DURR, I'm a PC user i don't knows what adapters i neeeds durr. Are you serious? Just because PC users live in a world without iAdapters, iMice, iKeyboards doesn't mean we don't know about the 3 common types of monitor connectors. I don't know whats to gets because there is no pcVGA cable. Where do I find the pcVGA cable? Well shucks, if only it had an "i" in front of the name then I would know what to buy.
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 to be Discontinued?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
DURR, I'm a PC user i don't knows what adapters i neeeds durr. Are you serious? Just because PC users live in a world without iAdapters, iMice, iKeyboards doesn't mean we don't know about the 3 common types of monitor connectors. I don't know whats to gets because there is no pcVGA cable. Where do I find the pcVGA cable? Well shucks, if only it had an "i" in front of the name then I would know what to buy.
Well.... Lets face it, if Apple does kill off the Mac Mini, without offering an upgraded comperable, Apple is just proving they are not customer friendly.
Would love a new small one.
but i would love more a mid tower.
Apple ought to have desktop models such as:
1- Mac Mini
2- Mid Sized Tower
3- Imac
4- Mac Pro
And Blu-Ray
my bet is if the mac mini was needing a better graphics chip, it would be really hot in the mac mini, so i would bet they need a larger sized model for it.
so i am hoping for blu-ray and more in the new desktop models announced shortly.
Would love a new small one.
but i would love more a mid tower.
Apple ought to have desktop models such as:
1- Mac Mini
2- Mid Sized Tower
3- Imac
4- Mac Pro
And Blu-Ray
my bet is if the mac mini was needing a better graphics chip, it would be really hot in the mac mini, so i would bet they need a larger sized model for it.
so i am hoping for blu-ray and more in the new desktop models announced shortly.
Psystar to the rescue?
Apple may be willing to let the low-end market go, and give it to Psystar, but only if they become an Apple-Certified Business Partner (like Axiotron's Modbook.)
If Apple truly doesn't want to play in the sub $1000 market, why not give it to Psystar, who IS willing to do it, but under certain conditions and stipulations that won't ruin the Apple brand and compete head to head with Apple's products?
Just like the Modbook, in which the older MacBook is used as a base computer to make their tablet, what if Apple tells Psystar to take the Mini off their hands and have Psystar make it? And doing so, they can put OS/X on their machine.
Instead of suing Psystar, they're in arbitration to them and avoided the courts, so maybe a deal is in the works.
Just high speculation, but if the Mini isn't the "switcher" machine anymore, and Apple doesn't want a low-margin computer, but still has a loyal following with the Mini, maybe this is the fig leaf to Psystar.
Just trying to "think different".
Apple may be willing to let the low-end market go, and give it to Psystar, but only if they become an Apple-Certified Business Partner (like Axiotron's Modbook.)
If Apple truly doesn't want to play in the sub $1000 market, why not give it to Psystar, who IS willing to do it, but under certain conditions and stipulations that won't ruin the Apple brand and compete head to head with Apple's products?
Just like the Modbook, in which the older MacBook is used as a base computer to make their tablet, what if Apple tells Psystar to take the Mini off their hands and have Psystar make it? And doing so, they can put OS/X on their machine.
Instead of suing Psystar, they're in arbitration to them and avoided the courts, so maybe a deal is in the works.
Just high speculation, but if the Mini isn't the "switcher" machine anymore, and Apple doesn't want a low-margin computer, but still has a loyal following with the Mini, maybe this is the fig leaf to Psystar.
Just trying to "think different".
The point of his post was that adapters do complicate computer purchases. Have you ever listened to a typical computer buyer in someplace like Best Buy or Circuit City? They usually have a budget in mind but that's about all. Then they leave it up to the salesperson as to what they should get for that amount of money. (This is of course not not all people.)
Since today's rumor was just a rumor with little information except for what some retailers in Europe have said, I'm still hopeful there will be a revised mini or new headless Mac in November for about $800. Based on what Jobs said today, there will probably no longer be a low end at $599.
I think it would be a great idea to take the guts of the new MacBook and put them in a flat aluminum case with no display, keyboard, battery, etc. It would probably have to sell for at least $800 for Apple to make their usual margin. But it would probably make the headless crowd, including myself happy.
Good thing the Mac Mini starts at $599
lol. I wouldn't mind paying $100-$200 bucks more for a better Mac Mini, or Mac Mini Pro. And about Steve's "tone", I read through this AGAIN after I read your post and I would have to say I didn't get the same feeling throughout the article. Maybe a little so on the netbook (average Joe) area but maybe he's just sick of hearing about a notebook they he doesn't want to make? Just a thought...
Never thought about that... hmmm. This would be a HUGE deal if they decide to do this. I would have to say that its totally a possibility IF and ONLY if Apple EOLs the Mac Mini. But Psystar would need a serious face lift. They have been a sketchy company from the beginning. We will have to wait and see...
There's a problem with these-only Apple's laptop have the required MagSafe power connector to power the new 24", while the mini does not.
The report on the conference call is a paraphrase of things SJ said, not a direct quotation. So any "tone" you find there is hardly directly attributable to SJ.
My thoughts exactly. We'll need an online community posting their experiences. I know in the USA Psystar is selling a hackintosh. It seems to be working, although a software update might kill the machine. But hey, right now were at 10.5.5. which is a pretty stable version of Leopard. I don't mind a machine frozen in time at this point. At least a hackintoch can have a Firewire-card, dedicated graphics card and fast processor. I'm all for it, we - the consumer - have to take back the power. It's either this or Windows Vista for a true desktop solution.
Count me in. I don't need the display, but the keyboard and mouse I would upgrade. Dang - I wonder if anyone from Apple actually reads these suggestions? I think Apple will rename it
I don't think apple will ever get rid of the mini. I think they will add a dual display port, so two monitors can be connected. Faster 2.26Ghz Core 2 Duo, Must better DRR3 memory and NVIDIA graphics of some sort. The Mac mini will always be BYODKM.
I don't think apple will ever get rid of the mini. I think they will add a dual display port, so two monitors can be connected. Faster 2.26Ghz Core 2 Duo, Must better DRR3 memory and NVIDIA graphics of some sort. The Mac mini will always be BYODKM.
Apple is clearly choosing to target the higher margins of the mid-to-high markets... Mac Mini does not fall in that plan it seems
Wherever it falls in the plan, it should now be an embarrassment to Apple as pitifully outdated as it is. I think they should fix it soon or kill it.
I'm making plans to use a late 2006 MacBook (which is better then the current mini) in closed-lid mode for my HTPC. It would be nice if AppleTV would someday be suitable for that but I don't expect it ever will be at the current price.
That is a neat looking computer.
Years ago, Apple tried the same thing with the Performa line. It was too complicated.
I doubt that we will ever see a mid sized tower Mac.
I would bet that we'll see a smaller Mini introduced in the future. And it will probably cost around $600. Face it, Apple wants to charge a premium for their computers ... unfortunately.
From a nostalgic point of view discontinuing the Mini would feel sad for us who switched to OS X with the introduction of the first G4 Mini.
On a more realistic note though, that Mini back then was competitively priced. The current one is not. The options are to discontinue or thoroughly remake it. With the AppleTV on the market and the current iMac pricing, discontinuing the Mini makes sense. :/
On a more realistic note though, that Mini back then was competitively priced. The current one is not. The options are to discontinue or thoroughly remake it. With the AppleTV on the market and the current iMac pricing, discontinuing the Mini makes sense. :/
I don't care too much about the price, but I love the fact that I don't have to get a Mac Pro for the OS X side of programming, or an iMac (would be troublesome as I share my Mini's screen with a pc).
The specs aren't terrible, if you compare to the current entry-level Macbooks, except for the harddisk size (for my purposes, anyway).
The specs aren't terrible, if you compare to the current entry-level Macbooks, except for the harddisk size (for my purposes, anyway).
I doubt apple will leave the low-cost range altogether
Apple has just introduced a sub US$1000 price on the old macbooks, and has usually announced updates to the mini at the same time as the iMacs, not the macbooks even though they usually share the same/similar hardware. So i'm hoping that they're not leaving the low-end desktop arena, and are rather just planning an update to the mini.
Getting rid of the mini completely would be a real bummer for me, as i've pretty much convinced my parents to get one as they want a cheap computer at home for browsing the web, checking emails, using office, etc.
Even a US$800 price for an updated mini would be awesome, especially if based on similar specs to the new macbooks, just without screen and keyboard (not to mention, and aluminium mini would look awesome when stacked up with all the other hifi gear that is all aluminium or black).
Apple has just introduced a sub US$1000 price on the old macbooks, and has usually announced updates to the mini at the same time as the iMacs, not the macbooks even though they usually share the same/similar hardware. So i'm hoping that they're not leaving the low-end desktop arena, and are rather just planning an update to the mini.
Getting rid of the mini completely would be a real bummer for me, as i've pretty much convinced my parents to get one as they want a cheap computer at home for browsing the web, checking emails, using office, etc.
Even a US$800 price for an updated mini would be awesome, especially if based on similar specs to the new macbooks, just without screen and keyboard (not to mention, and aluminium mini would look awesome when stacked up with all the other hifi gear that is all aluminium or black).
Well Apple was always somewhat elitist anyway, weren't they? Turtle neck sweaters, Starbucks and a laptop.
I do like the idea that CyberBob859 gave with Pystar. Although it might make purchases for me hard, considering I don't live in the US, it would be a good benefit for low-end builds.
I do like the idea that CyberBob859 gave with Pystar. Although it might make purchases for me hard, considering I don't live in the US, it would be a good benefit for low-end builds.
The "Mac Mini End of Life" thread has 2740 posts so far
And then there were none...why kill a year-old thread just days before a potential resolution to its central question??? That's like reading the first 1400 pages of the original Count of Monte Cristo and then throwing the last 200 pages in the fire; sure it's all been a waste of time, but why not see how it ends in the same thread?
Anyway, I'm taking this opportunity to stop reading, after a year of sometimes clever and often stupid reading and posting. It's been a...pleasure??
PS I still love my goddarn mini.
I haven't read past page 3, but I honestly think an ATV/Mini combo is where Apple will go.
If they redesign the ATV to pretty much be a MacBook in a different box with multimedia-suited ports, ditch the interface and make OSX part of the setup, add USB ports (NOT FIREWIRE*) and continue to market it as an ATV, they can stop all this whining.
- Everyone complains that the ATV is overpriced for something that can't do simple computer tasks
- Everyone complains that the Mac Mini is overpriced for a computer and can't do what a normal computer can
The market that wants a little media server box for their lounge room should be willing to pay what the ATV costs now, and by combining the two target audiences they can mass produce a little more, increase the profitability and ditch the 'hobby' image.
But you never know... Apple doesn't always make wise decisions. I think matte is crap* for a laptop, but I certainly agree that the industry isn't ready to accept that and Apple should be satisfying the customers.
I'd just like to add two things:
FireWire is a dead technology.
- Once upon a time, USB1 sucked balls... but now, with USB3 almost released, continuing FireWire requires a big research investment. Why compete when one option is supported by everyone, and the other is supported only by Apple and the occasional inclusion by another company to give it that 'slightly more pro' image.
- Once upon a time, circuit boards came with empty IEEE1394 sockets so a model with FireWire added would be cheap to make. The technology is dead, so now they don't seem to bother.
- FireWire devices are more expensive to build, because the device needs to fully have the ability to communicate rather than just naively respond to requests with chunks of data.
- FireWire does NOT offer anything that USB cannot. If your USB devices are slower, this is due to cost cutting and using cheap chips, memory and manufacturing techniques. This cost cutting is probably the main reason FireWire has not become an industry standard.
- Target Disk Mode is no longer necessary over FireWire because Ethernet can do the same thing (but potentially at gigabit speeds)... I don't know the precise details of this, but it's a completely plausible option and makes sense.
The argument that professional work needs matte is ********.
- Matte SCATTERS light, gloss REFLECTS light. Gloss will cause a visible reflection, while matte will (if under a light that's not perfectly white) discolour the image slightly and reduce the saturation. To overcome gloss's pitfalls, work in darkness or, if you think something could be a reflection, change your angle and see if it moves. To overcome matte's pitfalls, work in darkness or accept sub-standard outcomes.
- It wasn't too long ago that people were refusing to stop using CRTs because apparently they produced better quality images. I work at an art university, and there are still a few academics that believe the CRT is better.
- For a mobile device, bright light at times is inevitable. In these circumstances, you can't see anything on a matte screen, while glossy is annoying but usable. I used to go to work by train with an old matte laptop... and I'd always be aiming for shadows so I could see the screen... with a glossy screen, I would prefer a shadow but I can get work done either way. Remember trying to see your mobile phone's colour screen while outdoors back when matte was standard? Eugh!
[/rant]
Ready and waiting for the "OMFG YOU'RE AN IDIOT I USE MATTE AND MY FRIEND WHO DOES PRO WORK SAYS GLOSS IS ****!!11111" responses
If they redesign the ATV to pretty much be a MacBook in a different box with multimedia-suited ports, ditch the interface and make OSX part of the setup, add USB ports (NOT FIREWIRE*) and continue to market it as an ATV, they can stop all this whining.
- Everyone complains that the ATV is overpriced for something that can't do simple computer tasks
- Everyone complains that the Mac Mini is overpriced for a computer and can't do what a normal computer can
The market that wants a little media server box for their lounge room should be willing to pay what the ATV costs now, and by combining the two target audiences they can mass produce a little more, increase the profitability and ditch the 'hobby' image.
But you never know... Apple doesn't always make wise decisions. I think matte is crap* for a laptop, but I certainly agree that the industry isn't ready to accept that and Apple should be satisfying the customers.
I'd just like to add two things:
FireWire is a dead technology.
- Once upon a time, USB1 sucked balls... but now, with USB3 almost released, continuing FireWire requires a big research investment. Why compete when one option is supported by everyone, and the other is supported only by Apple and the occasional inclusion by another company to give it that 'slightly more pro' image.
- Once upon a time, circuit boards came with empty IEEE1394 sockets so a model with FireWire added would be cheap to make. The technology is dead, so now they don't seem to bother.
- FireWire devices are more expensive to build, because the device needs to fully have the ability to communicate rather than just naively respond to requests with chunks of data.
- FireWire does NOT offer anything that USB cannot. If your USB devices are slower, this is due to cost cutting and using cheap chips, memory and manufacturing techniques. This cost cutting is probably the main reason FireWire has not become an industry standard.
- Target Disk Mode is no longer necessary over FireWire because Ethernet can do the same thing (but potentially at gigabit speeds)... I don't know the precise details of this, but it's a completely plausible option and makes sense.
The argument that professional work needs matte is ********.
- Matte SCATTERS light, gloss REFLECTS light. Gloss will cause a visible reflection, while matte will (if under a light that's not perfectly white) discolour the image slightly and reduce the saturation. To overcome gloss's pitfalls, work in darkness or, if you think something could be a reflection, change your angle and see if it moves. To overcome matte's pitfalls, work in darkness or accept sub-standard outcomes.
- It wasn't too long ago that people were refusing to stop using CRTs because apparently they produced better quality images. I work at an art university, and there are still a few academics that believe the CRT is better.
- For a mobile device, bright light at times is inevitable. In these circumstances, you can't see anything on a matte screen, while glossy is annoying but usable. I used to go to work by train with an old matte laptop... and I'd always be aiming for shadows so I could see the screen... with a glossy screen, I would prefer a shadow but I can get work done either way. Remember trying to see your mobile phone's colour screen while outdoors back when matte was standard? Eugh!
[/rant]
Ready and waiting for the "OMFG YOU'RE AN IDIOT I USE MATTE AND MY FRIEND WHO DOES PRO WORK SAYS GLOSS IS ****!!11111" responses 
I have to agree with you there. Unless it was quoted badly, it comes over as highly arrogant. Being confident that existing Mac Users would rather pay for higher-specced machines than they need rather than reverse-switching. And then that line about choosing not to serve a certain customer base.
It's like they (he?) totally fails to see that there are existing Mac users who need a new computer, highly prefer OS X (for whatever reason), yet cannot afford current prices.
Thinking that the preference to OS X will still make people pay the extra couple of hundred bucks/quid that they don't have is totally misguided. Or, if that's not the case, Apple obviously have very little loyalty to their existing customer base. Either conclusion is a little worrying.
Either that or Apple have someting up their sleeve that they're currently unwilling to announce. I don't necessarily hold much hope for this, but it's not totally outside their method of operating. If they have got a successor lined up, no amount of clamouring for information will make them reveal things before they want to.