Kind of like when Apple announced the original iPhone in January with a "soon" release date of June.
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.
Mac Mini End Of Life?
- Thread starter Dont Hurt Me
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Kind of like when Apple announced the original iPhone in January with a "soon" release date of June.
Apple's recent success does not imply they are doing everything right. A recent report showed that Apple had 60% market share in the $1000+ PC category -- which is great, it really is -- but had weak penetration in the sub $1000 category. The average sell price of PCs fell below $1000 years ago and has continued to drop ever since. The People have spoken, and they want an inexpensive PC.
I think the disconnect between xMac pundits and the rest of reality is that they assume inexpensive means cheap (quality). While Steve might be able convince the Zealots that anything that's not a $1000+ Mac is "dreck," it's simply not true. Common comparisons include Dell, Compaq and eMachines, but they're all false draws. A sub $1000 system, on the other hand, built from an ASUS motherboard (who Apple contracts to build many their machines, by the way), with an Intel CPU, nVidia GPU, Hatachi HDD and a Pioneer ODD would be just as reliable as the hardware in a Mac, believe it or not, provided Apple added OS support for the board. All the other parts I mentioned are currently already in use inside our Macs.
What's my point? Apple could very easily compete in this market, make a quality machine using desktop-class components, and still turn a nice profit... After all, no one said Apple had to compete in the sub $500 market.
(Besides, if I want something to tinker with, I'd just buy a PC, which I may well do one day).
Do PCs natively run OS X? No. Morons who actually try to pass the "then go buy a Dell" line obviously don't know the difference between hardware and software. I trust that you, Gregor, actually do know the difference, so therefore I ask: Why should people (be they prosumers, tinkerers, value-seekers or whomever) who know what hardware they need (or don't need) not be able to use the OS they need as well?
"Because Apple says so" is not a good reason.
While I'd be foolish to argue that the desktop isn't a dying breed, you'd be foolish to argue that it's already dead. In fact, I believe sub $1000 towers are still the largest category of PCs purchased today... if not, then they've just been recently eclipsed by sub $1000 laptops. Apple doesn't make either.
So you're saying that there aren't enough people out there who want OS X on their desktops but not in SFF (small form-factor), AIO or workstation formfactor??!!?!?! Now I find that very, very hard to believe.
-Clive
IAWTP. I would very much like a desktop mini. The obsession with thinness is unnecessarily inhibiting performance. This little computer could scream past anything in its price range with only a couple of concessions and still be smaller than equivalent PCs.
Woz designed the hardware of the first Apple. I have the impression that if Steve Jobs had designed the hardware we would have ended up with something like the ZX 81 Sinclair/Timex. That thing was the size of a trade paperback.
Uh... except that Jobs was never that much of a computer nerd. He was the salesman. Woz was the brain that made Apple what it was.
Has Jobs tried to design the first Apple hardware, they would've been out of business before they even started...
...or they'd be selling $200 toasters.
-Clive
No... we got the Apple III, which he supposedly wanted to be fanless, at least that is the story that I read. Can't vouch for the accuracy though.
Yeah. But like Timex he might have ridden in on someone else's design.
Hey, you wouldn't be Sir Clive, would you?
^Lol, the Apple III. 'Just drop it a foot or two, it'll reseat the pins.'
::shrugs:: Dunno if it's sheer folly or not, but the orig point of this thread (many moons ago) was about the Mac Mini, not a "consumer mid-tower."
And I still:
- Want to buy a Mini, but one updated with more recent hardware, and...
- Think that Apple should have a place in its product line for an inexpensive, entry-level PC
As nice as their consumer-level laptop & all-in-one desktop models are (and I'm saving up for a MacBook late in the year), they don't fit the bill for every consumer. And if Apple doesn't update, or downright kills, the Mini, then I'll bite the bullet and make myself a Hackintosh - even tho' I'd hate the extra expenditure of time needed to build & support it
Stick around this forum long enough & you'll find it's not unusual for threads to branch out into all manner of related side-issues, conjecture & ideas. Otherwise most threads would die fairly quickly, & this one probably weeks ago.
If you can, by all means wait a while longer for an updated Mini - surely Apple will release one within a few weeks now - or go for a Hackintosh, that's if you think you can live with some of the inevitable time-consuming problems that'll bring.
My so-called "naysaying" is backed up by basic deduction. As laptops are now incrementally outselling desktops (see link), it's a reasonable assumption that most of those consumers aren't interested in upgrading anything much beyond RAM. Add to that the likelihood that not everyone who owns a desktop upgrades even that.
Notebooks taking over the mainstream in retail PC sales
I think my use of "most people" here is pretty accurate. A big factor behind this is of course that powerful technology is now relatively affordable & even buying a decent gaming laptop doesn't have to cost a fortune.
That figure is VERY misleading. As much as I like to toute Macs at work, the number represents sales of Brick and Mortar sales (i.e. apple stores) for the 1st Quarter of 2008. when was the last time you saw a large number of $1,000+ PC's at a brick and mortar store? Heck even most Windoze laptops are under $1,000.00 So yes, it's encouraging to see that Mac's have an edge in that category, but they are still under 10% in overall penetration. It's like saying the Maybach has 60% share on cars that are over $300,000.00 (I'm no claiming that they do, I'm simply making an illustration). All Macs are over $1,000 except for the mini, and the Apple Stores have a VERY good penetration as far as retail sales go. So yes, it's nice that our beloved Mac's are leading in a segment, but until we have sub-1000 Mac's that are appealing to the general public and thus the pc purchase does not become an economic decision, we will never have an "even" playing field. It's up to apple to decide if they are happy where they are catering to the higher end, or if they want to become a "wholesale" type pc manufacturer. Personally, I'm happy the way things are. Without healthy competition, there's little need for innovation, and that is one of the cornerstones of apple products. Isnt' that why we buy iphones, ipods and Macbook airs?
I agree, it isn't that simple. However, why would Apple, currently running a successful, small-product matrix & with low overheads (compared to the less-profitable likes of Dell), seek to expand their product line just to fill what you readily admit to be "niches" in the market?
The Mac "platform" already covers most (though by no means all) of the most profitable (for Apple) mainstream computing requirements. I'd welcome some expansion of their hardware range, just not necessarily (from a personal POV) for the same markets as you'd like to see - at least not yet.
All computer technology has fallen in price in recent years, but laptop sales are growing incrementally at the expense of upgradeable desktop sales. As you say "people have spoken". Those are telling facts & I expect the trend to continue.
.
I agree, "inexpensive" needn't mean "cheap quality", but people use different yardsticks to gauge such values. Apple cuts costs in their relatively "inexpensive" Mini & MacBook range by using integrated graphics, combo drives, etc. in the low-end models & asking a premium price for those wanting more. The overall product is still generally regarded by most pundits & consumers alike as "quality". A typical PC gamer or tinkerer, however, probably wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. For these people, nothing less than a decent graphics card, generally more powerful components & unlimited upgradeability would suffice. Why would Apple deviate from their successful business strategy in order to try & compete in that limited market?
Apple just aren't big enough to match the likes of Dell, who pretty much try to compete in every segment of the computer market. So releasing a new Mac product line like mid-towers, which can be upgraded with relatively cheap, generic parts & which would probably bring Apple relatively little overall profit, but all sorts of extra issues, just doesn't make business sense.
Also, trying to support too many generic components, such as dedicated graphics cards, etc. may ultimately risk compromising the integrity of OS X.
I've clarified in previous posts that, personally, I'd welcome a Mac mid-tower & quite understand those who go the Hackintosh way. What I won't agree with is that such a market is a viable one for Apple for said reasons.
To cater for "tinkerers, value-seekers or whomever" Apple would have to make a seismic shift away from their profitable, small-product matrix, business plan of achieving higher than industry-standard profits per computer sold... profits well above what most PC companies settle for in this segment of the market.
My point about buying a PC is a purely personal one: I have 2 Macs, but if I wanted an upgradeable computer, I think I'd prefer to be running a Vista PC fully-supported by Microsoft, than maintaining a Hackintosh totally unsupported by Apple.
Though the desktop market is by no means "dead", it's one offering ever decreasing profit margins as PC companies try to outdo each other by offering the consumer more for less (money) in what's become a cut-throat market. Google for all the PC companies that have either been bought out or gone out of business as a consequence of this. I just don't see why Apple would wish to enter this part of the computer market.
This is a pretty cool discussion and I don't usually prefer to participate but I recently built a hackintosh and I think if one was comparing feature v. feature you wouldn't be getting off much cheaper than getting a mac directly either. For example what the hackintosh doesn't come with besides support and all that good stuff is small things like Bluetooth (for peripherals), onboard wifi, optical / analog combo connectors, and that nice aluminum case. Another thing that Apple does is put top quality mounts for hard drives, quality (quiet) fans, and has a pretty decent cooling strategy including clever wire routing. When I put my machine together I was forced to remember how ugly all those wires running everywhere inside the case was even though you can tie them down and get clever it's just time that adds to the overall cost of building and customizing. Granted most may want to mess with that and don't care about the bells and whistles but over time when you're shopping for peripherals and stuff it's pretty nice to have bells and whistles. Just my $.02, thanks for reading.
I quite agree. Thanks for a balanced perspective & some excellent points re the pros & cons of the big picture here.
My point is that all of those little niches add up, and in fact the ability to serve multiple market segments is what makes a platform maker, not just a product maker. The fact that the product has breadth as well as depth causes 3rd party developers, peripheral makers, and systems integrators (perhaps most importantly) to embrace the platform. Moreover, these third parties (who in fact stake their livelihood on the platform) want to know that the platform will stick around, so they won't be left holding the bag when a change in fashion causes the elimination of a product line.
Now there are many ways to serve these niches. You could try to make lots of specialized products for each one. (Difficult and as you point out likely unprofitable.) You could license the OS to third-party manufacturers. (Not going to happen with Apple.) Or you could make a flexible use, "modular" product that can be adapted to many different uses. This is where I see the Mini fitting in -- a lego-like product that fills the voids in the Mac lineup.
The mini doesn't have to be a PC, it just has to be a mini, so long as they keep it fresh and value (not price!) competitive. This can be a very profitable product line and does not have to detract from the "matrix" as you describe it. But it has to be a different kind of product than the other Macs -- lower in cost, more flexible in configuration, greener in power use, etc. They just need to keep it current, since it's competing against a whole industry of mid-range PC models.
By the way, it's interesting to see that Dell appears to be prepping a Mini-competitor:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/20/dell-studio-hybrid-mini-pc-leak-reveals-specs-new-casing/
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/20/dell-studio-hybrid-mini-pc-leak-reveals-specs-new-casing/
Negative, I am not. I am just Clive At Five.
You were going fine until you got to this point.
Once again. Sub-$1000 units do not automatically place them in the "wholesale" category. It's not 1988. It's not 1998. It's 2008. Good computers no longer cost $2000+. In 2008, good computers can cost well under $1000. In fact, many users on these boards have shown that they can build mid-range systems in the $500 range RETAIL... so you know Apple could build it cheaper. If they were to charge $899 for such a setup, they'd still be making astronomical profits. 50% margins are unprecedented in the computer industry, except by Apple.
And secondly, what are you talking about... "COMPETITION?" A) In the PC industry, SFFs, AIOs, and workstations are all niche markets. For Apple, they make up 100% of their desktop product line. Apple is dodging any true competition by building obscure PCs and calling them desktops. B) Apple has no true competitors because no one else is licensed to sell OS X. If they were, Apple would be forced to lower their prices because Psystar would outsell them in a day. C) iPods - by and far - are not the most technologically advanced nor innovative MP3 players out there. Their popularity is based on the iTunes ecosystem, which no one has been able to join or replicate. Again, if Apple allowed other players to be compatible with iTunes & the iTunes Store, the iPod would not be nearly as popular as it is today. D) I don't use an iPhone and I would never - EVER - buy a MacBook Air. I can't believe people haven't realized how much of a gimmick it is. Sacrificing an optical drive, putting up with a cramped 80BG 1.8" HDD, having a slower CPU, and paying a $700 premium over the price of the more-powerful but still lightweight and thin entry-level Mac Book just to save a 0.5" of thickness and 2 lbs of weight? Oh and let's not forget that you need to have either a host PC, or buy an external $99 Superdrive to make it a viable stand-alone system! That's not innovation! That's just stupid.
-Clive
I've misunderstood your earlier post as I think your idea is a very sound & viable one. A modular Mini allows Apple to forgo releasing a generically upgradeable, mid-tower Mac, which may compromise profit margins, yet still maintain a distinctive, aesthetic appeal to its product line, whilst pretty much plugging at least most of the gaps in the market that a mid-tower would cater for.
However, with Apple's continuing success & growth in market share, I'm surprised that you imagine "third parties" would still seriously doubt the long-term future of the platform. Also, surely it'd be unrealistic to expect Apple (or anyone for that matter) to guarantee further development of any individual "product lines" in such a volatile market as the computer one is.
Elimination of any product line due to poor sales is always a possibility, thus, for eg., there's still opinion in some quarters that the Mini may be eol'd (I disagree, btw, but in a few years, who knows).
By and large we are on the same page. I have to disagree with much of your last post however.
And here is the root of "our" problem. I agree with you here, but I also realize why we are both "wrong". We are dinosaurs and no matter how much we hate this new trend, it is the way of the future.
This statement seems a bit delusional to me. Psystars are not that cheap. Go in and bring them up to the same features as an Apple and tell me how much you are saving. Generally not enough to go with an unknown. Also, look at them. You are seriously underestimating the power of the Apple designs. Yes, they are not functional improvements, and yes, in many cases they cripple the functionality, but it IS why a great many people buy them. I've been building PC's in plain aluminum boxes since 1989, and even I think Psystars are fugly beyond belief.
I'm in total disagreement with you on this one. With one exception, everyone I know friggin hates itunes. But they all have an ipod. Because they work well and are fun to use. The competition doesn't provide that. Itunes is a positive feature for many people, but not all.
And here is the root of "our" problem. I agree with you here, but I also realize why we are both "wrong". We are dinosaurs and no matter how much we hate this new trend, it is the way of the future.
Cave - You used the official Leo disc, But you are running a tosh have the apple updates worked for you? (ie 10.5.2 to 10.5.3) Or do you have to revert to the OS86 forms because of Hardware issues with that particular update!
It is interesting
Agreed... it's real interesting to see all these manufacturers releasing SFF models. The Intel Atom seems to be the reason for a lot of the momentum. It's too bad that Intel won't allow XP to be sold with more than 1Gb RAM... then again installing an SODIMM isn't a showstopper.
Seems like most of the new SFF boxes these days are cutting out a few too many features in the interest of form, namely an optical drive. Ya they're lifespan is limited but an SFF desktop /w optical drive and a decent HDMI based IGP and digital audio outputs makes for a very versatile box. Useful for the email/web-type parents/gf/kids, good HTPC so you can toss the old DVD player, low power file/media server, etc. Seems Asus is following Apple's lead but MSI with their Wind Destop is headed in the right direction. Stick a G45 based mini-ATX board in and yer all set.
Agreed... it's real interesting to see all these manufacturers releasing SFF models. The Intel Atom seems to be the reason for a lot of the momentum. It's too bad that Intel won't allow XP to be sold with more than 1Gb RAM... then again installing an SODIMM isn't a showstopper.
Seems like most of the new SFF boxes these days are cutting out a few too many features in the interest of form, namely an optical drive. Ya they're lifespan is limited but an SFF desktop /w optical drive and a decent HDMI based IGP and digital audio outputs makes for a very versatile box. Useful for the email/web-type parents/gf/kids, good HTPC so you can toss the old DVD player, low power file/media server, etc. Seems Asus is following Apple's lead but MSI with their Wind Destop is headed in the right direction. Stick a G45 based mini-ATX board in and yer all set.
Mac Mini has been EOL'd (for now)
For all intents and purposes, Apple has EOL'd the Mac Mini. No guaranteed upgrades equals a technology dead end and most aren't willing to pay a premium for old hardware. Those interested in the Mini either have, or will, move on to hackintoshes or Windows PCs. The numbers that've given in and bought a Mini anyway are insignificant.
The question is why? Apple, mirroring the priorities of investment community, is all about the future and grow and keep growing at a steady pace. Desktop computers aren't a high growth market and that's how Apple's treating it. All their focus is on mobility. Things are changing though and Apple (based on what everyone but their R&D knows) aren't reacting so far. The Intel Atom has changed the trend somewhat and is showing real potential for mainstream appliance computing on the desktop. Yup, they're pretty savvy going after all the university/school type to build their future armies of Mac users and pretty laptops is the perfect way to do that but Apple's missing the impact the Mini could have with minimal effort on their part. They just need to keep it current so it's a decent value, spend a little on marketing to keep it visible... and people will buy it. Will it have the same impact on their business as pushing laptops on universities? Likely not, will it more than make up for the investment? I think so.
For all intents and purposes, Apple has EOL'd the Mac Mini. No guaranteed upgrades equals a technology dead end and most aren't willing to pay a premium for old hardware. Those interested in the Mini either have, or will, move on to hackintoshes or Windows PCs. The numbers that've given in and bought a Mini anyway are insignificant.
The question is why? Apple, mirroring the priorities of investment community, is all about the future and grow and keep growing at a steady pace. Desktop computers aren't a high growth market and that's how Apple's treating it. All their focus is on mobility. Things are changing though and Apple (based on what everyone but their R&D knows) aren't reacting so far. The Intel Atom has changed the trend somewhat and is showing real potential for mainstream appliance computing on the desktop. Yup, they're pretty savvy going after all the university/school type to build their future armies of Mac users and pretty laptops is the perfect way to do that but Apple's missing the impact the Mini could have with minimal effort on their part. They just need to keep it current so it's a decent value, spend a little on marketing to keep it visible... and people will buy it. Will it have the same impact on their business as pushing laptops on universities? Likely not, will it more than make up for the investment? I think so.
Mini will live on
No one here, not even you knows if the Mini has been discontinued. It serves a definite purpose and likely will be updated sometime this year.
Misunderstood
I wasn't trying to say the Mini has been discontinued by Apple. The point was, until there's a refresh (which there is no guarantee of, but which I do believe is coming by end of summer), the Mini is for all intents and purposes EOL (from a product life cycle point of view).
I wasn't trying to say the Mini has been discontinued by Apple. The point was, until there's a refresh (which there is no guarantee of, but which I do believe is coming by end of summer), the Mini is for all intents and purposes EOL (from a product life cycle point of view).
By the way, it's interesting to see that Dell appears to be prepping a Mini-competitor:
Dell has gone where others have gone before.
Such as this cuurent Shuttle:
This is what's coming up the pike:
The barebones on the left is $99 but you won't get a Core 2 Duo for that.
Anyone seen this before, oh, about 7-8 years ago? That being said, Shuttle has a proven track record.
Another Asus. This one has a 1.6 mhz Atom at $269.
Apple won't be going anywhere near this, as they seem on the verge of dumping this form factor.
Edit: (Maybe I'm wrong; this thing looks thin.)
Asus is aggressively targeting the low end with both of its Triple E's, and they also have a proven track record.
BTW, they make some sweet motherboards as well.
I've seen another Mac user's laptop EEE and it's a handy little machine.
This Everex seems to be a cloud based machine. This less capable version of a Mac Mini isn't much less expensive, and IMHO maybe a step backwards.
Low end computers are not just $4-500 Dell Windows boxes anymore, which seems to be the common image evoked by several people here. With Moore's Law in play a $500 machine can be very powerful nowadays.
I can't help but think Apple has something up its sleeve here.
how does apple TV fit into all this? presumably that is Apple's attempt to get under your TV in your lounge. But its pretty limited and more like a media streamer than a full PC.
surely there is a place for something like the appleTV interface in front of a mac mini, sitting under your TV? So a hybrid of the two?
I have an apple TV and I like it for what it does, but it is limited. I'd love to be able to use an apple bluetooth keyboard and mouse for a spot of web browsing on my HDTV, or check my mail.
I can't believe apple would ignore the potential that lounge PCs have - granted, nobody has really cracked it yet, but IMO apple is closest with their appleTV and mac mini
surely there is a place for something like the appleTV interface in front of a mac mini, sitting under your TV? So a hybrid of the two?
I have an apple TV and I like it for what it does, but it is limited. I'd love to be able to use an apple bluetooth keyboard and mouse for a spot of web browsing on my HDTV, or check my mail.
I can't believe apple would ignore the potential that lounge PCs have - granted, nobody has really cracked it yet, but IMO apple is closest with their appleTV and mac mini
- Status