nht

txsbaker75 said:

I'm still wondering why Apple didn't opt for a variant of the new Mini with the new Intel CPU/AMD GPU hybrid in it. They are clearly aiming this at more of a pro market. Lot's of rendering (or other tasks) could be offloaded to the Vega GPU, and you could pick up some gaming sales, too. Seems like a no-brainer to me. The performance of the Vega absolutely blows away the Intel integrated graphics in every metric. Apps using Metal2 should scream on that chip. Touting FCPX & Compressor performance on a box with integrated graphics seemed kind of odd after Apple has talked up the capabilities of Metal2 so much. My $0.02, as ever.

netling said:

This also now has me concerned for what the entry price of the Pro model will cost!!

sirozha said:

The only way for Apple to be able to sell hardware in a reasonable price range with the ASPs that Apple now painted itself in the corner with is to jettison the Intel CPU/GPU and to go with its own ARM-based A-Series CPUs and its own GPUs on all Apple non-pro macOS devices. Let Intel manufacture the LTE chips for the Apple devices for now (until Apple is able to do this in house) and go A-Series chips all the way on all non-pro devices. The branding would also be pretty easy for the Apple's macOS-only devices. If it has Pro in the name, it's based on high-end Intel chips. If it doesn't have Pro, it's based on Apple's A-Series chips. The only remaining issue is to have a framework for running macOS apps made for Intel Macs on the A-Series Macs - Rosetta in reverse. This will solve numerous problems for Apple.

One problem is the crazy high price for the Macs that just cannot compete with Wintel prices. Regular public schools will not buy computers that cost twice as much just because they have the Apple logo on them. This is especially true because Macs are still a small fraction in the enterprise, and schools' main purpose is to prepare kids for the job market either directly or by being an intermediate step on the ladder leading to a job. So, the only thing that will sell schools on the Macs is the lower cost of ownership, which can only be attained by dramatically lowering the price of Macs. It's time to start thinking of growing the user base for Apple.

Continuing to raise prices will severely damage Apple. In fact, it's time for the Apple shareholders to demand that Apple come back to earth with their pricing policies. I'm a shareholder and I'm seriously concerned with the direction that Tim Cook is taking Apple with raising the ASP sky high. Apple should continue to maintain a high-end line of Macs, iPhones, and iPads, but it should also create a mid-range line in all three categories that suit most non-Pro users. For example, the newly released MacBook Air should have been priced as follows:

• 8GB/128GB (Geared for secondary education): $849 (volume price); $899 (individual price; $200 less than current price)
• 8GB/256GB (Geared for colleges): $949 (volume price); $999 (individual price; $400 less than current price) 
• 8GB/512GB (Geared for most consumers):$1149 ($450 less than current price)
• 16GB/512GB (Geared for consumers): $1299 ($500 less than current price)
• 16GB/1TB (Geared for high-end consumers): $1549
• 16GB/1.5TB (Geared for high-end consumers): $1799 ($800 less than current price)

 -----------

Therefore, the most expensive configuration of the MacBook Air should not exceed $1799, which was the price at which the MacBook Air was introduced in 2008. Again, this is not a professional-level Mac, and with this pricing, the MacBook Air would become a great entry into the Apple ecosystem for millions and millions of new users, starting with kids in elementary, middle, and high schools and then on to college students.

The MacBook Air at these prices would also suit most non-professional consumers who need an ultra-portable and compact yet capable laptop and who are prepared to pay a few hundred dollars more for quality hardware and software compared to purchasing plastic Wintels.

For MacBook Pros (Intel-based), Apple can continue their current pricing strategy that maintains the high ASPs.

Personally, I would buy the 16GB/512GB MacBook Air and then add another NUC to my lab for heavy virtualization tasks. Instead of carrying extra pounds of power in my bag, I would rather use a light-weight portable Mac and access my lab via VPN when outside of my home. There is really not much reason for those of us who are not in the music, video-editing, or photo-editing business for MacBook Pros. The rest of us can be served by the MacBook Air as long as it can drive 5K monitors, be able to do casual photo and video editing without slowing to a crawl, and run one Windows or Linux VM in VMware Fusion or Parallels. The rest of the tasks that most consumers perform do not required Pro-level Macs.

JoeMurphyJr said:

If it's that easy to move out of the enclosure, it probably wouldn't be too hard for somebody to offer an aftermarket enclosure so you could have the Mac mini internals and a more powerful graphics card all in one with a short thunderbolt connection bridging them. I'm not sure how much of a market there would be for that, though, especially with the modular Mac Pro on the horizon.

EDIT: Nevermind, this sentence in the article was a bit deceptive. "Once a Mini is open, the logic board for instance can be removed with thumb presses instead of a tool." According to iFitIt, that's actually a 15 step process before you get to that point.

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

nht said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

anton zuykov said:

but a $499 model could serve a larger audience

And a $199 model could serve even greater audience.
Don't get me even started on a $99 model...

Nope. $199 and $99 are too compromised. There's a reason we picked $499.

Not for an AppleTV like mini...and that's been possible for a few years no and Apple has made no move to make a ARM based home server or edu desktop.

In what way would a $200 A10X 4GB RAM 32GB SSD EduMini be "compromised"?  Nothing really.  

Of course Mac sales would take a huge hit but maybe you could make it up on volume.  It would still cheapen the MacOS brand.

4GB of RAM, and 32GB of storage is pretty compromising. I generally like where you're going, though.

Not when the primary use case is Google Drive, Google Docs and iOS productivity apps...which would largely use cloud storage since students switch devices a lot.

Huh, that's an interesting thought. I'll have to consider that. I think that this use case would be good in education, but not as an edu model repurposed for retail like the eMac model.