Apple Introduces Mac Mini [Archive] - Thoughts Media Forums

Kent Pribbernow

01-11-2005, 08:28 PM

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.apple.com/macmini/' target='_blank'>http://www.apple.com/macmini/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Introducing the Mac mini. Everything you need — and not an ounce more — to enjoy digital photos, music and movies. Get a fast G4 processor, slot-loading CD-RW/DVD-ROM drive and a reliable operating system in a body just 6.5-inches square and 2-inches tall. Simply add monitor, keyboard and mouse. You’ll be organizing music and photos, composing tunes and editing movies with iLife ’05 in no time. Surf the Internet with the peace of mind of the secure and stable UNIX-based Mac OS X operating system. And since Mac mini can do wireless, you don’t even have to put it near a phone jack. Configure your Mac mini with an AirPort Extreme Card, hook up an AirPort Express to your DSL connection or cable modem, and start surfing and printing wirelessly. Using AirPort Express and AirTunes, you can even listen to tunes from your Mac mini on speakers in a different room. Starting at just $499."</i><br /><br />And boy is this thing tiny or what! 8O Earlier rumors appear to have hit the nail on the head in terms of specs and features. Best of all the price is a mere $499 for an entry level seat. This little box is going to make big waves in the PC market, and will probably spark a resurgence in Mac sales. You can expect to see long lines of Windows users standing outside Apple stores to get one. You may even bump into Jason Dunn. :P<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/indextop20050111.jpg" />

Filip Norrgard

01-11-2005, 08:36 PM

Well, there is what my server farm will be composed of... :lol:

Boy that thing is small. It will be too easy to sneak this thing in to practically anyplace where there is a RJ45 jack or WiFi. I just need to remember the screen and keyboard + mouse. ;)

James Fee

01-11-2005, 08:42 PM

Kent Pribbernow

01-11-2005, 08:47 PM

Lets see...

1. No audio in
2. Slow processor
3. Crappy video card
4. Ugly
5. No DVD +/- RW

Oh, but it does happen to have a modem jack. :roll:

I love macs, but this thing has no legs. If a PC came out with these specs we'd laugh it off the stage.

True, but it's a Mac...and it's cheap. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Especailly one that kicks! :P

waverlyn

01-11-2005, 08:51 PM

True, but it's a Mac...and it's cheap. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Especailly one that kicks! :P

I don't know, $499 seem a little too expensive for what it can do... :roll:

James Fee

01-11-2005, 08:55 PM

Jason Eaton

01-11-2005, 09:01 PM

While I can't say that this thing works for my needs, I can probably name off 4 or 5 family members that this thing would far exceede there needs.

So while I can understand where people are coming from when they are 'underwhelmed' I can also see this being great for my mother in law who surfs the web, checks e-mail, and well... not much else.

Throw in the lack of spam and viruses targeted at the platform and this thing starts to pick up steam.

Again, sure, the specs seem a little light for the mid-level budding power user, but for other users what it offers is on par with any low cost PC/Windows offering out there. Throw in the iLife suite (which does not come in any flavor with a PC) and I would say the value of this offering is now running away from the competition.

Apple has certainly entered into the main stream markets now. Now we just need Apple to create some DVR software and a remote interface and I could see this on my rack.

James Fee

01-11-2005, 09:10 PM

Apple has certainly entered into the main stream markets now. Now we just need Apple to create some DVR software and a remote interface and I could see this on my rack.
As long as you attach external hard drives it would be. Once you get past OS X and the installed software, there isn't much left for shows. But then again, what a reason to get that gigabit network up and running. ;)

Mr. MacinTiger

01-11-2005, 09:23 PM

James Fee

01-11-2005, 09:40 PM

Kent Pribbernow

01-11-2005, 09:45 PM

At that point, you might as well just get an iMac....

Agreed. At $900 there's not much keeping you from getting all the benefits of a G5 and 17" LCD.

waverlyn

01-11-2005, 09:46 PM

The processor is not THAT slow for most people, but the RAM is a way light on the base model. I did a little configuring on the Apple store though and if you are eligable for an educational discount (or can get someone who is to order for you) then you can snag one of the with 1 GIG of RAM and an 80 gig harddrive for $900. THAT, my friends, is a sweet deal! 8O

Again, I think that's too much. After spending 5 min browsing through www.ZipZoomFly.com this is what I came up with:

Shuttle XPC SN95G5 Athlon 64 Barebone - $319
Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939 - $217
1GB DDR333 PC2700 - $160
16x DVD-ROM - $30
Seagate Barracuda ST3160023A 160GB UltraATA/100 - $100

TOTAL: $826

Granted, it does not come with a video card, but still I think it's a lot better than what Mac mini is offering.

I think Mac mini looks pretty slick and I like it, but not at $499. If it's priced at $300 then I'll definitely consider buying one.

treo007

01-11-2005, 10:17 PM

True, but it's a Mac...and it's cheap. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Especailly one that kicks! :PI'm torn. I really want to like it, but I have to hold Apple to the same standard I'd hold Dell or HP to.

Well, an even better equipped HP or Dell still runs XP. Apple's OS is worth something.

I've, never owned a Mac (though I've used them from time to time and loved it). My last PC purchase promises to be my last. No more restarts, lockups, driver problems, etc...I'm buying this.

phillypocket

01-11-2005, 11:10 PM

Well, an even better equipped HP or Dell still runs XP.

I know :lol: So I'm really getting some value for my money. All that wonderful software I use to pay the bills, the games I play, they move right over and work.

Truly if someone other that apple came out with this we'd laugh ourselves silly.

But I'm sure about one thing, among the failthfull, along with the blind-i-memory-stick-pod, they'll sell like hotcakes. Gotta love the ecosystem.

entropy1980

01-11-2005, 11:45 PM

I hate all the ignorant responses I keep seeing the bottom line is 2 things:

1. YOU are not the target audience. Just like you wouldn't buy the $400 Dell because it's underpowered, you aren't what Apple is aiming so quit griping that it's not enough! The target for this is mom and dad, ipod users, a person looking for a quiet fanless (let's see a PC maker do fanless hah!) second machine, or someone testing the water on using a Mac. Having actually owned/used a Mac I can comment from experience and say the Radeon 9200 (which supports Quartz extreme) and G4 1.2 or above is more than enough to push OS X and the software runs on it. Sure Ram is lacking but so is the $400 Dell. I haven't even touched the value of the included iLife bundle.

2.Viruses and spyware.....hmmm the fact I don't have to constantly worry and clean my system is reason enough to get one. Seriously. If you have spent even 30 minutes cleaning a family members computer of spyware or a virus you know what I mean. Add all that time up and you have a serious amount of productivity/time/money lost. Personally this will be the number 1 computer I will recommend to people who are new users or older and not computer savvy. Heck it can run Office so they can still communicate with the rest of the world, but at the same time no worrying whether mom is going to open a virus and wipe out all the pictures of her grandkids.

Jason Dunn

01-11-2005, 11:58 PM

klinux

01-12-2005, 12:06 AM

Lets see...

1. No audio in
2. Slow processor
3. Crappy video card
4. Ugly
5. No DVD +/- RW

Oh, but it does happen to have a modem jack. :roll:

I love macs, but this thing has no legs. If a PC came out with these specs we'd laugh it off the stage.

1. Not many people use audio in. Nevertheless, I agree that a built-in microphone would be better than nothing. Both my ibook G3 and iMac g5 come with built-in microphones.

2. We all know that very few people fully utilize the CPU power at their disposal so why bring this up? Those that need hyperthreading or Athlon 64 are not the target audience for this machine. Heck, I use my PC for the intensive stuff as ghz is cheap on PC.

3. Gamers don't buy $500 machines. In fact, most PCs in this price range had intergrated GPUs and no DVI.

4. Beauty is in the eye of beholder. I doubt yout PC looks any better. :)

5. SuperDrive is available built-to-order.

Laughing off the stage? I think Apple is laughing all the way to the bank!

Too bad I already got a new iMac.

James Fee

01-12-2005, 12:07 AM

I hate all the ignorant responses I keep seeing the bottom line is 2 things:
I'll bite (having owned a Mac from the 128k to a beige G3)...

1. YOU are not the target audience. Just like you wouldn't buy the $400 Dell because it's underpowered, you aren't what Apple is aiming so quit griping that it's not enough! The target for this is mom and dad, ipod users, a person looking for a quiet fanless (let's see a PC maker do fanless hah!) second machine, or someone testing the water on using a Mac. Having actually owned/used a Mac I can comment from experience and say the Radeon 9200 (which supports Quartz extreme) and G4 1.2 or above is more than enough to push OS X and the software runs on it. Sure Ram is lacking but so is the $400 Dell. I haven't even touched the value of the included iLife bundle.
I was unaware the mom and dad were concerned with how loud the fan was, or the fact that it handles quartz very well. The plain fact is that video card at 32 megs can't run many games that the target audiance would want. This things purpose is to draw people back into the Mac universe and once they get there, they'll see they have a door stop on their desk becaues they can't play halo or any other game made in the past year on it. This machine is directly targeted at me. An iPod user who wants to get back into Mac OS. But frankly its not up to snuff. A $500 Dell is far more advanced than this thing. Yea it doesn't look as nice, but it can run all the latest games (at least for the next month or so).

2.Viruses and spyware.....hmmm the fact I don't have to constantly worry and clean my system is reason enough to get one. Seriously. If you have spent even 30 minutes cleaning a family members computer of spyware or a virus you know what I mean. Add all that time up and you have a serious amount of productivity/time/money lost. Personally this will be the number 1 computer I will recommend to people who are new users or older and not computer savvy. Heck it can run Office so they can still communicate with the rest of the world, but at the same time no worrying whether mom is going to open a virus and wipe out all the pictures of her grandkids.I've never gotten a windows virus since I've own a window machine during the past 2 years. The fact that ordinary users are too cheap to buy a virus scanner and keep it up to date is irrelevant. Sure Microsoft should integrate virus scanners and other tools into the OS, but you think the DOJ will ever let that happen? And what happens when you recommend the computer to people and they run down to their local staples to buy software only to find they don't carry Mac OS? Mac OS users are used to buying software on the internet because that is the only place you can find it these days outside of Apple stores.

It starts at $499, but doesn't include a mouse, keyboard, monitor, audio in, etc. By the time you get this thing configured (or use your old ugly PC accessories) you'll be out the door at $800. Not to mention that my iPod has the same amount of disk space as this thing so add another hard drive on top of that. I'll say that $449 Dell with 17" LCD monitor, 1GB of ram, 60 GB HD, 2.4 Ghz processor is a better deal for Mom and Dad and they don't have to worry about their computer being outdated before they receive it.

James Fee

01-12-2005, 12:12 AM

1. Not many people use audio in. Nevertheless, I agree that a built-in microphone would be better than nothing. Both my ibook G3 and iMac g5 come with built-in microphones.But they could include that modem....

2. We all know that very few people fully utilize the CPU power at their disposal so why bring this up? Those that need hyperthreading or Athlon 64 are not the target audience for this machine. Heck, I use my PC for the intensive stuff as ghz is cheap on PC.No, but I think at this point a G5 should have been included. I'm sure the fan would have to be louder, but let be honest, even non gamers play Halo.

3. Gamers don't buy $500 machines. In fact, most PCs in this price range had intergrated GPUs and no DVI.See above..

4. Beauty is in the eye of beholder. I doubt yout PC looks any better. :)
Nah, my ugly Dell tower is hidden from view. Sure I could put it behind the door, but I was hoping I wouldn't have to.

5. SuperDrive is available built-to-order.
But by that time, add on the monitor, keyboard and mouse, plus an audio USB jack you are almost up to the cost of a 17" iMac.

Laughing off the stage? I think Apple is laughing all the way to the bank!

Too bad I already got a new iMac.Well we'll see once the storm calms down how well these sell. The cube was well received at first, but then it crashed. I doubt this will, but I'd wager most people will exceed $700 on their purchase of this and at that point should be looking toward an iMac.

klinux

01-12-2005, 12:16 AM

I'll give you the lack of viruses (security through obscurity), but spam? Mac users don't get spam? They have magical email addresses that are immune to getting put into a spammers database? Why hasn't someone told me this before now? :lol:

Shhh. I'll tell you another thing - Mac users don't get pop ups either! Keep it quiet as we want to remain the exclusive 2% market share club. :)

Macs do get less of the virus/spyware/worm than others but of course we get the same amount of spam. Nevertheless, I do not think this is security through obscurity. It is simply much harder to create those hacks in *nix than it is in Windows.

As for what my mom and dad would use - I know they do not need 2.4ghz and 1gig of RAM. I would rather their PC not get hacked or get slower and slower because they installed crap on it and call me for PC support. They do not play Halo either.

I do not think you get this - this $500 machine is not targeted to you.

waverlyn

01-12-2005, 12:20 AM

I would rather their PC not get hacked or get slower and slower because they installed crap on it and call me for PC support.

I think 1.25GHz G4 is slow enough... :wink:

entropy1980

01-12-2005, 12:25 AM

I was unaware the mom and dad were concerned with how loud the fan was, or the fact that it handles quartz very well.

They are they just don't know it. If OSX ran like crap you think they'd care? I do, so yes Quartz is important and they shouldn't be aware of it.

The plain fact is that video card at 32 megs can't run many games that the target audiance would want. This things purpose is to draw people back into the Mac universe and once they get there, they'll see they have a door stop on their desk becaues they can't play halo or any other game made in the past year on it.

Really I wasn't aware that the uber-graphics chip that the $400 Dell includes (almost always a Intel Extreme) can bust out some sick FPS in Halo or Doom 3... wait it can't...

This machine is directly targeted at me. An iPod user who wants to get back into Mac OS. But frankly its not up to snuff. A $500 Dell is far more advanced than this thing. Yea it doesn't look as nice, but it can run all the latest games (at least for the next month or so).

The $500 Dell CANNOT run the latest games either.

I've never gotten a windows virus since I've own a window machine during the past 2 years. The fact that ordinary users are too cheap to buy a virus scanner and keep it up to date is irrelevant. Sure Microsoft should integrate virus scanners and other tools into the OS, but you think the DOJ will ever let that happen? And what happens when you recommend the computer to people and they run down to their local staples to buy software only to find they don't carry Mac OS? Mac OS users are used to buying software on the internet because that is the only place you can find it these days outside of Apple stores.

Again I don't see you being in the target audience. Just you being a careful windows user doesn't 9 out of 10 are. Come on get real if everyone was that careful viruses wouldn't be a problem! As far as MS bundling protection baw! You must be kidding the same people who gave us the problem fixing it? Not happening. Besides whats better than not having to deal with the problem in the first place? Nothing. As far as software goes another great thing.... most everything is included, and what's not they can pick up at CompUSA (they carry Apple) and heaven forbid..... an Apple store (which are now in almost every major US city). Look I have more PC's than Macs heck I am a Windows administrator, but I am not blind to the benefits of Macs especially one that finally makes it affordable.

It starts at $499, but doesn't include a mouse, keyboard, monitor, audio in, etc. By the time you get this thing configured (or use your old ugly PC accessories) you'll be out the door at $800. Not to mention that my iPod has the same amount of disk space as this thing so add another hard drive on top of that. I'll say that $449 Dell with 17" LCD monitor, 1GB of ram, 60 GB HD, 2.4 Ghz processor is a better deal for Mom and Dad and they don't have to worry about their computer being outdated before they receive it.
And when you spend 4 hours on the phone with mom and dad explaining why they can't boot because the Virus deleted their MBR, or why they are getting 8,000,000,000 pop-ups you can add all the hours up because I don't know about you but my time is worth money and all that time saved is worth more than the 300 dollars that "may be" saved by going with the Dell. Like I said I am Windows user, a smart one ( I have never gotten any viruses) and I will be picking one of these up as great second PC to compliment my usage and I will be recommending it to anyone looking to ease up on the worrying about the evils of the internet. :)

klinux

01-12-2005, 12:26 AM

Comparison to the cube is not in order.

First, SFF was not popular then. It is (more) popular now.

Second, the cube was never meant to a cheap entry into the Apple world. The cheapest version at introduction was $1800.

Lastly, as others have said it, this is not a machine for gamers. No matter what hard Apple, Jobs, or Mac zealots spins it, Windows is the platform to be for gamers. Not Linux, Debian, Sun, etc. No Windows gamer would abandon the platform for Macs.

However, while no one is surprised at how big the gaming industry is but you would be surprised at how many people do not play games!

James Fee

01-12-2005, 12:34 AM

They are they just don't know it. If OSX ran like crap you think they'd care? I do, so yes Quartz is important and they shouldn't be aware of it.
They don't care at all. They buy a computer and it works. That is all they care about.

Really I wasn't aware that the uber-graphics chip that the $400 Dell includes (almost always a Intel Extreme) can bust out some sick FPS in Halo or Doom 3... wait it can't...
Sure, it can't. There will always be games that these machines can't run, but you spend the money you would have to spend on keyboard, mouse, monitor on a graphics card for said Dell and you'd be in business. You could never do that on this computer.

The $500 Dell CANNOT run the latest games either.
See above.

Again I don't see you being in the target audience. Just you being a careful windows user doesn't 9 out of 10 are. Come on get real if everyone was that careful viruses wouldn't be a problem! As far as MS bundling protection baw! You must be kidding the same people who gave us the problem fixing it? Not happening. Besides whats better than not having to deal with the problem in the first place? Nothing. As far as software goes another great thing.... most everything is included, and what's not they can pick up at CompUSA (they carry Apple) and heaven forbid..... an Apple store (which are now in almost every major US city). Look I have more PC's than Macs heck I am a Windows administrator, but I am not blind to the benefits of Macs especially one that finally makes it affordable.
Please, if they bundled protection, this would never have been an issue. The government (and Symantec, et al) don't want them to do it, at least for free. I never said it couldn't be bought, but unlike windows software, you have to travel for it.

And when you spend 4 hours on the phone with mom and dad explaining why they can't boot because the Virus deleted their MBR, or why they are getting 8,000,000,000 pop-ups you can add all the hours up because I don't know about you but my time is worth money and all that time saved is worth more than the 300 dollars that "may be" saved by going with the Dell. Like I said I am Windows user, a smart one ( I have never gotten any viruses) and I will be picking one of these up as great second PC to compliment my usage and I will be recommending it to anyone looking to ease up on the worrying about the evils of the internet. :)I've trouble shooted more with my dad's Mac OS trying to get it to connect to a windows PC than I have with his Windows PC alone. Windows PCs work just as well as Macs do these days. Its just people install so much crap on them they end up crashing. Macs work because there is not version of gator to be installed on them.

waverlyn

01-12-2005, 12:35 AM

James Fee

01-12-2005, 12:38 AM

Lastly, as others have said it, this is not a machine for gamers. No matter what hard Apple, Jobs, or Mac zealots spins it, Windows is the platform to be for gamers. Not Linux, Debian, Sun, etc. No Windows gamer would abandon the platform for Macs.No but people might want to play The Sims 2 (well if they ever get around to finally releasing it). Of course it will play on this computer, but barely.

entropy1980

01-12-2005, 12:41 AM

treo007

01-12-2005, 12:50 AM

And when you spend 4 hours on the phone with mom and dad explaining why they can't boot because the Virus deleted their MBR, or why they are getting 8,000,000,000 pop-ups you can add all the hours up because I don't know about you but my time is worth money and all that time saved is worth more than the 300 dollars that "may be" saved by going with the Dell.

Amen Brother!! :D :D :D :D

James Fee

01-12-2005, 12:50 AM

We can go on and on and around round but I think we can agree to disagree and let the sales number speak... the true capitalistic approach! BTW most tech sites thought the iPod mini would flop because it didn't "hold enough" Apple has laughed all the way to the bank. Trust me this is going to be big.Oh I think these will sell out at first, but by Christmas they won't be to popular. What is sad is I doubt we'll see much improvement in the processor since it appears that the G5 just runs too hot. Maybe by then IBM or others will have a cooler running processor that will alllow it to be used.

What might be interesting is that this could be the start (if successful) of the the fixed mobile computer. Small and designed to hook up to our mobile devices these are the opposite of the MCE or home media server which have many fixed internal disks and support for many external wired connections.

Jason Dunn

01-12-2005, 12:53 AM

Heh. Lively discussion...nice to see! I think this looks like a great little computer, but I hope that Apple is realistic when they market it. If you look at their product page...I don't think they are. They're talking it up like it's a big, powerful computer, and it's not. As long as people accept that this is a non-upgradeable, basic computer, I think it can be a great computer for email/web/word processing - which is what most people use their computer for nowadays anyway. Personally, I may indeed buy one if the price is around $700 CND, but we'll see what it comes out at up here.

James Fee

01-12-2005, 01:01 AM

I just priced the Mac...

I took the low end price of $499, upgraded to 1GB of RAM, upgraded to 80 GB HD, upgraded to the SuperDrive, added bluetooth and airport wireless card, added wireless keyboard and mouse then hit update.

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/media/users/135/macmini.jpg

Of course an apple LCD is out of the question.

klinux

01-12-2005, 01:04 AM

Honestly, I don't know why it is so difficult for people to keep their computer secure. All they need to do is to keep their computer updated, and use the following tools reguarly (say, once a week):

Firewall: ZoneAlarm(FREE), Sygate(FREE)...
Anti-Virus: Avast(FREE), Symantec...
Anti-Adware: Adware 6(FREE), Spy Bot(FREE)...

and most importantly, DON'T USE INTERNET EXPLORER... use Firefox or Opera.

I keep my PC tight and secure too, using the many of the same tools mentioned (don't forget Grisoft's AVG - free antivirus). However, I also don't drink and drive either and cannot understand the people that choose to endanger other people's life.

Out-of-box, Macs (and Linux) machines are more secure. In the hands of experts, both Windows and Mac/Linux can be secure as well. Most Windows users are not experts. Hence the arguement that Mac/Linux machines are more secure.

klinux

01-12-2005, 01:13 AM

Jason Dunn

01-12-2005, 01:17 AM

In terms of price comparisons, I think that the people who are buying this are going for a minimal computing experience, so I think the stock system is just fine...though I do think they should have included a keyboard and mouse, even if it was wired. And what about a cheap 15" LCD or something? I'll say this much: Dell has the lower price for the "everything you need out of the box" computing experience, but this thing is still pretty damn cool. :!:

klinux

01-12-2005, 01:44 AM

Yeah, it's really hard to beat Dell at their game. Even on the Mac boards, people are saying why should we pay twice the amount to get now that Dell has a 20" widescreen LCD too.

And in order for Mac people to consider Dell, you know it has to be good!

Jason Eaton

01-12-2005, 01:47 AM

Throw in the lack of spam and viruses targeted at the platform and this thing starts to pick up steam.

I'll give you the lack of viruses (security through obscurity), but spam? Mac users don't get spam? They have magical email addresses that are immune to getting put into a spammers database? Why hasn't someone told me this before now? :lol:

Hehe, understandable. I see where your coming from. My spam reference actually is true, at least for me. The built in e-mail client for OS X has a great spam filter. While the email inbox does get spam I don't see it. Hence less spam. Never got that to work right with outlook express for free.

And probably not 'spam' per-say the pop-up blocker for Safari helps stop Ad-spamming. Though now that Explorer has it so less of a selling point.

koriel

01-12-2005, 02:17 AM

(let's see a PC maker do fanless hah!)

Erm. OK .... http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/pro/1200/1200.asp

wilkinsjme

01-12-2005, 02:21 AM

Seems to me that this could be a great basic no frills HTPC if you could find a remote control to work with it. The bluetooth keyboard and mouse I guess could work also but it's not as slick.

The space it takes up is nothing. And you could easily play audio, pictures, non-HD video, and DVD's. :?: :?:

entropy1980

01-12-2005, 04:31 AM

James Fee

01-12-2005, 05:00 AM

Come on James,. You know that is BS. Mac zealots on Mac boards do this all the time too (i.e. go to Dell's site and come up with outrageous quotes).
Of course, it was a joke of sorts, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a computer that doesn't have a keyboard and mouse. By the time you get this configured as a computer that people can use, you'll add at least $100 to the base price. A single RAM slot hurts the computer more than almost anything else, requiring you to spend large sums of money to upgrade the memory.

This is a computer Apple should have released 2 years ago. And its too late to really matter. Even if they sell thousands of them, it will do little to dent the tide of windows machines from Asia as well as Dell.

Lee Yuan Sheng

01-12-2005, 06:39 AM

Too expensive for what it really is. It probably will sell well anyway.

Jason Dunn

01-12-2005, 06:40 AM

Seems to me that this could be a great basic no frills HTPC if you could find a remote control to work with it.

Eh....I'm not so sure. Max 80 GB hard drive, no PCI slot for a TV tuner. Does the Mac OS have a ten-foot UI media browsing/viewing program?

klinux

01-12-2005, 10:32 AM

Of course, it was a joke of sorts, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a computer that doesn't have a keyboard and mouse. By the time you get this configured as a computer that people can use, you'll add at least $100 to the base price. A single RAM slot hurts the computer more than almost anything else, requiring you to spend large sums of money to upgrade the memory.

This is a computer Apple should have released 2 years ago. And its too late to really matter. Even if they sell thousands of them, it will do little to dent the tide of windows machines from Asia as well as Dell.

KB, mouse, and displays are all cheap and they seemed to be something that people have lying around. If you do not have any of those things lying around, and Steve Jobs and my personal experience both seem to think there are relatively few people in that camp, then perhaps this is not the computer for you.

As for it being too little too late - well, it seems like we will revisit this thread every 3 months to see what will happen! :)

mjhamson

01-12-2005, 10:41 AM

Okay... all you guys are great... but I am thinking your are all equally hopeless in your observations. I recently switched over to make this last summer. I bought a PowerBook 15".

This little device is in the same realm as the iBooks and PowerBooks for performance... it just lacks the mobility per se.

Performance wise, it will be more then capable of handling 95% of any common user tasks without question. granted, when I am editing my 200 - 300mb TIFF files, Photoshop could be a little slower then I like... but I found the same problem on my Dell Xeon wtih 2gb and a SCSI system.

Mac users and a lot of users out there are not gammers. This system is not for gamming.

Now I dare ask anyone to come up with any application that over 20% of the users will use that this system will not be able to run. The truth is that there are none.

the iLife & i*whatever applications and any other application in the same market will run well enough on this system

Anyone who tries to run an application like Final Cut Pro, Shake, or the like on this little guy is screwed in the head. After all, these are big $$$$ applications and users of these applications will also spend a little money on their hardware to get beefy systems that will improve productivity.

Now, i am a guy who will be buying 5 of these mini's. I will be giving them to my 5 new developers so they can code OS X applications. They are up to task even for these conditions... and I get to save extra $. besides, we are all hard core people and we are more keen to do most actions in the shell.

One more little note: you cannot directly compare CPU size/speed between the x86-Windows world and PPC-Mac world. They are true apple and oranges here. Nor should you trap yourself into thinking that the CPU is the barrier to a computers performance.

Heh. Lively discussion...nice to see! I think this looks like a great little computer, but I hope that Apple is realistic when they market it. If you look at their product page...I don't think they are. They're talking it up like it's a big, powerful computer, and it's not. As long as people accept that this is a non-upgradeable, basic computer, I think it can be a great computer for email/web/word processing - which is what most people use their computer for nowadays anyway. Personally, I may indeed buy one if the price is around $700 CND, but we'll see what it comes out at up here.

James Fee

01-12-2005, 02:16 PM

Target buyers....

Does that matter? Do we know who they are? I've read people post that the target buyers are iPod owners who have a PC (that's me), windows/mac users who want a second PC, windows users on an IBM aptiva running windows 95, windows geeks who just want a mac, and tons of others.

Penny Pinchers? I don't see them ever considering a mac due to all the high costs of just about everything. They'd never set foot in an Apple store anyway. I guess they have a keyboard and mouse somewhere they can use, but once they plug that ugly thing in the back, they'll be heading down to the apple store to buy an apple kb/mouse.

Penny Pinchers would buy a computer at WalMart, not at the Apple Store. The target audiance doesn't matter now that it is out, we'll just have to see who really ends up buying it.

Phoenix

01-12-2005, 02:56 PM

Come on James,. You know that is BS. Mac zealots on Mac boards do this all the time too (i.e. go to Dell's site and come up with outrageous quotes).

For example, go to Dell's site and try to configure a machine (try using 4700C since we are going small form factor) that has a graphics card with DVI, firewire, WinXP pro, 1 GB of RAM, BT, etc and guess what - it's more than $1300 too without the LCD...

I'm curious as to why you think it's BS. The quote James came up with is what it would cost to get that system configured with those features.

You do get more for your money with PCs than with Macs. Any educated consumer knows that.

I just priced out a Dell system just out of curiosity, and came up with the following (which includes a rebate and some free upgrades that Dell often offers - but it shows what a person can get for his money):

Dell Dimension 8400

-P4 3.2 GHz with HT (800 FSB)
-1 GB 400 MHz Dual Channel DDR SDRAM
-Windows MCE 2005
-160GB SATA HDD (7200 RPM)
-DVD+-RW with Dual Layer Write Capability
-17" Flat Panel LCD Display
-128MB PCI Express x16 (DVI/VGA/TV-out) ATI Radeon X300 SE
-Sound Blaster Live! 24-bit ADVANCED HD Audio
-Dell A425 Speakers w/Subwoofer
-Dell Wireless Keyboard and Optical Mouse
-Remote Control
-Microsoft Office Basic - (Outlook, Word, Excel)
-56K PCI Data/Fax Modem
-Gigabit Ethernet
-1 Year Warranty
-Free Shipping

Ports:
-8 USB 2.0 ports (2 front/6 back)
-2 Powered Firewire Ports
-5.1 Channel Audio: 5 miniature jacks for Line-in, Line-out (front, rear and center) and Mic
-1 Front Headphone Jack
-1 Serial Port
-1 Parallel Port
-1 DVI Port
-2 DIN Connectors for Keyboard and Mouse

Add in:
-D-Link AirPlus Xtreme 108Mbps Wireless 802.11g PCI Card (with Antenna)
-Linksys USBBT100 Wireless Bluetooth USB Adapter (with Antenna)

The total for all of this came to $1480 USD.

Review the list to see everything that this system has that the Mac Mini would not, for the same price. The Dell's price would decrease for those who didn't need/want the wireless keyboard and mouse, speakers, and/or 17" LCD display.

So no, I'm afraid it isn't BS. Who the Mac Mini is marketed to is irrelevant in this example. The fact that this PC isn't SFF is irrelevant in this example. The point I'm making is that you simply get more for your money, dollar for dollar, with PC than with Mac - more power, more capacity, more components, etc.

***************

But I didn't post only to compare. I just thought the comparison was interesting and wanted to illustrate what all a person truly gets with a PC for around the $1400 USD or so that it would cost for a maxed out, but less capable Mac Mini with nothing else.

Every PC out there around $500 USD or so, will let a person do most of what they need and want to do to stay productive and connected in life, except, of course, for the highest end graphics, audio, video, and gaming tasks, which would naturally demand a much more robust system similar to or greater than what I configured above.

***************

I will also say that I have a relative who has worked with Macs his whole life and he's had a lot of problems with it crashing, wiping out his HDD on numerous occasions over the years. So although people can talk about PCs costing more to deal with and so on, Macs are not immune to problems. Everybody's experiences are different and when addressing what platform is better, more often than not we talk only from our own individual perspectives rather than a true collective perspective. But the truth is, every system has it's shortcomings and Macs are no exception. Both systems are very sophisticated, subject to user error, and problems cannot be avoided.

Which system gets more viruses and so on cannot be used to suggest that PCs are inferior. Companies like Microsoft and their products are simply going to become major targets for society - that's the price of that level of success. That however does not take away from the fact that a PC is a fantastic tool capable of wonderful things, just like a Mac. What if the shoe were on the other foot? Would it be fair to suggest that a Mac was an inferior system simply because there were people out there writing viruses for its OS? No platform is immune to viruses. Viruses are therefore reflective of the problems inherent with people due to their maliciousness, irresponsiblity, and lack of education, not PC technology itself. It would be like saying that Ferrari is inferior to Mercedes simply because people get into car crashes more often in Ferraris than they do in Mercedes.

Of course, anything anyone wants to do can ultimately be done with either system. Macs and PCs are both very powerful and sophisticated computers, very flexible, and attractive. We're not living in the early nineties where one system does one thing better than another and vice versa, however both systems come with their unique qualities. PC users are more likely going to deal with more viruses, but on the flip side, there is more hardware and software (including games) available for PCs than there is for Mac merely because the market for PC is over twenty times that of Mac and that's where the money is and therefore that's where the majority of the developers are. Not to mention PCs are far more flexible overall in terms of hardware, user upgrades, and mods in light of the fact that anyone can go out and buy cases, power supplies, motherboards, and every other single component (and I'm not just talking about video and sound cards) to build, upgrade, and mod their PCs from scratch on their own - Macs are modded but aren't nearly this flexible (that I know of, anyway). But aside from that, the truth is, in terms of sheer power and productivity, both systems when similarly configured, handle everything equally well according to the tasks they were configured for and they're far more stable than they were years ago.

***************

I will say though, that I think this Mac Mini is really beautiful. Very minimalistic, very clean, very small. I would change only a few things on it - add a few things, and beef up the internal specs a bit. But it's a beautiful system in it's simplicity of form and I believe will sell well. One day I'd like to get a small desktop Mac just to play around with and this would be a great way of getting my hands on something simple with a very small footprint.

...YOU are not the target audience.... The target for this is mom and dad, ipod users, a person looking for a quiet fanless second machine, or someone testing the water on using a Mac...

The iLife bundle is a fantastic value. Although I wonder... is this Mac Mini only marketed to good ol' mom and dad and those who merely want to surf, email, and chat, type letters, and use their Ipods? iLife consists of iMovie HD, GarageBand, iDVD, iPhoto, etc. Sounds to me that by bundling this software with this system, Apple is trying to also capture people who are into digital hi-def video editing, digital multitrack audio recording, DVD burning, etc. Now people of all ages can be found performing these tasks, but these aren't the types of activites that the average mom and dad, grandma and grandpa are going to be doing on their computers. I think the market for this system is much more broad than merely the simple user. Because of that, it would've made a bit more sense to add in a few more ports, jacks, and to provide a bit more flexibility in customizing components for those who want more out of it than what it can currently offer. I guess we'll see.

But overall, it's very nice and I think Apple will do very well with it.

Phoenix

01-12-2005, 05:43 PM

I have to add, that after seeing more photos of the Mac Mini, I really can hardly believe how small it is.

Really amazing.

Janak Parekh

01-12-2005, 05:48 PM

I was unaware the mom and dad were concerned with how loud the fan was, or the fact that it handles quartz very well.
Interesting - I've consulted for a number of people who've complained about the size and noise of x86 PCs. Shuttles are a good response to the size and "drabness" problem, but they don't have the marketing power of Apple.

The plain fact is that video card at 32 megs can't run many games that the target audiance would want.
Most of the "average joe" population don't play games more than Solitaire. Really. The exception to this are the "average joes" with gamer kids, and for them this might be a problem.

A $500 Dell is far more advanced than this thing.
The one thing I don't get about this argument is that why Apple must match Dell $ for $. It's like saying no higher-end items exist in the market today. Why do people buy iPods in that case, even if they have less features? The point is that there's a price point at which people will let their brand preferences decide, and Apple may have hit upon it.

I've never gotten a windows virus since I've own a window machine during the past 2 years. The fact that ordinary users are too cheap to buy a virus scanner and keep it up to date is irrelevant.
No, it's not. My research is in network security, and I've been a sysadmin for years, and Microsoft has had some lessons to learn from UNIX-based operating systems. I can get into the technical details if you like... but here's one example: MS makes it too easy to install programs on a machine. By default, users created on XP are Administrators or Power Users. It's easy to say "just downgrade the user to Standard", but a) most users don't know how to do that; b) lots of Windows applications fail to run that way. UNIX operating systems typically run as a nonprivileged user by default, and you have to "become root" in order to install software. That one extra step is a huge improvement in preventing virii and spyware from infecting a machine.

Yes, you can do the same thing with more modern MS operating systems (a la the "runas" command... or in fact XP autodetects if a nonprivileged user runs setup). But the defaults are all backwards, and are an effect of their legacy of single-user operating systems and software that requires privileged access. XP SP2 was the first good step by Microsoft in years in trying to improve this, and I really applaud a lot of the work they've done in it (especially recompiling their code with a canary-based buffer-overflow-resistant compiler, way to go MS!)... but they still have a long way to go. I'd love them to modify their OS policies to actively prevent most software from running privileged by default -- you'd see lots of spyware and virii today simply vanish overnight.

they don't have to worry about their computer being outdated before they receive it.
Most of them don't worry about this anyway.

--janak

James Fee

01-12-2005, 06:05 PM

Interesting - I've consulted for a number of people who've complained about the size and noise of x86 PCs. Shuttles are a good response to the size and "drabness" problem, but they don't have the marketing power of Apple.I still don't think people go into a store and worry about how loud the computer is. If this was the case, no one would buy a Dell since they can't hear it.
Most of the "average joe" population don't play games more than Solitaire. Really. The exception to this are the "average joes" with gamer kids, and for them this might be a problem.
OK, maybe its good enough for some software, but even basic games these days will tax that video card.
The one thing I don't get about this argument is that why Apple must match Dell $ for $. It's like saying no higher-end items exist in the market today. Why do people buy iPods in that case, even if they have less features? The point is that there's a price point at which people will let their brand preferences decide, and Apple may have hit upon it.Why did I buy an iPod? Because all other players suck compared to it. In the end all this will do is cause people to not buy iMacs, hurting Apple's revenue and making it harder for them to spend the kinds of money that come up with these better looking designs. Mark my words, Apple stock will start to fall and when profits fall, Wall Street will abandon the company.
No, it's not. My research is in network security, and I've been a sysadmin for years, and Microsoft has had some lessons to learn from UNIX-based operating systems. I can get into the technical details if you like... but here's one example: MS makes it too easy to install programs on a machine. By default, users created on XP are Administrators or Power Users. It's easy to say "just downgrade the user to Standard", but a) most users don't know how to do that; b) lots of Windows applications fail to run that way. UNIX operating systems typically run as a nonprivileged user by default, and you have to "become root" in order to install software. That one extra step is a huge improvement in preventing virii and spyware from infecting a machine.

Yes, you can do the same thing with more modern MS operating systems (a la the "runas" command... or in fact XP autodetects if a nonprivileged user runs setup). But the defaults are all backwards, and are an effect of their legacy of single-user operating systems and software that requires privileged access. XP SP2 was the first good step by Microsoft in years in trying to improve this, and I really applaud a lot of the work they've done in it (especially recompiling their code with a canary-based buffer-overflow-resistant compiler, way to go MS!)... but they still have a long way to go. I'd love them to modify their OS policies to actively prevent most software from running privileged by default -- you'd see lots of spyware and virii today simply vanish overnight.
Sure, I don't deny that MS has issues, but if people were smarter there would be an issue. Clicking on banner ads for smilies is a poor decision. One should have to put in their Admin password to install even an ActiveX control, but I don't see that changing.Most of them don't worry about this anyway.except that the actual people who will buy this isn't joe six pack, but iPod user who is more sofisitcated and will be walking out of the store with a Mac mini costing a grand. WAY overpriced.

Lee Yuan Sheng

01-12-2005, 06:10 PM

It could very well be targeted at those who want to buy into the Mac system (note the word SYSTEM) but are finding it expensive to do so. This is a large and very broad catch-all category, but it could well be a very good marketing decision as well.

PCs have always been cheaper, that didn't need to be said. I could make an even more unfair example compared to Phoneix's by taking component costs in a DIY system, in which case, for US$499, without input devices and display, you'll end up with a system that is vastly more powerful than this.

But that is not the point. The point here is Apple is trying to get people to OWN Macs, and as many people as possible. They know they cannot fight with the tech enthusiast, so they are targeting those who admire and like the brand, but have had no chance to get a Mac because of pricing issues. Given the proliferation of computers, it is highly possible that whoever is buying the Mac already has the input devices and display, and thus would have less problems switching.

By making it small and cool, they have a strong selling point beyond features and power, and also small units in white are also easier to fit into an existing household, which again, back to the point of getting people to buy Macs; by making the device compelling, and by eliminating deal-breakers as much as possible. Lack of power is not that big a problem. I certainly can get plenty of work done on my very much obsolete IBM X20 running a PIII 600, and I'm talking about complex financial excel spreadsheets, which already puts me ahead of most people. The specs in this unit, while unexciting, will suffice for most.

If Apple gets the experience right, and users are happy with it, Apple would have convinced them that the Apple system is a good one, and eventually I'm sure their next computer (or one of the next computers) will be a Mac. Good way to grow your customer base and future sales!

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, but basically it's like what I said in my earlier post: it's not powerful, it's not that cheap for what it is, but it should sell well. And it might just give Apple a way to increase their market share, even if that happens slowly.

rlobrecht

01-12-2005, 07:07 PM

Shuttle XPC SN95G5 Athlon 64 Barebone - $319
Athlon 64 3500+ Socket 939 - $217
1GB DDR333 PC2700 - $160
16x DVD-ROM - $30
Seagate Barracuda ST3160023A 160GB UltraATA/100 - $100

TOTAL: $826
.

You forgot XP.

Phoenix

01-12-2005, 07:08 PM

...PCs have always been cheaper, that didn't need to be said. I could make an even more unfair example compared to Phoneix's by taking component costs in a DIY system, in which case, for US$499, without input devices and display, you'll end up with a system that is vastly more powerful than this.

But that is not the point...

Well it is a valid point and did need to be said (your example above only helps to reaffirm what I was saying in part) because sometimes it's important to illustrate to people what they can get for their money - not everyone understands this, and many ultimately value what they get for their dollar over a tempting, but overpriced system with a bit of extra style. There are a lot of points to be made here, not just one, and this is one of many. But the comparison I provided was not to serve as an argument as to why someone shouldn't purchase a Mac Mini, but rather to address one person's comments regarding overall value.

...The point here is Apple is trying to get people to OWN Macs, and as many people as possible. They know they cannot fight with the tech enthusiast, so they are targeting those who admire and like the brand, but have had no chance to get a Mac because of pricing issues. Given the proliferation of computers, it is highly possible that whoever is buying the Mac already has the input devices and display, and thus would have less problems switching...

If this is indeed who Apple has been trying to reach, then it would seem that this is the best way to go about it. Perhaps the only way. I'll be interested to hear, beyond the conjecture, more about who specifically ends up being drawn to this product.

...If Apple gets the experience right, and users are happy with it, Apple would have convinced them that the Apple system is a good one, and eventually I'm sure their next computer (or one of the next computers) will be a Mac. Good way to grow your customer base and future sales!...

For trying to reel in those who would love to go Mac but couldn't afford it, it sounds like a good plan for growth to me!

Janak Parekh

01-12-2005, 07:40 PM

If this was the case, no one would buy a Dell since they can't hear it.
Agreed, Dells are very quiet. They've done a very good job with their acoustics.

OK, maybe its good enough for some software, but even basic games these days will tax that video card.
A Radeon 9200 will do any 2D game you throw at it bar none, and should do any 3D game more than 2 years old. Depends on what you call "basic game".

Why did I buy an iPod? Because all other players suck compared to it.
Ah, but you had some requirements that suggested that iPods are better than every other music player. You may have different requirements for your computer, and that's why the Mini doesn't appeal to you.

In the end all this will do is cause people to not buy iMacs, hurting Apple's revenue
I suspect they've done market research, and that a) the kinds of user buying a Mac mini are not those buying an iMac; and b) the margin is probably better than we think.

Mark my words, Apple stock will start to fall and when profits fall, Wall Street will abandon the company.
I'm not an Apple fanboy, but I so feel like one saying this: Join the club. You're now the billionth person to say this.

Sure, I don't deny that MS has issues, but if people were smarter there would be an issue.
But they're not, and how can you expect them to be? That's my problem -- dealing with real-world lusers. ;)

One should have to put in their Admin password to install even an ActiveX control, but I don't see that changing.
It is changing. SP2 is much less "ActiveX-friendly" than previous versions were.

--janak

Janak Parekh

01-12-2005, 07:44 PM

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, but basically it's like what I said in my earlier post: it's not powerful, it's not that cheap for what it is, but it should sell well. And it might just give Apple a way to increase their market share, even if that happens slowly.
Excellent points. Between you and Phoenix, I think we have the marketing decisions behind the Mac mini hashed out perfectly. :)

--janak

sojourner753

01-12-2005, 10:43 PM

I have to admit at first I thought I would certainly not buy one of these.
However, I've been kicking around building a PVR and this seems to fit what I'm looking for.

A Mac enthusiist that I work with mentioned a kit by a company called elgato that will meet my needs.

As a PVR, I would probably be running it headless most of the time. And the size is unbeatable. Being *nix based I feel more comfortable about it running continuously.

Most of the smaller PC form factors seem to be pricey (e.g. Shuttle).

Granted I have not thought the whole through completely, but it definitely warrants adding it to the list of possibilities swimming in the back of my head.

klinux

01-13-2005, 02:39 AM

I'm curious as to why you think it's BS. The quote James came up with is what it would cost to get that system configured with those features.

(snip)

I just priced out a Dell system just out of curiosity, and came up with the following (which includes a rebate and some free upgrades that Dell often offers - but it shows what a person can get for his money):

(snip)

What James did was took the very lowest model that Mac offers and souped it up to be a machine that he would buy. The final price which is is approximately 2.5x the original of cost of the Mini. Wow, pretty ridiculous for Apple, isn't it?

Well, what I did was the same, took a small lower end machine from Dell and then added on various components which jacked up the price to a higher cost system too. This is equally ridiculous.

What you did was something different; you did something that a rational consumer might do and not just people comparing notes on the internet. That is, if I am someone who is going to be doing a lot of rendering or gaming, I am not going to buy a Mini or Dell 3000 and soup it up. I am going to start with a mid-end or high-end class, like an iMac/PowerMac or a Dell 8400/XPS and work from there.

As a result, you price list, although informational, is not relevant in this discussion about whom the new iMac will be sold to.

This leads me to my next argument.

So no, I'm afraid it isn't BS. Who a computer is marketed to is irrelevant. The fact that this PC isn't SFF is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that you simply get more for your money, dollar for dollar, with PC than with Mac - more power, more capacity, more components, etc.

It is not to get the tone right in cyberspace so please do not consider this to be hostile remark: I do not think you are a professional yet, are you?

Any professional would tell you that your audience is important. You do not market business-class fares to leisure travellers, sport coupes to soccer moms, or down jacket to Floridians. Like wise, Mini buyers are not going to be needing a hyperthreading capable processors or a PCIe graphics card either.

As for size - you should know very well as a digital literati that people pay a premium for size. I do not even need to provide examples for this argument!

Lastly, regarding getting more for the money, you forgot that style and design is currency as well. Is that Gucci t-shirt 10x more durable than a Hanes t-shirt? How about a big E-Z Boy recliner - surely it offers more material and comfort than what a sleek chair offers, no? Shouldn't everyone have one of those then? A good used Volvo can get me from point A to B in good safety and comfort. Why should I consider a more expensive alternative?

The best example is hard-drive based digital audio players. We all know there are ones out there with more functionality, buttons, and flexibilty than the iPod. The fact that iPod is dominating is a hint for you to consider alternatives to what you believe to be "value" argument.

klinux

01-13-2005, 02:52 AM

People are seem to very interested in a PVR/HTPC system. I will posit a possible arrangement for what that may entail for those who are not familiar with Mac or OS X.
*************
Video/Audio output to television/receiver = Roku
Why? Provides that 10 ft user interface, plenty of output connectors, access to content on PC or Mac, remote.

CPU = Mac Mini
Why? Content acquisition through optical drive and serving content from HD or antenna. Small, quiet, and attractive enclosure.

Storage = Firewire HD of your choice, preferably two-bay
Why? More storage for content, OS X has built-in RAID that is extremely easy if one should need it, faster real-world transfer rate than USB2.

TV = El Gato or El Gato/ATI
Why? Get TV.

Phoenix

01-13-2005, 05:21 AM

What James did was took the very lowest model that Mac offers and souped it up to be a machine that he would buy. The final price which is is approximately 2.5x the original of cost of the Mini. Wow, pretty ridiculous for Apple, isn't it?

Well, what I did was the same, took a small lower end machine from Dell and then added on various components which jacked up the price to a higher cost system too. This is equally ridiculous.

What you did was something different; you did something that a rational consumer might do and not just people comparing notes on the internet. That is, if I am someone who is going to be doing a lot of rendering or gaming, I am not going to buy a Mini or Dell 3000 and soup it up. I am going to start with a mid-end or high-end class, like an iMac/PowerMac or a Dell 8400/XPS and work from there.

As a result, you price list, although informational, is not relevant in this discussion about whom the new iMac will be sold to...

I understand what you're trying to say, but Klinix, you talk as though people interested in possibly buying this Mac aren't going to give the slightest thought of what technology they'll be getting in exchange for their money. They aren't only going to be thinking about style and the OS. And not everyone is going to get the bare bones version of this system - everyone's needs are different and therefore my argument is absolutely relevant and the examples are not ridiculous, because we aren't merely discussing who the Mac Mini is marketed towards, we are also discussing what overall value can be found in said product. This whole discussion is not just simply revolving around one thing.

It is not to get the tone right in cyberspace so please do not consider this to be hostile remark: I do not think you are a professional yet, are you?

Well that depends on what you're talking about. A professional "what"? :lol: :lol: No offense taken.

Any professional would tell you that your audience is important. You do not market business-class fares to leisure travellers, sport coupes to soccer moms, or down jacket to Floridians. Like wise, Mini buyers are not going to be needing a hyperthreading capable processors or a PCIe graphics card either.

Did I suggest that an audience isn't an important element here? I'm afraid you're taking what I said completely out of context and misinterpreting my words. We all look at what we can get for our money. We care about value on different levels, not just whether our computer components reside in a cute little box. My comparison was to illustrate that although the Mac Mini is a beautiful little computer, style aside, it is very overpriced for what you're getting technologically.

As for size - you should know very well as a digital literati that people pay a premium for size. I do not even need to provide examples for this argument!

You're right! A lot of people will definitely pay premiums for extra style and/or a smaller size. The Ipod is one example. DTR laptops with custom paintjobs are another. Examples indeed abound.

Lastly, regarding getting more for the money, you forgot that style and design is currency as well...

No, I didn't forget... trust me. But I agree - style and design are always a part of buying decisions for people. But once again, I was looking mostly at the technology side of things. Style is absolutely important - I for one, care very much about the style of any given thing, but not at the expense of function. So although it's true that no one will buy a car that drives like a Ferrari but looks like an Edsel, the opposite is also true. Style only goes so far, then you have to look at what's inside.

The bottom line in this whole discussion, among other things, should also be that not everyone who takes serious interest in the Mac Mini is going to assess and value it in the same way because not everyone who wants one will buy it for the same reasons or use it in the same ways - everyone's needs are different - so there's room for more than only one perspective here.

jeffd

01-13-2005, 08:46 AM

A couple years ago I built an XP1600 box with simular specs for $250.. it was a "movie" box (small non ugly case so that it could fit with my entertainment center) so that I could play all the anime I downloaded in hq on a tv. It was quit the capable system, the nforce1 board offered an MX video chipset and high quality audio that in todays world would beable to support all of yesterdays games. Today, if you gave me $500..I could stamp out a pretty bad ass gaming box. Nothing extreme.. but enough to play doom3 and halflife 2.

Its all the same arguments.. the same critics, the same flames. The mac is to expensive.. but theres no viruses, no spyware, no games.. I dont know this, I dont know that. All illogical arguments considering I have a rocken game pc, a pc with lots of HD space for my anime and movies, my laptop, my server. However if you took a look at how they all run, all you mac freaks out there would think they were macs.. because they a) dont get viruses, b) dont get spyware, c) dont crash. But they arn't, they all run windows xp or 2000. you see...only IDIOTS get the problems above. If you get a virus.. spyware (well, any that you dont notice right away and clean up, i've only had this happen once, on edonkey which I immedietly wiped off my hd) then you are incapable of handeling a computer to any great extent, in which you can burn your money how ever you see fit, because your computer will be used for nothing more then a paper weight, be it a PC or MAC. If your pc crashes, it is often due to either using crappy hardware with crappy drivers, or old drivers, which is another all to common problem that also makes me resent idiot users. Update you freaking computer damnit.

So buy your mini imac, tell us how you blew that $500 to do absolutly nothing. Enjoy your dust collector. I'm gona go play WoW now.

klinux

01-13-2005, 09:18 AM

A couple years ago I built an XP1600 box with simular specs for $250. (snip) I'm gona go play WoW now.

Hey, kid, you are not getting it.

YOU

ARE

NOT

THE

AUDIENCE.

James Fee

01-13-2005, 04:00 PM

Hey, kid, you are not getting it.

YOU

ARE

NOT

THE

AUDIENCE.Again, I'll have to disagree. He is the audiance. Someone who WON'T PAY a grand for a computer. *shrug*

klinux

01-13-2005, 07:22 PM

People like to think they are the audience for everything and thus feel that if it is not right for them, it cannot be right for xyz.

Sure, jeffd may not spend more than a grand for computer. But that is OK, Apple has many computers that are ready out-of-box for less than a grand such as the eMac or the iMac. Would jeffd get those? No. jeffd games. Macs are not for gamers. He rolls his own PCs. Macs are not for the DIYers. jeffd seems to enjoy maintaining his PCs (and think only IDIOTS get virus, spyware, and computer creashes). Macs are not for, well, jeffd.

The fact that he won't pay more for a grand, for example, is just side knowledge.

jeffd

01-13-2005, 07:23 PM

someone who only buys computers on the cheap isn't the audience for the cheap version of the imac? well blow me down!

Klinux, if macs arnt for me, then who ARE they for again? refresh my memory. I do av editing. I game. I watch movies, I go crazy in the net. I (obviously) know a bit about securing computers against attacks. I network. I do everything.. now the mac can do this to. But there are many differences and in ways the mac falls short. The PC falls short in nothing aside from security which just requires a little more work (not sure about this maintenence you speak about. Protecting against spyware and viruses is easy, a scanner, and activly checking any non official files before blindly executing them. oh and don't use IE)

Oh and I no longer consider "ease of use" to be a benefit to macs anymore. Due to many common windows conventions being different on mac, I have found that alot of computer noobs that learned a few things on pc, have a HARDER time on macs. We have both mac and PC labs in my college, and most people have used the pc's a few times for a class or two, and when they have to hit the mac lab for a class, they need constant help.

klinux

01-13-2005, 07:44 PM

I will let you argue with yourself for a while. :)

Did I suggest that an audience isn't an important element here?

Who a computer is marketed to is irrelevant.
*****************
The fact that this PC isn't SFF is irrelevant.

A lot of people will definitely pay premiums for extra style and/or a smaller size.
*****************

This whole discussion is not just simply revolving around one thing.

Actually, it was. I was arguing a specific point so the argument will not stray into a general, not to mention tired, Mac vs PC or OS X vs Windows or Apple vs Dell argument.

The point was James Fee priced a low-end Mini to a mid-end machine and showed the outrageousness of it. I too priced a low-end Dell to a mid-end Dell and the price is equally as nutty too. Conclusion: using souping up figures of a low-end machine as a price argument does not make sense.

You disagree with my conclusion of pricing souped up low end does not compute. But came back with a mid/hgh end 8400 quote and what you think people should get for $1400. :?: I am afraid you have strayed from the original point.

As for what does being a professional mean? Well, are you a student? Or, how long have you worked? Not saying that my opinions should count more than yours but I am in the marketing analytics department of a US $50B market cap company and considers myself (and my opinion) to be professional.

Janak Parekh

01-13-2005, 09:33 PM

Klinux, if macs arnt for me, then who ARE they for again? refresh my memory. I do av editing. I game.
There are a lot of people who don't do heavy AV editing or gaming. The "average user" in my experience does a bit of websurfing, email, and wordprocessing, and that's about it. And in any case, the argument here is not whether or not Macs are for you, but rather if the Mac mini is.

The PC falls short in nothing aside from security which just requires a little more work (not sure about this maintenence you speak about. Protecting against spyware and viruses is easy, a scanner, and activly checking any non official files before blindly executing them. oh and don't use IE)
Try using another OS just to get some alternative exposure. It's hard to say if you've only used Windows. The underlying UNIX architecture of OS X appeals to me a lot as a Computer Scientist. If you really want, I can go into a long technical discussion about it, but Windows most definitely has both advantages and disadvantages.

--janak

James Fee

01-13-2005, 09:53 PM

There are a lot of people who don't do heavy AV editing or gaming. The "average user" in my experience does a bit of websurfing, email, and wordprocessing, and that's about it. And in any case, the argument here is not whether or not Macs are for you, but rather if the Mac mini is.
Lets see. You guys keep telling me that I'm not the target. Lets look at my current and only computer at home.

1.5 Ghz PIV, 256 Megs of crappy RDAM, Windows XP Home, 2 40 gig IBM death traps, a 12x HP CD burner, 17" Viewsonic monitor. I don't play games on it, but I do edit my photos with PS Elements 2 (3 won't run too well), I use Microsoft Movie Maker to edit my movies from my Canon DV camera. I have a iPod. Seems to me I'm the perfect target. :roll:

Maybe I'm not average, but I'd say I have a below average computer. :P

mjhamson

01-13-2005, 10:00 PM

In the 8 years of working at Microsoft (and 20 years in the industry), I have been privy to some pretty neat inside truths. Let me just make an unqualified statement (NDA fears). The OS X platform has a better performance then XP. This is without a doubt... along side with a better UX. The only limiting factor in the OS X world is games. This is strictly due to the fact that the platform has a small percentage of market share.

In addition, some game manufactures refuse to let ports by industry experts... they refuse and defy the allowance for cross platform ports.

Despite the fact that OS X is truly more secure and less hackable then XP (and the really unsecure Linux platform), it is not hit like the others so that is why you are not seeing the huge headaches that MS has.

So before anyone goes off and spouts off about whatever Rant they might have, understand that there are people on this board with some very specific if not bewildering information that cannot always be expressed in exact terms due to some very powerful and ugly NDAs.

In other words, the truth cannot always be backed by fact... regardless of how painful the truth is.

Its all the same arguments.. the same critics, the same flames. The mac is to expensive.. but theres no viruses, no spyware, no games.. I dont know this, I dont know that. All illogical arguments considering I have a rocken game pc, a pc with lots of HD space for my anime and movies, my laptop, my server. However if you took a look at how they all run, all you mac freaks out there would think they were macs.. because they a) dont get viruses, b) dont get spyware, c) dont crash. But they arn't, they all run windows xp or 2000. you see...only IDIOTS get the problems above. If you get a virus.. spyware (well, any that you dont notice right away and clean up, i've only had this happen once, on edonkey which I immedietly wiped off my hd) then you are incapable of handeling a computer to any great extent, in which you can burn your money how ever you see fit, because your computer will be used for nothing more then a paper weight, be it a PC or MAC. If your pc crashes, it is often due to either using crappy hardware with crappy drivers, or old drivers, which is another all to common problem that also makes me resent idiot users. Update you freaking computer damnit.

So buy your mini imac, tell us how you blew that $500 to do absolutly nothing. Enjoy your dust collector. I'm gona go play WoW now.

Jason Dunn

01-13-2005, 10:17 PM

Guys, let's keep this civil or I'll have to lock the thread. :?

klinux

01-13-2005, 11:19 PM

As others have said, if the first two words out of one's mouth is "I game" I can tell you that the Mac Mini is not the machine for you. In fact, the entire Apple line would likely be not for you!

Is this now the longest thread on DMT? :rock on dude!:

jeffd

01-13-2005, 11:57 PM

AV, image editing, and even internet is better on PC.

AV wise, while the mac has some greate apps, the PC has more apps allowing a broader range of operations and video handeling to be done (There is no one do-it-all app). Also the PC by far has access to the most codecs.

Image editing, same argument, Mac has photoshop which is no doubt the best image editor ever, but it cant do "everything", and PC has more image editors allowing for a greater variety of UIs and wider range of abilities. It's also cheaper.

Net apps, you know how rare a news reader is on mac? When I got involved in a thread on easynews.com in locating newsreaders for mac, I was stunned when learning theres like less then 5. I think the Pocket PC has more newsgroup browsers then Mac. mac has apps to all part of the net, but the PC has far more and far better programs for using the net.

Well except web, im sure we all agree firefox pwns all. 8)

James Fee

01-14-2005, 12:19 AM

AV wise, while the mac has some greate apps, the PC has more apps allowing a broader range of operations and video handeling to be done (There is no one do-it-all app). Also the PC by far has access to the most codecs. That is quite a generalization. More doesn't mean better. Many companies such as Adobe have abandoned the low end Mac video market because iMovie and iDVD are so good (as well as Final Cut Pro being the best video editor on the market for any OS).

Image editing, same argument, Mac has photoshop which is no doubt the best image editor ever, but it cant do "everything", and PC has more image editors allowing for a greater variety of UIs and wider range of abilities It's also cheaper.
Again see above. iPhoto has killed most of this market. Is this a good thing, probably not. But at least iPhoto is a great application (well now it is when it finally supports RAW)

Net apps, you know how rare a news reader is on mac? When I got involved in a thread on easynews.com in locating newsreaders for mac, I was stunned when learning theres like less then 5. I think the Pocket PC has more newsgroup browsers then Mac. mac has apps to all part of the net, but the PC has far more and far better programs for using the net.
NetNewsWire (http://ranchero.com/netnewswire/) is about the best news aggregator on the market. I prefer FeedDemon (http://www.feeddemon.com), but between these two you can have the best there is. Again you say quantity is important. I totally disagree, but then again only on the PC do you have an aggregator that takes up 50 megs of RAM (http://www.sharpreader.net/). *shrug*

Phoenix

01-14-2005, 12:39 AM

Hey, kid, you are not getting it.

YOU

ARE

NOT

THE

AUDIENCE.

Do you work in the marketing department at Apple? How do you know who exactly this is meant to be marketed to? You repeat yourself as if you're the only one here who has it all figured out.

And you're not understanding that on this discussion board it doesn't matter who it's marketed to. Whether it's meant to be marketed to a group of people who may desire to own a Mac so badly that they'll forget about true value, or to aliens on a distant planet, then so be it. But does that mean just because some people here may not fit into that category or whoever you believe is the particular target audience for this product, that we don't "get it" or have the right to express ourselves and why we feel this computer doesn't offer the best value to anyone who may buy it? I mean, we are here to discuss what we think about this product, are we not?

I'll tell ya, the more I find out about this product, the worse it sounds. Even though I think it looks nice on the outside, based on its guts and the inflexibility of its design, I'm beginning to think that anyone would be a fool to make this their main computer. I was saying earlier in this thread that I thought Apple would do well with it and perhaps they will. But from what I understand based on input from others, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about just how well it will do. Apparently, it has non-user-upgradeable RAM, video, and sound, and the slowest HDD around.

So we're not the "target audience" for this product. So what? That doesn't mean we don't "get it", it doesn't mean that we're going to forget everything we've learned about smart shopping, and it doesn't mean we aren't going to expess our opinions. I only say this because you continue to repeat yourself as though you don't think your words are getting through. We hear you, Klinix. We just don't agree.

We can figure that there will be those who already have computers and who will buy it just so they can try out the Mac OS simply out of curiosity, or as nothing more than a side-hobby, or to hack the crap out of it. But apart from those people, one question is left: "Who exactly is the central target audience for this system then, Klinix?" Let's see... a technologically-out-of-touch computer-less Mac-desparate money-wasting fool?

Of course I'm kidding with that last line, but what else are we supposed to think?

I will let you argue with yourself for a while. :)

Oh man, you've got to be kidding me! :lol: Klinix, you better go back and reread that first post of mine again. I said that "in the example that I provided" the fact that the Dell I quoted wasn't an SFF computer was irrelevant, and that "in the example that I provided" marketing didn't matter, because those two things weren't needed to prove my point that aside from a SFF, you can get more for your money overall with a PC than with this Mac Mini.

I wasn't saying that in this great big world of ours, size and marketing doesn't matter at all. I was saying that those two things didn't take away from the fact that you get more/better technology and other components for your money with a PC than with this Mac Mini.

Do you understand what I was saying now?

This whole discussion is not just simply revolving around one thing.

Actually, it was. I was arguing a specific point so the argument will not stray into a general, not to mention tired, Mac vs PC or OS X vs Windows or Apple vs Dell argument.

Oh, forgive me. I didn't realize you were controlling/MC-ing the whole thread.

The point was James Fee priced a low-end Mini to a mid-end machine and showed the outrageousness of it... Conclusion: using souping up figures of a low-end machine as a price argument does not make sense.

You disagree with my conclusion of pricing souped up low end does not compute. But came back with a mid/hgh end 8400 quote and what you think people should get for $1400. :?: I am afraid you have strayed from the original point.

No Klinix. Again, you were missing the point behind all of that. The point behind that example was, you get more for $1400 with a PC than you would spending the same $1400 on the highest end maxed out Mac Mini.

With any computer, people will ALWAYS talk about its value - what you're getting for your money. That's what we're largely talking about here. Not just the design and how cute it is, or the technology in and of itself. Value is going to be discussed. You have to expect that.

...I am in the marketing analytics department of a US $50B market cap company and considers myself (and my opinion) to be professional.

Well that explains a lot. :lol:

And yes, Klinix, I am a professional. :)

klinux

01-14-2005, 02:15 AM

xycury

01-14-2005, 06:03 AM

good topics so far.

I think this mini will sell big... but it will not last before a "better" one comes out and people will buy that. I think the base will grow, but not much.

the fact that it's Apple alone will sell the mini.

I think if it included mouse/KB and a cheap monitor for say 600 err i mean 599, it would be hugantic. <sic>

i haven't seen any of the ilife programs but all i heard is good, but i do like the choices i get on the x86 side of things even though not 1 does everything. Apple has to make the best software... only they are the ones that want to do it. Adobe skipped out with the iDVD and iPhoto and now makes the Photoshop and now Premiere Elements for a good price that does fantastic on the pc.

Pcs have been cheap for ... could say years now. Macs just now are getting there. Could only be good news.

i always wondered why ipods are so great. I really don't think they are. From what most i've heard that don't have one is that it looks cool. does look really count that much? Apple thinks so and they're milking for all that it is. Give credit to Apple to make things cute with style.... but that's it. There are many products that work just as good or have more features. sure they matched ipod with itunes... of course, software developed by apple to sell hardware. some mystic synergy there and apple is playing all the right notes now.

I like pcs, i am staying with pcs. if i could find something more the mac can do that i can't get done on a pc, then i might switch, but the software options don't thrill me, and the hardware is expensive and now it's lacking/locked, but that's how it is and that's how apple wants it.

i'm not against apple and i'm not pro pc either. i just think this is what it is.

my thoughts may not flow right, i'm too sleepy to think any more.

let's make this the longest thread ever!

X

Phoenix

01-14-2005, 08:58 AM

jamesd, it is always important to consider whom a product is marketed to, always. No exceptions. And calling people who will buy it 1) out of touch , 2) "aliens", 3) "money-wasting fools" as you have done really does not help your argument or win your case for you.

You have the right to express yourselves here or elsewhere. You think it does not have the best value and can call it slow. Great.

I will give you an analogy though. I know you are not a soccer mom. You may have opinions on minivan - it is slow, ugly, ungainly, underpowered, etc. Do you have the right to express yourself? Yes. But do you belong in a minivan's audience? No. Is your opinion more valuable than that of a soccer mom's? No.

Now, you can argue how you are an audience because you drive a car and minvan is a car or because you sometimes you do haul people around. However, people who know better than you will try to convince you are not the audience and your opinion, whom you are convinced is extremely valuable, is not.

Your next question may be: well, what makes you more qualified then me? A few things.

Market has shown that more features does not mean more sales. iPod does not sell on features but look at how it has dominated the market.

Also, I am in the marketing analytics group. I help the marketing department target, segment, and identify customers and prospects. I crunch campaign numbers to find out how to spend the the marketing budget (seven figures). As a result, I think I can offer insights into marketing that you are not aware of.

But how about technology? Prior to this I was an IT (data warehousing) professional. I started using Mac again with OS X 10.1 and have been using Macs for the last few years. Of course, both at home and work I have many PCs. I own an iPod and (many) Pocket PCs. I have been using Microsoft products since MS-DOS 3.0. I am quite competent on securing, networking, doing tech support, and building my own PCs. I've been there too.

Therefore as someone who works in marketing and is a dual/multi platform user, I don't think I am the only one who has it figured out but I do believe my opinoin is more informed than some of those expressed here.

My response was to James Fee souping up a low-end machine. I think he and I have settled that discussion on a friendly note: no one would buy a $1400 Mini just like no one would buy a $1400 Dimension 4700C. Rational actors would buy something else like an iMac or a 8400/XPS.

But then you come in a look what can I get for for $1400 instead of maxed-out Mini! Why? I thought we have since established that spending $1400 on either Mini or 4700C is hypothetical and foolish. Yet you are continuing beating a dead horse.

First of all, Klinux, I don't care if you don't agree with me or anyone else here. I've merely tried to help you understand what I, along with others, have tried to say. You're simply not understanding that your marketing opinions do not affect the validity of our opinions. I also have never suggested that my opinions are more valuable than anyone else's - at least I hope that's not what you were suggesting. Because if anything, I've been saying there is room for more than one.

You and a lot of us here are talking about two different things. You're going on and on about marketing because that's what you apparently do. But a lot of us have simply touched on whether or not we find, in our opinion, this product to be of good value, along with why. That is all. Do you believe the average person needs a marketing or IT career to make an informed decision about a product? And no one is trying to make decisions for anyone else, as everyone has to make their own choices in life.

You continue to offer up marketing examples as though you think I don't understand what you're saying. I do understand. But it seems you think there is a never-ending synthesis between someone agreeing with you and someone understanding you. I understand you, but what you're saying has nothing to do with the central point I, and others have been trying to make.

I suppose in your mind it's good that you feel confident enough about your achievments to proclaim yourself as better informed than the rest of us without knowing a single thing about us or our backgrounds, along with telling us that our opinions lack value, not to mention your speculative comments suggesting that you know how people will or won't configure their computers. That is not informed. That is arrogant.

But it's very clear to me now that this conversation will no longer be productive as you are clearly misunderstanding what I am (and others) are simply saying and once again taking some of my words completely out of context, so I will end my input on this topic with this post.

Blather on.

Lee Yuan Sheng

01-14-2005, 09:10 AM

Again see above. iPhoto has killed most of this market. Is this a good thing, probably not. But at least iPhoto is a great application (well now it is when it finally supports RAW)

Eh, did I miss something? What happened to Photoshop for Mac?

And yes, you can do photo editing with just that one program. It's all I use. So I don't buy the argument that the PC is necessary better (other than price). In fact the Mac has a slight advantage in colour calibration.

James Fee

01-14-2005, 03:56 PM

Again see above. iPhoto has killed most of this market. Is this a good thing, probably not. But at least iPhoto is a great application (well now it is when it finally supports RAW)

Eh, did I miss something? What happened to Photoshop for Mac?
I figured "most" didn't include Photoshop. ;)

And yes, you can do photo editing with just that one program. It's all I use. So I don't buy the argument that the PC is necessary better (other than price). In fact the Mac has a slight advantage in colour calibration.Totally agree.....

Philip Colmer

01-19-2005, 10:05 AM

From ExtremeTech:

The Mac Mini: Less Than You Think (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1751694,00.asp)

--Philip

Phoenix

01-20-2005, 11:26 AM

From ExtremeTech:

The Mac Mini: Less Than You Think (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1751694,00.asp)

--Philip

I read that article and it pointed out the same issue of value that a lot of us here have also been pointing out.

I said that I would end my input on this topic, and with this post I most certainly will, but I wanted to add one last thought...

Earlier in this thread, I provided an example of what someone could get in a PC for around $1400 or so, only because a similarly priced example was provided by someone else of what it would cost to configure a Mac Mini with its very few options (yet still without monitor or speakers). This prompted me to configure one to see for myself what the options and costs were. But regardless of whether I configured a Mac Mini or an iMac to compare with the PC in my example, the Apple was always hundreds of dollars more, yet lagged behind the PC technologically. But regardless of whether we're talking about $1400 Dells or $500 EMachines or another PC somewhere in between, the PC offers a much greater value. And although looks play a part to a certain degree in most everything we buy, what's most important in terms of computing is what technology you can get for your money and what you can accomplish with that technology, because ultimately, people don't buy computers to primarily serve as ornaments, they buy them to serve their needs and the needs of their families.

Even recognizing that peoples' needs are different, it doesn't deter from the fact that the Mac Mini is more about image than technology or value, because there's nothing particularly special about its technology, and apparently, to retain that small of a form factor with an Apple machine, you're going to sacrifice what's really important. Too bad its price doesn't reflect this as well. Yet some people will buy the Mac Mini as their main system regardless of this. Go figure.

However, people who debate that most consumers buying the Mini will only have to spend $500 or $600, are hinging their entire argument on two ideas: the first idea being that most everyone will choose not to configure it with any other options beyond what is stock, which is simply not true because peoples' desires are different - the image-conscientious consumers drawn to this Mac are no exception. And the second idea behind the argument being that most everyone will have a nice display, keyboard, mouse, and speakers laying around the house. Some people will, but most people won't. Also, IMO, because this product is more about image than anything else, I'm compelled to believe that few of these highly image-conscientious people are going to want to hook a big clunky CRT and some dirty, cheapo $15 keyboard and mouse up to it. People who buy this are concerned about image and footprint and most likely will want a matching Apple keyboard and mouse and a nice, sleek LCD to hook up to it. So unless they have these sleek, matching components laying around the house, they're going to spend the extra money to obtain them. Not to mention, many people want WiFi these days. So all of this of course, drives up the cost of the system substantially. Realistically, I believe it would be safe to say that for one reason or another, more people than not, who choose to purchase a Mac Mini, are going to end up with a system that costs hundreds of dollars more over the asking price of its stock configuration.

The Mini had me curious for awhile, and considering possibly investing in one as a hobby system, but after all of the considerations above, I'm no longer interested.

klinux

01-20-2005, 02:33 PM

I said that I would end my input on this topic, and with this post I most certainly will...

Yeah. Sure. We believe you.

First we started off on yet another rant on the crazy $1400 price tage for an iMac mini when in reality no one would pay that in real life. For that money, people would buy another system such as the iBook or the iMac G5. So why the odd fixation?

In addition, here we go again about what you can get for your money argument. I thought we went over this before?

You said "what's most important in terms of computing is what technology you can get for your money and what you can accomplish with that technology". Yeah, for $500 you get a BSD based SFF that is more secure out-of-box than a PC running Windows and lets one work easily with their digital media. If that is not a value proposition I don't know what is.

And you argued people who buy the iMac mini will spend more than $500. Duh. People who buy iPods (pricier and have less features, by the way) also spend more on legal downloads and accessories. Apple loves that, obviously, and so do third-party manufacturers. But most importantly, consumers love it as well. Sure, consumers would always prefer to pay less but in the end, they feel they are getting their money's worth. It ends up being ia win-win situation for everyone (compared to a loose-loose situation as exemplified by Sony's ATRAC3 push).

Apple is hoping to accomplish the same with the iMac mini.

So you are no longer interested in one? Thanks a bunch for posting to let us know.

Jason Dunn

01-20-2005, 07:56 PM

Unless someone new has something to add, let's let this die shall we? I think everyone has made their points.

Phoenix

01-21-2005, 01:59 AM

Unless someone new has something to add, let's let this die shall we? I think everyone has made their points.

Agreed. Can we talk about Walt Mossberg instead? :lol: :lol: :lol:

klinux

01-22-2005, 09:00 AM

Phoenix, you are just incapable of keeping a promise, could ya ? :roll:

Unlike Phoenix, I do have something new to add:

Appleinsders.com have a nice little article on the innards of the iMac Mini here (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=850). The more interesting things are in the comments section i.e. what can the third-party manufacturers fit in a 16.5 x 16.5cm brushed aluminium box that can be stacked above or under a Mini? An extra 400GB HD connected via Firewire? A HDTV encoder/decoder? A memory card reader and hub combo as shown here (http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=334523&size=big)?

This looks another win-win for 3rd party manufactuers and consumers a la iPod.

Phoenix

01-24-2005, 07:14 AM

...The more interesting things are in the comments section i.e. what can the third-party manufacturers fit in a 16.5 x 16.5cm brushed aluminium box that can be stacked above or under a Mini? An extra 400GB HD connected via Firewire? A HDTV encoder/decoder? A memory card reader and hub combo as shown here (http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=334523&size=big)?

This looks another win-win for 3rd party manufactuers and consumers a la iPod.

WOW! Just think, with all that stuff, it's looking more and more like a tower! You know, like much of what you could easily find in a PC for what would undoubtedly be half the cost! :lol:

I will say, that the stackable component concept doesn't look too bad, although I could think of far more attractive solutions, but I wonder how they'd all hook together/interface to each other and/or the Mini itself? Certainly, it would add to the spaghetti factor with all the added external wiring that such a concept might very well require. And did anyone talk about what the added cost for all of these additional components could potentially be?

A win-win for manufacturers and consumers? I'm not so sure. Aren't there better Mac solutions for the consumer? Aren't there better solutions, period? Would consumers be compelled to purchase all of this or to go this route? Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of buying a Mac Mini in the first place? If a consumer needed all or even some of these additional components, wouldn't they just avoid a Mini to begin with and go with something else? You've mentioned more than once that no one would configure a $1300-$1400 Mac Mini... then who would buy these components? Wouldn't going the stackable-additions route be even more unrealistic then? Because undoubtedly, to do things this way would push the overall cost into the stratosphere.

It seems this would end up serving as a perfect example of "W?BIC!".

But of course, some of these questions can't be answered as these stackable units are simply concept mockups for now - a figment of someone's imagination, so we'll just have to wait - that is, if any company out there actually chooses to make them. Back to the drawing board as we say.

Does this mean that we won't be talking about Walt? :P

Jason Eaton

01-24-2005, 04:08 PM

Okay... timeout here, both sides. (No I am not trying to be a forum police person here just want to interject a question.)

Why does any one product have to be the best one thing for everyone? Thats like saying restauraunts all should have only one thing on the menu.

The one part of this 'value' equation people seem to be glossing over or making assumptions about is the consumer. (Well, perhaps not forgetting about but remolding to fit their side of the discussion)

Why does the Apple iMac mini have to be the best thing for both the entry level consumer AND a professional? Maybe no one who buys it will EVER add anything on it, maybe some will. Maybe no one who buys it will use the iLife applications, maybe some will. Without a post sales type survey, or a look back market study of sales how do we disscuss if the machine is a success?

Right now there are a lot of opinions, but little to no quantitative results and to discuss if it is right for someone without defining that persons needs feels like putting out a candle with a fire hose, not very efficent.

Jason Dunn

01-24-2005, 07:19 PM

Why does the Apple iMac mini have to be the best thing for both the entry level consumer AND a professional? Maybe no one who buys it will EVER add anything on it, maybe some will.

Indeed, that's the crux of it. I think the only way the Mac Mini succeeds as a product is if you buy it more or less as-is. If you try to make it into a "real" computer, the kind I'd do real work on (big hard drive, lots of RAM, etc.) then it becomes very expensive very quickly.

I think Apple offers the upgrades to appease a certain segment of the population, but that the vast majority of people will buy it stock and use it as-is...

klinux

01-24-2005, 07:45 PM

Around me, at both work and home, more people than not have more than one KB, mouse, and even monitors lying around. To them, the Mini would be suitable.

Or if someone's replacing their PCs, a Mini would be suitable.

If you are gaming, or have a need for RAID, or do heavy AV work, or if this is your first and only PC, you might not want the Mini.

Of course, using the iPod analogy, some may scoff that one has to buy a recorder add-on to iPod to record, or an FM module to listen to FM, and this and that oh my gosh, look at the cost, why not buy a feature-laden player that cost half! Look at the value factor! :roll:

The market has spoken on iPod. We will wait for iMac mini.

Phoenix

01-25-2005, 11:23 AM

Indeed, that's the crux of it. I think the only way the Mac Mini succeeds as a product is if you buy it more or less as-is. If you try to make it into a "real" computer, the kind I'd do real work on (big hard drive, lots of RAM, etc.) then it becomes very expensive very quickly.

I think Apple offers the upgrades to appease a certain segment of the population, but that the vast majority of people will buy it stock and use it as-is...

I agree that the only way the Mini will most likely really succeed is if consumers who don't require a lot of computing muscle or extra features have no need to add anything to it (like a display, keyboard, etc.). How many consumers of the Mini found inside and outside this profile remains to be seen. Apart from this, I don't think it would be an easy sell.

...Of course, using the iPod analogy, some may scoff that one has to buy a recorder add-on to iPod to record, or an FM module to listen to FM, and this and that oh my gosh, look at the cost, why not buy a feature-laden player that cost half! Look at the value factor! :roll:

The market has spoken on iPod. We will wait for iMac mini.

And from a hardware perspective they'd be right.

But I wouldn't compare the Ipod to the Mini. These are two entirely different products with their own characteristics, meeting entirely different needs. Just because the a la carte hardware approach worked for the Ipod, doesn't mean the Mini following this same approach will follow in the Ipod's footsteps and be viewed in a similar way or experience the same success. The incredible success of the Ipod was not just due to its hardware, but due largely to several things: people in general have a much greater passion for music than they do computing; the Ipod met a need in a segment of the industry where it had virtually no real competition (which isn't the case with the Mini); Apple marketed the Ipod hard and it received tremendous support from celebrities; as well as consumers on the PC side of things (which in and of itself provided a giant audience); and the iTunes Music Store which provided a convenient and legal way of purchasing music online was a part of the big picture, drawing product from the already highly successful music industry and greatly increasing the overall value of the Ipod for a lot of people.

As far as the Mini is concerned, will Apple sell truckloads of them? Perhaps they will. For the sake of Apple and its stockholders, I hope they do. Time will tell for sure, though, as it always does. I'll be eager to see how people will respond to the hype that Apple will certainly continue to generate around this machine.