solomania9 said:
Bingo!
I really believe Apple is gonna release this minibeast at a loss knowing the rest of the Mac lines will sell well enough to cover the loss until they get the footprint down pat.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Mac mini at MacWorld San Francisco in January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bingo!
I really believe Apple is gonna release this minibeast at a loss knowing the rest of the Mac lines will sell well enough to cover the loss until they get the footprint down pat.
makes sense to me
I would hope Apple would make the mini switch to Intel first - not that I'd buy one. But it makes it incredibly easy (cheap) for early adopters to check out the new Intel macs & in so doing create the demand necessary for developers to feel even mor motivated to make Intel-mac versions of their software.
At the same time, non-early-adopters, people just looking to buy the cheapest Mac, are unlikely to need much beyond the installed software, so they won't be hurt too much by the initial lack of Intel-mac compatible software.
6 months to a year down the line, things will be much better for people like me looking to buy Intel iMacs or PowerMacs...
I would hope Apple would make the mini switch to Intel first - not that I'd buy one. But it makes it incredibly easy (cheap) for early adopters to check out the new Intel macs & in so doing create the demand necessary for developers to feel even mor motivated to make Intel-mac versions of their software.
At the same time, non-early-adopters, people just looking to buy the cheapest Mac, are unlikely to need much beyond the installed software, so they won't be hurt too much by the initial lack of Intel-mac compatible software.
6 months to a year down the line, things will be much better for people like me looking to buy Intel iMacs or PowerMacs...
Forbes
Forbes throws in a healthy dose of speculation with their facts. They do a good job of being honest about it, but really they are just taking guesses beyond "something Intel at MWSF."
Frankly, I don't see any desktop system going to Intel prior to the laptop lines. The PowerBook will be first and the iBook second. The Mac mini third, with the iMac fourth, the PowerMac 5th, and the xServe 6th.
Forbes throws in a healthy dose of speculation with their facts. They do a good job of being honest about it, but really they are just taking guesses beyond "something Intel at MWSF."
Frankly, I don't see any desktop system going to Intel prior to the laptop lines. The PowerBook will be first and the iBook second. The Mac mini third, with the iMac fourth, the PowerMac 5th, and the xServe 6th.
Photorun said:
Your rant wouldn't sound as stupid if you knew what you were talking about. The Pentium M is the CPU used in Centrino laptops.
Assuming you are able to read, here is a URL: http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/index.htm
mac mini with intel integrated graphics?
no, you´re wrong. i just tested the "modified" OSX86 version on an intel celereon with intelchipset and intel gpu (gm900) (yah...i know...but it was only for a short comparism to my powerbook...and it wasn´t even my computer and i deinstalled it instantly
). it runs fine...and the gpu supports core graphics - it´s even faster than my powerbook (e.g. smoother widgets-water-effects).
Chupa Chupa said:
no, you´re wrong. i just tested the "modified" OSX86 version on an intel celereon with intelchipset and intel gpu (gm900) (yah...i know...but it was only for a short comparism to my powerbook...and it wasn´t even my computer and i deinstalled it instantly
). it runs fine...and the gpu supports core graphics - it´s even faster than my powerbook (e.g. smoother widgets-water-effects).
Strategic Move by Apple if True
I have reason to believe that a release of an Intel based Mac mini at Macworld 2006 is possible. It would be a great headline story to jump start Macworld as it would demonstrate to the market that Apple has the ability to make the transition.
This will be done for a number of reasons: Leopard, Sales, Microsoft. An Intel based system, even if it's a Mac mini, out well in advance of Leopard will:
I have reason to believe that a release of an Intel based Mac mini at Macworld 2006 is possible. It would be a great headline story to jump start Macworld as it would demonstrate to the market that Apple has the ability to make the transition.
This will be done for a number of reasons: Leopard, Sales, Microsoft. An Intel based system, even if it's a Mac mini, out well in advance of Leopard will:
- Increase the test base as Apple would get more feedback from users on any problems faced on the new platform. This would give Apple plenty of lead time to resolve these issues prior to the release of Leopard
- Get the ball rolling from a developer perspective as Apple would have a "non-development" environment to test applications
- Kick off a new wave of buying from potential Windows switchers as consumers wouldn't be restricted from running Windows on the mini
- Generate momentum and fuel the interest for the next wave of the Mac upgrade cycle. Many current Mac owners have indicated a willingness to hold off on upgrading their systems until the Intel based Macs are released. The success of an Intel based Mac mini could drive those current Mac owners to purchase the intial round of Intel based iMac, iBook, Powerbook, and Powermac systems instead of opting for second generation systems
- Get another leg up on Microsoft
Lynxpro said:
I'd venture that people who buy and use Quark in this day and age aren't the types to go rushing out to buy new Hardware.
As for Photoshop and Illustrator (up to an including CS2), they can run on a G3 processor. Granted, they won't have the speed of AltiVec (G4 and G5), but it'll run.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html
ktlx said:
Ba-ziiiing!
Ouch.
I think, if anything, this proves that the Centrino / Intel marketing scheme is something Apple will abstract. It isn't clear to most people.
if I may rant...
the computer that I would like to see apple make is one with the power of an imac but without the built-in screen, and is potentially upgradeable. at the consumer level there should be a computer that has power (more than the Mini) but does not require you to purchase a new screen every time you want to upgrade (it seems like a waste to constantly buy a new screen (imac)). I understand that this might kill the sales of the mini, but I would love to run a computer with the power of an imac, on one of apples cinema displays. am I crazy?
the computer that I would like to see apple make is one with the power of an imac but without the built-in screen, and is potentially upgradeable. at the consumer level there should be a computer that has power (more than the Mini) but does not require you to purchase a new screen every time you want to upgrade (it seems like a waste to constantly buy a new screen (imac)). I understand that this might kill the sales of the mini, but I would love to run a computer with the power of an imac, on one of apples cinema displays. am I crazy?
Imagine...
Imagine this. Apple announces new Powerbooks and Mac minis at Macworld: To ship as soon as possible.
The Developer community, in unison, goes "HOLY S***!!!!!" and works as fast as it can to get its apps native.
3 months later, the macs actually ship with a healthy library of supported titles.
Then the iBook comes out, and the education maret doesn't feel nervous about performance.
Imagine this. Apple announces new Powerbooks and Mac minis at Macworld: To ship as soon as possible.
The Developer community, in unison, goes "HOLY S***!!!!!" and works as fast as it can to get its apps native.
3 months later, the macs actually ship with a healthy library of supported titles.
Then the iBook comes out, and the education maret doesn't feel nervous about performance.
bennyek said:
The Powermacs absolutely will not come out first. They will start with the inexpensive Macmini and Ibook, BUT bacause the Powerbooks have been long overdue for a makeover they will probably be in the mix early on in '06.
But not the POwermacs. The new Quad machines are going to be faster than anything in their price range. It probably wont be until '07 before we see any Intel PM's
When I first started reading this thread, I was confused why Apple would put their latest and greatest into their least expensive model ...
I'm still a little uncertain if the explanations offered are accurate- but some of the sensible ideas I read are:
*wider base of new users
*average mac mini user will not need pro apps ready to go
*price point may attract switchers
So it sounds like a safety issue. Apple doesn't want to take a chance by offering INTEL in their premium lines. A little insecurity there,, (but it is a big change.. )
I'm still a little uncertain if the explanations offered are accurate- but some of the sensible ideas I read are:
*wider base of new users
*average mac mini user will not need pro apps ready to go
*price point may attract switchers
So it sounds like a safety issue. Apple doesn't want to take a chance by offering INTEL in their premium lines. A little insecurity there,, (but it is a big change.. )
Um, base-level powermac?susannahyork said:
And no, you're not crazy, it's just that Apple hasn't built their business model that way. They have the mini, for those who are looking for an email machine. The iMac, for those who want a reasonably powerful, beautiful, integrated, never-have-to-screw-with-the-innards computer. And the Power Macs, for the power users.
photorun said:
And to top it off the Pentium M (and beyond) are all based on a step back to the Pentium III , which is partly why they outperform the Penitum 4s.ktlx said:
Centrino = (Pentium-M CPU + Chipset + Wireless) all designed for low power consumption (even though I have yet to see a Centrino notebook that has 5 hours battery life surfing the web over wireless like my iBook!). If Apple actually uses the Centrino platform for the new mini it'll be to keep the heat down since there is no battery to worry about.
Maybe this explains why the 1.5 GHz (late 2005) minis have not been formally announced. They are about to be EOLed in a couple of months.
Maybe they'll just release the Intel minis without a formal annoucement either, and at MWSF they'll just announce. We've been shipping Intel based minis for a month now, and nobody noticed.
B
As many have said, I think going with the mini first is a good idea. It's not a 'pro' tool, and a little more freedom to play around with things as oppossed to a laptop. I wont be buying one, as I'm not in the market for such a device, but a good stepping stone nonetheless.
Chupa Chupa said:
The developer machines are fully core image/ video compliant and they're running GMA900 with a DVI adaptor card.
Several Birds - One Stone
It may have been said earlier, but releasing an Intel-based Mini at MWSF '06 is smart... for several reasons.
AUDIENCE
Generally speaking, the target market for the Mini has primarily been (and will continue to be) the casual user: one who gets online, listens to music, maybe watches a DVD. These are all either iApps or system-based apps - all of which will (and are) run(ning) fine on Intel chips. For those apps that aren't there yet, Rosetta will act as this transition's "Classic" (users seem quick to forget that when OS X first hit, there were zero apps available, save what Apple bundled - now know as the iApps - and we all adjusted just fine). The typical Mini user will very much more-than-likely not ever have a need for any of this Rosetta business.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
It would be nice if Apple could deliver an Intel-based "anything" ahead of their mid '06 prediction... if even on a psychological level. I personally hope they very intentionally said "mid '06" with the knowledge that they would actually begin releasing Intel-based product(s) earlier. With past false promises and missed opportunities, it would bode well for Apple to come in ahead of schedule, for once. Help the current and potential user base feel more confident with an Apple/Intel relationship.
INTEL MINIS TODAY = BETTER INTEL POWERMACS TOMORROW*
The sooner we have Intel-based Macs in the market, the sooner the power users' gear will go to market... and/or the better it will run. I see an Intel-based Mini as a public testing ground. The people reading this thread are, for the most part, not the typical Mini user and will probably be happy to let the Mini debut the Intel inside, as opposed to the Powermacs.
MONEY
No matter what people say, there will always be early adopters just itching to give Apple their money. The Mini audience seems the most logical, for reasons listed above and because (for the most part) they could care less what processor is powering their Mini. And if Apple could make some money off these users, while testing the waters... win win.
TIMING
Releasing this Mini early is also nice because it starts the transition now, as opposed to potentially having a more massive, product-wide announcement in mid '06. Seems more wise to water down the Intel thing over a longer roll out process... hopefully building momentum along the way.
While there are several other reasons, these seemed the most pertinent... to me.
* does not, for one second, suggest we open the seemingly unavoidable "Intel-based Powerbooks Tomorrow" thread.
It may have been said earlier, but releasing an Intel-based Mini at MWSF '06 is smart... for several reasons.
AUDIENCE
Generally speaking, the target market for the Mini has primarily been (and will continue to be) the casual user: one who gets online, listens to music, maybe watches a DVD. These are all either iApps or system-based apps - all of which will (and are) run(ning) fine on Intel chips. For those apps that aren't there yet, Rosetta will act as this transition's "Classic" (users seem quick to forget that when OS X first hit, there were zero apps available, save what Apple bundled - now know as the iApps - and we all adjusted just fine). The typical Mini user will very much more-than-likely not ever have a need for any of this Rosetta business.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
It would be nice if Apple could deliver an Intel-based "anything" ahead of their mid '06 prediction... if even on a psychological level. I personally hope they very intentionally said "mid '06" with the knowledge that they would actually begin releasing Intel-based product(s) earlier. With past false promises and missed opportunities, it would bode well for Apple to come in ahead of schedule, for once. Help the current and potential user base feel more confident with an Apple/Intel relationship.
INTEL MINIS TODAY = BETTER INTEL POWERMACS TOMORROW*
The sooner we have Intel-based Macs in the market, the sooner the power users' gear will go to market... and/or the better it will run. I see an Intel-based Mini as a public testing ground. The people reading this thread are, for the most part, not the typical Mini user and will probably be happy to let the Mini debut the Intel inside, as opposed to the Powermacs.
MONEY
No matter what people say, there will always be early adopters just itching to give Apple their money. The Mini audience seems the most logical, for reasons listed above and because (for the most part) they could care less what processor is powering their Mini. And if Apple could make some money off these users, while testing the waters... win win.
TIMING
Releasing this Mini early is also nice because it starts the transition now, as opposed to potentially having a more massive, product-wide announcement in mid '06. Seems more wise to water down the Intel thing over a longer roll out process... hopefully building momentum along the way.
While there are several other reasons, these seemed the most pertinent... to me.
* does not, for one second, suggest we open the seemingly unavoidable "Intel-based Powerbooks Tomorrow" thread.
Well I checked and all my apps (except Final Cut) work with Rosetta (because they support the G3). I just hope that A) Apple releases a patch so Final Cut works on Rosseta (maybe by disabling the Altivec extensions) or B) release an x86 version when they release the new PowerBooks.
I wouldn't mind paying for the upgrade because of how much faster FC will be on the new Intel Powerbook compared to my PB G4.
I wouldn't mind paying for the upgrade because of how much faster FC will be on the new Intel Powerbook compared to my PB G4.
rlwimi said:
Ok when you Mac is just a fast you wont care, intel might not be that bad. G4 is an old chip, it not a good chip Apple PB are not up to par with apple desktops
Lynxpro said:
agreed, my powerbook runs both firefox (RC1) and Thunderbird (it seems to take forever and a day for an email window to pop up when I click compose message)rather slow, my PC (also listed in my signature) runs rings around it running both apps. Though when I use Safari and Mail 2.0 the gap is nonexistent (expectedly), in fact then my mac outpaces them by far (mac and pc versions). Why can't Mozilla get closer to THAT kind of response??
adamfilip said:
Personally I think apple would be better off giving the option of an emulation like VPC, but one that is actually snappy and up to the job of using third party hardware more effectively. That way windows users will get used to the OS (osx I mean), and still have the security of Windose.
I think your average user wont have a clue about dual booting, and will end up just booting into windows if apple make their machines dual boot. The next thing you know is that Joe bloggs will think Macs get viruses etc, because they just wont have a clue that that the apple experience is about using osx.
I'm not saying people are thick, I'm just saying that they generally dont take the time to find out.
A mate of mine who has just graduated Uni told me shes not on the net at the moment because her laptop is full of viruses. When I asked her did she have a virus scanner, she replied she used to but didnt think it was any good so she doesnt use it any more. I think that kind of mentality is widespread amongst people who buy cheap pc hardware.
I think running xp as an emulation has allot of things going for it, not to mention your average Joe will think its the coolest looking thing ever!
Jason
It might be good to introduce intel on the low end first, but people will be quick to jump on saying that it was a mistake because the mini will not be able to do major proceses like the power macs, and they will have to wait for the real powerful ones to come out to make an accurate assumption.