I think the term "HTPC" is not sharply defined. For me a BluRay-player is not required, as a) most of my movies are on my NAS anyway or get downloaded from iTunes directly and b) i have an old PS3 standing around for that few BluRays i still have. I imagine i'm not alone in that situation and i'm glad i don't have to pay extra for an unneeded drive.
Fair enough that this is your need, however, I would think a large enough segment of the HTPC market requires a Blu-Ray player to make this a must for a HTPC system, or at least a BTO option. Apple has neither.
Regarding HD3000 - this one is fully sufficient for watching movies or doing other HTPC-related duties, as no 3D is required.
Well, 3D is not required for you. However, 3D TVs are not only available but are dropping in price to the point were they will start becoming more common in households. A reasonable 40-50" 3DTV is now <$1000, the same point where HD started taking off. Again, this is an issue that not all will need, but it will soon become a market standard to at least have a 3D capable TV even if you don't use it much. Apple will surely catch up, but they aren't there now.
Again - what requirements do you have for an HTPC? The mini itself takes two drives, where 2.5" drives are now available up to 2TB. Quite a word for such a small machine and plenty for many HTPC duties.
Right, but you need to put the 2x2TB drives in yourself and of course the kits and extra drives cost more. This is starting to add up here. You can't configure a Mac Mini from Apple with more than 1TB of storage, and to do so you need the absurdly expensive 256GB SSD option (an this option isn't even available on the base model). Its nice that you have a NAS, but a stand alone HTPC will need enough storage to not require some home file server system. For many, the HTPC should be able to do the file server tasks itself even. Meaning it will need to hold family photos and videos, along with your media needs. For me, just the family photos and videos is adding up to nearly 500GB itself, and expanding quickly. That doesn't leave much room for digital media on a Mac Mini.
For one, a backup solution does not need to be external - and if it is, quite some people already have a backup solution in place for other computers in their household which can be used by the mini as well. Also - i'm not aware of a HTPC including things like a complete backup solution in the price ballpark of the mini. I would be honestly interested to know about.
I didn't say it needed it be external at all. But with the options Apple is giving you, it very likely will need to be either external or some remote box. That's the point. It doesn't have the disk space to support stand alone HTPC duties and internal backups.
Maybe you could name your criteria, together with a proposal for a better solution. Keep in mind though that requirements may differ between people. Some people may indeed use a MP or a MBP as HTPC, if space and WAF allows for it.
Of course each user is going to have different requirements inside any broad computer class, whether its HTPC, desktop, netbook, etc. However, the point is that to really be called a HTPC solution you need to solve "most" people's HTPC needs. I do not believe the Mac Mini does this. It can in some cases be used as a HTPC, but it needs support. You even prove this case with your PS3 and NAS, for example. Many, I would guess even "most", people buying a new HTPC solution will want a self contained box providing those serves.
To me a HTPC in 2012 needs minimally:
HD & 3D graphic support
4-6TB storage space
Blu-Ray player option (could be 3rd/4th HD drive instead)
Cost ~<$800.
The base mac mini with 4GB of RAM and the 750 HD is $799. So, you don't have 3D support, you don't have a Blu-Ray player, you don't have a heck of a lot of storage and its pretty darn expensive for a HTPC system. At least that's as configured from Apple and upgrades on the mini are not super user friendly for most, plus of course they will drive up the cost too...
Again - what is your definition of a netbook then? For me it is first and foremost small and portable computing, focused on Internet activities and light office work. Another aspect is a low price, which Apple by definition does not want to offer, as it often has to be paid for by poor quality one way or the other (build quality, CPU/GPU performance).
Thus Apple offers an entry device with a slightly higher price, but also with a completely different user experience approach called "iPad". People wanting the "traditional" experience need to pay even more, but then also get a much more capable machine in the 11" Air, which runs circles around any netbook out there.
Right, so these options can fill the roll of a netbook, but all are more expensive and bigger or lack a keyboard (to me netbooks need to be <11 screens, not =<11). For some it serves the same purpose, but its not a netbook. Dogs and cats are both pets, but dogs /= cats....
I agree that Apple doesn't need a netbook because of these options, but that doesn't mean Apple makes a netbook.
I did not do what you impute to me! I said they _did_ offer (past tense) a product for a certain role and they _might_ do it again (future).
Nice and all, but they don't and likely won't, so why is this brought up? That is my point here. You're trying to somehow half count something that isn't alive any longer, in all likelihood will never be resurrected, and I'm not letting you get away with that.
At least you acknowledge that it actually _is_ there!
[\QUOTE]
Right, just like you should acknowledge that apple doesn't make a HTPC, netbook or rack mountable server...
...but they may sell a higher number in total! They might even increase their profits, as such a machine could share a lot of parts with the other desktops.
Apple isn't going to sell a lot of xMacs unless they are price competitive with PC boxes. You just aren't going to eat into the volume PC markets without $400-800 options. I'm talking about bulk purchases for business/education needs or price sensitive individuals. Most of the desktop PC market isn't going to pay $1500 for computer they could otherwise get for $500 just to be on OSX.
I agree this is Apple's current, largest untapped market. The problem is there isn't a lot of profit there. The market is saturated, slowly growing, highly competitive and price sensitive. The Mac Mini and 21" iMac are there to help serve this market where Apple can and still retain the profit margins they desire. Anything more really isn't going to help. You'll probably be eating into your sales of your more expensive options (iMacs/upgraded Mac Minis) just as much are you're profiting from selling extra boxes.
I think the only way this would survive is to kill the 21" iMac and probably shrink the upper end Mac Mini line up in someway. So, you're exchanging $1200-1500 computers, for something that needs to compete in the sub-$800 range. Those headless boxes are just much more price sensitive. The Mac Pro even bares this out. Through the 2009 and 2010 models Apple needed to be price competitive with HP/Dell workstations, or at least that's what their pricing structure suggests they believed. There pricing structure and profits on the iMacs suggests low price points are just not the same driver of sales as the traditional PC/workstations.
My completely subjective and not representative impression is that this group has a quite considerable size and is growing by the day!
I agree with you, but I do not believe this group of people will help Apple generate more revenue. I believe these people are like either already bitting the bullet and purchasing the relatively expensive Mac computing options that fit their needs, or they will need PC price competitive options to draw them to OSX. Until we see some larger shifts in the home computing market, I think Apple would be wise to not mess with its current product line too much. They are already making money at absurd rates, so there isn't a lot of need or sense in mess with things hoping to make more.
