Apple - what is wrong with you (why not more choices?)?!

Isn't the Mac mini (at least the server version) due for a refresh anytime now?

Just be patient..The MacBook isn't exactly "that" up-to-date, either.

Don't feel upset..My MacBook Pro (mid 2010) was purchased with an outdated Core 2 Duo even though many Windows laptops were being sold with i3 and i5 processors.

Apple doesn't design for every situation. Never has, probably never will. There are posts on here dating back to the mid-2000s asking the same question you're asking (about a headless Mac more powerful than the mini, but less expensive than the Pro). Apple has said that they chose the markets that they want to compete in. Apparently they don't want to be in that market.

That's the one thing that I detest about Apple the most. Maybe it's because they like to release things in an orderly fashion instead of just throwing the products out to the market when the technology becomes available.

It's not all Apple's fault..I shouldn't have gotten my MacBook Pro when I did (just a month away from the release of the new MacBook Pros).

I, too, feel the same way about iMacs and wish Mac Minis would adopt i7 or at least i5 processors. I recently sold my C2D iMac with intentions to buy a Mac Mini to use as a media center when they are refreshed (my guess is this will happen within the next few months).

Mini is due for a refresh, but is too small to handle desktop CPUs, so you'd probably see the same CPUs as the 13" MBP. It's meant to be their basic use computer. MBA is also less powerful for the same reason, plus with the powerful MBP CPUs, it would have next to no battery life. They also can't reduce the size of the bezel without making the display housing too weak.

Apple doesn't give large amounts of choices because they don't have to, they sell enough of what they make not to be missing much by offering more.

macbook123 said:

Which is a rather general question I have about this company. Why are they not giving me choices?*

Click to expand...

More choices would seem simple to me; figure out how much profit you want to make on your computers and sell lots of different kinds. This isn't the 90s anymore, when Apple had to eliminate slower-moving products just to survive.

macbook123 said:

Really? They're a company, so I would think they use every way they can get to make money. Why wouldn't they?

Click to expand...

You're assuming that a lot of people don't by Macs because they are dissatisfied with the range of products. I don't know if there is any evidence for this, other than anecdotal.

Part of the reason Apple makes money is that they keep a very concise, very well designed, product line. Rather than machine gun products at the market, they bring very few products that they have a great deal of confidence in, which is one very important reason the brand has such prestige.

One of the mistakes the company made in the 90's was bringing too many variations on the desktop to market. The consensus was they had diluted the brand and confused the consumer.

aristobrat said:

Apple doesn't design for every situation. Never has, probably never will.

Click to expand...

They did at one point: Back in the early to mid 90s they would have no fewer than 5 lines of Macs and all with similar configurations but different price points. At the height I believe there were 8 different lines: LC500/Performas with monitors (68LC040), Performas without Monitors (68LC040), the LCIII with a 68030 & LC475 (a diluted Performa) with a 68040, Quadras with 68040s, Powerbook 150 series with 68030 CPUs, Powerbook Duos with 68030 CPUs, Powerbook 500 series with 68040 CPUs, and the first PowerMacs (PPC601). This was circa 1994-1995.

Even within the lines there was confusion. Some Quadras used full 68040s and some used 68LC040s without FPUs & different PDS slots. Some like the Quadra 630 were uprated Performas instead of actual pro machines like the rest of the Quadra line. In comparison to the professional level Quadras, the 630 used a different expansion slot, used an IDE HD instead of SCSI, & lacked SCSI Manager 4.3 support (which meant slow SCSI access and everything Mac compatible was SCSI back then).

When PPCs came in full force the LCs went away but there were Mac Clones and the Powermac 4400, Performa/Powermac 5xx0, Performa/Powermac 6x00, Powermac 7x00, Powermac 8x00 & Powermac 9x00 as well as oddballs like the 20th Anniversary Mac (fittingly a Performa at heart), Apple Network Server (not really Macs in some cases), Apple Workgroup Server, and a couple DOS compatible or AV models. Laptop wise for a while you could get a Duo 2300, two different PB 190s or four Different PB5300s. That was then replaced with two different PB2400s, six different PB1400s, and three different 3400s.

This is also known as a bad time in Apple history where people were singing the songs of the end times. Models overlapped and people didn't really know what to buy, especially when there were faster Mac Clones for 30% less.

There are posts on here dating back to the mid-2000s asking the same question you're asking (about a headless Mac more powerful than the mini, but less expensive than the Pro). Apple has said that they chose the markets that they want to compete in. Apparently they don't want to be in that market.

Click to expand...

And the mid 90s is where they learned that lesson. Seeing as they're making truckloads of money, I think Apple knows what its doing. For those of us that want/need something in between, there's always the Hackintosh route.

Apple as a company does better when the pickings are slimmer .

Apple has a huge hole in their lineup without that ~$1500 Mac Pro.

They've always offered a Power Mac around that price line, even as low as $1,300, but with the Mac Pro they cut it and haven't looked back.

Apple simply doesn't care about that market anymore. You've either got to buy into the closed iMac or you've gotta get a $2,500 Mac Pro.

One huge issue is the lowest iMac's Geekbench score at $1200 is about 7200, the low end Mac Pro at $2500 is around 8800. The parity is even smaller if you spend a couple hundred bucks more and get the 2.7ghz i5 at $1500 it's about 8000. I guess with the refresh coming this should be fixed but that kind of power would fit perfectly at the $1500 price range. It's not going to cannibalize iMac sales because it's not much more powerful.

macbook123 said:

I disagree. I doubt that there is no i7 processor that can be put into the Mac Mini, if they can be put into the Macbook Pro's.

And if it can't, my question becomes why don't they make a slightly bigger Mac Mini with reasonable processors, for the price of a Macbook Pro? Why don't they sell an iMac without the ugly and unpractical display?



Really? They're a company, so I would think they use every way they can get to make money. Why wouldn't they?

Click to expand...

They could put the dual i7 from the 13" MBP in it, maybe the quads in the bigger MBPs, but then you would have a monster CPU with a weak GPU. The point of the mini is to be their budget model computer, not high performance. Sure, they could make an iMac in a tower, minus the monitor, but the iMac sells well, and they probably make more money that way.

They have pretty much every base covered with their current line, minus the midrange tower. If they made that, it would cannibalize sales from the iMac, and they really wouldn't make more money.

Mac_Max said:

They did at one point: Back in the early to mid 90s they would have no fewer than 5 lines of Macs and all with similar configurations but different price points.

<snip>

And the mid 90s is where they learned that lesson.

Apple as a company does better when the pickings are slimmer .

Click to expand...

I agree that the choice of Macs in the early 90s was confusing, with many models overlapping. That's not a problem today.

I don't think it would hurt anything for Apple to offer a more powerful fully-loaded Mac mini. Some say "it would hurt iMac sales." What does it matter if the profit is the same or better? As the OP says, it's very likely a Core i7 could be put into a mini if Apple only wanted to. It's hard to understand why they don't.

macbook123 said:

Really? They're a company, so I would think they use every way they can get to make money. Why wouldn't they?

Click to expand...

Right now, Apple is making a huge profit margin off age old Core 2 Duo processors in the current Mini. Think about it for a moment.

Icaras said:

Right now, Apple is making a huge profit margin off age old Core 2 Duo processors in the current Mini. Think about it for a moment.

Click to expand...

Yes, and based on Amazon top-seller results, it sells like gangbusters. But at the same time, lots of people laugh at it for its age old technology. I guess since Apple laughs all the way to the bank, it doesn't matter that their computer is a dinosaur.

And why would a MacBook Pro connected to the display of your choice not be a reasonable solution?

macbook123 said:

Yes it would cannibalize some sales from the iMac, but not nearly as much as the iPhone is cannibalizing sales from the iPod touch. So what?

Click to expand...

Eh, the iPhone has a lot more features than the iPod touch, it's a different market. I see your point though. I'm not saying that it would be a bad idea, but I'm certain apple has thought it over and decided it wouldn't be beneficial enough to make such a product.

macbook123 said:

Are these rankings current sales (i.e. over the last couple of weeks) or over a long period, i.e. since it was last updated? If it's the latter it obviously has no meaning whatsoever...

Click to expand...

I look at the Amazon top-seller list every couple of months, and the low-end Mac mini is nearly always among the top three best sellers of ALL desktop computers, including both Mac and wintel. I don't know how frequently the Amazon top-seller list is updated but I expect it's almost daily.

So, it certainly seems the mini sells well. But I think it could sell even better and be more profitable for Apple if it wasn't so neglected. Problem is, the iMac is their icon desktop, and portables rule with 73% of Mac sales.

It sells because it's Apple's only computer under $1000.

One thing to keep in mind is Windows machines there are hundreds of different models with different manufacturers, so the likelihood of a single model becoming a consistent best seller is fairly low.

While I'm sure the profit margins are pretty good for the mini, they still would rather have you spend $1200 on an iMac and reap that instead.

The issue with the mini is that well, it's mini. It's good for people who want a mini computer for special purposes or the few times you want to move a desktop but what it does it puts laptop components in it.

That means less performance, essentially the chipsets are a year behind desktops and are sold a a premium which means you're paying more for less power. A Macbook Pro features the same issues. If you look at the low end $1200 iMac and the low end $1200 Macbook Pro.. the iMac largely outperforms it.

The Mac Mini will never be faster or as fast as the iMac and when it eventually gets updated the gap will be lessened a bit but there will still be a gap.

its not like anyone is suggesting a huge bloating of the lineup is needed. They literally just need a midrange desktop. A bigger mini/smaller pro/imac without a screen.

Thats all

If necessary, drop the mini for it (or make it the lower powered media server/streamer device).

mrklaw said:

its not like anyone is suggesting a huge bloating of the lineup is needed. They literally just need a midrange desktop. A bigger mini/smaller pro/imac without a screen.

Thats all

If necessary, drop the mini for it (or make it the lower powered media server/streamer device).

Click to expand...

Right now the apple store has been selling 2009 refurbs. The 2.0GHz model with one 1gb stick of ram and a 120gb 5400 hdd for 429. This is the best deal for an apple mac mini if you want to stream netflix surf the net run some iTunes maybe attach eyeTV. You buy one stick of 4gb ram for 35 and a hitachi 500gb 7200 rpm hdd. The machine runs just under 540 (count the tax) setup this way. If you only need the mac for the above tasks it is a good deal. Compare to the 2010 2.4 refurb you pay 599 and buy the 4gb stick of ram cost is about 660 with tax. You end up with a much lessor hdd and pay 120 more or gamble you can do the hdd upgrade.

The highest powered mini is 849 (2010 sever) for a refurb and while it is better then the one I mention it is not worth 849. It is weird that a 2 plus year old refurb is the best mac mini for some but not all users.