher said:

Would be better if they just published a Universal Binary instead of making a user have to know which architecture they are using.

Good point, but maybe Universal Binaries can be created only in Xcode. I don't use other compilers (and I barely use Xcode.)

It’s highly unlikely that anyone at this stage would need to check to see which version of machine they are running. The M1s are just arriving in consumers’ hands as we speak and absolutely everything else is Intel. It’s highly unlikely that anyone buying an M1 Mac in the next while would need to find out if they’re using an M1 Mac or an Intel Mac. Meanwhile everyone else can safely assume they have an Intel chip in their Mac because for years that’s what they have put in Macs exclusively. So if you have a Mac that’s older than a week and not truly vintage, it’s an Intel-powered unit.

No surprise that some are simply dismissive of what has been offered so far. It’s the way it is in today’s society. Dismissiveness is thought to suggest a higher standard but it isn’t necessarily so. Sometimes, if something with merit is dismissed with obvious contempt it’s merely posturing. Not especially valuable and it’s simply inevitable, sadly, in today’s internet environment. I find that it happens with non-professional product reviews, for example. If one were to seek out any product that receives universal approval, it would be a futile search. Even the best items have a percentage of reviews declaring said product awful. With all due respect, I’ve learned to tune that out. If something is genuinely bad, the criticism is more widespread and surpasses the positive response. 

It’s not possible, in any case, to appeal to everyone since one man’s gold is another man’s, well, you know. I don’t think this service can be judged based on how its doing in the first year, especially considering it has been a year complicated by COVID. It will be far more valid to take stock two, three, four years into this process. More feedback, a bigger catalogue, and so on. 

My hope is that what Apple will do is resist the temptation to raise the price if the service does become popular. Keep the price low and stick with original programming. If that programming has a broad enough appeal, the cost of producing it will be more than covered by the revenue Apple can potentially generate with enough subscribers. Others are delivering volume and with so much available these days, there is no shortage of programming. Appealing original programming is more valuable than sheer legacy volume. Some enjoy repeat viewings of programs they enjoy. Others, myself included, prefer to seek out fresh content. Apple is useless to me if it ends up flush with legacy titles aimed at justifying a higher price. Lots of other providers like Netflix and Disney Plus have that covered. 

Having legacy titles is way overrated. Many already own a lot of those titles outright and/or have already watched them. What is of interest is fresh original content. It has to be kept in mind that if you acquire a deep back catalogue it means charging more for the resulting service. As a result you are forcing subscribers to pay monthly for content they are highly likely to not have a use for. A service featuring original content works fine if you price it accordingly. Instead of choosing between Apple TV + and some other streaming service, at the current pricing level, Apple TV + stands up as a good value well worth adding onto whatever else one subscribes to. As Apple continues to produce original content, it will build up a decent catalogue of worthwhile titles. Maybe five or six decent series and a handful of films might be rather sparse, but if that number goes up to 15, 20 series and a broader collection of films, now you have a service with some depth to it. And if Apple holds the line on pricing by resisting the urge to pad the service with volume over quality, the perceived value of the service will only improve in subsequent years. 

Let other services like Netflix go the way of providing a ton of content of wildly varied quality for ever increasing monthly fees. With the latest Netflix price hike, I have decided that I can’t afford to carry Netflix year round. I can subscribe for only a few months out of the year and still watch what I want. On the other hand, Apple’s pricing is still reasonable enough to justify year-round subscription, especially since there is an option to pay less for an annual subscription. Here in Canada, Amazon Prime also makes sense as an annual service since we still pay less than in the US.

All along I have been hoping Apple does not add a back catalogue from a third party because I don’t need it and don’t wish to pay for it. If Apple does add a library of titles from a third party, I’d rather it be offered for an additional fee, leaving Apple TV+ original content as a standalone option. There’s a high probability many would simply not pay more for the expanded service, which is why no other streaming service has tried that model. The take-up rate would be so low, recouping costs would be tough.