Mac Mini End Of Life?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Mini is EOL'd sources are telling folks over at AppleInsider. This makes me think a new system is on the way. So Long Mini, Hello ....Macintosh? Im hoping for the consumer tower. Anyone think there is a chance of Apple bringing in a new machine or perhaps a cubelike redo?

[FJ218700]

I'd be all over a consumer tower, but just don't see it happening.

I suspect a smaller form factor or a merge of the Apple-TV / mini.

[emotion]

Mini is EOL'd sources are telling folks over at AppleInsider. This makes me think a new system is on the way. So Long Mini, Hello ....Macintosh? Im hoping for the consumer tower. Anyone think there is a chance of Apple bringing in a new machine or perhaps a cubelike redo?

Yeah i'd be tempted by that. Maybe it's just minor updates to the mini though.

[Naimfan]

Give it dedicated graphics and I'd buy one! (A combination of Mini and AppleTV).

[xUKHCx]

I believe it will be a revamp to the mini line. This also ties in with the Macbook rumors as they both use the same GMA950 and are both rumored for a change soon. Perhaps with Leopard apple realised that the 950 isn't going to perform too well. Heres to updated graphics in both the Macbook and the new Mini.

[Eidorian]

And here's the article (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/12/mac_mini_nears_end_of_life_leopard_gm_target_more___.html).

[Dont Hurt Me]

Apple hasnt done anything with Mini in a long long time. This latest update was just a cpu change and they didnt say much. Apple needs 3 desktops in my view, a consumer tower,a all in one and a Pro Model. I thought this was interesting since we own one and when Apple has a slight upgrade and says nothing then usually a replacement is on the way. It would be a terrific time to introduce a new OS and a new "Macintosh" to run it as long as it didnt have integrated graphics.:D

[OllyW]

They are making room for the new Mac Semi-Pro ;)

Seriously, it would be a real shame if they dropped the mini completely. :(

[Eidorian]

The August Mac mini update didn't require any sort of retooling. I doubt there was any cost to doing it for two months.

[phillipjfry]

I hope that apple decides against the mini, I know of more than a few people who are just waiting for some quick cash to come through and with their own monitor and inputs, they can have their mac

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

AppleInsider believes the Mac Mini is end of life (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/12/mac_mini_nears_end_of_life_leopard_gm_target_more___.html), despite being recently refreshed (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/07/apple-quietly-updates-mac-minis/).The site has said that the Mac Mini will be discontinued (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/05/24/mac-mini-to-be-discontinued/).

There have been recent rumblings around the web regarding a replacement named the "Mac Nano", however the origins of this rumor are from extremely unreliable Mac OS Rumors, and remain unconfirmed by any traditionally reliable sources.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/15/mac-mini-end-of-life/)

[Eidorian]

The refresh didn't require any sort of retooling at all.

What the heck can they replace it with?

[flopticalcube]

This:

http://machappens.com/2007/09/17/aluminum-and-glass-mac-mini/

http://machappens.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/macmini_1.jpg

[Father Jack]

Why would they discontinue the Mini, as they don't have anything to replace it with (as yet) ... :confused:

The mini was my first Mac and I'm sure it was the first for many switchers ... :)

[Eidorian]

This:

http://machappens.com/2007/09/17/aluminum-and-glass-mac-mini/

http://machappens.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/macmini_1.jpgVery sexy but it looks too much like a thin client.

[flopticalcube]

I'm no big fan of thin myself. If it was thicker and came with an HD2300 or 8300m and a desktop drive, that would be an improvement. Won't happen though.

[zioxide]

This:

http://machappens.com/2007/09/17/aluminum-and-glass-mac-mini/

http://machappens.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/macmini_1.jpg

where the **** are you going to fit anything?

you couldn't fit a hard drive, memory, or a processor in that thing.

only an optical drive.


THE MINI CAN'T GET ANY SMALLER.

[mikeytrend]

This makes a lot of sense because the apple store closest to me has recently received a new store layout and now that I think about it I don't think there were any mac minis out for testing.

I think people are starting to move away from the low-end desktop because for a couple more hundred (which you'd end up spending on displays and such anyways) you can get a low-end laptop that can go anywhere.

I don't quiet know what apple has up their sleeve for their next low-end desktop, but I'm excited either way.

[rocco32]

This:

http://machappens.com/2007/09/17/aluminum-and-glass-mac-mini/

http://machappens.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/macmini_1.jpg

I would be all over that if they could fit everything in there. lol

[LeviG]

If the mac mini is discontinued (although I can see them bringing a better spec out still - ie x3100) it looks like I'll be making a windows based system to put under my tv as the :apple:tv just doesn't cut it in my view.

[OllyW]

where the **** are you going to fit anything?

you couldn't fit a hard drive, memory, or a processor in that thing.

only an optical drive.


THE MINI CAN'T GET ANY SMALLER.

Perhaps they are going to replace the mini with an external DVD drive :D:D

[gkarris]

where the **** are you going to fit anything?

you couldn't fit a hard drive, memory, or a processor in that thing.

only an optical drive.


THE MINI CAN'T GET ANY SMALLER.

Same dimensions as an :apple:TV...

Can someone redo the pic?

[0racle]

Very sexy but it looks too much like a thin client.

Mac Thin. Brilliant!

Actually I might have a use for that.

[arkmannj]

Not EOL'd, just renamed to Apple-TV Extreme ;-)
now with full sized TOS port, and HDMI port.

[bubba451]

There have been recent rumblings around the web regarding a replacement named the "Mac Nano"

Too expensive! I'm waiting for the Mac Shuffle.

[wrldwzrd89]

I actually mentioned the Mac Nano rumor in another thread, which I don't have the link to handy... but this news suggests to me that the Mac OS Rumors story, though it may not be 100% accurate, may have some truth behind it.

[Yvan256]

I'm getting a bit tired of people comparing the Mac mini with the :apple:TV. The Mac mini is a Mac while the :apple:TV is an iPod for your TV.

As for the MacBook being "only a few hundreds more", let's keep in mind that a lot of people already have a monitor, keyboard and mouse, that 3rd-party monitors, keyboards and mouses cost a lot less than what Apple is selling and that the MacBook is TWICE the price of the Mac mini.

I wouldn't mind something as big as an :apple:TV and as tall as a Mac mini if it meant a real dedicated GPU with its own VRAM and a 3.5" hard drive.

If Apple stops selling the Mac mini and doesn't offer any replacement, what are Mac mini users supposed to upgrade to? Not everyone wants a laptop (twice as expensive) and not everyone can afford an iMac (or wants to re-purchase a monitor, keyboard and mouse that they already own).

IMO the Mac mini is Apple's "greener" computer because you only upgrade the little box instead of the whole thing.

[wrldwzrd89]

<snip>
IMO the Mac mini is Apple's "greener" computer because you only upgrade the little box instead of the whole thing.
The same can be said of the Mac Pro, though...

I'm not in the market for a Mac mini though, so I don't follow it as closely as the other Macs.

[emotion]

where the **** are you going to fit anything?


Looks as small as a 12" powerbook...and that had a keyboard and discrete graphics. I wouldn't say it looks impossible.

[javierbds]

Apple TV(Media) Pro (Apple TV(good interfaces + good GPU) + Apple Mini (full OS X + DVD drive)) would fit nicely ... So Apple will probably do something else :( .

I'd like to replace my (buggy) DIVX DVD player ... :rolleyes:

[minik]

I will hold off then... or just get an iMac.

[bigandy]

I would be all over that if they could fit everything in there. lol
what you don't realise is that mockup is quite large - the slot on the front is for a laserdisc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc) ;)

Too expensive! I'm waiting for the Mac Shuffle.
you mean like a mini with a broken dvi port?

[Luap]

Too expensive! I'm waiting for the Mac Shuffle.

The Mac Shuffle.. What a brilliant idea.
Will it have 4 buttons on it and load random applications for you? As well as being screenless of course..

[jstad]

I can see the mini getting merged with the Applpe T V but since the they just refreshed the product i doubt it is @ EOL anytime in early 2008

[Donnacha]

I believe that, in the long-term, Apple plans to add full Mac functionality to :apple:TV, probably when they introduce their line of large LCD TV sets next year - the point at which :apple:TV graduates to being a fully-fledged product line rather than, as Steve Jobs currently considers it, "a hobby".

These large, 1080p (1920&#215;1080) flatscreen TVs with built-in computers will operate in two modes: full computer mode, operated via wireless keyboards etc and an old-style :apple:TV/Front Row mode (what Yvan256 calls "ipod for your TV") operated via the current remote. Their unique selling point, however, will be Telepresence - a consumer version of corporate video conferencing, a sort of "iChat on steroids". This is a killer app waiting to happen but, of course, none of the existing TV manufacturers have the software or codec expertise to pull it off.

Laptops will continue their advance, with Apple no doubt hoping that, with the Mini out of the picture, more people will opt for Macbooks - if people own a laptop, they are likely to take them out and about with them occasionally which, of course, raises Apple's profile far more than any desktop. The low-end Macbook is currently $1,100, only $300 more than the equivalent Mini but with all the added convenience and no need to buy a keyboard, mouse or monitor.

Admittedly, no Macbook can compete directly with the cheapest, least-powerful Mini at $600 but I would not be particularly surprised to see Apple abandon the low-end desktop market entirely; now, when they're riding high, is pretty much the only time they could risk such a dramatic re-positioning.

What we do need, however, is a mid-range tower for the millions of people who are willing to pay for quality hardware but simply cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro - I know, I know, people have been asking for this forever but, surely, terminating the Mini now opens up a space for it?

[Spanky Deluxe]

They'd be stupid to EOL the Mini without replacing it with something comparative and I'm not talking about a 'mid-ranged tower'. They need to keep a compact mac at the same price point. Maybe a mac nano will come out, who knows, however they can't get rid of it.

At the end of the day, the Mac Mini 1.83Ghz sells more than the the 24" and 20" (not bottom end) iMacs, all of the Mac Pros and the 17" MacBook Pro. It is only outsold by the MacBooks and the 20" 'normal' iMac. The 2.0Ghz model is the same except for being outsold by the 24" iMac. Fact (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/ref=pd_ts_pg_2/103-0435127-0593458?ie=UTF8&pg=2). The Mac Mini is still one of the most desirable pieces of computer hardware in the world. Either they keep it/upgrade it or replace it with something new but with a similar (i.e. compact and limited upgradability) form factor. Adding a mid-ranged tower could be possible (although I doubt they ever would) but it could *not* replace the Mini.

[OllyW]

At the end of the day, the Mac Mini 1.83Ghz sells more than the the 24" and 20" (not bottom end) iMacs, all of the Mac Pros and the 17" MacBook Pro. It is only outsold by the MacBooks and the 20" 'normal' iMac. The 2.0Ghz model is the same except for being outsold by the 24" iMac. Fact (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/ref=pd_ts_pg_2/103-0435127-0593458?ie=UTF8&pg=2)

That is only the sales for one retailer, it doesn't prove what you state as fact.

I do agree that the mini should stay in the Apple range. It has had the most attention from friends and family than any other computer I have owned, miles more than my old PowerMac G5 and my current MacBook Pro. Everyone loves it :)

[Donnacha]

That is only the sales for one retailer, it doesn't prove what you state as fact.
Agreed; buyers sufficiently price-sensitive to buy from Amazon rather than Apple are, also, going to be disproportionately interested in their low-end products. My guess is that the vast majority of buyers and, in particular, high-end buyers go directly to Apple.com or a retail store.


I do agree that the mini should stay in the Apple range. It has had the most attention from friends and family than any other computer I have owned, miles more than my old PowerMac G5 and my current MacBook Pro. Everyone loves it :)
I'm surprised; I find that the styling of the MBP has a huge wow-factor when people see it in the flesh for the first time whereas the Mini, though, neat and cute, doesn't create anywhere near the same level of fascination.

And, again, a lot of people get to see the average laptop than the average desktop - very few Minis to be seen in Starbucks :)

If Apple are thinking strategically, and you can bet they are, they will do everything they can to make the Macbook their entry-level machine.

[twoodcc]

i would hate to see the mini go, but it does need a major refresh i think. if it does go, then i'll have to try to find a cheap one somewhere.

[gkarris]

i would hate to see the mini go, but it does need a major refresh i think. if it does go, then i'll have to try to find a cheap one somewhere.

If Apple replaces the Mini with something better, then you'll find one cheap. If they simply get rid of them, the price may even go up.

[bdj21ya]

I actually mentioned the Mac Nano rumor in another thread, which I don't have the link to handy... but this news suggests to me that the Mac OS Rumors story, though it may not be 100% accurate, may have some truth behind it.

The fact that macrumors reprinted the rumor?

[wrldwzrd89]

The fact that macrumors reprinted the rumor?
No - the fact that another rumor site is suggesting something similar.

[corywoolf]

I believe that, in the long-term, Apple plans to add full Mac functionality to :apple:TV, probably when they introduce their line of large LCD TV sets next year - the point at which :apple:TV graduates to being a fully-fledged product line rather than, as Steve Jobs currently considers it, "a hobby".

These large, 1080p (1920×1080) flatscreen TVs with built-in computers will operate in two modes: full computer mode, operated via wireless keyboards etc and an old-style :apple:TV/Front Row mode (what Yvan256 calls "ipod for your TV") operated via the current remote. Their unique selling point, however, will be Telepresence - a consumer version of corporate video conferencing, a sort of "iChat on steroids". This is a killer app waiting to happen but, of course, none of the existing TV manufacturers have the software or codec expertise to pull it off.

Laptops will continue their advance, with Apple no doubt hoping that, with the Mini out of the picture, more people will opt for Macbooks - if people own a laptop, they are likely to take them out and about with them occasionally which, of course, raises Apple's profile far more than any desktop. The low-end Macbook is currently $1,100, only $300 more than the equivalent Mini but with all the added convenience and no need to buy a keyboard, mouse or monitor.

Admittedly, no Macbook can compete directly with the cheapest, least-powerful Mini at $600 but I would not be particularly surprised to see Apple abandon the low-end desktop market entirely; now, when they're riding high, is pretty much the only time they could risk such a dramatic re-positioning.

What we do need, however, is a mid-range tower for the millions of people who are willing to pay for quality hardware but simply cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro - I know, I know, people have been asking for this forever but, surely, terminating the Mini now opens up a space for it?

No, just no. The average consumer doesn't want to type on a keyboard on their lap in front of a TV. MS already tried this, it is just not useful enough. The point of the Apple TV was to simplify the watching of content stored on your Mac on your TV. Nobody wants to navigate OS X on their TV just to view/listen to iTS content. The best thing Apple could do, is to add DVR function to the Apple TV and charge a monthly fee like TiVo does. Included with the monthly fee, is a set value of hours of free downloads from iTS. Apple needs to do this to match Amazon's Unbox service which is tied to TiVo. Even though not many people use that service now, it is an indicator of where the industry is heading. So users would essentially have access to the iTS on the new Apple TV. Mac OS X is not meant to be on TVs in it's current form.

[sososowhat]

I replaced my Dual 2.0 G5 with a MacBook (Core Duo, 1.83, 2Gig), and loved the near-silence and near-identical performance. But I found running it with the lid closed (powering my 23") the fans tended to keep up 2500+ and the temp ran high.

Then I got a new Core2Duo 2.0 Mini, and loaded it up with 3 Gig RAM. Holy Cow! What a great machine!! Faster than my MacBook, and nearly silent with much better fan performance than either the G5 or the MacBook. My only complaint is that upgrading the RAM was a bit of a pain.

I don't play games where FPS matters, and I keep my 35,000 photos on an external RAID disk, so I can't think of any benefit I'd have going to a larger machine. Sure, I'd go for a Mac Nano, but at this point the only things I'd really like are easier user-service and the ability to support the 30" display. Other than that, the Mini's a winner for me.

[minik]

Mac nano, Mac shuffle? They don't sound good to me.

[Luap]

Don't read too much into this now folks. Keep in mind this comes from AppleInsider and its "sources".
Like several other Mac websites these days, they largely post news which either states the blindingly obvious, was invented by "analysts", or was plain "made up" and posted by.. well, anyone. Who more often than not, has little to no credibility, thus making the news even worse than that coming from the notorious analysts.
IE, Its mostly crap these days. Which is a shame, as it used to be a good rumour site.

[juxtaposer]

Only 9 months ago, I was completely oblivious to the ease of use of Mac OS and the many great applications it ran. I had always had a pretty low-end PC, which was used mainly for audio production. And being quite badly-paid at the time, I never thought that a Mac was even an option. With the purchase of my Mac Mini, I found an easy-to-use machine which worked well in every situation I hazarded to put it in. Only a week later, I purchased a Focusrite Saffire FW Audio Interface and a copy of Logic 7. I have never looked back since.
The Mac Mini is a brilliant little machine for switchers from the PC world like myself. It will be an awful shame to see it go. :(

[Donnacha]

No, just no. The average consumer doesn't want to type on a keyboard on their lap in front of a TV. MS already tried this, it is just not useful enough.
You don't get it.

Looking at Microsoft's past failures is a ridiculous way to judge how Apple are going to shape the future. This is not about handing coach potatoes a keyboard and expecting them to start Photoshopping, it is about establishing new habits.

Obviously, if you've got a 50" 1920×1080 screen hanging on the living room wall, some people are going to pull up a desk and get some work done, they'll be free to do that, but the main reason to have that kind of computing power on tap will be to do far simpler things, things you can do from the coach, without a keyboard teetering on your knees, things you have not yet thought of because you're spending too much of your limited brain-juice focusing on what all the stuff you think can't be done because, hey, Microsoft tried and, somehow, it didn't work out.

Telepresence is a good example - we all know that webcams are fun but once you try a high-def corporate video conferencing you become aware of just how much mainstream potential it has if you can it into living rooms. The corporate rigs are expensive as Hell but we are now entering a time when high-definition flatscreen TVs are plummeting in price and becoming a mainstream purchase.

The screen is probably the single-most expensive part of the consumer telepresence equation but, if people decide they are getting a high-def TV anyway, it makes the rest of the equation look a lot more attractive. As usual, Apple have timed it perfectly to capitalize on something everyone saw coming.


The point of the Apple TV was to simplify the watching of content stored on your Mac on your TV. Nobody wants to navigate OS X on their TV just to view/listen to iTS content.
What part of ":apple:TV mode" didn't you understand?

And, by the way, the point of the Apple TV for apple was to get some experience in this area of the market in preparation for this move into TVs, a move they had planned to make last year but shelved because they realized they needed to develop "killer app" uses in order to distinguish their offering from Dell and HP.

[cloudnine]

Why would they discontinue the Mini, as they don't have anything to replace it with (as yet) ... :confused:

The mini was my first Mac and I'm sure it was the first for many switchers ... :)

I have to agree. I find it hard to believe that they would discontinue the Mini, being that I know more than a handful of people who have switched to Mac because of the Mac Mini... it was the first computer they felt was in their price range that Apple offered that was a more than capable machine.

With that said, it would still be nice to see them refresh the form factor of it... not to sound snotty, but I've always hated the cheap-looking plastic top of the Mini :/

[FF_productions]

Those dreaming for consumer towers, keep dreaming. It will NEVER happen.

Apple is all about selling ALL-in-ONE systems, with the exception being the Mac Pro.


They poke fun at the companies with consumer towers, the mess with the wires and all.

The Mac Mini may be replaced, who knows. MacWorld is a few months away.

[gceo]

I'd be bummed on losing the Mini without some sort of replacement for a good TV/Media Mac. I've never seen a better Mac hook up to a TV.

[Kuska]

I believe that, in the long-term, Apple plans to add full Mac functionality to :apple:TV, probably when they introduce their line of large LCD TV sets next year - the point at which :apple:TV graduates to being a fully-fledged product line rather than, as Steve Jobs currently considers it, "a hobby".

These large, 1080p (1920×1080) flatscreen TVs with built-in computers will operate in two modes: full computer mode, operated via wireless keyboards etc and an old-style :apple:TV/Front Row mode (what Yvan256 calls "ipod for your TV") operated via the current remote. Their unique selling point, however, will be Telepresence - a consumer version of corporate video conferencing, a sort of "iChat on steroids". This is a killer app waiting to happen but, of course, none of the existing TV manufacturers have the software or codec expertise to pull it off.

Laptops will continue their advance, with Apple no doubt hoping that, with the Mini out of the picture, more people will opt for Macbooks - if people own a laptop, they are likely to take them out and about with them occasionally which, of course, raises Apple's profile far more than any desktop. The low-end Macbook is currently $1,100, only $300 more than the equivalent Mini but with all the added convenience and no need to buy a keyboard, mouse or monitor.

Admittedly, no Macbook can compete directly with the cheapest, least-powerful Mini at $600 but I would not be particularly surprised to see Apple abandon the low-end desktop market entirely; now, when they're riding high, is pretty much the only time they could risk such a dramatic re-positioning.

What we do need, however, is a mid-range tower for the millions of people who are willing to pay for quality hardware but simply cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro - I know, I know, people have been asking for this forever but, surely, terminating the Mini now opens up a space for it?

Never really 'got' the idea of a mid range tower, but having recently rejected 2 top end iMac's on screen quality issues and then trying to price up an :apple: alternative, I've come to realise this would be a fantastic option - consumer targetted processing power with a decent display - oh wait that was supposed to be the iMac, right ? ;)

Anyhow I'm holding out and if a decent spec mini or mid range tower is around the corner then :apple: can have my £1,500 just cut a different way !!!

[Clive At Five]

Cube 2.0?

Nothing can ever top that hovering piece of artwork that doubled as a computer. I bought one just the other day so I could mess with the innards. $90, baby.

-Clive

[MacPhilosopher]

I hope that Apple chooses to innovate the Mini and move it forward rather than just drop the product line. I have a mini and use it as my media center, email and communications hub at home. It allows me to keep my new Apple iMac based editing system off-line and unencumbered by other programs and files. I used to do this at my former job as a media specialist and producer, and have found that it reallly helps with workflow. The Mini makes for an inexpensive alternative to keep the everyday files and applications off your important work-tools system. When I left my job I had to rely on a 12" Al G4 PB for everything. Now it is just the portable version of my Mini. I plan on adding an Elgato EyeTV 250 Plus to the Mini to add off-air recording to the Mini. Once that is complete, the old television and VCR/DVD are gone for good. Perhaps that is what Apple is planning with the Mini. It really would be great to have a Mac/TV as your total hub. That is basically what I will have once I complete my next step.

[MacSA]

I'd be bummed on losing the Mini without some sort of replacement for a good TV/Media Mac. I've never seen a better Mac hook up to a TV.


This is why the Mini will be EOL'd. No one is using it as a computer, just a media centre for which Apple developed the Apple TV. No point in having two competing products.

[emotion]

This is why the Mini will be EOL'd. No one is using it as a computer, just a media centre for which Apple developed the Apple TV. No point in having two competing products.

...or....

EOL them both and have one product fill both markets.

[decadentdave]

This is why the Mini will be EOL'd. No one is using it as a computer, just a media centre for which Apple developed the Apple TV. No point in having two competing products.

Wrong. I use it for all of my dektop computer needs as well as managing my home theater. It's the best of both worlds. AppleTV integration into the Mini would be the smartest move, not the other way around.

[OllyW]

This is why the Mini will be EOL'd. No one is using it as a computer, just a media centre for which Apple developed the Apple TV. No point in having two competing products.

Sorry, I'm using mine as a computer :p

[tgildred]

where the **** are you going to fit anything?

you couldn't fit a hard drive, memory, or a processor in that thing.

only an optical drive.


THE MINI CAN'T GET ANY SMALLER.

It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than that.

[Cassie]

Sorry, I'm using mine as a computer :p

Yeah, my Core Duo 1.83 GHz mini is my main computer. I wouldn't think about having anything else.

The iMac was a viable option for me when there was a 17" model.



But the 20" is just too big for me and my limited space. I like the fact that I can change my monitor size anytime I want. I like the fact I can pick it up with one hand and play frisbee with it. :p

For me, there is no other computer as perfect as my mini.

[GSMiller]

I think a vertical Mini would make more sense if it were to be so thin. Some what like the Wii maybe...

[WildPalms]

This is why the Mini will be EOL'd. No one is using it as a computer, just a media centre for which Apple developed the Apple TV. No point in having two competing products.

Gee...and here I've been using my two as computers! Silly me! Doh!

[OllyW]

Gee...and here I've been using my two as computers! Silly me! Doh!

Just be careful you don't invalidate you warranty, you are not supposed to use them like that ;)

[srf4real]

The mini rules for a guy like me that has absolutely no interest in dvd media or tv shows or creating my own dvd's. I want the monitor, keyboard, and mouse of my choice, and an apple computer to handle my photo editing and web-content. The dang thing takes up less space than my coffee cup practically... never makes a sound. I'll take an upgrade to the intel mini some day if the g4 ever dies - it may not, tho. My bondi iMac still runs flawlessly. :cool:

[twoodcc]

Cube 2.0?

Nothing can ever top that hovering piece of artwork that doubled as a computer. I bought one just the other day so I could mess with the innards. $90, baby.

-Clive

i would love to see Cube 2.0

i'd still like to buy a mini as well to go with it

[Yvan256]

This is why the Mini will be EOL'd. No one is using it as a computer, just a media centre for which Apple developed the Apple TV. No point in having two competing products.

Just because you hear about people talking about their Mac mini used as a media centre doesn't mean everybody does it. You won't see me go on forums saying "hey I'm using my Mac mini as a desktop Mac" because that's what it's intended for. ;)

[Eidorian]

I have a bout 30 Mac minis in my department replacing Power Mac G4s or for switchers.

[eric55lv]

please tell me that they are not going to discouniue it because i was going to by one around christmas

[jacktiernan]

I'm almost positive they're gonna replace the mini with this...

:D

[dieselmac]

I think that most people who arent switching yet are not doing so because a mac starts at 1000 bucks give or take. If Apple would role out something new and exciting in a desktop package for those who cant shell out 1000 bucks for a mac, I believe they would gain tons of ground, not to mention it would be a quick way to get an at home cheap base for my mbp when I get it. Nevertheless, Apple should delve into some different aspects of the computer market (not including phones pda's blackberrys ect.)

[VoodooDaddy]

The mini was my first mac but wont be my last. I got a 1.66ghz CoreDuo about a year and a half ago. I dont plan on upgrading anytime soon, but would be sad to see the mini gone. I just installed 2gb of ram to replace the 1gb I had and its better than ever. I dont foresee myself even needing a new computer for at least 2-3yrs. At that point Ill likely get whatever the new iMac is. I think once my applecare runs out Im going to attempt a processor upgrade and maybe extend the life of the mini even more. Surely by then the newest C2D processors will be dirt cheap.

[Decrepit]

I don't want/need a notebook.

I want a silent, low power computer. When I end up upgrading to a newer generation than my 1.42GHz PPC model, it will be a Mini, or not a Mac.

I have a beautiful 24" LCD, and a KVM. I can't use an iMac, and a Mac Pro is about 400x bigger than a Mini.

So, if Apple decides to be really dumb and discontinues the Mini line, they'll lose a customer.

They lost me for nearly 20 years when they discontinued the Apple II line. If they throw away another awesome product line, my Mini will have been another expensive lesson on what Apple thinks of continuity.

[KurtangleTN]

Apple really needs to look over their entire product lineup, it sucks for consumers, the lack of choice is really stopping me from buying a Mac. Despite the fact I love OS X.

[zioxide]

This is why the Mini will be EOL'd. No one is using it as a computer, just a media centre for which Apple developed the Apple TV. No point in having two competing products.

AppleTV sucks. It has limited support for codecs and doesn't really do much. It's not a HTPC.

The Mini as a HTPC is great because of the form factor, you can do everything AppleTv can do plus MUCH more including using it as a DVR.

They fit different markets. AppleTV is for noobs who just want to watch their iTunes videos on their TV. Mini as a HTPC is for more advanced users who want a computer in their living room for more function.

[VoodooDaddy]

I don't want/need a notebook.

I want a silent, low power computer. When I end up upgrading to a newer generation than my 1.42GHz PPC model, it will be a Mini, or not a Mac.

I have a beautiful 24" LCD, and a KVM. I can't use an iMac, and a Mac Pro is about 400x bigger than a Mini.

So, if Apple decides to be really dumb and discontinues the Mini line, they'll lose a customer.

They lost me for nearly 20 years when they discontinued the Apple II line. If they throw away another awesome product line, my Mini will have been another expensive lesson on what Apple thinks of continuity.

Buy one now while there is still time. Or there is always ebay when the time comes. Or maybe Ill sell you mine and get an iMac sooner rather than later :)

[pscoble]

Man... I hope that they don't do this I want to get one between Chrismas and MacWorld.

[billystlyes]

So they'll go back to only offering an AIO system (a glossy one at that) and the Mac Pro, which is overkill and too expensive for most people. Apple should just get out of the desktop computer business all together. They don't have a clue.

[Genghis Khan]

Spec1
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
160GB hard drive
24x Combo Drive
Intel GMA950
Cost: 60&#37; of base iMac

Spec2
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
250GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
Cost: 80% of base iMac

In a shapely and small apple case:)



Man... I hope that they don't do this I want to get one between Chrismas and MacWorld.

buying anything before MacWorld is really, really unwise

[decadentdave]

buying anything before MacWorld is really, really unwise

So is anything you buy the day AFTER MacWorld, in other words, 364 days BEFORE Macworld. If you are waiting for MacWorld to buy it doesn't matter. You will only have the latest and greatest model for a while before they upgrade it. In this case, buying an EOL product like the Mini may be wise to do BEFORE it is discontinued if it has all of the functionality you are looking for NOW. Newer isn't always necessarily better.

[Genghis Khan]

lol...newer isn't necessarily better...but the mac mini is overpriced

and i'm sorry, but i could never buy something apple in the weeks preceding MacWorld...as far as I know, nothing has been discontinued at MacWorld, only made better.

And yes you will only have the latest and greatest model for a short time anyway, but buying that product right after it's release will maximise that time


But this is a subjective thing...different people have different quirks about spending money...some buy only 2nd hand, but a year old, some buy all that's new and shiny and others don't care...it's all a matter of opinion

[decadentdave]

I used to wait around for MacWorld but I think the last few years have been disappointing. It's never a good time to buy a piece of technology. There are benefits to some models and introducing a new product to replace an older one has its advantages and disadvantages. Something like a Nano or whatever it will be called may be faster, more elegant looking, but for those who want the benefits of having a full-fledged desktop computer under one roof may prefer the Mini to what is offered in its place. I myself am very skeptical but until I see the specs I'll reserve judgment but I'm not going to keep myself from buying based on when MacWorld rolls around annually. I used to play that game until I realized that it didn't make too much of a difference. I'll let the early adopters buy in and then wait and see what the feedback is like and what the bugs are before I make my purchase. I don't "have to have" the newest thing as soon as it is offered anymore. I'm over that.

[so-dim]

I have installed many Mac Mini systems with client looking for a simple office computer,( word processing, FileMaker, web browsing). With the hope that when they need to refresh their systems or in the event of a Mac failing (not happened yet) the replacement would be cheap and simple. If the Mini is not available and as they have already a monitor and keyboard I see the answer will be a little pc. Once you start down the road of offering a cheap but better pc replacement as your marketing strategy, you have to keep at it, or lose out with your gains into the small business arena. People remember if they have been misled, and find it hard to trust Apple when making future purchasing decisions.
Perhaps its time for Apple to split in two. Consumer and Commercial/ Education

[sunfast]

I agree it would be a shame if the mini left us. I've no idea of sales figures but it seems to have been a popular machine, certainly with people I know. I'm sure it has lured the odd "mac curious" potential switcher with it's (relatively) low cost.

I'd be suprised if nothing came along to replace it - leaves rather a gaping hole in the product line.

[twoodcc]

So is anything you buy the day AFTER MacWorld, in other words, 364 days BEFORE Macworld. If you are waiting for MacWorld to buy it doesn't matter. You will only have the latest and greatest model for a while before they upgrade it. In this case, buying an EOL product like the Mini may be wise to do BEFORE it is discontinued if it has all of the functionality you are looking for NOW. Newer isn't always necessarily better.

but waiting, you get to see if they do update the mini, or replace it with something else. so then you have a choice of getting the old mini or the new one

[Genghis Khan]

exactly...there's no reason why not to wait...unless you are extremely impatient

[mjsickel]

The minis are essential if Apple wants to make inroads into business. They're small and can fit just about anywhere (especially with the racks that 3rd parties make), have the muscle to run everyday tasks (filemaker, email, Word/NeoOffice/Pages, scanning, filing, faxing, etc), don't waste money on unnecessary high-end graphics cards, don't waste electricity, inexpensive and easy to swap out. I've got 2 in my small office and am on the cusp of buying a third. If they would upgrade the processor more then once in a blue moon (I think it was actually 2 blue moons before the last upgrade), I would have upgraded earlier.
I know our local scdhools use them in the office for the front office (I remember one sat the monitor right on top of the mini).
Hell, I'd bet some places buy them to run windows exclusively because the form factor is so good. A local nationally-known deli uses iMacs as Windows machines (with BootCamp) because they're less expensive and more attractive than the PC equivalent and can be booted into OS X for easy troubleshooting. Places with less money (like my office) would get minis to do the same thing.
Do I see myself getting laptops or minitowers if there aren't minis? No. I've already got 2 laptops in the office (I started with one iBook as the only computer in the offfice once I had enough money to stop borrowing my wife's) and they aren't suited to permanent placement in the office. Minitowers take up way too much desk (or floor) space and get in the way. I have no need to upgrade the computer with PCI cards or additional drives or disks, so no need for a tower.
I also use an old G3 Blue tower as a server, but am considering switching to a mini for that too: less energy, less heat, more reliable. I'd be more eager to do it if apple would let S.M.A.R.T. monotoring work over firewire (I've got 3 drives backing each other up in the G3 and would like some chance of knowing when the data's in jeopardy).
If they stopped making Minis, I'd probably buy enough for my forseeable future and hunker down with them until they made something else just as suitable (which would mean they're lose out on upgrade sales and new OS sales once these became obsolete or too slow since they're working just fine now).

[CptnJustc]

No, just no. The average consumer doesn't want to type on a keyboard on their lap in front of a TV. MS already tried this, it is just not useful enough. The point of the Apple TV was to simplify the watching of content stored on your Mac on your TV. Nobody wants to navigate OS X on their TV just to view/listen to iTS content.

Funny, I do just this. =/ My Mini is hooked up to my TV, where it serves as file server, print server, iTunes master / iPod syncer, media player, DVD player, and occasional video game system (WoW and old system emulators, which a computer + TV system is amazing at).

Okay, I'm not the average consumer. But I'm not nobody either, I swear! :)

Incidentally, the new tiny Bluetooth keyboard is the element that makes this all work well. Super-light and smart, and fits neatly and unobtrusively on my coffee table.

[tuc]

Spec2
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
250GB hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
Cost: 80% of base iMac

In a shapely and small apple case:)

Is this anything more than wishful thinking on your part?


I have a bout 30 Mac minis in my department replacing Power Mac G4s or for switchers.

Which model of keyboard did you decide on?

[Eidorian]

Which model of keyboard did you decide on?I ordered a lot of the old white ones before my suppliers were out of stock.

[Quillz]

I'd be all over a consumer tower, but just don't see it happening.

I suspect a smaller form factor or a merge of the Apple-TV / mini.
As do I. I don't know what the new machine would be called, but it'd continued to be a low cost computer that also doubles as a small digital media server for your house.

[agore]

where the **** are you going to fit anything?

you couldn't fit a hard drive, memory, or a processor in that thing.

only an optical drive.
THE MINI CAN'T GET ANY SMALLER.
Yes it can. If the Mini were relaunched with just an optical drive and a flash drive built in, plus a FW800 or eSATA port, it would see a lot of use as a low-power microserver in rugged environments. Plug in a large external HD, and it becomes a media server; plug in a fast HD, and it turns into a Web server. Attach a WiMax adapter, and you have a low-cost mesh networking router to connect OLPC users in developing countries.

[Jowl]

It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than that.

Lol, shut it farmboy!

I love the mini. If the AppleTV gains DVD/RW, DD5.1 output, can play DivX etc AND I can plug in a EyeTV the I'll be happy.

[hayesk]

Lol, shut it farmboy!

I love the mini. If the AppleTV gains DVD/RW, DD5.1 output, can play DivX etc AND I can plug in a EyeTV the I'll be happy.

Seriously, what's the big deal over DivX? Rip your movies to H.264 if you want good quality and small sizes.

Or is that certain types of videos on the Internet featuring consenting adults in life-affirming positions are typically in DivX format? ;)

[rlk62098]

For all the back and forth in this discussion, I would offer that I recall seeing this same discussion back in May and June, when supposedly the Mac Mini was to be a done deal -- another Apple Insider rumor -- but instead there was a processor upgrade and minor enhancements to other specs. I don't know if I would be so quick to write off the Mini yet. It seems folks have a short memory. We've all heard this rumor before.

I have three, dating back to the G4 from 2005, and two of the Intel machines purchased this year. Across the board, they've been solid, trouble-free, and versatile machines.

With that much said, I do agree that some sort of significant mini upgrade is in order, or perhaps, we can all wish for a retro-new age Cube. I also suspect a graphics upgrade or dedicated graphics may be necessary to effectively deal with the new Leopard OS.

[prechrchet]

I believe that Apple needs something on the lower end, whether it be Mac Mini or something similiar.

I just came into a new church four months ago. I inherited a computer that was on its last legs (766 MHz Pentium 3). It also had a monitor that was doing weird things.

The first thing to be replaced was the monitor (it was the part that was most obvious in need of repair. The P3 was able to (sort of) do what I needed it to do (word processing, email). However, when the church wanted a website, the P3 was simply not up to the task of running Dreamweaver, and thus I had a chance to get a new computer.

I wanted a Mac, the Chairman of the Finance Committee felt that I needed something that would run Windows (for "file compatibility" issues). Nothing would change his mind, so I "compromised" with a Mac Mini bundle from MacMall that included XP and boot camp. Everyone was happy with that decision. I had my Mac, I could show them, "See, it runs Windows XP just fine!" and no one has to worry about me not being able to read the documents sent by the Secretary.

My point is this: if the cheapest Mac had been more expensive, I would not have been able to convince the Finance Chairman to let me get one. Because it was as cheap as it was, another office is using a Mac, and another "Switch" has taken place.

If Apple wants more and more people to keep switching, they need to continue to offer a cost effective way to do so, which is what the Mac Mini provides.

[Schtumple]

surely investors will be pissed if they completely discontinue the mac mini with no replacement product? Apple would be cutting off a huge sector of the market, having a £700 laptop as your cheapest machine is a bit of a joke...

[gregorsamsa]

For all the back and forth in this discussion, I would offer that I recall seeing this same discussion back in May and June, when supposedly the Mac Mini was to be a done deal -- another Apple Insider rumor -- but instead there was a processor upgrade and minor enhancements to other specs. I don't know if I would be so quick to write off the Mini yet. It seems folks have a short memory. We've all heard this rumor before.

I read that AI article & remember it well. AI actually said that we'd see new iMacs, discontinuation of 17" iMac & that the Mini would probably receive one more minor update (C2D), before it too was discontinued. Also, that specific article wasn't based on mere rumour, but on inside sources that had proved very reliable for AI in the past. AFAIC, the Mini in its current form is definitely going.

Too bad then that for some of us the glossy iMacs aren't an option. Unless a nice surprise occurs in the coming weeks, ie. new headless Mac with discrete graphics, for me it'll be Mac laptops & PC desktops in future... despite Vista's problems.

[d_saum]

Cube 2.0 FTW!!! (like that other poster said)

I waited for MONTHS for them to upgrade the mini, and the day that they did, I ran down to (well.. drove) the nearest Apple store and bought one. I currently have it hooked up to my 42 inch Vizio plasma, running the audio through a receiver with Bose 301's. I control it either by the keyboard and mouse with a long usb extension, or via my MacBook running Chicken Of VNC (with Vine Server running on the Mini).

I LOVE this set up and everyone who comes to the house is amazed by it. At first they think its running off of the MB, but then when I point out the Mini, they cannot believe that the Mini is actually the computer. Then they usually gasp or say "Oh my god" or something when I launch front row with the remote. Its kinda funny... everyone really loves (REALLY) watching movie trailers through front row. I now have several friends and family members who want the same set up, but alas, do not have HDTV's to get the full benefit ( I know about the s-video adapter, but that's kinda lame).

If they do kill the Mini, they absolutely need to replace it with something in the same price range. They really do need to come out with another "cube" or something along those lines but with a full size HDD bay, and possibly a heftier GPU.

Please :apple: .... dont shoot yourself in the foot. I have faith. ;)

[MacsRgr8]

IIRC the mini was introduced as a switchers-Mac. BYODKM was intended for those who already had a decent display and USB keyboard & mouse but were running Windoze.

But, the Mac mini seemed an excellent computer for other purposes:

- Mac media centre: Since the introduction of the Apple remote, the Core Duo's speed combined with the optical audio and DVI this Mac became the ideal media player to hook up to your LCD TV and Dolby Digital speakers.
- Small server: Because no D,K,M (as these are not needed for running a server) were shipped with this Mac, buying the 10-user version of Mac OS X Server could be a good, cheap alternative for the high-end Xserve. It is small, QUIET, and tnx to it's USB 2 and FireWire ports "expandable" enough for serving a very small business.
- Extra Mac: I know many people who already owned a Mac, but wanted another one for a family member who hardly ever uses a computer but occasionally likes to check email, surf the web and import photos. The Mac mini is cheap, and powerful enough for low-end use.

In other words, the Mac mini is a small versatile cute little Mac that has found many more purposes than being the switchers Mac.

Apple knows this, and must acknowledge the market the Mac mini has created for itself. I'm sure that if Apple EOL'd the mini they will introduce something similar.

[Butthead]

where the **** are you going to fit anything?

you couldn't fit a hard drive, memory, or a processor in that thing.

only an optical drive.


THE MINI CAN'T GET ANY SMALLER.

I can see the Mac Mini being EOL, for an an updated model (not discontinued as AI has been wrong before...has Digitimes reported the Mac Mini being discontinued, no? Then it's safe to say AI is wrong again, lol). Both the MB and Mini using the same old components, would be logical for both to be upgraded to SR and integrated GPU, all to keep costs low & profit margins higher.

I don't really like the Mini, other than you can upgrade to the screen of your choice/size/resolution...it being separate from the screen is more of a liability to me. I think I'd rather have a AIO or really a redesigned smaller iMac.

An under $1k (say, same price as current 2Ghz Mini) lowest price Merom Santa Rosa w/Integrated GPU- iMac with only the entire screen up front, with all electronics on the backside of the screen (the Hi-def 17in from the MBP?), that maximizes space efficiency. I don't really care for the 'excess' bulk underneath the screen on the iMac (design decision by Apple, but I'd rather they make a slighting thicker screen housing, and move all completely behind the screen). The Apple logo, now on that fuggly excess real estate below the screen, could go on the pedestal stand. That would make for a much sleeker/cleaner lines looking 'statement' smaller/sexier machine.

Could keep the lower-priced Merom Integrated GPU solution on such a machine, when the high-performance SR/Penryn's & faster discrete GPU's eventually make it into the pricier iMac's next year.

[julianps]

I'd be all over a consumer tower, but just don't see it happening.

I suspect a smaller form factor or a merge of the Apple-TV / mini.


Where can I start an AppleTV EOL rumour?

:D

[gkarris]

Where can I start an AppleTV EOL rumour?

:D

Already talking about it here...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=364839

[Consultant]

I believe that Apple needs something on the lower end, whether it be Mac Mini or something similiar.

I just came into a new church four months ago. I inherited a computer that was on its last legs (766 MHz Pentium 3). It also had a monitor that was doing weird things.

The first thing to be replaced was the monitor (it was the part that was most obvious in need of repair. The P3 was able to (sort of) do what I needed it to do (word processing, email). However, when the church wanted a website, the P3 was simply not up to the task of running Dreamweaver, and thus I had a chance to get a new computer.

I wanted a Mac, the Chairman of the Finance Committee felt that I needed something that would run Windows (for "file compatibility" issues). Nothing would change his mind, so I "compromised" with a Mac Mini bundle from MacMall that included XP and boot camp. Everyone was happy with that decision. I had my Mac, I could show them, "See, it runs Windows XP just fine!" and no one has to worry about me not being able to read the documents sent by the Secretary.

My point is this: if the cheapest Mac had been more expensive, I would not have been able to convince the Finance Chairman to let me get one. Because it was as cheap as it was, another office is using a Mac, and another "Switch" has taken place.

If Apple wants more and more people to keep switching, they need to continue to offer a cost effective way to do so, which is what the Mac Mini provides.

That's great!

Everybody, don't forget it's a QUIET computer too. For a PC desktop to be quiet, it's at least a few hundred in the cooling system alone...

[TigerPRO]

I have a theory that everyone loves the Mac mini, but they don't have the same interest is actually buying it. I feel the same way. It's a sweet concept that you can imagine being extremely useful, but in reality, most people don't end up actually buying it. They need to lower the price by at least $200. Then it would have more of its own demographic instead of just catching the fringe of customers who are too poor to buy an iMac (another one of my theories).

[OdduWon]

I have a theory that everyone loves the Mac mini, but they don't have the same interest is actually buying it. I feel the same way. It's a sweet concept that you can imagine being extremely useful, but in reality, most people don't end up actually buying it. They need to lower the price by at least $200. Then it would have more of its own demographic instead of just catching the fringe of customers who are too poor to buy an iMac (another one of my theories).

this is the exact truth. the mini is a good idea, but when you actually make it a functioning computer you may as well have bought a MB. they need to take the mini in the direction of the ipod. a mobile storage unit for the "iLife" that can be displayed and deployed without the need of tech savyness. ie an ipod macro that you can bring your "collection" with you to entertain and enlighten. just having a small computer is not good enough a marketing ploy to bring this system to the public, it needs the apple flash and innovation.

[gkarris]

I have a theory that everyone loves the Mac mini, but they don't have the same interest is actually buying it. I feel the same way. It's a sweet concept that you can imagine being extremely useful, but in reality, most people don't end up actually buying it. They need to lower the price by at least $200. Then it would have more of its own demographic instead of just catching the fringe of customers who are too poor to buy an iMac (another one of my theories).

Yeah, I wasn't going to buy it. Then I thought, hey, I can put together a PC that's twice the power for the same price.

It worked, until I tried to actually use the PC for something as "trivial" as capturing and editing a video and burning a DVD..

Well, after several different upgrades, capture cards, many different software, and over $1,100 instead of the $599, the PC *still* wouldn't work properly.

I went and got a Mini ($579 educator's discount). At least the last two things I bought were a FW video capture unit and a FW external DVD burner which work fine on a Mac...

So, the cheaper Mini, yes is "weaker", but at least does what I tried to do with a more expensive PC...

[flyinmac]

I don't really like the Mini, other than you can upgrade to the screen of your choice/size/resolution...it being separate from the screen is more of a liability to me. I think I'd rather have a AIO or really a redesigned smaller iMac.



To me, the fact that it lacks a built-in monitor is it's strongest selling point.

The lack of an Apple monitor being built-in, is the only thing I really like about the mini (well, it's a fine machine, just a poor price for what it is).

Once you've been through as many iMac screen issues as I have, you learn to avoid the iMac like the plague. The iMac would be an ideal machine for me if it did not include a built-in monitor (given my history with them).

I've had enough iMac screens die (which negatively affects the machine's value and negates it's all-in-one purpose), to know that a built-in monitor is really a weakness.

So, when I was in the market for a new machine, I looked only at two models. The Mac Pro and the Mac Mini.

The mini was over-priced for being a lower-spec entry level machine. The Pro was over-priced for my needs (being much more computer than I needed).

But, given only the two options without a built-in monitor, I went with the Pro.

If the mini had a dedicated GPU and a 7200 R.P.M. hard drive, I would have purchased the mini.

Really, even with it's lower specs, the mini is a better machine from my perspective than the iMac simply because the mini lets me supply my own "good" monitor.

And, if the monitor I have dies, I just get another one. I am not stuck paying Apple's premium for an out of warranty monitor repair (assuming they have some available), and the lack of a monitor doesn't affect either the Mini's or the Pro's value (since they are expected to be without a monitor).

I was fortunate that all my dead and defective monitors were covered by Apple's warranty. But, if I had run past the warranty period, it would have been a very costly repair (about $900 for each replacement screen).

The benefit of an external monitor, is that if it dies, you just replace it for a low price between $50 and $200. Much better than $900.

And, as an added bonus, you don't lose the use of your machine. For example, if I had an external monitor and a mini, I could just replace the screen same day (with a new one). Or, if it were under warranty and needed to wait for repair, I could use either a loaner or a cheap $5 thrift-store monitor to keep using my machine while I waited for the replacement monitor to arrive.

In the case of the iMac, I was without a computer at all for the couple weeks that I had to wait for Apple to come up with a replacement panel. Since they had the whole computer, all I could do was wait until they got it back to me.

But, if it had been a two piece unit, my downtime would have been eliminated.

It's kind of like the television with a built-in DVD player. When you take the DVD player to the repair shop, you lose the television as well.

[shikimo]

this is the exact truth. the mini is a good idea, but when you actually make it a functioning computer you may as well have bought a MB. they need to take the mini in the direction of the ipod. a mobile storage unit for the "iLife" that can be displayed and deployed without the need of tech savyness. ie an ipod macro that you can bring your "collection" with you to entertain and enlighten. just having a small computer is not good enough a marketing ploy to bring this system to the public, it needs the apple flash and innovation.

I see the logic...but the fact that the little guy has sold so freakin' well kind of ruins the argument. Don't forget, Apple is in business to make money, and the mini has made them lots and lots of it. No way they will just abandon this corner of the market that they helped create and that they do very well in.

[Decrepit]

I have a theory that everyone loves the Mac mini, but they don't have the same interest is actually buying it. I feel the same way. It's a sweet concept that you can imagine being extremely useful, but in reality, most people don't end up actually buying it. They need to lower the price by at least $200. Then it would have more of its own demographic instead of just catching the fringe of customers who are too poor to buy an iMac (another one of my theories).

I bought the original Mini as soon as I knew it would come with 10.4.

I will SERIOUSLY consider buying a new Mini if they rev it again. I don't need a new one, since this one still works perfectly. But a little quicker, and the ability to switch over to / run Windows on it means I can relegate my main PC to a footrest.

The lack of screen let's me use my current 24" LCD through a KVM. This 24" replaced the 20" and 18" before it. I don't need Mac Pro power, so the Mini is absolutely perfect for me.

So, as to your theory in at least one case, Apple has sold one unit, and probably two so far by creating a silent and small computer that I can use my other gear with.

[flyinmac]

I bought the original Mini as soon as I knew it would come with 10.4.

I will SERIOUSLY consider buying a new Mini if they rev it again. I don't need a new one, since this one still works perfectly. But a little quicker, and the ability to switch over to / run Windows on it means I can relegate my main PC to a footrest.

The lack of screen let's me use my current 24" LCD through a KVM. This 24" replaced the 20" and 18" before it. I don't need Mac Pro power, so the Mini is absolutely perfect for me.

So, as to your theory in at least one case, Apple has sold one unit, and probably two so far by creating a silent and small computer that I can use my other gear with.

I have a G4 Mini. But, as mentioned in my previous post, when it came time to chose a new (more powerful) system, I went with the Mac Pro. My experience with the iMac's taught me to avoid them.

But, the new Mini just wasn't a compelling upgrade from my G4 mini (especially for the price they want out of them).

A mini would be my first choice between an iMac and a Mini. If the iMac were the only option, then I'd probably get a PC.

[Andrmgic]

I feel that the mini is a good choice for first-time mac purchasers who don't particularly want a notebook that isn't a macbook pro and don't want to drop $2k on their first mac or need a computer with another monitor.

I fit into this category, so I'll be buying a mini when the opportunity presents itself. I intend to use it as a living room computer and I can't think of a better machine to suit that purpose.. it is small, quiet, powerful processor, bluetooth, wifi and an Apple remote + front row.. can't think of anything better than that for the purpose.

I ordered my wireless keyboard and mouse today.. the mini itself is next on the list.

[flyinmac]

I feel that the mini is a good choice for first-time mac purchasers who don't particularly want a notebook that isn't a macbook pro and don't want to drop $2k on their first mac or need a computer with another monitor.

I fit into this category, so I'll be buying a mini when the opportunity presents itself. I intend to use it as a living room computer and I can't think of a better machine to suit that purpose.. it is small, quiet, powerful processor, bluetooth, wifi and an Apple remote + front row.. can't think of anything better than that for the purpose.

I ordered my wireless keyboard and mouse today.. the mini itself is next on the list.

Yes, the mini is a great choice for those reasons.

Myself, I looked at from another perspective. I looked at it's features and component design, and it really is over-priced for that feature set.

The majority of it's value is solely that it is a Mac. Which counts for a lot. It's just that the machine's design by itself doesn't warrant the price tag.

I combined that with the factor of whether it was a compelling upgrade / significant update to my Mac Mini G4. And, in that instance, it was a minor update in some areas and a small downgrade in another. So, when I combined that with the price tag, I just couldn't do it.

But, yes, if I was looking to test the waters as cheaply as possible, the mini would be ideal.

I actually got my mini got about $375 at the time I got it (it was only a couple of months old). So, comparing the machine I got for $375 (with warranty and all - just not brand new), I had a hard time looking at $600 to $800 for something that was only a small improvement overall. Especially after the old ones (which still compare favorably) sold for $499 and $599.

Where they tend to lose value to me, is when I compare how close they get to an iMac in price (once configured with a monitor and similar specs), but how far they are behind in performance items.

For example, if I configured a mini around a total price comparable to an entry level iMac, you'd get a Mini with a much slower hard drive (which is also much smaller), and a huge step down in terms of graphical performance.

But, in the Mini's favor, it lacks a built-in monitor.

It's just hard to look at spending as much as an iMac, and getting much less.

I'd pay iMac price to get iMac specs without the built-in monitor. But, I won't spend iMac price to get a machine with significantly lower specs than the iMac.

So, in my case, I went Mac Pro for only a few hundred dollars more than a configured high-end iMac.

Really, the lack of the built-in monitor is the Mini's strength in my opinion. If it came with iMac specs at iMac price, but without the monitor, it would be a must have machine.

But, yes, I agree from a pure minimal investment in testing the waters perspective, the mini would be the way to go.

[Decrepit]

Really, the lack of the built-in monitor is the Mini's strength in my opinion. If it came with iMac specs at iMac price, but without the monitor, it would be a must have machine.

But, yes, I agree from a pure minimal investment in testing the waters perspective, the mini would be the way to go.


*IF* a Mac Mini sized system, with excellent power management were to be released with better specs, I'd buy that for sure. I like the size, I like the silence. But my G4 Mini spins the fans up on YouTube videos.

I really just want a machine that can handle heavy duty work once in a while, but can clock down to a very low speed when I'm just writing a paper.

[flyinmac]

*IF* a Mac Mini sized system, with excellent power management were to be released with better specs, I'd buy that for sure. I like the size, I like the silence. But my G4 Mini spins the fans up on YouTube videos.

I really just want a machine that can handle heavy duty work once in a while, but can clock down to a very low speed when I'm just writing a paper.

Yep, a more powerful Mini would be a great system.

In my experience, the absolute only thing I could find that really made me wish I had more power than my Mini G4 had, was when it came to encoding DVD content in iDVD.

It did it. But, it took a while.

Otherwise, if it wasn't for iDVD, I'd have a hard time distinguishing the performance of the Mac Mini G4 from my Mac Pro Quad 2.66 GHz.

Of course, the Mini had 1 GB of RAM.

For daily stuff, you really can't find a flaw in a G4 Mini.

For video playing, I didn't have any complaints either. It did really well.

But, for encoding DVD content (as in creating your own DVD's), it did slow down a bit. That was the main area that prompted me to get a newer higher-end system. And, the Mini CoreDuo that had been available up until last month (or was it the month before that), just wasn't a compelling step up for the price being asked.

If you already have a G4 Mini, I'd probably still hold-out for a much better Mini than you can get now if you are after a Mini-Type system.

[PCMacUser]

So, the cheaper Mini, yes is "weaker", but at least does what I tried to do with a more expensive PC...

No offense intended, but it sounds like your experience with your PC was due to either a lack of knowledge, or faulty hardware. Windows XP and Windows Vista both come with the software required to do what you specified. And it's easy to use too.

[Royale w/cheese]

No, just no. The average consumer doesn't want to type on a keyboard on their lap in front of a TV. MS already tried this, it is just not useful enough. The point of the Apple TV was to simplify the watching of content stored on your Mac on your TV. Nobody wants to navigate OS X on their TV just to view/listen to iTS content. The best thing Apple could do, is to add DVR function to the Apple TV and charge a monthly fee like TiVo does. Included with the monthly fee, is a set value of hours of free downloads from iTS. Apple needs to do this to match Amazon's Unbox service which is tied to TiVo. Even though not many people use that service now, it is an indicator of where the industry is heading. So users would essentially have access to the iTS on the new Apple TV. Mac OS X is not meant to be on TVs in it's current form.

Funny, I do just this. =/ My Mini is hooked up to my TV, where it serves as file server, print server, iTunes master / iPod syncer, media player, DVD player, and occasional video game system (WoW and old system emulators, which a computer + TV system is amazing at).

Okay, I'm not the average consumer. But I'm not nobody either, I swear! :)

Incidentally, the new tiny Bluetooth keyboard is the element that makes this all work well. Super-light and smart, and fits neatly and unobtrusively on my coffee table.

My thoughts exactly. My mini is just this. It has never even been hooked up to a real monitor, (considering a Sony 42" LCD with every input you can imagine is not a real monitor) And I love it. It is my media center/server. With a 750gig external hooked to it, I think it will go an even longer way. And its a CORE SOLO! I have/had almost every mac in recent history, but for some reason, this is my favorite. I think it is becuase I know it is for relaxation. I am not required to work on it. Even though it is more than capable, despite being the weakest of all the intels.

I would buy one for every room in my house, if I spent more time at home.:D

[twoodcc]

I would buy one for every room in my house, if I spent more time at home.:D

now that would be an awesome house!

[Half Glass]

I would love a mini, if it had a better graphics card. I don't need or want to spend 1100-1400 on an iMac just so I can play games.

The original Mini had an integrated GPU, an ATI chip. Why doesn't Apple do that again?

The EOL question for either the Apple TV or the Mini is valid, IMHO. Notice that Front Row is now a part of Leopard. It did not used to be on all Macs, ie not the MacPro. Remember beta testing of Leopard showed the Front Row interface and it was THE AppleTv interface, it even said "AppleTv."

End the AppleTv, throw a GPU in the Mini, and I'll take two, and then more when each of my kids needs their own machine.

My $.02

--HG

[hayesk]

exactly...there's no reason why not to wait...unless you are extremely impatient

Or you consider a computer to be a tool and not a toy. If you need a computer now to do work, then you need it. The work won't do itself while you wait until January (or February by the time your order arrives).

[hayesk]

*IF* a Mac Mini sized system, with excellent power management were to be released with better specs, I'd buy that for sure. I like the size, I like the silence. But my G4 Mini spins the fans up on YouTube videos.

I really just want a machine that can handle heavy duty work once in a while, but can clock down to a very low speed when I'm just writing a paper.

The Intel Mac mini's fan does not spin up on YouTube videos. YouTube videos take quite a bit of processor time - especially for a G4 - but it's not so taxing for a Core 2 Duo.

But seriously the only real complaint with the Mac mini seems to be the video card - if you are not a hard core gamer, then the Mac mini is just fine for most personal needs.

[hayesk]

The original Mini had an integrated GPU, an ATI chip. Why doesn't Apple do that again?

It could be a number of factors. It could be newer GPUs don't fit (with proper cooling) in the Mac mini. It could be price.

Remember though, that the Intel graphics are faster than the old ATI GPU in the PPC Mac minis.

End the AppleTv, throw a GPU in the Mini, and I'll take two, and then more when each of my kids needs their own machine.


I'm a bit confused. The onboard graphics on the mini are more than enough for AppleTV features. It's only really 3D games that suffer.

[Yvan256]

It could be a number of factors. It could be newer GPUs don't fit (with proper cooling) in the Mac mini. It could be price.

Remember though, that the Intel graphics are faster than the old ATI GPU in the PPC Mac minis.

I'm a bit confused. The onboard graphics on the mini are more than enough for AppleTV features. It's only really 3D games that suffer.

Which is a shame for casual gamers like me. I plan on playing Starcraft 2, but the GPU in the current Mac mini is not good enough according to Blizzard developers.

But yes, aside from the intel GPU and its shared memory, the Mac mini is more than enough for most people, including video editing. The official max RAM is 2GiB although I think it can go as high as 3GB (paired RAM or not) which should be more than enough for regular users.

[flyinmac]

It could be a number of factors. It could be newer GPUs don't fit (with proper cooling) in the Mac mini. It could be price.

Remember though, that the Intel graphics are faster than the old ATI GPU in the PPC Mac minis.


I'm a bit confused. The onboard graphics on the mini are more than enough for AppleTV features. It's only really 3D games that suffer.

Well, that's not entirely true.

I've had my G4 mini outperform an Intel Mini in some graphical areas. In others, it generally comes out pretty comparable.

But, the Intel Mini's have had issues with stuttering video and such when playing some H.264 titles (although it's been a while since I read those complaints, so I don't recall which ones).

It's not only 3D games that are going to suffer by using an integrated video chip. It's anything that needs to render graphics (as in not simply playing a video, but actually producing the effect). So, that could be a variety of tasks that are not games (including tasks in iMovie).

But, generally, I would look at the comparison between the integrated graphics in the new mini and the dedicated graphics in the old mini as being somewhat comparable. But, the new mini would still lose out in certain aspects.

Dedicated graphics cards with dedicated graphics memory will generally fare better than even a slightly more capable integrated graphics system with shared memory.

And, of course there's the embarrassing situation of the Mini's integrated graphics system robbing main memory on the Intel systems. If you have a system with 512 MB of RAM (as they were shipping), and you lose 80 MB off the top for graphics and overhead (64 MB video and 16 for overhead), the situation isn't looking so nice.

That gives your system essentially 432 MB of RAM as a starting point. OS X takes some, and your programs take some. It's not a pretty picture unless you upgrade your memory.

But, then people have reported that the cap is not physically set at 80 MB. It's supposed to be (according to the documents I had read previously). But, people were quick to correct me and state that their systems provided more memory to the graphics system as needed. So, where does it end? How much memory do you need to insure that you have enough for your program and your graphical needs?

If you do anything with graphics, then I would personally steer towards a system with dedicated graphics memory and a dedicated graphics processor.

As for fitting, that shouldn't be an issue. They fit one in the smaller MacBook Pro, they fit one in the older Mini, and they fit one in the iMac. All those machines have very cramped spaces for cooling the components. Sure, they are a little wider, but they are also much thinner.

[decadentdave]

Which is a shame for casual gamers like me. I plan on playing Starcraft 2, but the GPU in the current Mac mini is not good enough according to Blizzard developers.

But yes, aside from the intel GPU and its shared memory, the Mac mini is more than enough for most people, including video editing. The official max RAM is 2GiB although I think it can go as high as 3GB (paired RAM or not) which should be more than enough for regular users.


For the price of the mini you could buy a new PS3 if you want a gaming machine. The Mac platform has never been engineered to be a gaming platform and I'll concede the GPU in the Mac Mini isn't powerful enough to support gaming but if I wanted to play games I'd just buy a gaming console. I have a PS2 and an Xbox which just sit in the cabinent gathering dust because I don't find time to play games anymore.

[Royale w/cheese]

Maybe I am deaf, or have my TV up too loud, but I hardly ever hear my fans spin up on my core solo, even when watching youtube videos. In fact, when I do hear them, I wonder for a second what the noise is. I am going to try it right now.

Oh, come on. It is not even as loud as my harddrive on my G4. :rolleyes:

[Eidorian]

While Flash is terrible under OS X, I haven't heard my fans spin up on my Mac mini while viewing flash content.

[Decrepit]

While Flash is terrible under OS X, I haven't heard my fans spin up on my Mac mini while viewing flash content.

If I open activity monitor, then open up a YouTube video, my CPU utilization goes to 100%.

I updated Flash, but was only a few sub-sub revisions behind, and it now peaks around 95%. So there was some improvement there.

We'll see how Leopard handles it all. I should know next weekend. :-) I double checked with the bookstore where I pre-ordered, and they said I was on their reserved list for the first 5 copies they have on order.

[MacBiscuit]

this is the exact truth. the mini is a good idea, but when you actually make it a functioning computer you may as well have bought a MB. they need to take the mini in the direction of the ipod. a mobile storage unit for the "iLife" that can be displayed and deployed without the need of tech savyness. ie an ipod macro that you can bring your "collection" with you to entertain and enlighten. just having a small computer is not good enough a marketing ploy to bring this system to the public, it needs the apple flash and innovation.

I disagree. I've been using a Mac Mini for a couple of years, and it's absolutely fine. Not everybody wants an all-in-one or a laptop with small screen. The only thing it can't do is play games. For a cheap user-friendly photoshop machine it's terrific. Let's not forget that even a basic Mac Mini is as fast as the pro machines from only a few years ago. If if was good enough then...

[Eidorian]

If I open activity monitor, then open up a YouTube video, my CPU utilization goes to 100%.

I updated Flash, but was only a few sub-sub revisions behind, and it now peaks around 95%. So there was some improvement there.

We'll see how Leopard handles it all. I should know next weekend. :-) I double checked with the bookstore where I pre-ordered, and they said I was on their reserved list for the first 5 copies they have on order.I'm using the current Flash beta as well.

I'll give a look at processor usage.

[Yvan256]

For the price of the mini you could buy a new PS3 if you want a gaming machine. The Mac platform has never been engineered to be a gaming platform and I'll concede the GPU in the Mac Mini isn't powerful enough to support gaming but if I wanted to play games I'd just buy a gaming console. I have a PS2 and an Xbox which just sit in the cabinent gathering dust because I don't find time to play games anymore.

I never asked or wished for the Mac mini to be a "gaming platform". In fact I already own a Wii and a bunch of older consoles. The PS3 and Xbox 360 are both overpriced for what they offer.

However, games such as Starcraft 2 are never released on consoles because they require a keyboard and a mouse, hence my Mac mini GPU comment.

[DakotaGuy]

I still think that they might merge the Mac Mini and Apple TV into one product the MacTV. A multimedia center that offers the same features that the Apple TV has, but also has an optical drive and the ability to use regular computer applications. They could even design a cool wireless keyboard with a built in trackpad to go along with the remote.

[Donnacha]

I still think that they might merge the Mac Mini and Apple TV into one product the MacTV. A multimedia center that offers the same features that the Apple TV has, but also has an optical drive and the ability to use regular computer applications. They could even design a cool wireless keyboard with a built in trackpad to go along with the remote.
Full :apple:TV functionality/outputs would, without a doubt, be a major selling point for any new version of the Mini.

If Apple could persuade people to spend $600 on a mobile phone on the basis that it was really 3 different devices, I imagine they could market an :apple:TV/Mini in much the same way; I'm sure a lot of people would consider it a $299/$399 added value that competing Dell/HP systems could not match.

[mikes63737]

The mini was the first mac i ever owned and it was so fantastic that I now own $4k+ of apple products. This is a fantastic machine for switchers... I never would have switched without it.
They need to keep it for switchers.

[Decrepit]

The mini was the first mac i ever owned and it was so fantastic that I now own $4k+ of apple products. This is a fantastic machine for switchers... I never would have switched without it.
They need to keep it for switchers.

I switched back for the Mini. If Apple doesn't have a product in the Mini category when I need to upgrade, they'll lose me again.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I disagree. I've been using a Mac Mini for a couple of years, and it's absolutely fine. Not everybody wants an all-in-one or a laptop with small screen. The only thing it can't do is play games. For a cheap user-friendly photoshop machine it's terrific. Let's not forget that even a basic Mac Mini is as fast as the pro machines from only a few years ago. If if was good enough then...True, Mini was given a major handicap for the sake of iMac and that was integrated graphics. A simple option of a low end gpu and Mini would be all grown up. Its the old Apple philosophy of crippling one model line for the sake of another. Ill admit our Mini has also been terrific...G4 1.25/9200 (real gpu).

[juxtaposer]

I don't see the reason for merging the :apple:TV and the Mac Mini - surely Front Row is good enough? My Mac Mini has served me well and has helped me switch from the horror that was Audio Editing on Windows. Not a single file corrupted or mysteriously vanished and I am really enjoying how Logic handles itself on this tiny little box. If it hadn't been for a low-end :apple: machine, I believe I would still be using Windows. Where as now I am about to buy a MacBook in two weeks and upgrade to Mac Pro next summer (using the Mini as a media centre and visitor's machine). I just don't see the reasoning behind getting rid of this amazing little box! :confused:
Juxtaposer :apple:

[CRAZYBUBBA]

Too expensive! I'm waiting for the Mac Shuffle.

Which would include what?

[Dont Hurt Me]

They are making room for the new Mac Semi-Pro ;)

Seriously, it would be a real shame if they dropped the mini completely. :(
Welcome the new........"Macintosh"

[Brianstorm91]

It's too expensive/underpowered for its' price.

There are various Windows machines for a comparable price with better features.

As much as it pains me to say it.

[mrfrosty]

It's too expensive/underpowered for its' price.

There are various Windows machines for a comparable price with better features.

As much as it pains me to say it.

Yeah but none of them run OSX and that's what it's all about. Of course you can run OSX86 but it's not quite the same experience.

[juxtaposer]

It's too expensive/underpowered for its' price.

There are various Windows machines for a comparable price with better features.

As much as it pains me to say it.

Not even half-true. The Mac Mini does exactly what it says on the tin. It runs OS X, and has performed remarkably well in all applications that I have ran. If I wanted it for games or for GPU-intensive work, then I would've bought another machine that met those needs. And the price as far as I'm concerned is good value for what I have got out of the Mini. All-in-all, it is a great switcher's Mac, and not only that but it's also a great Mac in general for it's price.

[gregorsamsa]

All-in-all, it is a great switcher's Mac, and not only that but it's also a great Mac in general for it's price.

I agree, but I'd still add a Mini-plus with discrete graphics to the Mini range for those that find its graphics insufficient & don't like AIOs with glossy screens.

[Synchro]

I have 7 Intel Mac Minis running Ubuntu as web, mail and db servers. I also have a Dell 1850 (dual dual-core Xeon 3.0) server. Even a 1.8 Core2 Mini has a much faster (at least 2x per core) CPU than the Dell, which is not bad considering they are about 18% the price.

I was at a school the other day and they were running a promo video/slideshow on a big screen with a Mini taped to the back of it - instant iMac!

I've heard Mac Nano rumours from other independent sources too.

[Synchro]

It's too expensive/underpowered for its' price.

There are various Windows machines for a comparable price with better features.

Show us some? The only ones I've seen that are the same size have piddly C3 CPUs on Epia boards, not Core2s. Things like Shuttle's barebones boxes are kind of cute (as only cheap steel pressings can be), but they are also >8x the size of a mini, and no cheaper.

[twoodcc]

The mini was the first mac i ever owned and it was so fantastic that I now own $4k+ of apple products. This is a fantastic machine for switchers... I never would have switched without it.
They need to keep it for switchers.

the mini was my first mac also. it's now my brother's first and only mac.

i think i've bought 6 macs total, sold 4 of them :cool:

[CyberBob859]

I think there are a few things to consider when trying to determine the fate of the Mac Mini, and a possible replacement.

1st, when the Mini was introduced (the G4 models), Apple was called "Apple Computer" and their primary focus of the Mini line was to win over Windows users.

Since then, they've dropped "Computer" from their name, and while I think they still want to win over Windows users, their primary focus now is to become a larger presence in the general consumer electronics market.

2nd, Apple is not stupid, and they know how their customers use their products, looking for new features to put into future machines, and to spot trends. So, it hasn't escaped them that a number of Mac Mini sales are being used as media centers, in which their customers are figuring out how to use the machine for a function they never intended.

3rd, if Apple wants to compete in the consumer electronics market, they can't afford to give up the living room to competitors like Sony, Microsoft, and Tivo. And what you find here are various devices with various capabilities with pricing from a few hundred dollars to a couple of thousand.

Steve Jobs has already said that the Apple TV is a "hobby" at this point, and I think that means that he wants to scope out this living room market to figure where Apple can thrive.

So, given all of that, here's my speculation on what Apple may do (FWIW):

The Mac Mini is dead because it doesn't fit the scope of what Apple wants to do anymore.

In its place will be a machine that can best be described as Apple Media Center computer. It will have component, HDMI, and DVI outputs (with an adapter for DVI that allows VGA connection) so you can hook it up to a variety of monitors and newer TV's.

When hooked up to TV's (via component or HDMI), the "Apple TV" Front Row interface is presented (which has already been demonstrated for Leopard), and you navigate through it with the remote control.

If an LCD monitor is hooked up via DVI, along with a keyboard and mouse, you have the new OS/X Leopard interface. The original intent of the Mac Mini line is preserved, by trying to woo Windows users, where they can supply their own keyboard, mouse, and monitor from their older machine.

The "Apple Media Center" will have a DVD drive with improved video capabilites (already demonstrated and announced in Leopard), which will help for TV viewing.

Apple has already expressed a renewed interest in gaming, so if this Media Center will be hooked up to a TV, there will be a need to have game controllers available. So, I expect some type of controller announcement also.

I don't think they're going to get into the DVR market, but rather continue to focus efforts to sell or rent movies and/or TV shows through iTunes, and view video over the web. This allows residual sales beyond the initial sale of the device, whereas a DVR does not (and also complicates setup.)

Because it is a computer, it can be fully networked and find other instances of iTunes (Mac or Windows) on a network so content can be viewed on a TV or monitor. Photos from iPhoto can be fully viewed.

Hardware will be at least a 2.0 Ghz Core 2 Duo processor with an ATi graphics chip (to handle the gaming.) I think there will be two models, differentiated by processor speed, graphics chip, and/or hard drive capability. Pricing will be close to the Mac Mini line now, but maybe a little higher. I think the "low end" goes for around $699 and the "high end" for $899.

The Apple TV line stays for those that don't want the gaming and DVD features of the full Apple Media computer, and want just an "iPod for their TV." But what will be interesting is that the Apple TV can be a "media extender" for the full Apple Media Center. The hard drive capabilities will be bumped up, bugs fixed, and a few features added, but there will still be two models at $299 and $399.

This gives Apple a presence at different price points for the living room, providing more capabilities and power at higher prices, while still offering a computer to convert Windows users.

All speculation on my part, but I think this is where Apple is going (or at least close to it.)

[ktbubster]

if that ended up happening... I'd buy one of those in a heart beat. I already am planning on getting a mini for a second computer/media pc to add to my tv set up already... but with a slightly better graphics card and apple tv capabilities that would make it a perfect system. Apple's own controller to go with it would be kinda neat too, although you can get a decent amount of USB controllers already, but with the mini also able to run windows (under intel) that might not be a bad market for apple to get into for externals too... who knows

Either way... if they combined some tv features with the mini and those things I'd definitely buy one in a second. :)

[motulist]

It'd be tremendously stupid of Apple to kill off the Mac Mini without replacing it with a similarly targeted product. My Mom has been pestering me to get a Mac for her, but she isn't willing to spend much money on it until she tries it out for a while to decide if she really wants to switch. So she's asked for my old G3 tower to try it out. But that wouldn't give her a great experience on the Mac, so I don't want her to get an unfairly poor impression of OS X just because she's using it on ancient hardware.

So I decided to get her a Mac Mini as soon as leopard comes out, because it'll totally do a great job for everything she'll want to do with it, I can afford it, and because it's an amount she'd be willing to pay if she decides to keep it. If the cheapest option was $850 for a refurb, then I'd probably just say forget it and buy her a used Mac.

As it is I think $600 is at the edge of being too expensive. Apple needs to have a product that'll perform everything that a casual user wants, at a reasonably competitive price.

[milo]

They'd be stupid to EOL the Mini without replacing it with something comparative and I'm not talking about a 'mid-ranged tower'. They need to keep a compact mac at the same price point. Maybe a mac nano will come out, who knows, however they can't get rid of it.

Why? Why the need for a mac that's so small? Most people just want something that's not huge. I'd much rather see the mini replaced with something a little bigger but with better features, it's a waste of money to build a desktop with laptop parts.

I see the logic...but the fact that the little guy has sold so freakin' well kind of ruins the argument. Don't forget, Apple is in business to make money, and the mini has made them lots and lots of it. No way they will just abandon this corner of the market that they helped create and that they do very well in.

Has it? How many have they sold? I thought apple didn't break out numbers on specific models, and I've never heard a report of minis selling particularly well.

Not even half-true. The Mac Mini does exactly what it says on the tin. It runs OS X, and has performed remarkably well in all applications that I have ran. If I wanted it for games or for GPU-intensive work, then I would've bought another machine that met those needs. And the price as far as I'm concerned is good value for what I have got out of the Mini. All-in-all, it is a great switcher's Mac, and not only that but it's also a great Mac in general for it's price.

No, it's completely true. It's overpriced for the specs, mainly because it uses laptop parts which are more expensive. Looking at hardware, you can get a much better machine for less on the PC side. A family member just replaced an iMac with a PC. I wanted to suggest a mini, but the PC she found was tons better bang for the buck, and OSX wasn't a big enough selling point to spend more and get worse hardware. I wish I could have made a case for the mini, but sadly I couldn't.

[yoppie]

I'm not buying the rumors that the Mac Mini is at the end of it's life. We hear that every time a new product is rumored to be released by Apple and yet it's still around. :rolleyes:

Of course, I have my own reasons for wanting it to hang around. I WANT ONE! :D

[juxtaposer]

No, it's completely true. It's overpriced for the specs, mainly because it uses laptop parts which are more expensive. Looking at hardware, you can get a much better machine for less on the PC side. A family member just replaced an iMac with a PC. I wanted to suggest a mini, but the PC she found was tons better bang for the buck, and OSX wasn't a big enough selling point to spend more and get worse hardware. I wish I could have made a case for the mini, but sadly I couldn't.
It depends on how you view it. The way I see it, the Mini is made by a reliable company with great customer support. The Mini also runs every aspect of OS X and it's applications fantastically well. The Mini is also a great Media Centre (with Front Row & remote included) and to top it all, it's remarkably quiet - almost silent in fact. The only desktop PC's that I have seen around the same price margin here in the UK are either horrific Dell boxes that I could never trust with my apps, or an equally ugly HP desktop. And without FireWire, the audio latency problems caused by USB are definitely not worth my time or money. So all in all, people buying a Mini get a decent package at a decent price. The "bang for my buck" that you talk of pales into insignificance, when in the months that I've had my machine, my friend (who bought a PC about a week after I got the Mini) has encountered problem after problem with Vista and compatibility issues with some of her hardware. I, on the other hand, have had no such problems and am still enjoying every aspect of owning an affordable - and reliable - Mac Mini. :)

[milo]

It depends on how you view it. The way I see it, the Mini is made by a reliable company with great customer support. The Mini also runs every aspect of OS X and it's applications fantastically well. The Mini is also a great Media Centre (with Front Row & remote included) and to top it all, it's remarkably quiet - almost silent in fact. The only desktop PC's that I have seen around the same price margin here in the UK are either horrific Dell boxes that I could never trust with my apps, or an equally ugly HP desktop. And without FireWire, the audio latency problems caused by USB are definitely not worth my time or money. So all in all, people buying a Mini get a decent package at a decent price. The "bang for my buck" that you talk of pales into insignificance, when in the months that I've had my machine, my friend (who bought a PC about a week after I got the Mini) has encountered problem after problem with Vista and compatibility issues with some of her hardware. I, on the other hand, have had no such problems and am still enjoying every aspect of owning an affordable - and reliable - Mac Mini. :)

You're really just changing the subject.

I'm saying the mini doesn't compare well to the hardware specs of PC's that are the same price or cheaper. Even firewire can be added for dirt cheap to a budget tower (you can even add multiple independent FW busses, making it even better than the mini).

Your response is that you think it's good enough. Good for you. But you're not really disputing what I've said.

[sananda]

Your response is that you think it's good enough. Good for you. But you're not really disputing what I've said.

does he have to dispute every point you made. can't he make his own points? can't he have his own set of priorities which allow him to say that he can, unlike you. make a case for the mini?

[juxtaposer]

You're really just changing the subject.

I'm saying the mini doesn't compare well to the hardware specs of PC's that are the same price or cheaper. Even firewire can be added for dirt cheap to a budget tower (you can even add multiple independent FW busses, making it even better than the mini).

Your response is that you think it's good enough. Good for you. But you're not really disputing what I've said.
I think if you read my post correctly, you would notice that I concurred with you that you could get a PC desktop with better specs for the same price or cheaper. I wasn't trying to dispute a single thing that you'd said. I was simply stating the fact that with a Mac you are not only paying for the specs but also for OS X, reliability, and if something does go wrong, great customer support.
It is 'Good for me', in fact it is great for me. As it means I can use my Mini for audio work with Logic while I'm at home (and then take my external HDD and mess with it at the studio), or use it as a media centre with my LCD TV when I'm feeling bored. I firmly believe that the Mini is amazingly well priced considering all of the factors and not just the specs.
Juxtaposer :apple:

[milo]

does he have to dispute every point you made. can't he make his own points? can't he have his own set of priorities which allow him to say that he can, unlike you. make a case for the mini?

Of course he can make whatever points he wants. I'm just pointing out that his points don't dispute the fact that the mini offers worse specs for the price, which he has claimed isn't true. The fact is, it is true.

I think if you read my post correctly, you would notice that I concurred with you that you could get a PC desktop with better specs for the same price or cheaper. I wasn't trying to dispute a single thing that you'd said.

Glad to hear you say that, I'm not sure why you said earlier that it's not true that you can get a cheaper PC with better specs.

[juxtaposer]

Glad to hear you say that, I'm not sure why you said earlier that it's not true that you can get a cheaper PC with better specs.
Sorry, no, even in my first reply I agreed with you that you can definitely get a PC with better specs than the Mini. The only problem being that I am not a fan of HP or Dell at all (just my own personal preference), and I wouldn't want to spend what I spent on the Mini without feeling reassured in my purchase. I agree that the Mini has got a hefty price on it's head, but for me (personal preference yet again), it was worth it for the reassurance of Apple's customer care. And also, it allowed me to discover Mac OS X without spending an arm and a leg on an iMac (and when I bought the Mini, the low-end iMacs still had poor specs i.e GMA 950), and then discovering it wasn't right for me.
Juxtaposer :)

[flyinmac]

I was simply stating the fact that with a Mac you are not only paying for the specs but also for OS X, reliability, and if something does go wrong, great customer support.

Strangely, I just don't see where you get that.

I'm one who at one time was really, really, really into computers. I've literally had multiple hundreds of computers since the early days before most people had ever seen a PC. Actually, some of my former computers even pre-date Apple's entry into the computer market (yes, there were computers before Apple, they were just different).

I've owned and used computers by almost every maker in the world. And, more platforms than I could possibly recount (in the early days there were more platforms than Apple or PC - almost every brand and model was a completely different platform).

And, sadly, I must admit, that the absolute only computers I've ever had fail (out of those hundreds, and hundreds of computers), were made by Apple.

Seriously. I have never had another single brand or type / platform of computer fail on me.

I know that it does happen. I won't deny that other makers have failures. But, seriously, the only failures I've had myself have been Apple products.

And, the customer service actually stinks. The only good service I've gotten on an Apple product has been from independent authorized service centers. Service and support through Apple has always been a series of calling in and getting bounced around through multiple reps, escalating to supervisors, then getting the run around, then getting denied service, and usually getting hung-up on a few times.

If it weren't for local independent shops, I would refuse to buy an Apple product.

My most recent issues were with iMacs. Two in a row (a year apart), that were complete duds and were constantly in the shop. I couldn't get them to work for more than a week or two before another part would fail. Then, I'd have to wait 2 weeks to a month for said part to become available and then wait for it to be installed.

Fortunately, I had a PC around to use (which has always been reliable). But, two machines a year apart and different revisions, and both wouldn't work for more than a week at a time before needing more service? That's hardly reliable.

Fortunately, my Mac Pro, iBook, and Mac Mini have been great. But, with the iMac issues that have seemed to prevail from the first G5 through now, it seems that they do have a hard time getting things right sometimes.

But, while I do love using Apple computers, I would never proclaim them to be of higher quality. And, I would absolutely never claim that Apple provides good service. Their independent service providers do have good service; but that isn't Apple, that's an authorized service center.

And, don't even get me started on the ridiculous run-around I got on the iPod Nano with them (they never did agree to fix it). Many weeks of arguing, and they got what they wanted, I eventually decided to quit wasting my time.

[juxtaposer]

As I stated though, I dislike Dell and HP. The main reason being that each time I bought a machine from either of them, I ended up with problems, and my experience was the same as the one you described having with Apple. Being sent from one place to another trying to get an explanation as to what had gone wrong or how I could replace my machine.
I have had no such problems with my Mac - so far. Since I got this little beauty, I have been amazed with how seamlessly everything seems to work together. Hardware and software both working with each other (rather than against each other as was my experience with PCs and Windows). Maybe you had a different experience to myself, but the point I made is still valid and I stand by it. Apple make more reliable products (from my experience) and their customer care was second-to-none (from my experience) as I spent my first day of Mac-ownership on the phone to their support line, who helped me get to grips with my new machine. :rolleyes:
Also, this article might shed some light on why I "mistakenly" believed the Mac to be a reliable machine - Apple No. 1 In Reliability (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=373695)

And so, back to the topic of the Mac Mini :rolleyes: I definitely hope that there is an update on it's way rather than just Apple giving up on the machine. This Mini has served me well, but if the MB's are getting an update then surely the Mini will get one to go alongside. An updated GPU as in the rumored new MB's and a speed bump would probably do the trick. As far as merging with the :apple:tv is concerned, I personally believe Front Row & the remote do a great job already on the media centre side. Also, a Mini Tower with an integrated GPU etc. wouldn't be too much to ask now would it? :p
Juxtaposer :apple:

[flyinmac]

I guess I just compare my experiences with Apple with those of the other companies.

First, having never had another brand computer fail. And some of those in the 80's were only $150 to $400 - different platforms that were cheaper. Remember during the 80's there were new companies and platforms coming and going every day. Some were cheap (like $140), some were expensive (like $10,000). But, none of them ever failed on me.

I have only a few experiences with tech support from other companies. Never from a computer company other than Apple, but rather from companies who's add-on products I've purchased.

1) Seagate: Way back when 10 Megabytes was an extraordinary amount of hard drive space, I purchased one of the latest technology drives (an RLL drive). At that point in time, every single hard drive made had a bunch of known defects. They'd come from the factory with a label indicating where the bad spots were on the drive so you could "map" them and tell the operating system to avoid using them. It was understood that all hard drives were defective, and that new bad spots would crop up from time to time. It was just a technology in it's infancy. But, I used my small Seagate drive (which was physically very large compared to today's drives). And, after a few months, I was just not personally happy with how many spots there were. But, it was well within accepted standards. I called Seagate, explained that the drive was working, but that I was just personally hoping for fewer bad spots. They immediately shipped me a new drive with no questions, and paid all expenses to handle the exchange. I didn't even have to guarantee it with a credit card. They just shipped it, and I sent the old one back after getting the new drive.

2) Some add-on memory I purchased from the back of a magazine in the 80's. A whopping 256 Kilobytes. It was of course IC chips back then. 8 chips to make up a bank of RAM. One chip was bad. I called, a new set of 8 was on the way. I don't think they even asked for the old stuff back (and memory was ridiculously expensive back then). 256 Kilobytes was probably as expensive then as 4 Gigabytes is now. And, that was just a little no-name company who's cheap ad I found in the classified section of a little magazine.

3) MacMice: A few years ago, I purchased a mouse from them. I ordered directly. And, after the warranty expired, I started having second thoughts about it. It worked fine. But, it just didn't seem to fit me anymore (personal issues). I called, and got a full 100% refund including shipping costs (again the warranty was expired).

4) My Compaq computer a few years ago. I ordered it. Then, later found that I could get one of the programs I ordered with it for less than the bundled price. I called Compaq to drop the package from the order (or cancel the order and re-order). They told me that it would cause the shipment of the system to be delayed. So, they offered to leave it in the package, but refunded the cost of that program to make the program free for me.

And, then there's Apple. They've yet to give me a straight answer on anything, or do anything that they promised they'd do to take care of me. All I've ever gotten is the run-around from them. But, fortunately, the local independent store is helpful and has taken care of my issues for me.

Admittedly, that isn't a whole lot of customer service experiences. But, then again, the best service is the one you never need.

Sure, the only computers I've ever had to ask for service on have been Apples. But, then again, it says something that Apple's computers have been the only ones which have ever failed on me.

And, with the prior experiences I've had with add-ons and upgrades that I mentioned above (all purchased separate of a computer), I would have expected much better for the price of a Mac.

If I can have a computer from the late 70's and early 80's last 20 years, why can't many of the Mac's I've owned survive more than a week at a time. Why can't I get service on a $1800 to $2500 computer that compares to the quality of service I can get on a $40 accessory?

I have had a few friendly phone calls with Apple. But, they all involved them selling me something. Calls with issues have all been met with no help.

But, hey, at least when Apple refuses to fix an iPod or a Mac, I can still use my portable CD-Player or PC.

I am glad that a local company is offering service now though. At least someone will keep fixing the things that Apple refuses.

I am glad you've had better luck. Hopefully that will continue if you find something defective. That's when all my issues with them come up. They're great when I don't require them to repair something.

[shikimo]

Why? Why the need for a mac that's so small? Most people just want something that's not huge. I'd much rather see the mini replaced with something a little bigger but with better features, it's a waste of money to build a desktop with laptop parts.

For you, perhaps...for me, nothing else would fit in the space that I have.

Has it? How many have they sold? I thought apple didn't break out numbers on specific models, and I've never heard a report of minis selling particularly well.

This is tricky...I did some honest, non-biased research and it seems that one can find an equal number of 'analysts' and 'specialists' who claim that the Mini is and is not selling well recently, so I retract the claim: The only evidence is that they still sell the thing, which seems to indicate that it does OK, but I realize that's not a logically sound argument so I won't make it.



No, it's completely true. It's overpriced for the specs, mainly because it uses laptop parts which are more expensive. Looking at hardware, you can get a much better machine for less on the PC side. A family member just replaced an iMac with a PC. I wanted to suggest a mini, but the PC she found was tons better bang for the buck, and OSX wasn't a big enough selling point to spend more and get worse hardware. I wish I could have made a case for the mini, but sadly I couldn't.

Speaking of not logically sound arguments, how can you say that the Mini is more expensive because it has different parts (i.e. laptop parts) and then argue that it is overpriced compared to PCs that use full-size desktop parts? Like it or not, the size is a big selling point for many of us, and there is nothing like the Mini anywhere. You are comparing Apples and oranges, so to speak: if the bottom line concerned nothing but a ratio between price and performance, the retail computer business would look a lot different than it does...

...and then throw in the OSX factor, the (almost) virus-free factor, the user-friendly factor, the not-having-to-deal-with-Microsoft factor: the 'bang-for-the-buck' value comparison between a mini and a low-end beige box becomes a matter of personal preference.

[gregorsamsa]

Also, this article might shed some light on why I "mistakenly" believed the Mac to be a reliable machine - Apple No. 1 In Reliability (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=373695)

Though I agree that Apple's reliability is very good, I think you're not seeing the bigger picture here. Regardless of your linked article, AFAIC, it's really a fallacy that Apple's computers are more reliable than similarly-priced PCs. It also places Apple on a pedestal impossible to live up to, so that on those rare occasions when a product-flaw does turn up, we often see a barrage of excessive & unfair criticisms.

I don't doubt your excellent experience of Mac computers. I've had my iBook for just over 2 years now & I'd say the same. However, I also know a number of people with non-budget PCs who haven't experienced any hardware problems for 7 or 8 years, despite regular use. What tends to drive down most PC companies overall reliability record is all those cheap, 90-day guarantee Dell PCs & the like, which of course Apple doesn't supply.

AFAIC, the only real difference between a Mac's reliability & most similarly-priced PCs is OS X. If OS X was available on a Sony or HP, I'm sure I'd consider such a purchase just as strongly as I'd consider buying another Mac.:)

[flyinmac]

If OS X was available on a Sony or HP, I'm sure I'd consider such a purchase just as strongly as I'd consider buying another Mac.:)

That's for sure. Given the price difference, I would actually consider HP, Compaq, Sony, or just about any of the better PC's first.

I still wouldn't go with a Dell, Gateway, Acer, or similar. But, I've had some great experiences with $400 to $600 HP and Compaq systems.

[saltyzoo]

First, having never had another brand computer fail. And some of those in the 80's were only $150 to $400 - different platforms that were cheaper. Remember during the 80's there were new companies and platforms coming and going every day. Some were cheap (like $140), some were expensive (like $10,000). But, none of them ever failed on me.

I have only a few experiences with tech support from other companies. Never from a computer company other than Apple, but rather from companies who's add-on products I've purchased.

No offense, but this simply isn't believable. I think you're having highly convenient selective memory. I agree with your basic point, but I don't believe the quote above for one second and frankly I find it hard to give you credibility because of it. Your point would stand better without the unrealistic claims.

And yes, I still have my TRS-80 with 48k RAM extension in a box in the attic.

[juxtaposer]

AFAIC, the only real difference between a Mac's reliability & most similarly-priced PCs is OS X. If OS X was available on a Sony or HP, I'm sure I'd consider such a purchase just as strongly as I'd consider buying another Mac.:)
I agree with you that OS X is the main reason that I would buy a Mac over a similarly-priced PC. But not only that. The reason OS X is so stable and reliable (as far as I can tell) is that it has been made to run on Apple's own hardware (without .dll files and other driver software). I too would buy a Sony if a compatible version of OS X was available for it. I have so much Sony equipment in my house and have never had a single problem. But a Sony machine with the same spec as the Mini for the same price? I don't think I've seen a Sony computer for less than £500. A HP? Wouldn't touch it with a bargepole given my past experience with them.
Another benefit with having an Apple Mac (for me) is simply the price of the software that I need to do my job (and hobby I hasten to add) which is audio recording/editing. The price of Logic Studio was more than halved with the release of Logic 8 (Which is far more fitted to my needs than a £2000 copy of Cubase or Pro-Tools). Also, without any dongle of any kind. This (and the extremely low price of OS X compared to most versions of Vista) shows apples current philosophy. "If people pay a little bit more for our hardware, then the profits we make will allow us to reduce the price of our software". I would pay any price for Apple's hardware if it means that I can run their software. So taking this into account, is a Mac Mini overpriced? Personally, I would say no.
My Atari STFM still runs just as well as the day I bought it. But comparing 1980's technology and 2000's technology is not a logical comparison to say the least. It is the same with cars nowadays. The old MG's and Morris's still run today as well as they did in the past. But the technology used to make these machines is far more complex today than it was back then. Given the numerous things that can go wrong with this modern technology all working together, of course the chances are that eventually something will go wrong.
So my initial points still stand. The Mac Mini is worth the money Apple are asking due to:-
a)OS X
b)Reliability (compared to similarly-priced modern machines)
c)Support (as I said the support I recieved from Apple was second-to-none)
and d)Software pricing

Maybe finally this thread can return to the topic of the Mac Mini? A novel idea I know, but hey. :cool:

[aquajet]

Most people just want something that's not huge.

I'm not willing to make an assertion about what "most people" want because I don't know, and I don't think you know either. What I can say is that "most people" I've observed see a mini for the first time have been tickled and amazed by its size.

No, it's completely true. It's overpriced for the specs, mainly because it uses laptop parts which are more expensive. Looking at hardware, you can get a much better machine for less on the PC side. A family member just replaced an iMac with a PC. I wanted to suggest a mini, but the PC she found was tons better bang for the buck, and OSX wasn't a big enough selling point to spend more and get worse hardware. I wish I could have made a case for the mini, but sadly I couldn't.

When we're comparing different computers of similar specs, especially at the bottom of the barrel class, how much extra bang do most people actually experience in reality? I say not much at all, aside from the storage capacity discrepancy between 2.5" and 3.5" hard drives. This is why I believe looking at the numbers alone is a rather shortsighted way of comparing things. At the low-end especially, I think it's more valuable to examine the out of the box functionality and when we see the incredibly well thought-out and executed (IMO of course) software package (iLife) which is included with the mini, it's pretty clear which option is superior.

[gregorsamsa]

But a Sony machine with the same spec as the Mini for the same price? I don't think I've seen a Sony computer for less than £500. A HP? Wouldn't touch it with a bargepole given my past experience with them.

FWIW, a few weeks ago there was a Sony Vaio for £499 on eBuyer. Sure the Mini has OS X, front row, etc., but add on the price of a decent monitor, keyboard, etc. & things begin to look a little different. Basically the Mini is a desktop relying on budget-laptop technology, but without any of the advantages of a laptop. The Mini is also aimed at switchers, but I think more knowledgeable potential switchers are unlikely to be greatly impressed by the combo drive & GMA950.

Obviously your unlucky experience with HP doesn't tally with the majority; something reflected in their generally high sales despite not always providing the cheapest PCs.

I would pay any price for Apple's hardware if it means that I can run their software. So taking this into account, is a Mac Mini overpriced? Personally, I would say no.

So my initial points still stand. The Mac Mini is worth the money Apple are asking due to:-
a)OS X
b)Reliability (compared to similarly-priced modern machines)
c)Support (as I said the support I recieved from Apple was second-to-none)
and d)Software pricing

Maybe finally this thread can return to the topic of the Mac Mini? A novel idea I know, but hey. :cool:

Of course, & not least because if you want OS X you really don't have any choice whatsoever but pay Apple's asking price. But seen objectively, though I agree it's still a good computer, I really think it's now time for a significant update to maintain its appeal.

FWIW, I hope they keep it. Perhaps dropping the lower-end Mini, reducing the price of the SD version & adding a new headless Mac with discrete graphics would stimulate greater interest in this part of the Mac market. What doesn't make sense to me is (according to a recent rumour) replacing the current Mini with a Nano version, which is unlikely to be better specced.

[juxtaposer]

At the low-end especially, I think it's more valuable to examine the out of the box functionality and when we see the incredibly well thought-out and executed (IMO of course) software package (iLife) which is included with the mini, it's pretty clear which option is superior.

Now there is something I forgot to mention. Just how quick I was from getting the Mini out of the box and being able to explore OS X (about 5 minutes) compared to the horrific install of Windows. Plus the necessity of a FireWire port would've inevitably got me opening my case and installing drivers from the get-go. Not to mention the I.R reciever, Front Row & remote control. Simplicity at it's best I think.
The Mac Mini really is a great package for it's price, and if they decide to keep the line going then there will definitely be updates to the CPU, GPU etc. And keeping the same price range, I don't think I would complain at all. :)

[juxtaposer]

The Mini is also aimed at switchers, but I think more knowledgeable potential switchers are unlikely to be greatly impressed by the combo drive & GMA950.
That obviously depends on what the switcher's needs are. Did I need a better GPU for my audio editing? No. Did I need the Superdrive? No. Although that is included on the higher-end Minis.
I already had a nice Sony TFT Monitor and I payed the little bit extra for the BT Mighty Mouse and Keyboard. So all in all, it didn't cost me anywhere near my closest option (low-end iMac). In fact the price difference was over £200. So for a little over £400 I got a great machine that ran brilliantly straight out-of-the-box. No need for driver installs - same as when I plug in an external device, another great feature of Mac OS.
Once again, I believe that if the Mac Mini line is kept, then there will definitely be an update (it is needed now). That is something to take into account - the fact that the Mini's innards are still in need of an update. But if/when that update comes we could possibly see an end to the GMA950 and ComboDrive as well.
It's nice to have a debate about the future of the Mini, even if Apple will never listen to our own personal list of needs/wants. I think the Mini could be a brilliant tool in the Apple marketing machine. It was what made me decide to switch so apologies if I appear to be viewing my beloved Mini through rose-tinted spectacles.
Juxtaposer :apple: :)

[gregorsamsa]

Once again, I believe that if the Mac Mini line is kept, then there will definitely be an update (it is needed now). That is something to take into account - the fact that the Mini's innards are still in need of an update. But if/when that update comes we could possibly see an end to the GMA950 and ComboDrive as well.
It's nice to have a debate about the future of the Mini, even if Apple will never listen to our own personal list of needs/wants. I think the Mini could be a brilliant tool in the Apple marketing machine. It was what made me decide to switch so apologies if I appear to be viewing my beloved Mini through rose-tinted spectacles.
Juxtaposer :apple: :)

Hear, hear! Let's hope they update very soon (if not when Leopard arrives) & thanks for raising some interesting points. :)

[juxtaposer]

Speaking of an update. This looks like bad news :mad:
http://www.xyhd.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/image10.png

If they insist on removing the optical drive, things don't look good for the Mini/Nano :(

[flyinmac]

No offense, but this simply isn't believable. I think you're having highly convenient selective memory. I agree with your basic point, but I don't believe the quote above for one second and frankly I find it hard to give you credibility because of it. Your point would stand better without the unrealistic claims.

And yes, I still have my TRS-80 with 48k RAM extension in a box in the attic.

Believe it or not, but yes I have had that many computers. Up until last year, I still had around a hundred of them. I finally decided to dedicate my life to something productive, and sold them off through e-bay, users groups, collectors, and so on.

I had about 1000 square feet occupied by pretty much nothing other than computers (and it was set up rather tightly). And, that was just the stuff I hadn't gotten rid of over the years. And, I was still actively using them and actively developing for them and their various hobbyist's users.

But, as I said, life changes, priorities change, and I decided there were better things in life besides my many machines.

Over the years, I had owned many more than that, and there are many that I let go eventually as my interest in other platforms increased.

But, whether you believe it or not, they were all reliable for me. That includes the ones that I'd owned since they rolled-off the assembly line as well as the ones I purchased used.

I can honestly say that the only computers I've ever had die on me have been Apples.

Sure, as stated previously, I know other brands do have failures. I know people who have had other brands die. But, the vast number I've personally owned and used have all been reliable except for some of the duds that came from Apple.

Now, yes, I have had some Apples that were great. But, that doesn't change the fact that the only ones I've personally had die on me have been Apples.

And, from the large number of machines that I've owned, that says something to me.

[saltyzoo]

I believe you owned that many computers. I do not for a second believe you've never had one fail. That's beyond incredible. It's not believable in the least.

[juxtaposer]

Sure, as stated previously, I know other brands do have failures. I know people who have had other brands die. But, the vast number I've personally owned and used have all been reliable except for some of the duds that came from Apple.

Now, yes, I have had some Apples that were great. But, that doesn't change the fact that the only ones I've personally had die on me have been Apples.

And, from the large number of machines that I've owned, that says something to me.
It says something to me as well. Those Mac's were in dire need of some TLC :p J/K
But no, in all seriousness, we know that computers aren't 'supposed' to fail. But sometimes they just do. And from the looks of the latest independent reliability polls, it sounds like you got one of the few 'lemons' that managed to scrape through.
As I said before, my Atari STFM still runs great. And so do most of my machines that I've gathered over the years. But none of the other machines I bought in the same price-bracket as the Mini have been reliable. And so far my Mini has. That says something to me... :)

[flyinmac]

I believe you owned that many computers. I do not for a second believe you've never had one fail. That's beyond incredible. It's not believable in the least.

I did have some fail. But, they were Apples.

Not all Macs. But, all Apples. Some in the II series, others in the Mac series.

Honestly, it surprised me well some of those CP/M machines, and especially how well some of the one-hit-wonders held-up.

The closest thing to a failure that I had with another machine was the TI-99/4A that occasionally required multiple cartridge inserts to get some of the cartridges to make proper contact with the slot. But, that could be due either to the machine or poor cartridge assembly. The machine was great otherwise. My only complaint was the very limited amount of support for it. But, that was typical of the computers back then (they came and went so fast that you had few sources of add-ons and such). But, it was nice to use while the support lasted. Once it was orphaned, it became pretty expensive to get ahold of new items for it.

Otherwise, Atari's, Tandy's / TRS-80's, Amiga's, Amstrad's, Osborne's, Commodore's, Zenith's, and the countless other brands all held-up much better than I would have expected. Some only came with a 90-day warranty (which I originally thought would be an issue). But, 20 years later, that 90-day warranty proved to be more than adequate. They were still going fine all these years later.

When I finally sold them all off, I kept only one (mainly as a novelty calculator). It's the TRS-80 pocket computer. About the size of an old women's checkbook calculator. But, a full computer with a tiny screen. It's nice for simple programs that don't require anything fancy.

I keep a couple of financial calculators programmed into it to use when I'm speaking with banks and lenders to verify the numbers they present. I've got a program that just prompts for numbers and spits out the end result. So, I can quickly double-check their claims and figures. It's handy for that.

Probably a humble use for it. But, I can't justify it for much more these days.

[Brianstorm91]

Speaking of an update. This looks like bad news :mad:
*image*

Sorry but, isn't that Apple TV?

[flyinmac]

It says something to me as well. Those Mac's were in dire need of some TLC :p J/K
But no, in all seriousness, we know that computers aren't 'supposed' to fail. But sometimes they just do. And from the looks of the latest independent reliability polls, it sounds like you got one of the few 'lemons' that managed to scrape through.

The more recent ones were most definitely they were lemons. The unfortunate part was Apple's refusal to admit that there was anything wrong with them and repair them. Sure, they finally did admit that some of the machines had some of the issues I had. And, they eventually agreed to fix some of them. But, after so many months of fighting with them over a dead computer, I finally gave up on the junk and got rid of it. Then, of course several months later they admit that there was an issue and decide to repair it for some machines (if it were in the right serial number range).

I later purchased a replacement system, but it was also in the shop constantly. So, I eventually sold it to someone else at a huge loss when they quit fixing it. The problem is that Apple directly was of no help. And, the local service center had so many machines in the shop to fix that he told me I would have to get back to him in a couple months and see if he was able to take it in then. Obviously, that doesn't do anything useful for the customer.

So, I sold the machine. And, went back to using a PC for a while. That $400 PC is still chugging along just fine. Never had an issue with it either.

It would be easier to dismiss the lemons from Apple (assuming that they were rare and all just came to me), if they would at least accept responsibility and fix or replace the machine in a reasonable timeframe. Shoving you to the side and denying service for a year, and then later admitting fault after the affected machines are already in a landfill is not great service.


As I said before, my Atari STFM still runs great. And so do most of my machines that I've gathered over the years. But none of the other machines I bought in the same price-bracket as the Mini have been reliable. And so far my Mini has. That says something to me... :)

I've no doubt that your Atari is still running strong. I would be willing to bet that even if your Mini lives a long and fruitful life, that the Atari will still outlive it.

I've had some good Macs as well. It just seems that I've had a lot of bad ones as well. They'd stand-out far less in my memory if Apple had been quick to resolve the problem instead of just trying to push me aside as much as they can.

At least there are independent shops to pick-up the slack. But, when they've picked-up all the slack, and have no room for additional repair order for the foreseeable future, that's not really great either. And, that kind of makes another statement about reliability.

We've finally gotten a second independent shop in my town though. So, perhaps between the two of them, they'll be able to keep up with the repairs out here (and this is a small town - very small).

[juxtaposer]

Sorry but, isn't that Apple TV?
That's what I thought, but here's where I saw it. (http://www.xyhd.tv/2007/10/industry-news/mac-nano-to-replace-the-mac-mini/)
There's a pic of an Apple TV and Mac Mini underneath just for comparison's sake.
Things aren't looking good :(

[flyinmac]

That's what I thought, but here's where I saw it. (http://www.xyhd.tv/2007/10/industry-news/mac-nano-to-replace-the-mac-mini/)
There's a pic of an Apple TV and Mac Mini underneath just for comparison's sake.
Things aren't looking good :(

Can't see them scrapping the CD-ROM drive though (unless they start shipping OS X and their software on flash drives).

[juxtaposer]

I've no doubt that your Atari is still running strong. I would be willing to bet that even if your Mini lives a long and fruitful life, that the Atari will still outlive it.
http://www.mad-web.org/PC/OldPC/AtariSTFM/ataristfm.jpg
I'm pretty certain this stallion will keep on going long after I'm gone. (It might need a Floppy Drive replacement in a couple of decades though) :p

Can't see them scrapping the CD-ROM drive though (unless they start shipping OS X and their software on flash drives).
I hope the optical drive stays. It's not as though the Mini's take up a lot of space as they are!

[flyinmac]

http://www.mad-web.org/PC/OldPC/AtariSTFM/ataristfm.jpg
I'm pretty certain this stallion will keep on going long after I'm gone. (It might need a Floppy Drive replacement in a couple of decades though) :p


I hope the optical drive stays. It's not as though the Mini's take up a lot of space as they are!

I'm sure the Atari will last forever. You'll have to make sure and put it in your "Will" so that your kids or grand-kids can keep it until it's old enough to sell and retire. Just think, you could be paying the way for your great-grandkids to retire.

They'll sell it to a museum for a few billion in say 60 or 70 years.

Well, maybe it will have to go to their grandkids. But, either way, it will help someone retire someday if it's kept long enough :D

Yeah, for the mini, it's a bit premature to get rid of the only drive in the system. Sure, Apple led the way by killing the floppy early. But, there was a CD-ROM drive in there. With nothing but a hard-drive, it might be a deal breaker.

[milo]

Speaking of not logically sound arguments, how can you say that the Mini is more expensive because it has different parts (i.e. laptop parts) and then argue that it is overpriced compared to PCs that use full-size desktop parts? Like it or not, the size is a big selling point for many of us, and there is nothing like the Mini anywhere. You are comparing Apples and oranges, so to speak: if the bottom line concerned nothing but a ratio between price and performance, the retail computer business would look a lot different than it does...

I don't see how that's illogical at all. Apple chooses to use parts that are more expensive. I'm saying they should just use desktop parts because laptop parts in a desktop are poor bang for the buck, and it would allow them to be much more competitive.

I AM comparing apples and oranges. But that is only because apple forces that comparison. Most people want a computer for functionality, not form. Apple only sells an "apple", since they don't offer an orange, that's all we have to compare. I'd love to be able to compare a budget normal sized apple desktop to the PC equivalent, but apple doesn't make one, they only have a model that has its price jacked up by miniaturization that doesn't interest many users in this potential market (desktop under $1000).

I'm not willing to make an assertion about what "most people" want because I don't know, and I don't think you know either. What I can say is that "most people" I've observed see a mini for the first time have been tickled and amazed by its size.

I don't doubt that the mini has cool factor. But do you really think most people want a small box if it means settling for worse specs, especially things like a tiny hard drive? Oohing and Aahing aren't the same as opening your wallet and buying one. If there really was big demand for a box that size, why don't more companies sell them, and more people buy them? And if you want to talk about out of the box functionality, a $599 box that can't even burn DVDs (a dvd burning drive is what, $30-40?) is just an embarrassment.

That obviously depends on what the switcher's needs are. Did I need a better GPU for my audio editing? No.

You obviously haven't run Logic 8 on a mini. Performance is generally fine, but screen redraws are just horrible. I would think the GPU would be fine, but apple is making higher and higher demands on non-graphics apps.

And I don't see how they could sell a mini/nano without an optical drive. You wouldn't be able to install any software from disks, or upgrade the OS. An aTV or micro laptop without one would make sense, but for a desktop, it would be pointless. That site doesn't even get the basics right, it says things like the "nano" moves the power supply external, when that's how the mini is already.

[flyinmac]

I AM comparing apples and oranges. But that is only because apple forces that comparison. Most people want a computer for functionality, not form. Apple only sells an "apple", since they don't offer an orange, that's all we have to compare. I'd love to be able to compare a budget normal sized apple desktop to the PC equivalent, but apple doesn't make one, they only have a model that has its price jacked up by miniaturization that doesn't interest many users in this potential market (desktop under $1000).


Exactly. That's a point most seem to miss.

If you are building a machine to draw switchers by enticing them with a low price, you had better throw some specs behind that low price.

An $800 machine with low specs doesn't exactly draw in herds of switchers.

But, an $800 machine comparable in specs to an $800 Windows desktop would draw in switchers.

Likewise, a $600 machine that meets or exceeds the best performance you'd get on a $600 HP or Compaq would also help.

But, with Apple, $600 gets you a small and attractive machine that has low specs to offer for a higher price than a comparably priced desktop PC.

Sure, the desktop PC is bigger. But, if I can get a 7200 R.P.M. hard drive, a faster CPU, a dedicated graphics processor, DVD-Writer, and so on for $400 to $600 from HP or Compaq, I'm sure not going to spend that much on a Mini with none of that.

Sure, you can get a DVD-Writer in the $800 mini. But, you still get a slow and small 5400 R.P.M. hard drive, no GPU, and so on.

For the mini to really be competitive, it needs to be comparable to an entry level iMac without a built-in screen. Keep the Mini in the $600 to $800 range. But, sell it without the screen. Let the built-in screen be the difference between the iMac and the Mini. That would be plenty to distinguish the computers.

[saltyzoo]

That's what I thought, but here's where I saw it. (http://www.xyhd.tv/2007/10/industry-news/mac-nano-to-replace-the-mac-mini/)
There's a pic of an Apple TV and Mac Mini underneath just for comparison's sake.
Things aren't looking good :(

All they have to do is get rid of the keyboard and monitor and it will be really small. Ditch the airport too. Then you'll have no I/O at all, but it will be sleek.

I really hope they aren't stupid enough to not put a DVD in it.

[Brianstorm91]

If the Mini's going to suceed, it needs to prove that you're not losing anything just because it's so much smaller than your old Winbox tower, I know when I first saw it my immediate reaction was that it must be horribly slow.
Now it may be using outdated hardware, but that's not the case.
Get that Windoze user's attention, slap him in the face and say look at me, I'm 1/4 of the size of your old computer but I'm just as good.

[flyinmac]

All they have to do is get rid of the keyboard and monitor and it will be really small. Ditch the airport too. Then you'll have no I/O at all, but it will be sleek.

I really hope they aren't stupid enough to not put a DVD in it.

Well, you know, if they got rid of the hard drive, DVD-ROM drive, and the CPU and RAM, it could be the size of an iPod Shuffle. :D

[Brianstorm91]

That's what I thought, but here's where I saw it. (http://www.xyhd.tv/2007/10/industry-news/mac-nano-to-replace-the-mac-mini/)
There's a pic of an Apple TV and Mac Mini underneath just for comparison's sake.
Things aren't looking good :(

:eek:

I'm sorry but that is useless.

1. It's a laptop without a screen and DVD drive for on-the-move people?
Except you're going to have to carry around a firewire DVD drive, cables, powerbrick, keyboard, mouse oh and a nice monitor too.

2. You're going to keep it at your desk and every time you see it you'll wonder why the hell you didn't just buy a macbook instead.

Do they really think there's a market for that? :o

And I've always found 1.8" HDD to be rather.. Well, it's not 3.5" put it that way.

Oh dear.. I hope that's a hoax.

[juxtaposer]

I too hope that it's a hoax. It was the first story that came up when searching 'mac-nano' on google. I don't think I've seen too many releases of Macs that look anything like the mock-ups that are released, so I'm sure this will be another case. I mean, if it is supposed to be a switcher's machine and for audio and video as well, then why not let the said switcher watch his DVD's and listen to his CD's without the need of an external drive. Surely it's small enough already?

[Brianstorm91]

I mean, if it is supposed to be a switcher's machine and for audio and video as well, then why not let the said switcher watch his DVD's and listen to his CD's without the need of an external drive. Surely it's small enough already?

.. Actually what good is it like that?
Sync it to iTunes over a network or something..

Oh, hello there Apple TV.

[juxtaposer]

.. Actually what good is it like that?
Sync it to iTunes over a network or something..

Oh, hello there Apple TV.
Yes. An Airport Express for airtunes would currently serve me as well as this lump of plastic that sits on our screens. To me it looks like somebody has just slapped a new top onto an Apple TV, so I'm not too worried. I think we could see a new Mini soon. Updated of course, still with optical drive, but maybe at a slightly lower price to attract a few more switchers across to the Light Side :cool:

[Brianstorm91]

Don't forget my "Macbook-but-with-dedicated-graphics-in-the-Macbook-Pro-casing-with-anodised-black-scheme-with-the-backlit-keyboard- -and-15.4"-model-but-the-macbook-tiles-with-magnetic-screen-latch-more-USB-ports-and-updated-hardware -for-the-same-price" notebook.

:eek: Yes please!

[shikimo]

I believe you owned that many computers. I do not for a second believe you've never had one fail. That's beyond incredible. It's not believable in the least.

I agree that this seems highly improbable, to say the least; if you own enough different units of ANY technically complicated device a certain percentage of them are going to have problems...but no use arguing with someone on the internet about something like this, as definitive proof is out of the question. I did love my TI 99/4A though...:D

I too hope that it's a hoax. It was the first story that came up when searching 'mac-nano' on google. I don't think I've seen too many releases of Macs that look anything like the mock-ups that are released, so I'm sure this will be another case. I mean, if it is supposed to be a switcher's machine and for audio and video as well, then why not let the said switcher watch his DVD's and listen to his CD's without the need of an external drive. Surely it's small enough already?

Yeah, I call fraud too...even in my tiny space I don't need my mini to be any smaller. Besides, it's WAY too early to talk about abandoning optical drives in commercial PCs, especially those marketed on the strength of their multimedia applications.

And I love the way xyhd.tv reports this 'product' like it's completely normal that only they have the sole authentic picture of a landmark new PC from Apple, without once suggesting that it might be prudent to look into its authenticity. Good journalism.

Then again, didn't a guy get fired from the NYT recently for doing exactly that, only with much more important information?? but I digress...

[tobytoby]

I sincerely hope the Mini is not discontinued. I have persuaded my significant other to get a Mac and she likes the Mini for its small size. If it's replaced with a Mac Nano all the better though! She's going to order this weekend so as to get Leopard.

[milo]

http://www.xyhd.tv/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/image10.png

My guess is maybe a new version of the airport extreme (or even an old rejected prototype), or something similar. Maybe even a third party product with an apple logo sticker slapped on the top, there have been plenty of products with the "mini" footprint like hard drives and hubs.


http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/
http://www.engadget.com/2005/04/22/micronets-minimate-mac-mini-hub/

No way in hell is it a computer.

[Kebabselector]

Seems as if 'that' nano/mini has power, ethernet and hdmi cable in the same place as the Apple TV. Could it have been an early version of ATV? or an edited photo?

[milo]

Mystery solved. It's just a picture of the initial prototype of aTV apple showed when they first announcement. After that they changed the case design and renamed it from iTV to appleTV. I feel pretty stupid for not figuring it out sooner, it had to be something like this.

http://www.macdailynews.com/gfx/article_gfx/060912_itv.jpg

So yeah, that site is either trying to pull a hoax, or are just completely clueless. No mac nano.

[juxtaposer]

Mystery solved. It's just a picture of the initial prototype of aTV apple showed when they first announcement. After that they changed the case design and renamed it from iTV to appleTV. I feel pretty stupid for not figuring it out sooner, it had to be something like this.

http://www.macdailynews.com/gfx/article_gfx/060912_itv.jpg

So yeah, that site is either trying to pull a hoax, or are just completely clueless. No mac nano.

There we go! Nice find, and the mystery of the terrifying Mac Nano is solved. Losing the optical drive would not have been the best move for the Mini so far. An update along the lines of the Macbook would be nice. Maybe a new Alu/Black look rather than the Alu/White, would fit in with the new iMac and the screenshots of Leopard that I've seen. It does appear that Black appears to be Apple's new White.

[tuc]

When I finally sold them all off, I kept only one (mainly as a novelty calculator). It's the TRS-80 pocket computer. About the size of an old women's checkbook calculator. But, a full computer with a tiny screen. It's nice for simple programs that don't require anything fancy.

Hey, I have one of those. It's a cute device, but the Basic-only API is kind of disappointing.

It still worked fine last time I tried it, but the battery in the printer add-on unit is shot.

[applefan69]

Too expensive! I'm waiting for the Mac Shuffle.

lol it automatically shuffles all your files. You never know what file it'll open next! haheh

[flyinmac]

Hey, I have one of those. It's a cute device, but the Basic-only API is kind of disappointing.

It still worked fine last time I tried it, but the battery in the printer add-on unit is shot.

Yes, mine works great as well. Yes, the BASIC interface is kind of simple, but given it's age, it's understandable. Almost every computer back then used a BASIC language interface as it's primary functioning environment.

My printer is dead as well. I tried using it once a few years back, but the batteries are drained. I can't locate a power transformer / charger for it. So, with dead batteries, the printer is useless. Well, I guess it's about as useful as my Mac Pro would be without a power cord :D

I don't know what happened to the charger. It was last seen so many years ago, that it could be anywhere. The printer would probably still work if I could supply it with power. But, without power, it doesn't do anything.

But, of course, a printer that prints on calculator sized paper is not going to do anything extremely useful anyway. Would be more for playing around and saying hey look, I made it print :p

I'm sure the printer probably still worked the last time a power adapter or live batteries were in it. But, without the benefit of power or batteries, it's just a thing to look at.

Maybe I'll run across a charger for it someday for free or something. But, given that I've got no practical use for the printer, I've obviously not set out on a serious search for a replacement power pack or charger.

If only it took standard batteries :rolleyes:

I do have a cassette deck for the computer though to store stuff if needed. But, the computer's batteries last so long, that it's really not inconvenient to re-enter stuff.

And, though the manual says to clear the memory every time you change the battery, I found that it does just fine if I swap the batteries and leave the memory in-tact (saving me the effort of reloading my information).

It sure runs a long time of a pair of coin-cell CR2032 batteries :D I usually only change the batteries about once a year or sometimes every other year.

[tuc]

My printer is dead as well. I tried using it once a few years back, but the batteries are drained. I can't locate a power transformer / charger for it. So, with dead batteries, the printer is useless.

The printer would probably still work if I could supply it with power.


I'm not so sure about that. I have the power supply, but it still doesn't work. I think the rechargeable battery needs to be replaced. It is not intended to be replaceable, but it probably wouldn't be too hard so long as it's not soldered to a board or anything.


But this has gotten pretty far off-topic, so back to the MacMini. There are rumors that the non-pro MacBooks will be updated sometime between today and November 6th. Do you suppose there's any chance that the MacMini will be updated also?

[Decrepit]

I'm not so sure about that. I have the power supply, but it still doesn't work. I think the rechargeable battery and needs to be replaced. It is not intended to be replaceable, but it probably wouldn't be too hard so long as it's not soldered to a board or anything.


But this has gotten pretty far off-topic, so back to the MacMini. There are rumors that the non-pro MacBooks will be updated sometime between today and November 6th. Do you suppose there's any chance that the MacMini will be updated also?

I doubt we'll see another Mini update this year, they did the nearly silent roll a few months back. That said, I hope they do update the line again sometime soon. I've got my iPhone credit burning a hole in my pocket, just waiting for a new Mini.

[flyinmac]

I'm not so sure about that. I have the power supply, but it still doesn't work. I think the rechargeable battery needs to be replaced. It is not intended to be replaceable, but it probably wouldn't be too hard so long as it's not soldered to a board or anything.


But this has gotten pretty far off-topic, so back to the MacMini. There are rumors that the non-pro MacBooks will be updated sometime between today and November 6th. Do you suppose there's any chance that the MacMini will be updated also?


You could be right. I'll probably never know since I don't care enough to try and locate a charger to give it a try. It's just not a high priority to me.

I do hope that they keep the mini around. I'm not in the market. But, it would be a shame to lose an entry level machine. Hopefully they'll make it a nice update with a GPU.

[macsound@gmail.]

Im hoping for a new cube, I think that now that they have the intel processors, obviously heat is not an issue cause the minis dont overheat so, add some space for slots, removable ram, a desktop size harddrive and voila.

[Yvan256]

I'm willing to bet that a lot of people were waiting for Leopard before buying/upgrading their Mac mini. After all, Leopard + iLife '08 is nearly 33% of the cost of the entry-level Mac mini.

Those "upgrades are probably around the corner" rumors don't help, though. And the GMA950 doesn't help either. :p

[Brianstorm91]

I spent some time on a Mac Mini with Leopard today and I was pleasantly suprised with how snappy it was, well done :apple:

[juxtaposer]

Quite an old post regarding Mac Mini's versus the similarly-priced machines at the time (May 2006).
"Mac Mini is my most 'Vista-Ready' machine" (http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,49273426,00.htm)

Of course It's changed somewhat recently, with the Mac Mini in dire need of an update (fairly certain that will come). But it does say a lot about the machine and it's possibilities.
:)

[milo]

The mini has been more competitive at various times, particularly after the first intel update. But windows machines in that price range have improved dramatically while the mini has mostly been stagnant, it's barely better than it was when it first shipped February 2006. Right now, it stacks up pretty poorly.

A feature bump would help a little, but it probably will never be really competitive until apple dumps the model based on laptop parts and replaces the mini with a machine based on desktop ones.

[juxtaposer]

The mini has been more competitive at various times, particularly after the first intel update. But windows machines in that price range have improved dramatically while the mini has mostly been stagnant, it's barely better than it was when it first shipped February 2006. Right now, it stacks up pretty poorly.

A feature bump would help a little, but it probably will never be really competitive until apple dumps the model based on laptop parts and replaces the mini with a machine based on desktop ones.
I'm sure apple will be doing everything within their power to make the Mini more affordable. Desktop parts sure would make the Mini more profitable to Apple and affordable for the customers. We can only wait and see what Apple's plans are for the machine. If the line is kept, then we should expect to see price reductions and spec increases - which would make the Mini more competitive with it's rival Windoze Boxes.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I would say a change is coming, when apple does the silent upgrades eol is near. A 2.0 core2 duo mated to a ati 2400xt in a small mini like package would make a nice machine. Heck a ati 2400xt imac was getting 70 fps in ut2k4 vs 23 fps for a mini with the same cpu. And though Mini got a 39% increase in cpu speed its integrated graphics got less then 1 frame more meaning that integrated gpu was doing all it could a long time ago. edit as reported by macworld.

[Wayfarer]

Bring on the true, mid-range... "Mac" ;)

[NEiMac]

I would say a change is coming, when apple does the silent upgrades eol is near. A 2.0 core2 duo mated to a ati 2400xt in a small mini like package would make a nice machine. Heck a ati 2400xt imac was getting 70 fps in ut2k4 vs 23 fps for a mini with the same cpu. And though Mini got a 39% increase in cpu speed its integrated graphics got less then 1 frame more meaning that integrated gpu was doing all it could a long time ago. edit as reported by macworld.

This would be a great machine, I'd much rather have that then the iMac I just bought even if it has a better graphics card. I love my iMac, but I really prefer my computer and monitor to be separate. I think losing the mac mini would be sad, my first Mac was a G4 Mac Mini, and my second one was a Core Duo 1.66 mac mini. Here's hoping they replace it with something cooler! :D

[Galaxius]

I think it would be a mistake for them to get rid of the mini, but it always seems to be pushed aside for other macs. If there's anyway to make it shorter (sort of looking like an Apple TV), then I could see more people buying it. Most of the time people can't justify the price of a mini compared to a windows machine. They definitely need to upgrade it more frequently to keep up with the market

[dongmin]

This would be a great machine, I'd much rather have that then the iMac I just bought even if it has a better graphics card. I love my iMac, but I really prefer my computer and monitor to be separate. I think losing the mac mini would be sad, my first Mac was a G4 Mac Mini, and my second one was a Core Duo 1.66 mac mini. Here's hoping they replace it with something cooler! :D

urm, you've just stated EXACTLY the reason why Apple will NEVER spec out the Mini with decent specs: because it would eat into iMac sales, and Apple certainly doesn't wanna do that as the margins on an iMac are prolly considerably better than a Mini.

What's good for consumers is NOT necessarily what's good for Apple. As long as their market share is growing and the iMac continues to do well, Apple won't do anything to jeopardize the momentum.

[davenet]

Sorry, I'm using mine as a computer :p

Second that. I have the 1.83 CoreDuo model and it's my primary computer at the moment. I'm gonna give me G4 1.42 model to my 5 year old and I just got another used 1.66 CoreDuo on Craig's List that I intend to put on my wife's desk. She doesn't know it yet, but I'm gonna switch her to the Mac from the PC. I guess I might still dual boot the Mini for her until she gets used to OS X, but the point being that this computer will free up ALOT of space on her small desk compared to the behemoth that is there now.

David

[orangeapple]

This:

http://machappens.com/2007/09/17/aluminum-and-glass-mac-mini/

http://machappens.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/macmini_1.jpg

This seems like a perfect match to apples current pro's.

The idea of having a high end product competing at a lower price point seems to be Apples strong suit.

[NEiMac]

urm, you've just stated EXACTLY the reason why Apple will NEVER spec out the Mini with decent specs: because it would eat into iMac sales, and Apple certainly doesn't wanna do that as the margins on an iMac are prolly considerably better than a Mini.

What's good for consumers is NOT necessarily what's good for Apple. As long as their market share is growing and the iMac continues to do well, Apple won't do anything to jeopardize the momentum.

Very true, never been much on these all in one computers but then again little over a year ago I thought apple computers where for rich people who like to waste there money too.:rolleyes: I am really loving my iMac though and at least I get a more modern monitor then I probably would have if I did have a headless iMac. lol

[shikimo]

Very true, never been much on these all in one computers but then again little over a year ago I thought apple computers where for rich people who like to waste there money too.:rolleyes:

Yes...changing this impression is certainly a part of the Apple marketing strategy in France: When I first moved here only high-end stores sold Macs, and many people thought I was a typical rich American (ha-ha) just 'cuz I had an iBook. Now there is a Mac display in the computer sections of Carrefour and Auchan--WalMart-esque megastores--and it's become commonplace to see university students using Macs. The prices are in line with what they were a few years ago, but the brand-perception of Macs has changed significantly. What's more, the Mini has been an important part of this 'de-richification' of the Mac image, so I think it would be poor timing to kill it now without something else to provide entry-level price points that stay below 1000 Euros.

[Cheffy Dave]

This seems like a perfect match to apples current pro's.

The idea of having a high end product competing at a lower price point seems to be Apples strong suit.

Damn, if this proves true, I'll have a mini and MB, Both in glass and aluminum
freakin sweeeeet!:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:

[Dont Hurt Me]

urm, you've just stated EXACTLY the reason why Apple will NEVER spec out the Mini with decent specs: because it would eat into iMac sales, and Apple certainly doesn't wanna do that as the margins on an iMac are prolly considerably better than a Mini.

What's good for consumers is NOT necessarily what's good for Apple. As long as their market share is growing and the iMac continues to do well, Apple won't do anything to jeopardize the momentum.Apple played that game for decades and nearly killed them, its called crippling. Cripple mini for imac,cripple imac for powermac.....eh promac or whatever cripple macbook for macbook pro and all that crippling boils down to crappy integrated cheapo graphics. A $50-75 chip can eliminate that crap. Lets hope Apple is figuring it out , or they may release a new Mini with Intels next generation of still crapo graphics.

[dongmin]

Apple played that game for decades and nearly killed them, its called crippling. Cripple mini for imac,cripple imac for powermac.....eh promac or whatever cripple macbook for macbook pro and all that crippling boils down to crappy integrated cheapo graphics. A $50-75 chip can eliminate that crap. Lets hope Apple is figuring it out , or they may release a new Mini with Intels next generation of still crapo graphics.

maybe you could've made that argument 5 years ago. but apple's marketshare is growing and investors are happy because of the fat margins. it's hard to disparage apple's strategy, at least their business strategy.

apple's (hardware) design + os X + ipod halo effect is MORE than offsetting the "crippled" hardware.

[milo]

I think it would be a mistake for them to get rid of the mini, but it always seems to be pushed aside for other macs. If there's anyway to make it shorter (sort of looking like an Apple TV), then I could see more people buying it. Most of the time people can't justify the price of a mini compared to a windows machine. They definitely need to upgrade it more frequently to keep up with the market

You just contradicted yourself. Should it be smaller, or should it be cheaper? It can't be both at the same time.

Smaller=more expensive
Larger (even slightly larger)=less expensive, better components, more competitive

Apple has to make a decision between a tiny box and one that's on the smaller side but still able to compete on price and specs. So far they've gone for the former, but I think that was a mistake on their part. I hope they offer the latter, whether it's a new additional model or replaces the mini.

urm, you've just stated EXACTLY the reason why Apple will NEVER spec out the Mini with decent specs: because it would eat into iMac sales, and Apple certainly doesn't wanna do that as the margins on an iMac are prolly considerably better than a Mini.

Apple's margins are whatever they want to be since they set the pricing. They just need to sell a headless mac and if they're worried about cannibalizing iMac, price it so it's equally profitable. I don't see why people are so worried about apple selling less iMacs as long as people are buying another mac instead.

maybe you could've made that argument 5 years ago. but apple's marketshare is growing and investors are happy because of the fat margins. it's hard to disparage apple's strategy, at least their business strategy.

apple's (hardware) design + os X + ipod halo effect is MORE than offsetting the "crippled" hardware.

Thankfully, apple isn't crippling most of their models as much as they used to, the imacs and laptops are much better than they used to be. But the mini still seems to follow apple's old (failed?) strategy for crippling low end units, and since the mini doesn't seem to be selling well, it does seem to be a bad strategy for them on that particular model.

[shikimo]

But the mini still seems to follow apple's old (failed?) strategy for crippling low end units, and since the mini doesn't seem to be selling well, it does seem to be a bad strategy for them on that particular model.

Allright...earlier in this thread you rightfully challenged me to prove my claim that the Mini has sold well. I then admitted that I can't prove it and abandoned the claim, because my research turned up nothing but contradictions (i.e. lots of 'experts' claiming both sides to serve their position but no one with any real numbers). As you yourself pointed out, Apple doesn't release such numbers...

...so please give us some references as to why the mini "doesn't seem to be selling well." Maybe you found something I missed.

In fact, if ANYONE has some solid data on how the Little One is selling, please chime in: there is a pretty clear answer to this question that would really help with this whole debate, but I don't know how to find it.

[juxtaposer]

This article (http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20070524/is-the-mac-mini-dead/) from 'Coolest Gadgets' back in May states that the Mac Mini is not performing too well as far as sales go, compared to the iMac and Macbook. And since the last update was a minor one, I'm pretty sure the figures have probably remained quite similar. It's a shame, because I think with a little better marketing and an update the Mac Mini could be a great tool for Apple. Still no sign of solid figures though, but I'm on the lookout. :)

[shikimo]

This article (http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20070524/is-the-mac-mini-dead/) from 'Coolest Gadgets' back in May states that the Mac Mini is not performing too well as far as sales go, compared to the iMac and Macbook. And since the last update was a minor one, I'm pretty sure the figures have probably remained quite similar. It's a shame, because I think with a little better marketing and an update the Mac Mini could be a great tool for Apple. Still no sign of solid figures though, but I'm on the lookout. :)

Right on...thanks for looking. This article is a good example of the problem: with no numbers, it's no more valuable than when I said "the mini sells well dammit" just because I wanted it to be true and it makes sense to me :).

It does seem logical that they wouldn't have bothered with the C2D and configuration update in August if it wasn't selling well...wouldn't they've just sold off existing stock as-is and gone forward with whatever is coming up?

But that's just more speculation without facts [slaps self on wrist].

[juxtaposer]

Right on...thanks for looking. This article is a good example of the problem: with no numbers, it's no more valuable than when I said "the mini sells well dammit" just because I wanted it to be true and it makes sense to me :).

It does seem logical that they wouldn't have bothered with the C2D and configuration update in August if it wasn't selling well...wouldn't they've just sold off existing stock as-is and gone forward with whatever is coming up?

But that's just more speculation without facts [slaps self on wrist].
But speculation without facts is what this site is all about, hence the 'Rumors' ;)
That article I posted was from May this year, when everybody was expecting Apple to ditch the Mac Mini. And what did they do? They gave it the same bump as the Macbooks got rather than ditch it. Now it's a few months on and everybody's expecting Apple to ditch the Mini... I wonder what will happen now.
When you consider that if Apple did stop selling the Mini, there wouldn't be a low-end switcher's Mac available at all. Whether the sales are good or bad, Apple will still be making a profit on every unit sold. With the iPod 'halo effect' currently in motion, it would be foolish of Apple not to have a product affordable enough for the 'slightly curious switcher'. Of course, if the Mini was no more, then Macs once again become a little exclusive corner of the market as they previously were. Nowadays though, due to the iPod, Apple are well-known for making some of the most consumer-friendly products. Nobody complained that the iPod's specs didn't match up to the specs of other mp3 players (the zen for one), and now with the iPod Touch they've reinvigorated what was already a high-selling brand. Casual switchers will not be looking at the specs in as much detail as other tech-savvy users might. And it is these switchers that Apple are targeting with the Mini.
I can perhaps see a possibility of Apple offering price reductions for peripherals with the Mini. Perhaps a discounted wired keyboard and mouse? But one thing is for certain, if the Mini is disposed of, Apple will replace it with a similar product for the casual switcher.
Still looking for the sales figures..... :)

[milo]

I don't think anyone really expects apple to just dump the mini. They'd probably kill it to replace it with something else, hopefully a machine that is a little bigger and a lot better bang for your buck.

[orangeapple]

Damn, if this proves true, I'll have a mini and MB, Both in glass and aluminum
freakin sweeeeet!:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:

I hope all of Apples products continue to veer into the pro design/aesthetic.

The idea of limiting a products specs to push for a minor upgrade does make financial sense, though shipping a product without enough ram (for example) just lowers consumer satisfaction.

I think the profit margins will follow the high-end engineering.

Apple understands this and executes it to a certain extent.

They are one of the few companies that actually has the ability to offer seamless, toped up systems, with form factor being the only deciding factor.

[tuc]

Well, I was hoping that when the macbooks were updated with the santa rosa chipset that the macMini would be updated at the same time. But the macbooks were stealthily updated today, so I guess not. Does anyone think it might still happen in the next few days?

[macjonny1]

Does anyone think it might still happen in the next few days?

No. Nobody does.

[mrfrosty]

No. Nobody does.

Whooooa easy tiger, ...... I think it might.

[takao]

dropping it (without a replacement device ) would be a huge mistake, after all the mac mini is single handed the most popular switcher desktop mac laptops are a different game there apple is competitive

i remember the moaning before the mac mini got released that a cheaper desktop without integrated screen was in dire need (and i still remember the comments "why don't you simply buy an eMac with integrated CRT and 128 mb RAM" i got for like a year)
i switched as soon at it was released and still use the 1.gen 1.42 G4 mac mini as my main desktop (i switched screen a few times in that time frame)

more unfortunate is that when i'll be finally looking for a replacement 1 - 1 1/2 years from now there simply is little which i can upgrade to.. after all the mini power is not enough for all my needs (no single CPU desktop with more performance and no integrated screen)

[Mekgek]

If the mac mini is really discontinued I predict millions will rise and march the streets to protest.

In my opinion the mini is the best form factor Apple has ever released. Put it right under a big cinema display and you have the best looking mac in the world.

Only thing it needs is better specs...

[Roy]

If the mac mini is really discontinued I predict millions will rise and march the streets to protest.

In my opinion the mini is the best form factor Apple has ever released. Put it right under a big cinema display and you have the best looking mac in the world.

Only thing it needs is better specs...


Are you sure about that? All I've read is that the Mini doesn't sell well and Apple is probably going to discontinue it?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Are you sure about that? All I've read is that the Mini doesn't sell well and Apple is probably going to discontinue it?Apple builds "some" products with specs & price that makes them fail. Apple could have spent $20 on its graphics instead of the $5 it was for the 950 and had something. Integrated graphics are just so so far behind todays graphics. Many games wont run on the stuff. So Apple gives us a mini with no graphics or an iMac with broken graphics. Amazing.

[Kebabselector]

It seems with every new update of an Apple product the Mini is teh d00m3d.

It might be, but enjoy it whilst it's still here.

[ctakim]

Apple builds products with specs & price that makes them fail. Apple could have spent $20 on its graphics instead of the $5 it was for the 950 and had something. Integrated graphics are just so so far behind todays graphics. Many games wont run on the stuff. So Apple gives us a mini with no graphics or an iMac with broken graphics. Amazing.

I guess that is why the company is doing so poorly and is about to go out of business....NOT!:eek:

[kresh]

Well I hope that since Apple posted a new Pro Profile, featuring the Mac Mini, this means they are keeping it around.

http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/schatz/

[Decrepit]

Well I hope that since Apple posted a new Pro Profile, featuring the Mac Mini, this means they are keeping it around.

http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/schatz/


That's pretty neat. Thanks for the link.

My Mini is just awesome. Since Leopard, I am going to be more productive than ever. I say going to be, since I'm still having a blast not studying while I play with Leopard. But with spaces, I have stuff everywhere, and readable. The Mini actually runs way quieter and cooler since the install.

LOVE IT.
(But it wouldn't suck to get a newer Mac that can do 4GB of memory...)

[azpalmprincess]

I really like my mini...its simple and I think apple has done a great job of comming out of the box and creating something for everyone. :-)

[Roy]

I really like my mini...its simple and I think apple has done a great job of comming out of the box and creating something for everyone. :-)


I'm glad that you are happy with your Mac mini, but I wouldn't go so far as to say Apple is creating something for everyone.

[deathshrub]

Apple builds "some" products with specs & price that makes them fail. Apple could have spent $20 on its graphics instead of the $5 it was for the 950 and had something. Integrated graphics are just so so far behind todays graphics. Many games wont run on the stuff. So Apple gives us a mini with no graphics or an iMac with broken graphics. Amazing.

Or a Mac Pro with outdated graphics.

[chasemac]

If they can update the mini with the itv form factor, iPod/iPhone price and Al Gore, the world is ruled.:)

[realmcenter]

I keep hoping that Apple will release something that is more competitive with other lower-end desktop PCs. Heck, they'd be doing good just competing with lower-end Windows laptops.

They should just be ashamed that http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=7811083 smacks around the $600 mini on most specs, plus has a display, keyboard, trackpad, and battery. In that $600 Apple could surely be including a decent-size hard drive (160GB) and a DVD burner, at the very least. At that price the integrated graphics could be forgiven as just being par for the course, so long as the rest of the specs were bumped up.

Now at the $800 end, the mini looks even worse. Even with the existing specs for both machines, it's a terrible value compared to its own combo-drive sporting brother. And compared to even cheap Windows laptops for that price it's RAM and hard drive specs are jokes. There is no hope for it against Windows desktops for that same price. For $800 it needs a bigger hard drive, twice the RAM, and discrete graphics. It is not unreasonable to expect a 250GB hard drive, 2GB of RAM, and at least something like an ATI X1350 or NVIDIA GeForce 7300 graphics chip with 64MB of graphics memory.

I really, really want them to improve the mini. I'd like to replace my 2 1/2 year old iBook next year with a mini since right now my iBook is being used pretty much as a desktop anyway. But right now the mini is a horizontal move, and in some regards, a downgrade. I am even willing to deal with integrated graphics if the rest of the machine was an upgrade from my aging iBook. Too bad that except for the CPU, the machine represents roughly what I would have expected my iBook sans LCD, trackpad, keyboard, upper lid, and battery to have costed back in mid-2005. Oh wait, the G4 mini of that time for $600 did indeed represent that. Which is what helps makes the mini of today look even worse.

The mini needs to be kept, but is in serious need of being brought to somewhat competitive specs. The CPU is more than fine in them, just that the rest of the machine lags.

[Cheffy Dave]

Are you sure about that? All I've read is that the Mini doesn't sell well and Apple is probably going to discontinue it?

been hearing that line forever:rolleyes:. It's been around to long to be a poor seller,IMHO

[orangeapple]

...The mini needs to be kept, but is in serious need of being brought to somewhat competitive specs. The CPU is more than fine in them, just that the rest of the machine lags...

While I do think the mini serves its purpose as is, I would like a mac mini pro alternate.

[iCube]

Once a week I stop in my local Apple Store at the Mall and I always ask any employee that approaches me the latest "Macrumor" to see their reaction/response. The best "canned/generic" response I got the other day when I asked if the Mac Mini was going to be around much longer was "I couldn't tell you if the store here will be open in the morning." Most employees tell me the Mac Mini isn't at the end of it's life, but that's the same thing they said last X-Mas when the iSight camera disappeared from inventory and they kept telling me to stop back in a few more days...the iSight went away forever. :rolleyes:

[saltyzoo]

The response I got when I asked about a rumor I'd heard that the mini was to be EOL'd was very defensive and aggressive. "It's JUST THAT - a rumor" he says. "Apple NEVER says in advance when they do things like that".

As if this was going to make me feel better about buying one. After all Apple might discontinue it tomorrow and even he wouldn't know. ;)

[eric55lv]

actually i think that many switchers bought a mac mini because its the only cheap mac

[Decrepit]

actually i think that many switchers bought a mac mini because its the only cheap mac

If the Mini didn't come out when it did, I wouldn't have switched back.

I wouldn't have bought a notebook, or an iMac, and I certainly wouldn't have spent Mac Pro money to come back to Apple products.

[orangeapple]

If the Mini didn't come out when it did, I wouldn't have switched back.

I wouldn't have bought a notebook, or an iMac, and I certainly wouldn't have spent Mac Pro money to come back to Apple products.

The mac mini has been my saviour - A simple way out of constant tech support with family and friends.

I set it up once, and their good to go. The only exception is when they decide to upgrade their peripherals to suit the quality of their mac.