eightzero

coolfactor said:

Time is ripe to completely rethink what a "computer" is. I hope to see Apple continue moving away from "appliance-like" computers and into more modular computing.

Imagine a decade-long strategy where the Mac mini is sold as a module. Next year, add a second module to double its speed, capacity, etc. Don't replace your existing Mac. Don't open it up and swap out parts. Just plug in another module. Same computer, upgraded. That's where Apple should be going. Would require some "grid computing" type tech, and there are rumblings of Xgrid-type software being resurrected. That would be amazing!

Thing is: Apple's SOC has gotten so efficient because they are integrated chips. The M series gets faster and more power efficient because they are right on the chip. I don't think it currently technically feasible to just add modules to increase speed or actual capacity. Others might know better. That said, what you suggest is valid: modularizing particularly the peripherals seems viable. My first mac, the Duo230 docked to provide multiple screens (the mini dock) or a slide in conversion to a desktop. That was revolutionary at the time (1992.) Many now have no need for a desktop, and hence the rise of iOS/ padOS. The only real need for a desktop system is the professional studio work - the kind photographers, designers, gamers, developers film makers - need and want. That's Apple Studio and Apple display and Mac Pro all the way on macOS. Consumer devices? I like a desktop for the big screen, but my iPhone or iPad could drive it easily. I'd consider that if a M series iPad ran macOS. No reason it can't for my needs. 

Oh...and notice the disappearing need for local storage. There was a shitstorm when the optical drives went away. I keep one now only for legacy things like DVD movies and music. And now, who needs a huge HDD for local storage? Admitted, the free 5GB on iCloud is BS, but gone are the days when I needed huge storage. A backup? Sure. And there is something to keeping movies local somehow. 

But remember: Steve was famous for making "personal computers" the next "office or home appliance." 30+ years ago. 

VictorMortimer said:

mike1 said:

sflocal said:

blastdoor said:

mike1 said:

What would be the 24" - 27" monitor of choice to pair this with these days? Anything out there remotely as good as an iMac display but less expensive than a Studio monitor?

Back in the spring when I realized there would be no new Macs at WWDC, I bought a refurbished m2 pro Mac mini to replace my 27 inch iMac. 

I initially bought a Dell monitor to go with it, thinking it was a great deal relative to the Apple studio display. I was horrified by it. It looked so much worse than my iMac when I saw them side by side. I sent back the Dell and shelled out the money for the Apple. The web cam is as poor as reviews say, but the most important thing by far is the display quality. 

Maybe Apple will make a less expensive 24 inch display….

It's not necessarily that the Studio Display is expensive, it's that the competition is all low-price junk.  If the LG 5K uses the similar display, but everything else about it is cheap quality garbage and people think Apple should drop their quality to compete.  

I've always used iMacs, but since Apple has abandoned the 27" display, and what will replace it now has me considering a Mac Studio.  That means buying a display.  The Studio Display (imho) is still the best display on the market and expensive as it is, it will be a better investment than anything the competition has.

Thanks all for the feedback. I'm starting to think that the latest iMac is the better value (for me). I am fine with the 24" screen for this application and it's less expensive than a comparable Mac Mini and Studio Monitor combo. About $1,000 less based on how I would configure them using today's product.

No, the mini is a better value, and less expensive.  You don't need an Apple monitor, they're ridiculously overpriced garbage.  And iMacs are just plain wasteful, monitors keep working long after the computers they were originally attached to are obsolete.

The 27" iMac from some years ago (2009 or so) actually did allow you to use its screen as a display for a separately attached mac. It doesn't take much imagination come up with an explanation for why this feature was removed. I wouldn't call the ASD "garbage" but it is expensive. As a previous commenter pointed out, the bar for this is pretty low - a lot of monitors made by The Usual Suspects really are garbage. I shopped long and hard for a viable alternative, and found the HP Z27 acceptable. It has faults, and YMMV, but it is an acceptable 4K screen at about 1/2 the price of the ASD. I expect it to...well...outlast me. I'm hoping the M1 Mac mini I have does so too, but I do have options I wouldn't have had with another iMac.

I've had a lot of iMacs. They are good value. Apple is really good about pricing them so the separate monitor+macmini alternative is not an easy choice. But you are correct: it is the CPU that needs update more often than the screen. It is hard to imagine something better than the current generation of 4K screens, but I likely would have said that of my 2009 27" iMac's "HD 1080 hi-resolution screen" in 2009 too. 

msterling said:

I'm good with my Mini M2 Pro.   I bought it last year.  I'm retired now.  I expected when I bought it to last me 10+ years.  But I might trade up when the MacOS no longer can be upgraded.  it rests perfectly next to my Studio Display stand, and within the width of the monitor.  I didn't know this market needed smaller.  I think heat dissipation could be a real concern as the encasement gets smaller.   I used to own a iMac 27".  After seeing other monitors, there was no way, I was giving up the 5K.  Samsung and Dell do not compare to build quality.  In fact, I might be getting a second one for dual-screen.  Right now, I rely on a MacBook Air 13" as a Universal Control "second screen" (yes, I know it's still using that processor.  But I can't slide over windows from the main screen.  I connected the two via a high quality TB4 cable.  And the fluidity of moving between the two is excellent now.  Before the TB4 cable, there was delays in connecting, and skipping with the trackpad pointer.

Concur, but I have a simple M1 mini that fits my needs. I retired a mid-2009 27" iMac for this with an HP 4k 27" screen. I expect this to fulfill my needs for at least as long as the last iMac did. My guess is that CPUs see shorter lifespans than monitors, but it is hard to imagine a better screen than a quality 4k version. I do also have a M1 MBA; and it has occurred to me that I could simply dock that when I need/want a desktop. Choices are good, and all these devices have utility and value (including the various iOS/ padOS devices I have as well.)

diman80 said:

eightzero said:

In the "unintended consequences" territory, there is the issue that since the current form factor has been used for 15 years, the racks, mounts, and cabling systems are then all rended obsolete. If Apple really presses this, are we looking at an iMac killer? A Thunderbolt dongle sized thingy that attaches to a monitor? Choices are good; I'm curious about this.

Mac Mini is supposed to fill the "desktop consumer level" niche. How about a "whole home Mac" that replaces the AppleTV, sits on the home network and cabled to the TV, but is available for any monitor, any where on that network? IOW, the CPU is home network based, not a box sitting next to the monitor (which is exactly what an iMac is for one screen.) Nifty idea, but of course, making a product that reduces the need for consumers to buy your other products isn't...insanely great. 

Edit: and...and...and...make that cabled box a new wifi Airport base station. Yeah, I know...and a unicorn pony as well. 

"sits on the home network and cabled to the TV" - that is as far from nifty as the Moon.

Call it a local cloud mac. It needs to be HDMI connect to a TV, (latency and that's where to watch actual video) but I see no reason why a desktop CPU needs to be near a display. In fact, I think macOS now has a "sidecar" feature to use an unwired iPad as a screen. Put a single mac on the home network to run all the desktops (CPU-less monitor, keyboard, mouse "stations") in a home. Or even a smallish office, so long as the needs are modest (email, browsing, capacity GPU stuff.) Why not? YYMV, but it seems a viable product choice. 

In the "unintended consequences" territory, there is the issue that since the current form factor has been used for 15 years, the racks, mounts, and cabling systems are then all rended obsolete. If Apple really presses this, are we looking at an iMac killer? A Thunderbolt dongle sized thingy that attaches to a monitor? Choices are good; I'm curious about this.

Mac Mini is supposed to fill the "desktop consumer level" niche. How about a "whole home Mac" that replaces the AppleTV, sits on the home network and cabled to the TV, but is available for any monitor, any where on that network? IOW, the CPU is home network based, not a box sitting next to the monitor (which is exactly what an iMac is for one screen.) Nifty idea, but of course, making a product that reduces the need for consumers to buy your other products isn't...insanely great. 

Edit: and...and...and...make that cabled box a new wifi Airport base station. Yeah, I know...and a unicorn pony as well.