nht

madan said:

The lowest end Mini has an i3 that trades with a 2400g...a 150 dollar CPU.  Hardly a world beater in an 800 dollar computer.

The DDR4 in a Mini isn't 3200.  It's 2666 which is fast by Mac standards but isn't even the fastest on the market.


The only great part about the Mini is the fact that it's:

A. Small & stylish in a nice aluminum box with excellent heat management through shared blowers, proper air routing, software cooling profiles and thermal skin dissipation.

B. It has that insane motherboard design with fantastically forward thinking IO (thunderbolt-enabled USB-C ahoy!).

Beyond that, you mentioned it.  It uses IGP.  The issue isn't whether Mini purchasers need it.  It's whether Apple charges people like the Mini *has* that grunt.  Which it doesn't have.

A 2400g, some fast RAM, a nice PCIE SSD on a mini ITX would be about twice the size.  Sure.  And no Mac OS X.  And you'd lose 2 or 3 USB C ports.  But you'd also chip 400 dollars on a computer that could tie the Mini on half the tasks and run rings around it on the other half.

Again, Mac OS is the best OS on the market.  Apple hardware engineering is great.  But is it worth 100% markup great? I wonder.  They're charging the same that a Dell with a Core i5/twice the fast RAM/and a GTX 1060 costs.  And those two systems aren't even in the same solar system, much less planet.

So yeah. Mazda.  Ferrari. Fits.

The NSX used the engine from the Legend
Lamborghini and Audi collaborated on the V10 engine used in the Gallardo and Huracan.
Pagani Huayra uses a Mercedes V12 engine.
Aston Martin Vantage uses a Mercedes V8
The Lous Evora uses a Toyota engine.

The i3 Mini you are whining about is faster than the 2017 15" MBP Core i7-7920HQ in single core and faster than the 2017 21: iMac Core i5-7500 in multicore.

That leads me to believe you know very little about supercars or computers.

madan said:

nht said:

lorin schultz said:

radarthekat said:

lorin schultz said:

To pick a nit:

Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?

Or maybe the ratio of costs to selling prices have remained steady for cutting edge technologies.  If it were milk or toasters we were talking about then I could understand your implication that input costs should not be increasing and perhaps even be going down.  But Apple is doing the same thing today as it was doing 10, 15, 20 years ago; developing new products with increasing performance and capabilities.  Seems that will always remain the same percentage of total costs.  

I hear you, except that price increases are accelerating compared to the past. Why are costs so much higher lately than they used to be?

It may well be that this is just how much it costs to make fancy-pants computers now. I'm neither qualified nor adequately informed to offer an opinion about what Apple should or could do. All I'm saying is the current approach is moving the income level required to be an Apple user even higher. Our middle-class household can no longer afford the products we used to buy on a three-year cycle. Maybe I need to just accept that and walk away. I hope not, though.

Price increases in the Mac product line represent the move to higher performance in the components for SSD, TB3, screen density, etc while achieving the size and weight desired for that product line.  The cost for software development increases because the OS is more complex than it was.

Thus margins indicate that costs have increased and not profits.

Also, the needs of most middle-class households can now be met by iPads or lower tier Macs rather than 6 core i7 15" MBP.   The downside to the product line is that the direct replacement for a MBP from 3 years ago has a smaller screen but likely also costs less.

Apple still provides the iPhone 7 at $449 when talking about iPhones.  The iPhone 8 is $599.  The three year old iPhone 6s was $649 at launch.  The 8 is a solid upgrade at $50 less than your $649 replacement budget.  The Xr costs $749 but is 6.1"...so it's a worthwhile stretch if you want to go that route and the same price as the 6S Plus.  So if your phone was a 6S Plus in 2015 the Xr is a direct replacement at the same price.

There's just this extra tier above the tier that you purchased in 2015 and there isn't a smaller option anymore.

That you don't like the upgrade path doesn't mean that Apple has priced it out of the range of a middle-class household.  If you could afford a $649 phone every three years in 2015 you can afford a $599 iPhone 8 in $2018.  The Xr should be $649 next year if the pattern holds and be an excellent replacement for a 3 year old iPhone 7.

Call it "gaslighting" but the complaints are simply entitled bullshit.  There's no "acceleration" in price increase.  The replacement for the 6S Plus is the Xr at the same price point.  There wasn't a replacement for the 6S but a viable replacement is $50 less expensive than the 6S was in 2015.  The Xs is a higher tier product than the 6S was.

6S->7->8->Xr

Your entire argument is horseshit.

You can't charge more for more performance otherwise every product in existence is an order of magnitude better than previous products.  Automobiles are much faster, fuel efficient and safer than past vehicles.  By your distorted, stunted argument every Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord should ship for 80,000 "cuz look how much better they are!".  Computers increase in performance over time.  Their prices increase relative to pv calculations and inflation fluctuations.  They might also increase as Wurthele astutely indicated because they have some intrinsic cost (ie support or services).  However products shouldn't cost more just "cuz betta".  That's nonsense because by definitions computers ard phones are *better* than the previous model.  Otherwise, what would be the *point*?

Did you really go there with a car analogy?  Because that's just stupid.  Are you so clueless as not to realize that people complain about how cars are more expensive than before?  There was a time that they cost under $10K.

Try googling "cars too expensive" and see how colossally stupid it was to use that to try to bolster your position. 

And more importantly they are not "charing more for more performance".  They are charging the SAME or LESS for more performance.  The iPhone 8 is $50 cheaper than the 6S was at launch and much much faster.  That the 6S was the most expensive tier in 2015 is immaterial.  The Xr is the 2018 replacement for the 2015 6S (Plus).  Just like the 8 was the 2017 replacement for the 7.  That the X and Xs are two new premium tiers above the old line didn't make the old line more expensive.  

Both the 8 and the X had an A11.  Both the Xr and the Xs have an A12.  None of the phones cheaper than the 6S had the A9 as the 6S in 2015.

madan said:

lorin schultz said:

radarthekat said:

lorin schultz said:

To pick a nit:

Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?

Or maybe the ratio of costs to selling prices have remained steady for cutting edge technologies.  If it were milk or toasters we were talking about then I could understand your implication that input costs should not be increasing and perhaps even be going down.  But Apple is doing the same thing today as it was doing 10, 15, 20 years ago; developing new products with increasing performance and capabilities.  Seems that will always remain the same percentage of total costs.  

I hear you, except that price increases are accelerating compared to the past. Why are costs so much higher lately than they used to be?

It may well be that this is just how much it costs to make fancy-pants computers now. I'm neither qualified nor adequately informed to offer an opinion about what Apple should or could do. All I'm saying is the current approach is moving the income level required to be an Apple user even higher. Our middle-class household can no longer afford the products we used to buy on a three-year cycle. Maybe I need to just accept that and walk away. I hope not, though.

It's worse than that.  Not only are the products quickly escaping low-mid middle class household budgets but high-mid household budgets and even low-wealthy households are hard pressed to justify the cost.

Example.

I'm in the market for a next-gen iMac.  I'm looking for the 2019.  A Core i7 is fine. I'm sure they'll have 8th-9th gen in there by then.  I'm sure they'll have 16 GB of DDR4. The screen is spectacular and that's ok.  Storage is fine.  But a lot of my work (3D modeling and real-time texture rendering) requires a beefy graphics card and the current 580 I have is good (but not great).  I expect the new iMac to have 1080-class performance 2 years after the RX 580 iMac.  At least 1080. 

Let's assume that by virtue of the fact that Apple refuses to contract with NVidia that AMD is the only supplier they have (which Soli thinks they probably also develop nyuk nyuk). The 680 isn't ready yet.  And if it isn't ready by next May-June on iMac release, Apple may just shove another 580 in the high end non-Pro iMac.  Well, that means I'm looking at the same performance as the 2017 model for 2500-3000 dollars. Ridiculous.

My point is, it's not just about the price eliminating middle-tier families from purchasing Apple products (although that's likely to happen) but also shooing away professionals and prosumers that can get Wintel systems at the same price that, no, may not run Mac OS but are literally 100% faster. We can see that situation plain as day with the new Mini. 

It's not that Apple is simply more expensive than ever before.  It's that they seem to offer less than ever before for those high prices.

What the next gen iMac costs in 2019 is conjecture but in 2018 the entry point for a 6 Core i7 Mac is $1099.   An eGPU will have a performance tax from TB3 but may not thermally throttle as it might in the iMac (or just clock higher).  Plus you can stick a Vega in it.

So for a $3000 budget in November 2018 you get:

$1500 Mac Mini 6 Core i7 16GB DDR4 256GB SSD
  $950 ASUS Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB HBM2 + Razor Core X Bundle
------ 
$2450

$550 remaining for monitor, keyboard, and mouse.  While that's only an entry level 27" IPS 4K you can drop to a Vega 56 if you wanted a little more budget.

Second highest single core performance (5653).
Sixth best multi-core performance (23973).

eGPU performance: 

https://barefeats.com/macbook_pro_2018_egpu.html

The CPU in the mini is faster than the one in the 2018 MBP Core i9.  5653 / 23973 vs 5346 / 22575.

Your assertion is BS.  The Mac line up has never been better for pros on a budget since 2012.  And from a GPU options perspective it's much better than 2012.

lorin schultz said:

radarthekat said:

lorin schultz said:

To pick a nit:

Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?

Or maybe the ratio of costs to selling prices have remained steady for cutting edge technologies.  If it were milk or toasters we were talking about then I could understand your implication that input costs should not be increasing and perhaps even be going down.  But Apple is doing the same thing today as it was doing 10, 15, 20 years ago; developing new products with increasing performance and capabilities.  Seems that will always remain the same percentage of total costs.  

I hear you, except that price increases are accelerating compared to the past. Why are costs so much higher lately than they used to be?

It may well be that this is just how much it costs to make fancy-pants computers now. I'm neither qualified nor adequately informed to offer an opinion about what Apple should or could do. All I'm saying is the current approach is moving the income level required to be an Apple user even higher. Our middle-class household can no longer afford the products we used to buy on a three-year cycle. Maybe I need to just accept that and walk away. I hope not, though.

Price increases in the Mac product line represent the move to higher performance in the components for SSD, TB3, screen density, etc while achieving the size and weight desired for that product line.  The cost for software development increases because the OS is more complex than it was.

Thus margins indicate that costs have increased and not profits.

Also, the needs of most middle-class households can now be met by iPads or lower tier Macs rather than 6 core i7 15" MBP.   The downside to the product line is that the direct replacement for a MBP from 3 years ago has a smaller screen but likely also costs less.

Apple still provides the iPhone 7 at $449 when talking about iPhones.  The iPhone 8 is $599.  The three year old iPhone 6s was $649 at launch.  The 8 is a solid upgrade at $50 less than your $649 replacement budget.  The Xr costs $749 but is 6.1"...so it's a worthwhile stretch if you want to go that route and the same price as the 6S Plus.  So if your phone was a 6S Plus in 2015 the Xr is a direct replacement at the same price.

There's just this extra tier above the tier that you purchased in 2015 and there isn't a smaller option anymore.

That you don't like the upgrade path doesn't mean that Apple has priced it out of the range of a middle-class household.  If you could afford a $649 phone every three years in 2015 you can afford a $599 iPhone 8 in $2018.  The Xr should be $649 next year if the pattern holds and be an excellent replacement for a 3 year old iPhone 7.

Call it "gaslighting" but the complaints are simply entitled bullshit.  There's no "acceleration" in price increase.  The replacement for the 6S Plus is the Xr at the same price point.  There wasn't a replacement for the 6S but a viable replacement is $50 less expensive than the 6S was in 2015.  The Xs is a higher tier product than the 6S was.

6S->7->8->Xr

StrangeDays said:

elijahg said:

lkrupp said:

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.

Nah. A tablet serves different use cases that a desktop. Cars and trucks, as was said on day 1. I ran much of my business from an ipad — email, reading and editing spreadsheets, dropbox. In a form factor with practically no weight and easy to bring with me wherever. When it came to doing development and building out spreadsheets, I did that when at my desk. Different use cases. 

Productivity != “only what I need, at all times!”

At least you people have changed your tune to include “the arts” lol. 

If you had a mouse in for the iPad it would work out when "docked" to a 4K monitor and storage.

The only thing that really keeps the iPad as a desktop replacement is the awkwardness in working with text and text selection when using a physical keyboard and large screen.  Even just having a mode where the iPad turns into a touchpad and auxiliary keys/displays when connected to a large display would mitigate most of the awkwardness even if I prefer a mouse to a touchpad.