nht

pakitt said:

The Mac Mini was launched and intended as an affordable Mac option for migrating PC users to the macOS world. The basic version was less than 500$. It seems that everybody forgets that. Now the Mini is clearly something else. It is not the "most affordable Mac desktop" anymore. Period. The price, the specs, everything indicates their strategy for this product has radically changed. You want an "affordable" Mac? get an iOS iPad/iPhone. macOS for the "masses"? None for you.

It certainly is the "most affordable Mac desktop".  Which iMac is cheaper?  None.

Your comment is demonstrably wrong.

tylersdad said:

StrangeDays said:

toxicman said:

Seriously!  A fully configured Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse and monitor is over $4299!

for what?  I7 6 core, with 64gb ram and a 1.5tb SSD.   That’s a $1800 PC.  Come on apple.  Get real.  

Who’s forcing you to order the maxed-out top-tier machine? Are you OK? Do you need help?

Oh, you’re just whining about price. Would it make you feel better if Apple didn’t offer that top-tier? If everyone of all income-levels had to buy the same exact lower-tier machine? Would that make it better?

Even the lower spec'd machines are ridiculously overpriced. I guess some people don't mind paying for "awesome engineering as a feature". Count me out. The value proposition just isn't there. And don't give me that crap about Apple using more awesomer components than every other computer manufacturer. They source the same parts as every other manufacturer. They don't get better Intel I3 chips. They don't get better RAM. They don't get better hard drives. 

Core i7 comparison

$1849 - 21.5" 4K iMac 3.6GHz Quad Core i7 w/ 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 555 2GB DDR5 

$1774 - 28" 4K Samsung UHD monitor ($295) Mac mini 3.2GHz Hexa Core i7 ($1229) w/16GB RAM (Amazon $150), logitech keyboard/mouse ($100) and 256GB SSD, Intel UHD Graphics 630

$2224- 28" 4K Samsung UHD monitor ($295) Mac mini 3.2GHz Hexa Core i7 ($1229) w/16GB RAM (Amazon $150), logitech keyboard/mouse ($100) and 256GB SSD, Sonnet eGFX 550W ($270) + Radeon RX560 4GB DDR5 ($180)

$2599 - 27" 5K iMac 4.2GHz Quad Core i7 w/16GB RAM and 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 575 4GB DDR5

Base iMac comparison

$1049 21.5" iMac 2.3GHz Dual Core i5, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, 1920x1080 Display, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640
$1100 24" Mac mini 3.6 Ghz Quad Core i3, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, ViewSonic 2560x1440 IPS Display ($221), Logitiech Keyboard & Mouse $100, Intel UHD Graphics 630

The Mac Mini is priced very reasonably.

If you think the Mac mini is "ridiculously overpriced" then Macs simply aren't for you.  I would suggest this forum is more your speed:  https://www.dell.com/community/

All of this price whining is just stupid.  The Mac mini sits between the two iMacs in both price and performance.  If Apple releases the mini on a regular basis then it becomes a much better deal than the iMac since you get to reuse the monitor, keyboard and mouse.

smartmammal said:

So, they went from a base-priced Mac Mini of $499 to a base-priced Mac Mini of $799 (and no one with any sense would buy one with 128GB of storage)? I realize they beefed them up considerably, but at that price-point, I just don't see it being a choice over an iMac or a portable.

The 3.2Ghz 6 core i7 Mini is $1299 with 8GB RAM 256GB SSD.  $150 for 16GB of RAM from Amazon.  Logitech Keyboard & mouse - $100.  Sony 4K KD43X720E HDTV. $498.

https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/best/by-usage/pc-monitor

$2048.

The 21.5" iMac 3.6Ghz Quad core with 16GB RAM and 256GB SSD is  $1999.

Yeah, I'd pick the mini even given the iMac comes with a Radeon Pro 555.  I use the Sony with my MacPro 15" and it's freaking awesome as a monitor.

The Sonnet eGFX 550W is down to $270 on B&H.  A RX560 with 4GB DDR5 is $180.  So call it around $450 for a eGPU.  So $2500 for a 6 core i7 Mac with a decent GPU.

That's on par with the 27" iMac 4.2Ghz Quad Core i7 at $2599 and a Redoan Pro 575 with 4GB DDR5.

Slower 6 core vs faster 4 core.  Larger screen with less resolution (4K vs 5K).  Both can upgrade RAM but not SSD.

Yeah, I'd get that over the 27" iMac as well.

gatorguy said:

melgross said:

gatorguy said:

melgross said:

cropr said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Again, Daniel misses a key point while focusing on technical issues and (direct) profits.

Specifically, he forgets what Google's core business is:   Gathering user information to be used to build advertising revenue.   (They collect your information and sell it)

100% agreed.  In fact,  suppose that Windows Mobile (with Bing) and not Android had 80% market share.   Google  would be nowhere in mobile search. 

In that respect Android is the most successful marketing channel on the planet, boosting the top and bottom line of the Adwords.   Any company would love to have such a failure in its portfolio

And to show just how important that advertising is to Google, they are paying Apple $9 billion this year to be the default search engine, and possibly as much as $12 billion next year. When I read those numbers, I almost fell out of my chair.

I don't think everyone understands that "as much as $9B" is a guess by an analyst, not fact. Neither Apple nor Google has ever discussed what the monetary arrangements are.

It wasn’t greeted with shock in the industry though. It’s very likely a pretty good guesstimate. Keep in mind that google acknowledges that iOS is half (at least) of their mobile income. It’s been since the beginning. When mobile was a minority of their search results, it was said that they were paying Apple $1 billion a year. That was quite a while ago. But now, a good 70% of internet use is on mobile. Correspondingly, Apple’s proportion of their income is way up. Google’s a big company these days, and so it makes sense that their payments are way up too.

don’t forget that Google gets zero from the 65% of the phones out there running AOSP, instead of true Android, 

You're assuming none of the of users of phones running AOSP are using Google Search, Google Maps, or any other Google services. I suspect even AOSP devices are benefitting Google even if they're not deriving direct app revenue. 

The numbers of AOSP phones using Google services approaches zero in the grand scheme of things just like Hackintosh.  The large distributors of AOSP devices do so because Google services are unavailable (China) or replaced by their own ecosystem (Amazon).

StrangeDays said:

falcon4617 said:

MR.Dilger seems to have anger problems towards Android, or anything that isnt apple products for that nature

Youre nuts. DED’s articles are always well-reasoned and explain why Apple is doing fine and others aren’t as rosy as some would have us believe. If you think that’s “anger” then, well, youre nuts.

Lol...DED articles read like they were written by Nunzy...if Nunzy was articulate rather than a one line post troll...

Its not like Apple isn't doing fine and generally the articles are fine for the first few paragraphs but eventually it shifts to Nunzyland and even as a fanboy I'm like "Woah...that's just silly.

Android didn't pan out as Google planned but it sure is a major success from every perspective, especially from Google's point of view.  Had Windows Phones become dominant then Bing would have been the major mobile search engine.  iOS was never an existential threat...especially given that Apple, even at peak annoyed, didn't replace Google on the search bar.  

That ASOP sucks for Google is their own fault for pulling out of China and maintaining a presence and fighting for share.