Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel is to blame
- Thread starter philfry
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If intel is so big retards, why dont you open your own processor company and do it, if it is so simple?
People now a days...
If it was apple that made something like that, people on this forum would defend the ***** out of it. "Oh apple is so inovative, even though the product aint ready for the market", but if it's another company, they gotta be flamed, like it's their fault apple introduced a product people dont like.
Face it, Apple could have chosen one of the older quads but didn't. I dont care if it's the newest generation or not, it just have to have the power to my needs, and apple messed up big time on server people this time.
One of the reasons is that it uses less power, but my mac mini 2010 uses 10watts when it's idling, thats pretty damn impressive for a server, versus some of the old alternatives, that were using 80 watts. I dont need that much more power saving, I want raw quad power for my server use, the only reason i was looking for an update for my aging 2010 model..
It was a business decision, of this we can be sure.
I figure, had Intel offered a better financial deal on some quad core iteration, then Apple might have opted for those. On a comparatively low volume product like the Mac Mini (when you compare it to iphone/iPad anyway), I'm under the belief Apple thought, "hmm this Mini doesn't have to be the cutting edge everywhere, we can protect our margins and hit a $499 feel-good price point."
They go with the project requirement of price target and refreshing a stale Mac with newer technology.... then another convo....
"Hey Bob, Intel is offering us a deal of 250,000 processors at this bulk price since they're clearing inventory before their next chip design comes around, we can spec them into the entry level MM and have a logic board prototyped in no time, it's more or less the entry level iMac's setup."
The conversations had were much less likely "oh well a small minority of our customers in niche workflows at MacRumors and iFixIt will see a shift to dual processors and a more sealed box as an issue."
I figure, had Intel offered a better financial deal on some quad core iteration, then Apple might have opted for those. On a comparatively low volume product like the Mac Mini (when you compare it to iphone/iPad anyway), I'm under the belief Apple thought, "hmm this Mini doesn't have to be the cutting edge everywhere, we can protect our margins and hit a $499 feel-good price point."
They go with the project requirement of price target and refreshing a stale Mac with newer technology.... then another convo....
"Hey Bob, Intel is offering us a deal of 250,000 processors at this bulk price since they're clearing inventory before their next chip design comes around, we can spec them into the entry level MM and have a logic board prototyped in no time, it's more or less the entry level iMac's setup."
The conversations had were much less likely "oh well a small minority of our customers in niche workflows at MacRumors and iFixIt will see a shift to dual processors and a more sealed box as an issue."
I am sorry, but this post is far too sensible for this forum. How dare you bring logical reasoning into this?
Intel would be more then happy to sell the more expensive quad core processors to apple instead of the less expensive dual cores. I don't think Intel is to blame.
I agree with you this is a business decision. With that said I place little merit in the argument they couldn't hit a $499 price point if they offered a quad core option. The quad core is not the entry level product in the 2012 generation so I don't see why you would compare it to the entry level in the 2014 generation. Perhaps a better statement would be to say they might not be able to hit a $999 price point as that's where the Core i7 model starts.
Well they certainly could have two separate logic boards with different sockets. That's something Apple could handle. (They sort of support multiple boards now, from an inventory point of view, because the RAM is soldered and 4GB, 8GB, and 16GB are options.)
But it could be more than that. There could be TDP issues. And I hear that quad-core Haswell chips (especially those with 5200 Iris Pro) are pricey.
No, but I've been connecting dots since about the age of five. Pull your head out of Apple's ass and give it a try.
Blame Apple. They're afraid of competing with their own products. Don't worry we'll get a quad chip in the next Mac Mini refresh in five years when 8-core chips will be the norm.
They did redesign it for the new PCIe SSD and Thunderbolt 2 port in place of Firewire 800. They could have offered the previous 2.5 i5 model as the entry level then moved the new Mac Mini range to quad i7s. They chose not to.
Still, hurting the mini minority willhurt Apple as a whole in the long run. Mini users are hardcore fans that inspire many new mac buyers. If they go into the store, they care dick about what is usefull, and fall for big and expensive. Without the little critters, new OSX users don't come to the Apple store. You don't buy an iMac because you have an iPhone, you buy one from hearing an experienced mac user with an iPhone.
Blaming Intel here is ludicrous. They make quad-core chips in different price ranges with varying graphics power. Apple chose to use dual-core only chips. Apple chose to cripple the mac mini with soldered ram. Apple chose to cripple 4k output with 30Hz refresh rate. Apple chose to use tamper resistant security screws so you cannot even clean your fan!
Totally Agree! They cripple everything were all just paying for the engineering aspects of Apple Products.
Here is something I can blame Intel for. My 2012 15" MBP is so much faster than my 2008 15" MBP was. My 2012 minis are way faster than my 2009 minis were.
This is all Intel's fault. Apple has had very little to do with the increase in computing speed. They just select the components that they want to use (and usually not even the fastest ones).
Intel/Micron/Crucial. They deserve the blame and the credit for the fast Macs sitting on my desk.
This is all Intel's fault. Apple has had very little to do with the increase in computing speed. They just select the components that they want to use (and usually not even the fastest ones).
Intel/Micron/Crucial. They deserve the blame and the credit for the fast Macs sitting on my desk.
So keep it at $599 like it was. Big deal. The $100 drop was just an attempt to make it look better in spite of decreased specs. Unfortunately that doesn't help the mid and high level mini in the slightest.
----------
Yep. They know there's a lot of people who praise Apple regardless of stupidity. Apple isn't trying to sell computers to smart people anymore. They know the smart ones have already moved somewhere else.
Put a 4 cylinder in a corvette and people buy a dodge instead. Put a 2 cylinder engine in the corvette and slap an Apple logo on it, and the loyal defenders will praise Apple while those with a brain still switch to Dodge.