PDA

View Full Version : Mac mini sales predicted to rocket


MacBytes
Jan 18, 2005, 09:26 AM
Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Mac mini sales predicted to rocket (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050118102626)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

3Memos
Jan 18, 2005, 09:31 AM
IT geeks looking to test the waters in OSX have no reason not to buy the Mac mini. If they love it, they hold the power to influence corporations to switch to OSX, not to Mac mini specifically, for it's security and robustness. Big business and creating mindshare among IT professionals is where the money is. Consumers will approach the Mac mini on strength of the iPod brand name.

24C
Jan 18, 2005, 10:07 AM
IMO consumer Macs have been getting cheaper all the time and have been reasonably competitive with quality branded Windows machines for some time. It's just with the arrival of the Mac mini, most mainstream commentators are picking on the Mac mini's perceived lower cost and it is going to be a big thing for Apple.

One of the strengths of the Apple desktop consumer range was that it brought computing to people who weren't well served by existing products. It is not just about the physical hardware, it's also the interaction process, which normally Apple gets a very good hit rate on.

The real measure of success for the Mac mini & Apple will be when they come to buy their next machine. If the Apple experience is good this will really bring on marketshare. I can't wait :D

SiliconAddict
Jan 18, 2005, 10:22 AM
Mac mini sales predicted to rocket

In other news air found to be a popular breathing medium among humans. :rolleyes: :D

robbieduncan
Jan 18, 2005, 10:46 AM
Without wanting to sound harsh sales of the mini are bound to rocket: before they were available they were zero!

That said I think that the mini will be difficult to get hold of for a while as demand will outstrip supply.

zelmo
Jan 18, 2005, 11:02 AM
The Mac mini removes the illusion that the Mac is far too expensive. For years, Dell and their ilk have advertised cheap PC's to get people in the door. Once you equip that $399 computer with all the software and hardware, you always end up paying more. With the Mac, there was never the option to buy a cheap computer without bells and whistles, so there persisted the impression that the Mac was much more expensive.

While the Mac does still cost a bit more than a comparable PC, recently, at least, the cost disparity has not been too great considering the quality of the build and the value of the OS.

Mac mini will do extremely well. How much of a payoff there will be for Apple,, as far as market share, will not be known for at least a year. My conservative guess is a doubled share, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple leap to a 10% share within 24 months.

macridah
Jan 18, 2005, 11:43 AM
...My conservative guess is a doubled share, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple leap to a 10% share within 24 months.

I with you on that powermac666.

aswitcher
Jan 18, 2005, 11:59 AM
In 6 months or so I hope Apple update the Mac Mini and release a better graphics card (I assume it can handle the heat) option for those wanting better game and Tiger graphics performance.

Also, I would like to see a "top end" Mac Mini with everything optional as standard and half a gig of ram made available but cheaper than the current sum of the parts, as the Mac Mini Deluxe (or Royale if your a Pulp Fiction fan). I actually think that such a configuration will be a sizable chunk of Apple's sales for the current release...being 80 gig, superdrive, wifi, BT. I would like them to cater directly for it and recognise that whilst the less markatable price point exists, on the other hand more will sell if its configured from scratch that way in the stores at a slightly cheaper price point.

SiliconAddict
Jan 18, 2005, 12:54 PM
My conservative guess is a doubled share, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple leap to a 10% share within 24 months.

I think you are being WAY to optimistic. Apple has a history of not only underestimating demand year over year but also not being able to meet demand. I read somewhere that apple is expecting to ship 100,000 units a month. At that rate no way in heck are they going to snag 10%. They will be lucky to hit even 7% in a year at that rate. It all depends on two things:
1. Creating the demand by creating buzz and that, like it or not, takes marketing. Something Apple hasn't done with their PC line in a LONG time.

2. Meeting demand. If the market demands 250,000 units a month Apple should be asking who do I blow to get 250,000 units out ASAP. If that means eating some of the cost like they are obviously doing with initial shipments (Supposedly the first couple months they are actually air lifting the shipments to the US.) or looking to multiple manufacturers to meet demand then so be it.

It boils down to this. Apple has a shot heard round the world on its hands. No one expected this. No one was ready for this. Before anyone else can respond with a cheap 'o knockoff they need to get their foot in the door, slap a jaws of life in there, and take some of that market share away from Dell and the like. This is the first time Apple has gone ball out against their PC competition. All I can say is don't sit there like a putz. If you are going after the PC market then do it in a big way!!

srobert
Jan 18, 2005, 01:12 PM
In 6 months or so I hope Apple update the Mac Mini and release a better graphics card

I personally don't think the mini "needs" a better graphic card. (But as you said, It would be nice having the option ^_^) It could stand some improvement though: A custom built Mini with 1 gig of RAM will cost almost double the base price. I know people can buy RAM from a less expensive source but Apple recommends the RAM be installed by a certified professional.

This could look weird (if not fishy) for a switcher:

Switcher: Hello sir, I'm interested in switching to mac. How much is that mini thing I've been hearing about?

Clerk: It's only 500$ sir. A bargain. But I'd recommend boosting the RAM.
Switcher: Nice! How much will that be if I want a Gig-O-Ram?
Clerk: 925$
Switcher: ...
Clerk: ...
Switcher: You had me for a second. Funny. No, seriously. How much?
Clerk: ...


It could also use a faster Hard drive. But since it's the entry level, stripped down mac, I guess it's OK. But I'm wondering how much more a faster drive would have costed... or is that a heat issue?

zelmo
Jan 18, 2005, 01:38 PM
I think you are being WAY to optimistic. Apple has a history of not only underestimating demand year over year but also not being able to meet demand. I read somewhere that apple is expecting to ship 100,000 units a month. At that rate no way in heck are they going to snag 10%. They will be lucky to hit even 7% in a year at that rate. It all depends on two things:
1. Creating the demand by creating buzz and that, like it or not, takes marketing. Something Apple hasn't done with their PC line in a LONG time.

2. Meeting demand. If the market demands 250,000 units a month Apple should be asking who do I blow to get 250,000 units out ASAP. If that means eating some of the cost like they are obviously doing with initial shipments (Supposedly the first couple months they are actually air lifting the shipments to the US.) or looking to multiple manufacturers to meet demand then so be it.

It boils down to this. Apple has a shot heard round the world on its hands. No one expected this. No one was ready for this. Before anyone else can respond with a cheap 'o knockoff they need to get their foot in the door, slap a jaws of life in there, and take some of that market share away from Dell and the like. This is the first time Apple has gone ball out against their PC competition. All I can say is don't sit there like a putz. If you are going after the PC market then do it in a big way!!

I get what you're saying, and agree with you. You ought to re-read my initial post. I said I thought they could achieve a 5% share in a year, and potentially see a share of 10% in TWO years (not one). IF they can meet the demand (not a given, as evidenced by their track record of late) this could be freaking huge for them. They made a splash with the mini, but it ultimately won't mean squat if they don't keep the pedal to the metal. I hope they take the iBook and PowerBook G5 soon, and have a G4 Book Mini in the wings, say for $699/799 price points. Crush Dell!

stcanard
Jan 18, 2005, 02:29 PM
In 6 months or so I hope Apple update the Mac Mini and release a better graphics card (I assume it can handle the heat) option for those wanting better game and Tiger graphics performance.

I doubt it will. The Mac Mini already has a better graphics card than the PC's it's supposed to compete with (an oft-missed point with the comparison to the Dell $500 PC is that they all use integrated cards).

Putting a better card in would simply raise the price in an area where they are already ahead of the competition.

<sigh> Why does everything have to be a game machine? I dont' play games. My wife doesn't play games. Why force us to pay an extra $500 for a bunch of junk we're not going to use? I like the fact that there are lines out there that I can buy without having to pay for all this hardware I'm not going to use.

If you want a game machine go buy yourself an athlon with the lastest and greatest whatever-the-current-big-card-company is. Leave the Mac Mini for those of us who want a small, quiet computer to do day-to-day stuff on.

SiliconAddict
Jan 18, 2005, 02:30 PM
I personally don't think the mini "needs" a better graphic card. (But as you said, It would be nice having the option ^_^) It could stand some improvement though: A custom built Mini with 1 gig of RAM will cost almost double the base price.

Right NOW with Panther it doesn't need a better graphics card but the initial GPU specs that Apple listed on their site for support of Core Image didn't have the Mini's GPU listed. I have hope Apple is working on making it compatible since just before MW they yanked the list of supported graphics cards off of their site. I think every naysayer on the planet would be crying bloody murder if Apple didnít ship a mini that wasnít 150% compatible with Tiger when it ships on day one.
I mean we are talking the company that is suppose to be the all in one, provide the total solution, purveyor of seamless integration here. We aren't talking a 4-year-old iMac here.

SiliconAddict
Jan 18, 2005, 02:59 PM
I get what you're saying, and agree with you. You ought to re-read my initial post. I said I thought they could achieve a 5% share in a year, and potentially see a share of 10% in TWO years (not one). IF they can meet the demand (not a given, as evidenced by their track record of late) this could be freaking huge for them. They made a splash with the mini, but it ultimately won't mean squat if they don't keep the pedal to the metal. I hope they take the iBook and PowerBook G5 soon, and have a G4 Book Mini in the wings, say for $699/799 price points. Crush Dell!

Umm yah. Oops. Amazing what missing a word or two in a sentence can do to your interpretation of a post. :o

maya
Jan 18, 2005, 03:02 PM
If Apple only made the Mac mini a tab bigger to fit in a cheap:

Desktop Optical Drive
Desktop HDD

and a 2nd Ram slot this machine would be cheaper than the 499 price tag.


Then again that is Apple, I mean who cares if it is 6.5x6.5x2" in dimensions, you are loosing a faster desktop HDD and optical drive for its size factor.

I mean this is supposed to be a "Desktop" right, its not running off a battery. Since when did a desktop need to be mobile, how many times are your moving this thing around. It doesn't weight as much of a sack of bricks.

This whole lets put notebook parts in a desktop is just foolish. No matter people will buy it since its a cheap, low end Mac offering. :rolleyes:


Makes me wonder why they didn't go for 6.5x6.5x6.5 cube form factor. With built-in handle for transport. :)

Mr. Anderson
Jan 18, 2005, 03:05 PM
Lets see what happens in a year or so and see if they do a G5 version. That will be a bigger market, I'm thinking. And they need to make it expandable (add on options that conform to the same design form).

D

24C
Jan 18, 2005, 03:17 PM
If Apple only made the Mac mini a tab bigger to fit in a cheap:
Desktop Optical Drive
Desktop HDD
...snip...

That's the same thing that irked me about the design. I could understand it being small, in a Sony sort of way, but the components had to be more expensive as a result. As the price point was the number one issue, I couldn't understand the reason, as the difference in size is marginal, relative to the competition.

Maybe there is something we don't know, like you could only get 100 in the new compact Apple retail stores, or it was getting too Cube like? :)

stcanard
Jan 18, 2005, 03:29 PM
As the price point was the number one issue, I couldn't understand the reason, as the difference in size is marginal, relative to the competition.

I have feeling aesthetics (making it stand out in an "Apple" way) were also a significant issue.

A very small change in size can make a huge change in perception. My cell phone is only about 1/4" thicker, and less than a 1/4" longer than my old one, but you put them side by side and the bigger phone looks like a brick.

The difference between 2 1/2" and 4" would probably do the same on the mac mini.

maya
Jan 18, 2005, 03:47 PM
I have feeling aesthetics (making it stand out in an "Apple" way) were also a significant issue.

A very small change in size can make a huge change in perception. My cell phone is only about 1/4" thicker, and less than a 1/4" longer than my old one, but you put them side by side and the bigger phone looks like a brick.

The difference between 2 1/2" and 4" would probably do the same on the mac mini.

Again you are talking about a 2.5" HDD compared to a 3.5" HDD. What would this mean the mini size would be 7.5x7.5x2". I mean 1 " or maybe 1.5" who cares, you are using less expensive and higher performance drives. What matters more performance and cost for the mini or a smaller then a iPod mini in height. :confused:

You are comparing a music player to a full computer, or a mobile to a computer.

In which way are you going to carry this around with you. At best it will be moved about 2-6 times in your house and I am being generous towards that number. In reality it would be 1-2 times. How heavy is a 2.5" HDD and Optical drive to a 3.5" HDD and Optical drive. :confused:

The 2.5" components loose on price and performance and only gain 1-1.5", for an Apple look. Get real you think There are many 7.5x7.5x2" computers out here that run on PPC. So if this thing was 1-1.5" more in size it will not be called a mini, why who defined what the name mini graces on what dimensions.

The is another instance where Apple threw out cost and performance for size. :rolleyes:

stcanard
Jan 18, 2005, 04:00 PM
Again you are talking about a 2.5" HDD compared to a 3.5" HDD. What would this mean the mini size would be 7.5x7.5x2". I mean 1 " or maybe 1.5" who cares

That's exactly what I'm talking about. An extra 1" or 1.5" on paper may not seem like much, but when you look at it there's a huge difference on the perceived size.

An extra 1" is almost 50% larger for this thing. That would make a huge perceptual difference.

Don't think for a minute that the picture of it sitting beside an iPod Mini, with the iPod being taller is just a happy accident.

snip...

The is another instance where Apple threw out cost and performance for size. :rolleyes:

No, they made a design decision that balanced cost, performance, and aesthetics. Same thing that they've been doing since the original iMac and it's served them pretty well so far.

takao
Jan 18, 2005, 04:18 PM
Makes me wonder why they didn't go for 6.5x6.5x6.5 cube form factor. With built-in handle for transport. :)

must...resist... to make...gamecube...reference... ;)


as for using laptop parts in desktop... if you sometimes would visit x86 user forums you would notice that there are a lot of people asking for small pentium-m motherboards
i thing apple decided for laptop parts simply because of noise+heat reasons... a lot of people want such pcs (sure the imac is silent as well but chunk more expensive)

and today getting more and more important: small power useage...

edit: for me personally those are buying reasons as well, and i'm lugging around pcs regulary around 4-6 times a year for long distances and then even more so in the house and this all with a mid sized x86 case...
putting my computer simply into my backpack will be much more easy...and going over to the friends hosue for copying some big files as well...

aswitcher
Jan 18, 2005, 04:39 PM
I think the Mac Mini uses these laptop parts to keep the heat down as much as the size. Steve likes silent or near so (Cube) and I think this was a major reason for the use of laptop parts...

aswitcher
Jan 18, 2005, 04:44 PM
I doubt it will. ...

<sigh> Why does everything have to be a game machine? I dont' play games. My wife doesn't play games. Why force us to pay an extra $500 for a bunch of junk we're not going to use? I like the fact that there are lines out there that I can buy without having to pay for all this hardware I'm not going to use.



A lot of people like to play games...or their kids do. Allowing the option to purchase a 64 meg card is not a big ask (assuming the heats ok) to allow those of us who from time to time play a few games.

But its Core Image/Video and Tiger that I really want a larger video card for. If it does half of what we have had demoed then you'll want all the video ram you can get for eye candy and photo/video editing...and it aint that much more costly...

24C
Jan 18, 2005, 04:52 PM
...snip...and today getting more and more important: small power useage...

I do think this is an issue as well. IMO, I think it's the reason for only 2 USB ports, plus the powerbrick is localised, so the Mac mini is simplified. Design is always a compromise, and if low cost was the only issue, then I think the Mac mini would have been different. As it is we can only guess what the priorities were, or the compromises the design team made.

The other bit that I found confusing, the iMac G5 is very friendly to upgrade and troubleshoot. AFAIK this functionality is not part of the Mac mini wish list, although after watching the video, I'm not scared. ;)

stcanard
Jan 18, 2005, 05:00 PM
A lot of people like to play games...or their kids do. Allowing the option to purchase a 64 meg card is not a big ask (assuming the heats ok) to allow those of us who from time to time play a few games.

And that's where you get upsold to an iMac or a PowerMac.

nagromme
Jan 18, 2005, 05:45 PM
Right NOW with Panther it doesn't need a better graphics card but the initial GPU specs that Apple listed on their site for support of Core Image didn't have the Mini's GPU listed. ... I think every naysayer on the planet would be crying bloody murder if Apple didnít ship a mini that wasnít 150% compatible with Tiger when it ships on day one.
I don't expect every Mac to support those GPU-intensive Core Image effects. That's like saying Tiger supports DVD burning, so Macs without DVD burners aren't fully Tiger compatible! They are, though.

Tiger supports lots of optional hardware: DVD burners, high-end GPUs, USB 2.0, AirPort/Extreme, Bluetooth, Gigabit ethernet, whole lists of printers, cameras, etc. etc. That doesn't mean you need to HAVE all the optional hardware. (You could even include Velocity Engine and Quartz Extreme, since Tiger will run on G3s last I heard!)

If you have a fast-enough GPU, Tiger will use it to give you Core Image. If you have a DVD burner, you can burn DVDs. If you don't... you'll still have Tiger. And no matter what, certain features will NOT work on machines that lack the relevant hardware. That would be impossible. I predict Core Image effects will stay in that category.

So don't get your hopes up for the Mini. If you need Core Image--or Doom 3, or gigabit ethernet, etc.--then you probably need a higher Mac.


A lot of people like to play games...or their kids do.

True--hard-core gaming isn't the only gaming. What about casual (often 2D) gaming? In fact, some "hard-core" gamers are into non-3D games anyway.

It's a matter of degree. The Mini CAN play games. It CAN play 3D games. It COMES with some very slick 3D games. Can it play games as well as a dual G5 with X800? No. Can it play games as well as a $500 PC with no VRAM? Yes. Better, in fact, since some 3D games won't even run on that PC, but WILL run just fine on the Mini. They aren't Doom 3 at max detail, yet they are still a lot of fun.

Remember that most of the machines people game on--most of the PCs in the world, period--are NOT the latest models. And yet people have fun all the same, and there are LOTS of slightly-older games that run great on them.

The Mini as a casual game machine is just fine. (But games WILL be the first thing to show its weaknesses, if you get seriously into 3D gaming and want the latest titles.)

SiliconAddict
Jan 18, 2005, 06:02 PM
And that's where you get upsold to an iMac or a PowerMac.

Oh yah that's reasonable. :rolleyes: Move from a $500-$600 device to a $1300 or $1500 for another 32MB of VRAM and a slightly better GPU. Anyone else think that's asinine?

nagromme
Jan 18, 2005, 06:45 PM
Oh yah that's reasonable. :rolleyes: Move from a $500-$600 device to a $1300 or $1500 for another 32MB of VRAM and a slightly better GPU. Anyone else think that's asinine?

Unfortunate AND asinine... if the Mini had a separate video board that Apple could swap BTO. And if that extra money didn't ALSO get you a widescreen LCD, speakers, and a G5!

But it doesn't have a separate video board--thus the small size. So it's still unfortunate that Apple has no bottom-end Mac with a mid-range GPU... but not quite asinine :)

But if the Mini sells, more models are likely in future!

My vision of the Mini next year:

* Low-end G5 and new GPU
* Two more USB ports, one more Firewire
* Faster RPM drive, 80 GB at the low-end
* 512 RAM at the low-end
* Available bundle of Apple keyboard, mouse, and 15.2" 1280x854 widescreen LCD.
* Higher model has even better GPU, more Ghz, bigger HD, and SuperDrive

And filling in the mid-range next year:

* Pro towers all-dual (G6?) or dual and quads, with 1 GB standard RAM and bigger HD
* New "PowerMac Mini" mid-range tower--same I/O and bus as pro towers, but:
* Single G5 (or G6?)
* Fewer slots/bays, maybe 1 for GPU plus 1 open
* Combo Drive standard, 512 RAM (then add your own), smaller HD than pro towers
* 2/3-sized case
* Upgradable BTO to a top-end GPU, OR to none at all (BYO)
* The perfect gamer's Mac without the expense of a full tower and dual CPUs

If Mac sales do skyrocket, it becomes practical for Apple to offer more options up and down the scale!

aswitcher
Jan 18, 2005, 07:01 PM
And that's where you get upsold to an iMac or a PowerMac.

A jump from 32 to 64 meg is hardly cause to go out and get an iMac of PM...at least it shouldn't be given its probably less than a $50 USD upgrade if the cost of my PB going from 64 to 128 was any example. Maybe you should take a closer look at the keynote features that core image and video provide to see why everyone would want a bite of that, even if its just for the eye candy that Apple are so famous for.

maya
Jan 18, 2005, 07:03 PM
<text snipped>

I believe they went with the 2.5" drives for heat issues and noise. Thus the PSU is an external box.

Seems just wasteful, IMHO.

You crossed a desktop with a notebook and have a Mac mini, loose performance and cost and you gain less noise, space. <-- great thinking.

I am sure when the 2.5" drives are under heavy load the "fan(s)" will not rev up like crazy to cool it down. Then again the 14" iBook looks like:



Size and weight: (14.1-inch model)


Height: 1.35 inches (3.42 cm)

Width: 12.7 inches (32.3 cm)

Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)

Weight: 5.9 pounds (2.7 kg) (7)

And that is because its has a display and battery. If you factor the 12" iBook G4 size and minus the battery and display you can fit in a 3.5" HDD instead of a 2.5"HDD.

And by stacking the drives on tops of each other generates MORE heat. having a flat design will cool the system faster and keep it running silent. ;)

Who know as of late Apple design teams seems to be smoking something "special"?

And the stupid reference with the sticking out CD/DVD in the Mac mini pics just seems cheesy since its trying to play the same card that the iMac G4 did with the sticking out tray(tong), that was cute and naughty.

Mac mini, just seems like a sad attempt. :p

Sorry I do not visit x86 forums, for obvious reasons. ;) :p

nagromme
Jan 18, 2005, 07:08 PM
I think a lot of people who criticize the Mini are really only saying THEY want something a bit higher-end.

Something just ABOVE the Mini in specs would have its market, no doubt. When economies of scale permit Apple to have a bunch more different Mac models, that will happen. Hopefully they will still all be variations on just a few product lines!

But the Mini as it now stands is just right for a lot of OTHER people--and it's cheaper. Apple has picked products that appeal to large numbers of buyers--look at the iMac G5 sales--but that leaves a smaller number of people who want something "in between" models. For now they have to settle for buying up or down the line.

Also, the small size WILL help sales I think. A bit bigger wouldn't be that different practically speaking, but it WOULD lose the "wow" factor.

maya
Jan 18, 2005, 07:13 PM
I think a lot of people who criticize the Mini are really only saying THEY want something a bit higher-end.

Something just ABOVE the Mini in specs would have its market, no doubt.

But the Mini as it now stands is just right for a lot of OTHER people--and it's cheaper.

Also, the small size WILL help sales I think. A bit bigger wouldn't be that different practically speaking, but it WOULD lose the "wow" factor.

So you are telling me that is it was the same dimensions as a 12" iBook or PowerBook that it will not sell. :confused:

Get real people anyone who takes engineering and design knows that if you lay heated components flat in a design and have it in an Al casing with air passing on all sides it will keep the internal components cooler and running silent. This stacking it up like a cube shape is moronic. :rolleyes:

Apple's design team has lost they logic for design and engineering. :rolleyes:

And to think that on the site they mentioned that this took months, and this is what we get, wow Apple is hiring right out of high school. :rolleyes:

jettredmont
Jan 18, 2005, 07:53 PM
Without wanting to sound harsh sales of the mini are bound to rocket: before they were available they were zero!

That said I think that the mini will be difficult to get hold of for a while as demand will outstrip supply.

Poorly-worded headline. The article says that Mac sales will rocket with the introduction of the Mac mini.

jettredmont
Jan 18, 2005, 08:08 PM
Again you are talking about a 2.5" HDD compared to a 3.5" HDD. What would this mean the mini size would be 7.5x7.5x2". I mean 1 " or maybe 1.5" who cares, you are using less expensive and higher performance drives. What matters more performance and cost for the mini or a smaller then a iPod mini in height. :confused:


Current size has been described as "just barely wider than the CD slot, and two inches tall". Everyone knows how big a CD is. Two inches is a known small number, moreso than 2.5" or 3" (trust me on that :) ). Just barely bigger than a CD is a "Wow!" description.

1"-1.5" bigger ruins that.

Yes, form over function. You want a cheap Mac, you should expect some compromises in utility, but not in style. Style sells over utility (witness eMac sales to consumers). Sorry.

nagromme
Jan 18, 2005, 08:40 PM
So you are telling me that is it was the same dimensions as a 12" iBook or PowerBook that it will not sell. :confused:

No. I am saying that it would sell less well.

Heat doesn't seem to be a problem, if the Mac Mini's cooling system is as quiet as claimed. I am thinking the engineers knew what they were doing.

maya
Jan 18, 2005, 09:46 PM
No. I am saying that it would sell less well.

Heat doesn't seem to be a problem, if the Mac Mini's cooling system is as quiet as claimed. I am thinking the engineers knew what they were doing.

Hold on you are telling me that heat is not an issue, wow that is new to me. In the mini the HDD is below the optical drive. In a notebook the HDD gets hot quite fast. And it only gets worse if the HDD is active 24/7.

You are telling me that the heat from the HDD that sits below the Optical drive is not going to cause any problem. Even the iPod's HDD gets hot after it spins for a few minutes, however it is not in the mix with other components that heat up.

Sure Apple engineers know what they are doing they have NEVER had any problems with any product they release. :rolleyes:

maya
Jan 18, 2005, 09:52 PM
Current size has been described as "just barely wider than the CD slot, and two inches tall". Everyone knows how big a CD is. Two inches is a known small number, moreso than 2.5" or 3" (trust me on that :) ). Just barely bigger than a CD is a "Wow!" description.

1"-1.5" bigger ruins that.

Yes, form over function. You want a cheap Mac, you should expect some compromises in utility, but not in style. Style sells over utility (witness eMac sales to consumers). Sorry.

A cheap Mac, I say they could have made it cheaper with better performance. This is not a Mac running on a battery, this is a desktop with a small footprint. Who cares if its the size of a CD, when the performance is risked.

Lets not forget about AirPort antenna, I am guessing you cannot sit this on its side either. Having this product in a flat form factor would have allowed it to sit vertical or horizontal, and allow for the AirPort antenna to sit around the cases edge. This would even make it possible to use as a media center as it would fit flat with the other standalone components you have in your entertainment cabinet.

Lets not forget you cannot place anything on top of the mini either, as stated on Apples site (talk about false advertising, would not be the first time). :rolleyes:

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 18, 2005, 10:33 PM
And they need to make it expandable (add on options that conform to the same design form).

D

I am sure that Apple or some other company will. I am pulling for Apple based on the rumors of the iPod speakers.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 18, 2005, 10:38 PM
And that's where you get upsold to an iMac or a PowerMac.

And that is how the Win box game is played. Take it from someone that did that for 5 years. (hanging head in shame :( )

nagromme
Jan 18, 2005, 11:08 PM
Hold on you are telling me that heat is not an issue, wow that is new to me.
Not what I said. Heat's always an "issue"--something to be addressed in any computer design--but it's not a "problem" because I believe it HAS been addressed. I cited the quiet of the Mini's cooling as reason for this belief.


You are telling me that the heat from the HDD that sits below the Optical drive is not going to cause any problem.
Also not what I said. But I will now say: although anything is possible, I believe it is by FAR most likely that "the heat from the HDD that sits below the Optical drive is not going to cause any problem."


Sure Apple engineers know what they are doing they have NEVER had any problems with any product they release. :rolleyes:
To be clear, I believe the following:

1. Some Apple products have had some problems, as any company will always have. Failures are covered by warranty.

2. Apple's products have the best hardware reliability in the industry, far above average. That includes laptops considered alone, and desktops considered alone. That has been true for years. Consumer Reports does large-scale, statistically significant surveys of this issue, and updates the surveys regularly.

3. Apple engineers have done some amazing things with in the past--not just in general, but also with cooling specifically. The iMac G5--nearly silent. The PowerMac G5--ditto. The fanless Cube. The Xserve, often cited by reviewers and buyers as having lower cooling requirements then competing products.

4. So yes, I do suspect that "Apple engineers know what they are doing."

5. And thus, I don't expect any significant fraction of Minis to fail from poor heat engineering.

It seems like an odd issue to latch onto so strongly :)

(None of this should be taken as an insult to YOUR engineering qualifications either. The heat issues you raise sound realistic--but I believe they have probably been accounted for in the Mac Mini's design. Your ideas for a different Mini, vertically positionable etc.--have definite merits. So does the actual Mini from Apple.)


Lets not forget you cannot place anything on top of the mini either, as stated on Apples site (talk about false advertising, would not be the first time). :rolleyes:
To clarify: Which Apple statement about the Mini is false advertising, and how do you know it to be a lie?

I don't recall seeing mention from Apple of the Mini being stackable OR not stackable--except that they suggest placing one on top of your PC tower. What page are you referring to?

24C
Jan 19, 2005, 04:05 AM
FWIW, "Maya' has some valid points, "Nagromme" also, but at the end of the day, we are not the design team, and we don't really now what the priorities were.

If it was me and low cost was number one, I could easily design a stylish solution that would have covered more bases. If you wanted to design a low cost upgradeable Apple computer, I wouldn't have ended up with a Mac mini. If you wanted a low cost and small package desktop computer, it makes a lot of sense to use small components ripped from laptop technology and have an external powerbrick.

For example, I was really surprised by the iMac G4, because the obvious design step from an iMac G3, was the integrated iMac G5 approach...that is not have a base unit with a floating screen on an arm. In a lot of ways the Mac mini is an iMac G4 with it's head chopped off. :p

PS Aren't there some holes in the underside on the Mac mini combo drive case, so presumably the heat can convect through here, when there is no disc in?