An open letter to Apple: here's what you can do to clean up the Mac Mini mess

[Lead Belly]

What's really interesting is all the "reader comments" below his critique are so glowingly positive and empathetic, while within his nearly empty forum the comments are almost entirely the opposite (although generally very well reasoned and balanced).

I tend to think this guy wrote the positive reader comments. The tone is very similar to the parent article and are mostly covering topics that would concern the writer of the article rather than the reader. They remind me of years ago when I would try and write a "note from my parents" to explain my various school absences.

I have criticisms of the Mini, mostly centered around the RAM, but the ones in the Palmer review are not worthy. Why would Apple reinforce obsolete, crappy technology by providing a PS/2-to-USB converter? And if a new switcher is going to be stumped by USB (hint: it's the little flat socket thingy), there's likely very little Apple or any other computer maker can do to satisfy that user's first experience.

 

[cmvsm]

I mean it makes sense to me to get the machine+osx because you can't get that from a different vendor. But a display is just that and who cares you still have an apple! (with an ugly dell screen, but $300 saved)

I see your point. If you figure it this way, the average "new" PowerMac user will spend about $3,000 on a system and another $1,000 bucks on a new monitor for a total of $4,000, if they purchased the Apple Cinema over the Dell for example. When you are talking about this kind of money, $300 bucks savings, if you bought the Dell instead, is about 7.5% of the entire total which isn't a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. So IMHO, just get what you like and if its the Apple monitor, spend another 7% and get it. Chances are, you'll recover that amount in resale should you ever decide to get rid of the system. Everthing always sells better in a system instead of being piece mealed together...unless you are a PC user that is...

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

In their quarterly financial statements. It's a very significant number for any manufacturer. Just for comparison, Sun Microsystems, considered to be in the dumps the last 3 years, has a +40% margin, regularly. People point to Apple's margin because they are comparing them to Dell. Dell has *much* higher volume on *much* lower margin and, for all intents and purposes, no R&D. Dell doesn't innovate, they manufacture, period. I think Apple is right where they need to be.

Thanks, but that is Gross Margin. It does not reflect the margin that Apple makes on the hardware side of the house. I assume things like AppleCare, and .Mac positive effect on the Gross Margin. As the iTunes ops are a downer for the Gross Margins.

Just because a company can generate decent Gross Margins, does not mean they need to lower them, if the consumer is willing to buy the products and services of that company.

 

[jaromski]

I see your point. If you figure it this way, the average "new" PowerMac user will spend about $3,000 on a system and another $1,000 bucks on a new monitor for a total of $4,000, if they purchased the Apple Cinema over the Dell for example. When you are talking about this kind of money, $300 bucks savings, if you bought the Dell instead, is about 7.5% of the entire total which isn't a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. So IMHO, just get what you like and if its the Apple monitor, spend another 7% and get it. Chances are, you'll recover that amount in resale should you ever decide to get rid of the system. Everthing always sells better in a system instead of being piece mealed together...unless you are a PC user that is...

Yeah if you are in the market for a PowerMac then a Dell monitor would be an abomination. If you have that kind of money to drop on a system you can't wuss out at the end with the monitor. The monitor provides most of the physical "connection" to your machine. I guess I was coming from the angle where most people don't have that kind of money (well they do) but they don't want to spend it on a computer. They have their priorities mixed up. For most people $300 is $300 and that is money in the bank. It doesn't change the overall experience since you are looking at the screen 90% of the time, not the bezel. But the point is probably tired now. Not trying to rile you up or anything.

Jaromski

 

[dejo]

But...the 20" acd is $999 and the dell 20" equivalent is $680 right now.

That's not exactly "equivalent". the 20" ACD is "widescreen" (1.6:1 aspect ratio) vs. the 20" Dell "regular size" (1.33:1 aspect ratio). But the 20" ACD has a resolution of 1680x1050; the Dell's is 1600x1200 (i.e. 157,200 more pixels on the Dell)

 

[cmvsm]

Yeah if you are in the market for a PowerMac then a Dell monitor would be an abomination. If you have that kind of money to drop on a system you can't wuss out at the end with the monitor. The monitor provides most of the physical "connection" to your machine. I guess I was coming from the angle where most people don't have that kind of money (well they do) but they don't want to spend it on a computer. They have their priorities mixed up. For most people $300 is $300 and that is money in the bank. It doesn't change the overall experience since you are looking at the screen 90% of the time, not the bezel. But the point is probably tired now. Not trying to rile you up or anything.

Jaromski

Nothing to be riled up about Jaromski... Everybody likes what they like and feels comfortable with. At the end of the day...that's what counts!

 

[jaromski]

That's not exactly "equivalent". the 20" ACD is "widescreen" (1.6:1 aspect ratio) vs. the 20" Dell "regular size" (1.33:1 aspect ratio). But the 20" ACD has a resolution of 1680x1050; the Dell's is 1600x1200 (i.e. 157,200 more pixels on the Dell)

Then get the WideAspect model. It is $749. Same panel as the Apple @ 75% the price.

Jaromski

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

That's not exactly "equivalent". the 20" ACD is "widescreen" (1.6:1 aspect ratio) vs. the 20" Dell "regular size" (1.33:1 aspect ratio). But the 20" ACD has a resolution of 1680x1050; the Dell's is 1600x1200 (i.e. 157,200 more pixels on the Dell)

The Dell you are referring to is the 2001FP. I got this one for Xmas. They have wide screen 2005FPW (currently $749), same screen res as the Apple. Back during the holidays they were selling for the same price of $550 to $600.

 

[jaromski]

Nothing to be riled up about Jaromski... Everybody likes what they like and feels comfortable with. At the end of the day...that's what counts!

The ironic thing about our conversation is that I have the 23" ACD. Bought it when it first came out at an astronomically-high price.

So I guess I should shut the hell up now.

Jaromski

 

[Mechcozmo]

I think I'm gonna call the Wha-mbulence now.

This guy is just worthless. I want one, and none of his complains really are valid. Some can work, but he is just trying to find a flaw in it.

That's my opinion, don't wear it out.

 

[sarae]

Maybe I haven't been looking at computers lately (well, non-Mac ones anyway) but when did they start always bundling a monitor + computer together? I always understood that it was kind of like they would create a "package" deal to appeal to more people, but that buying a cpu didn't inherently include the monitor?

I have to admit, though, I think the keyboard sticker idea is a really cute idea. With Apple's packaging, they could concoct a fairly inexpensive and fun "switcher kit."

 

[solvs]

Sigh, I used to like Bill, but he's wrong about this one. It's funny how someone who loves Apple so much is criticizing them, while former critics are actually recommending this machine. I mean, I don't want one, but I get I'm not the intended audience. For those that are, this is perfect.

I have some vaild complaints about it, as do most people, but I understand it is not for me. Bill, unfortunetly, does not. And he just keeps digging himself into a hole. This thing is already a hit, shame he doesn't get that.

 

[atari1356]

He says the Mac Mini is one Apple's biggest blunders, heh. I think he's wrong... one of the biggest blunders was the Cube, but only because it was overpriced. At $499, the Mac Mini is a nice machine at a very reasonable price - far from being a "blunder."

 

[Counterfit]

PS. My pc only has 2 USB ports. Damn crappy IBM laptop...

Hey, my PowerBook's the same way! WTF APPLE?!?!?!

 

[johnnyjibbs]

To be fair, I think he does make some good points. Most PC keyboards even in this day and age are still not USB, especially the ones included with cheap computers. And most USB keyboards don't have any extra ports on them. That said, I'm sure Apple would have liked more than 2 USB ports on there if they could make them fit.

But one mistake I think Apple is making with the mini is this: up until now Macs have always been all inclusive. Sure, you pay a bit more, but you get a lot for your money. For example, if I buy an eMac or an iMac, or even a PowerBook, I can bring it home, plug it in and use it to do what I like, from importing and managing digital photos to writing text and surfing the internet. (Ok, so the one exception is the PM G5, which requires a screen, but I don't think many pros would be confused by that).

But the Mac Mini isn't all inclusive, and so there are hidden costs involved, just like the cheap and crappy £200 PCs. Suddenly, that £339 ($499) price doesn't seem so good, and, as he points out in the article, it makes the other Macs seem more expensive, just as cheap PCs (who have also been giving out dishonest prices) have been doing to Macs until now.

Of course, you could say that no-one is forcing you to buy one, and that it is an extra line for the Macs which will suit some people and therefore be a good thing. And you can, of course, buy a cheap mouse, keyboard (even Apple's) and a cheap CRT monitor with the mini for less than the price of the cheapest eMac. I for one think the Mac Mini is a very good thing. But it does break the mould.

Also, I don't agree with the eMac stuff he says - pray that Apple doesn't cripple the eMac just to make it more in line with the Mac mini - they are two separate markets. And then the eMac would look even more expensive. Expect the next iMac G5 to have DVI out though.

 

[MacAficionado]

This is exactly how i felt since the anouncement!!!

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/01/miniapplesandoranges/index.php


People just don't understand. When you explain it like this to people then they will understand. Hopefully.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Yes, Apple. You have released a computer that is built around 2-year-old technology that pales in comparison to anything else in your lineup and the media are tripping over themselves to talk about how revolutionary it is.

The New York Times has done three pieces on it already.

Clearly, you have made a terrible mess.

2 yr old tech? that is generous 9200 is = to i would guess a 4mx of 4 years ago, and 1.25 g4s were here when 2.5-3 years ago?

 

[munkle]

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2005/01/miniapplesandoranges/index.php


People just don't understand. When you explain it like this to people then they will understand. Hopefully.

Thanks for the link. It's nice to read a well written and researched tech article for a change! I particularly like his endnote:

When I was writing this article, I also looked at the bargain machines from other Windows PC vendors. As I browsed these companies’ websites, something popped out at me: The different ways in which Apple and the Windows PC vendors (including Dell) “strip down” their low-end models. The Mac mini is stripped down externally—no mouse, keyboard, or display—while still being a full-featured machine internally. Windows PC makers generally take the opposite approach: You get a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, but limited hardware features and little to no software. And speaking of software, why do so many Windows writers neglect to include the value of bundled software, monetary or otherwise, when they “compare” computers? I suppose it’s because the “free” software that comes with most Windows PCs stinks—in the budget PC world, if it comes with the computer it must not be very good. Tip to Windows writers: You’ve been led astray. The software that comes with a computer can be free and great.

 

[spercharged69]

I suppose it’s because the “free” software that comes with most Windows PCs stinks—in the budget PC world, if it comes with the computer it must not be very good. Tip to Windows writers: You’ve been led astray. The software that comes with a computer can be free and great.

That is the one difference about Macs I love. When you buy a Windows PC, if you're smart, the first thing you do is format the drive and start with a clean install of Windows XP. You would be amazed how loaded up with crap your average Dell is, which is hilarious considering the small amount of RAM they all come with. 256MB of RAM? Let's fill it up with all kinds of useless **** that runs all the time like McAffe security center and MusicMatch Jukebox!

 

[johnnyjibbs]

2 yr old tech? that is generous 9200 is = to i would guess a 4mx of 4 years ago, and 1.25 g4s were here when 2.5-3 years ago?

Yes, but the cheapest Dells come with old integrated graphics and 2.4 or 2.8GHz P4 processors, which have been knocking around for as long these days.

And the Mac mini 1.25 GHz processor may have been around in late 2002 (Mirror drive doors) but you still had to buy a screen and they would have cost several thousand dollars.

The PC world has stagnated on the technology front, so the prices are coming down instead. A 1.2GHz G4 is more than adequate for what most Mac Mini customers will need.

 

[gekko513]

That's not exactly "equivalent". the 20" ACD is "widescreen" (1.6:1 aspect ratio) vs. the 20" Dell "regular size" (1.33:1 aspect ratio). But the 20" ACD has a resolution of 1680x1050; the Dell's is 1600x1200 (i.e. 157,200 more pixels on the Dell)

Perhaps the most important difference is that the Apple monitor is SWOP Certified, as I learned in another Dell vs Apple discussion thread. It means that the monitor meets sufficiently with the SWOP requirements to create an onscreen proof that has the same brightness and feel as paper. This can be very important for a pro monitor, I can imagine.

 

[mactropy]

Philosophy-wise, I think the Mac mini makes sense. A low-budget computer for entry-level users. Those who'll buy it, won't care about cutting-edge technology. People are not stupid. They know that they cannot get cutting edge for a fraction of a price. Well, even though compared to a WIN PC, everything seems like cutting edge.
Bill is just a du**a*s.

 

[Yvan256]

Bill Palmer -- An open letter to Apple: here's what you can do to clean up the Mac Mini mess

Well, while this guy's last rant was just insane, he does make a few good points about bad things with the Mac mini (and some silly ways to "correct" them).

I agree with him on the PS/2-to-USB cable. These things sell for about 1-2$ on eBay, Apple should've included one in the package (just like they included a DVI-to-VGA cable). Yes, they did keep saying "re-use your USB Keyboard and Mouse", but still. If the point is to re-use our equipment, make sure we can use it.

It's only half a problem for me, since while my keyboard is PS/2 (black IBM keyboard), my Logitech ergonomic mouse is USB.

I also agree with him on the "only two USB ports". Indeed, I'd say most switchers will need a USB hub. Most keyboards don't have a built-in hub. Connect keyboard, connect mouse, no more USB ports. Where are people supposed to connect their printer, scanner, webcam, etc? The Mac mini needs at least 4 USB ports (keyboard, mouse, printer, scanner is the most popular setup). People are used to see 6 or more USB ports on their PC, they'll think the Mac mini is lacking ports, a lot.

For me, it's no problem at all since I got two USB hubs (a seven ports and a four ports with two serial and one parallel converters).

FireWire. Aside from an iPod, a DV camera and an external HD, I can't think of anything a common user would use. I can see a problem where the user wants to dump his DV onto his external HD though. Two FireWire400 ports would've been nice.

For me it's no problem (only got an iPod as far as "FireWire-enabled hardware" is concerned), but fixing this will require yet another hub.

The keyboard mapping problem: yeah it's going to bother a few users, but frankly all they need to do is include a little reference sheet that lists the Windows vs Mac keys (alt = option, etc).

We'll see what Apple does with rev.2 of the Mac mini. The current setup won't stop me from buying one, but I'm waiting for Tiger.

 

[Yvan256]

Dear Bill Palmer,

Please refund my 3 minutes for reading that crap you consider a legitimate gripe with Apple.

Sincerely,

kingjr3

PS. My pc only has 2 USB ports. Damn crappy IBM laptop...

Wow, your IBM laptop has TWO USB ports?! Mine has none, and only ONE PS/2 port!

Then again, mine is an old 760XL (see signature below).

 

[Yvan256]

I have criticisms of the Mini, mostly centered around the RAM, but the ones in the Palmer review are not worthy.

I can't understand why you'd have any critism about the Mac mini's RAM. After all, you surely must know that even the basic PowerMac only comes with 256MB too. Apple won't make their low-level, entry-model computer come with more RAM than most of their other models.

If your criticism comes from the fact that the Mac mini only has 1 RAM slot, then I'm with you on that. Two slots would've allowed to buy the stock Mac mini, then a few months later upgrade the RAM to 512MB or 768MB (with a 256MB/512MB stick).

Why would Apple reinforce obsolete, crappy technology by providing a PS/2-to-USB converter? And if a new switcher is going to be stumped by USB (hint: it's the little flat socket thingy), there's likely very little Apple or any other computer maker can do to satisfy that user's first experience.

It's not about reinforcing "obsolete" technology, it's about the fact that the Mac mini is supposed to be a switcher's box, and that you're supposed to re-use your current keyboard and mouse.

And most people I know do have a USB mouse with a PS/2 keyboard. As that other guy said, including a little converter cable wouldn't add much cost to the package (there's a lot of these cables selling for 1-2$ on eBay).

Apple does include a DVI-to-VGA adapter, after all. A PS/2-to-USB adapter would've helped a lot of switchers.