No Built-in iPod Docks in the Intel Mac mini?

[Arcus]

Analog broadcasts end on Feb 17th, 2009 and lots of cable companies are pushing to end Analog Cable now as it takes up too much bandwidth. It wouldn't make sense to leave out digital recording. So at the very least it is going to have to record 480i in both analog and digital and if it's going to record digital it might as well do 720p and 1080i too. It would add little or nothing to the cost of the tuner.

Analog may use a frequency range that they want to use for something else but it does not "consume bandwidth" as it is , by definition , not digital.

I have a plain old analog TV and dont plan on changing any time soon. There are a ton of consumers who dont care that much about TV but do enjoy a few shows. They can try to force us all they want but in the end it may just drive people to look for other sources for thier media.

For the price I pay for cable I could download an "Arcus Month" worth of TV shows from iTunes. Hell I almost do now and still pay for cable. As soon as FILO hits my neighborhod I may just switch to an all purchased content format and tell the cable companies to go screw. What a concept! Ill pay for only what I use!

 

[macintel4me]

As soon as FILO hits my neighborhod I may just switch to an all purchased content format and tell the cable companies to go screw. What a concept! Ill pay for only what I use!

No you won't. I have fiber optic in my neighborhood and interent service is $35/month for the lowest speed (5mbs). My cable company charges the same amount of internet service and I pay an additional $15/month for basic cable service which includes a few high-def channels. There is no way you are going to buy 7 or 8 shows via iTMS a month at such low quality and be happy with it unless you do all you TV watching at the gym or in the subway and don't watch any sports. I agree with you in concept, but the economics just aren't quite there yet.

 

[Arcus]

No you won't. I have fiber optic in my neighborhood and interent service is $35/month for the lowest speed (5mbs). My cable company charges the same amount of internet service and I pay an additional $15/month for basic cable service which includes a few high-def channels. There is no way you are going to buy 7 or 8 shows via iTMS a month at such low quality and be happy with it unless you do all you TV watching at the gym or in the subway and don't watch any sports. I agree with you in concept, but the economics just aren't quite there yet.

So you know where I live and how much TV I watch and how much I pay for services? Are you that narrow minded to think what you pay in your area is what others also pay so you feel you can dictate how I will spend my money?

FILO in my neighborhood is targeted at 49.95. Cable internet in my neighborhood is 49.95 with a rate hike coming in a month or two according to my last bill. Cable TV is 49.95 a month.

Total cable bill now - $100

Drop cable - $0

Add FILO - $49.95

Download 25 shows from iTunes at 1.99 a shot. - $50
(4 Lost episodes at the most, 15 or so Law and Order , 6 misc)

Total new monthly costs - $100

I watch iTunes shows on my 19" LCD now and I am happy. I don't watch sports. Im a geek not a jock. I listen to and watch podcasts. I am the consumer Apple may be counting on. Most of my friends are the same way. You can tell me 'No I wont' all you want but in the end, yes I will.

 

[ZorPrime]

The U.S. Apple store is down... it's Tuesday... I wonder what they could be up to????

 

[gekko513]

Can those who believe that the Core Solo slaughters the G4 at the same clock speed please provide some sources. Or at least give some definition of slaughter in this context.

The only barefeats benchmarks I've found compare the CPU speed of the G5 and the Core Duo. As far as I can see, the Core Duo is 15-25% faster than the G5 at the same clock speed. The G4 and the G5 is comparable at same clock speeds.

That means the Core Solo is 15-25% faster than the G4 at the same clock speed, too. That's not my definition of slaughter. It's slightly better than the G4, but that's the least I would expect when one compares a brand new processor to a 4 year old processor.

 

[Arcus]

The U.S. Apple store is down... it's Tuesday... I wonder what they could be up to????

Just checked and its up for me.

 

[bob_the_gorilla]

Store's up for me - But, hang on, were the MBP's always at up to 2.16GHz?

[edit] The high-end model now says "Upgradable to 2.16GHz". Mmm, tasty. Extra $300 though.

 

[mdavey]

I think they'll go with a 1.66GHz Core Duo.

I agree, especially as Apple have just announced that all MBP's will be speed bumped (slowest MBP will be 1.83GHz Duo).

 

[i.Feature]

I would love to see soem DVR type ability here - If I am tempted to buy a new machine this year, it will be a mac mini to serve as media center! (And to be honest, I don't think this first version will have it all together.. might be next year before Apple gets another chunk of my hard earned... )

My thoughts exactly... But i don't know if i can hold out too long... My HD LCD is just crying for a new set up...

 

[Piarco]

You will need both (encoder is needed if you want to be able to record from an analog input such as composite & S-video) and you need to a decoder to playback MPEG content. MPEG decode in software is possible, but would be CPU intensive.

As for the HDMI, how many Cable/Sat boxes do you know of that has an HDMI output?

Sky+ HD.... and they only get released over the next month...

 

[bevo]

could care less about the no built-in ipod dock. still dont have one. trying to rectify that situation as I write ... (selling dell dj :| )

anyways, as one who will most likely go back to mac again with the intel based mini.

Is it ok to assume that the $499 mac might include builtin wireless this time?

1.67 solo
512 megs ram
? HD?
?video card? > current ati radeon 9000
dvr/pvr - if it has it, its just the icing on the cake for me.

 

[YunusEmre]

Sky+ HD.... and they only get released over the next month...

Good for those in UK , here none of the existing Cable/Sat boxes have HDMI. They have composite output or at best s-video output. So you'd need a digitizer that would have to fit somewhere...

My point was missed, perhaps I was not clear enough. The majority of the settop boxes do not support HDMI (some DVRs do but then why would you want another DVR, unless you have a lot of money to waste on a second DVR). So for a DVR product to make a mark in the market it needs to be able get content (analog or digital, SD or HD) from existing settops. This ads to the bottom line, Mini would cost more and would move away from its current purpose. I think not, and more to the point I do not want Mini to change that much.

 

[Maxx Power]

Ouch...if this is true than what's the point? Where is this speed report from? I'm with Stridder44...I'd definitely like to hear more from everyone regarding the performance comparison. If the core solo doesn't do much over the G4, than it begins to appear as if the current 1.5GHz G4 mini is probably better off than any one they'll come up with in the next year...at least on the basis of it being tried/true techonology...imho, heritage>all. Am I on the right track?

I don't know, the SPEC benchmarks back before the Core solo's were showing the G4's scoring an order of magnitude lower than anything else on the market. For a good idea of what the Core's can and can't do, you should see the Core review article at Anandtech.com.
this one is a comparison between the G5 and the Core
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2685&p=9

 

[Tussen69]

no WAYY 1.6Ghz

no no no no no no no

1.6 Ghz comared to the current PowerPC .. no no way .

Apple is not stupid ...

I have some points here ..

1. Now when Apple is shipped with Intel it will be compared with Intel PC.
that means that out of consumer point of view when choising a mac or pc in the store you will look at a "Dull Box" called a Dell with a 2.0Ghz dual processor or at a "beatiful" mac mini with dual 2.0 Ghz processor ..
I cant see way apple wont supply some of the mac mini with a intel core duo.

I gues we would see 3 different models of the mac mini.
one with single core , two models with dual core ..

2. I think its mostl likely that we will see a neew product line regarding Apple Media Center. Its Apple for crying out load .. it will be a special designed Apple Media Center Box called iHome or something like that ..
(the box will have HDMI out and thats nothing for the MacMini)

3. We will probely see a Apple MacTab Pro . feat multi tuchable screen.

4. We will probely see a new generation of iPod.


//cheers mate ...

 

[aswitcher]

http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/
single core - 1.66GHz - $209
dual core - 1.66GHz - $241
dual core - 1.83GHz - $294
dual core - 2.00GHz - $423
dual core - 2.16GHz - $637

It's only $32 more to get a whole 'nother processor core...

I think they'll go with a 1.66GHz Core Duo.

Thats good to know. I really hope the top end one has the dual.
1.66GHz is still slower than the iMacs, and they are computers for different solutions so I hope Apple dont again artificially limit things.

 

[Jovian9]

external DVR component? yeah, it's called eyetv.

look, if apple's going to come out with a stand-alone DVR, it has to do something different than what eyetv already does. or, it has to do it better...i suppose it will have integration with frontrow and with ilife...but other than that, how much different could it be from eyetv? the nice thing about eyetv is that they produce different hardware for different countries...is apple going to do that with their DVR?

Why do you think Apple shouldn't do something that has been done by eyetv? There were MP3 players before the iPod. But Apple came out with their own, made it work near-flawlessly with their Macs and the rest is history. Integration with iLife and FrontRow would be great. I have no experience with eyetv, but I'm sure a DVR component made by Apple for Macs would be better....eventually.

 

[yac_moda]

Why bother with a doc ???

The iPods will have WiFi soon, no need for a doc.

They will probably delete the doc on the iPods soon.

 

[balamw]

Good for those in UK , here none of the existing Cable/Sat boxes have HDMI.

The $199 DirecTV H10 and H20 receivers have HDMI, as well as the HR-10 250 DirecTiVo DVR. You can expect that the Sky+ HD device will be very similar to the post TiVo MPEG4 compatible DirecTV HD-DVR offerings since they are both News Corp. companies, and so is the hardware manufacturer.

As I mentioned before I have seen a < $100 Toshiba DVD player with upscaling HDMI-out. Toshiba SD-4980 DVD Player with HDMI and DivX Playback.. $75, plays back MPEG-4/DivX/XviD too.

B

 

[YunusEmre]

The $199 DirecTV H10 and H20 receivers have HDMI, as well as the HR-10 250 DirecTiVo DVR. You can expect that the Sky+ HD device will be very similar to the post TiVo MPEG4 compatible DirecTV HD-DVR offerings since they are both News Corp. companies, and so is the hardware manufacturer.

As I mentioned before I have seen a < $100 Toshiba DVD player with upscaling HDMI-out. Toshiba SD-4980 DVD Player with HDMI and DivX Playback.. $75, plays back MPEG-4/DivX/XviD too.

B

OK so a handfull may have HDMI (and let us not count DVRs that have HDMI because we are talking about connecting your Sat/Cable box to your Apple DVR via HDMI). There are a lot of people out there with basic Cable/Sat receivers, who will not be able to use a DVR that only supports a HDMI input.

Anyway, let me make my point clear. Apple is not coming out with a Mac Mini DVR. It make so sense to mess with the perfect platform to lure Windows users to Mac. If Apple is working on a DVR it will be a new product and it must have analog inputs as well as digital to address the mainstream and the early adaptors alike.

 

[balamw]

OK so a handfull may have HDMI (and let us not count DVRs that have HDMI because we are talking about connecting your Sat/Cable box to your Apple DVR via HDMI). There are a lot of people out there with basic Cable/Sat receivers, who will not be able to use a DVR that only supports a HDMI input.

Anyway, let me make my point clear. Apple is not coming out with a Mac Mini DVR. It make so sense to mess with the perfect platform to lure Windows users to Mac. If Apple is working on a DVR it will be a new product and it must have analog inputs as well as digital to address the mainstream and the early adaptors alike.

I don't disagree with your main point at all, I agree that an Apple DVR is a separate product line than the mini.

The point I was making earlier is that one way to satisfy most everyone is to provide the right adapters in the form of cables or an external box to convert analog to digital, but provide the latest, greatest connector on the box itself. Sort of the same way that current Macs do not have VGA connectors, they have mini DVI and provide adapters to VGA.

Making a DVR have one of every connector type on the back (S-video, VGA, DVI, composite, component, ...) is a surefire way to make an ugly and ultimately hard to connect product.

B

 

[YunusEmre]

I don't disagree with your main point at all, I agree that an Apple DVR is a separate product line than the mini.

The point I was making earlier is that one way to satisfy most everyone is to provide the right adapters in the form of cables or an external box to convert analog to digital, but provide the latest, greatest connector on the box itself. Sort of the same way that current Macs do not have VGA connectors, they have mini DVI and provide adapters to VGA.

Making a DVR have one of every connector type on the back (S-video, VGA, DVI, composite, component, ...) is a surefire way to make an ugly and ultimately hard to connect product.

B

OK, so we agree on most except the connectors on a DVR. But that, as well as the feature set, all depends on the target market and in many ways defines the product. Requiring an external box is surefire way of putting off a lot of people. Including the HDMI and other high end features is surefire way of adding to the cost, and putting off a lot of people due to price. In any case I am sure if Apple came out with a DVR it will support the high-end user, but probably not the low-end user. Which is to say it will be a niche product.

 

[boncellis]

Discrete Boundary With The iMac

Thats good to know. I really hope the top end one has the dual.
1.66GHz is still slower than the iMacs, and they are computers for different solutions so I hope Apple dont again artificially limit things.

Not to do the thinking for a design and marketing group that I admire, but I have trouble imagining the Mac Mini artificially limited. I disagree with FoxyKaye's earlier implied assertion that a dual core Mac Mini would cannibalize sales of the iMac somewhat as the two have very discrete boundaries. The iMac is the all-in-one solution and its design and marketing is rightfully built around that fact, I believe. The Mac Mini is not meant to be compared with the all-in-one elegance of the iMac, rather competing, and similarly priced, boxes of the MS persuasion. Whether Apple will be able to make the Mac Mini economically viable at its current price point with the Core Duo architecture is a question beyond my current understanding, though not beyond my hopes.

 

[iHeartTheApple]

I don't know, the SPEC benchmarks back before the Core solo's were showing the G4's scoring an order of magnitude lower than anything else on the market. For a good idea of what the Core's can and can't do, you should see the Core review article at Anandtech.com.
this one is a comparison between the G5 and the Core
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2685&p=9

Wow! Thanks Max...That's an interesting article, to say the least. I wasn't aware that the G5 was such (and continues to be) a powerful and competitive processor. While they didn't say anything about the G4's this article did and it turns out to be equally interesting...

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/article/101/geekbench-comparison

This is a really new article (1/30/2006) and has a great performance comparison for those of us who care about the deep numbers.

EDIT:
Interesting personal note (see above link for relevance): I built a dual Xeon64 3.2GHz (after almost buying a QuadG5 *instead*) last year, which I use for my grad school research...glad to know it wasn't a bad investment...and equally glad to know that the QuadG5 would have done the job, too... After having fallen in love with Apple last year, I'm thinking of getting rid of the Xeon for a G5 after all...

 

[Choppaface]

awesome, an ipod slot would get dusty anyways. 3.5in hard drive bay and SATA2 please, oh and a removable processor like the iMacs would be groovy...