Open letter to Steve Jobs. Re: Mac Mini Pro

[GoCubsGo]

Yeah, I caved in and bought the mac pro last weekend and filled it up with ram and HD and 8800GT. I figured screw it, I have the money. Still pissed about it though. WOuld have much rather had a 4 core smaller box for half the price.

Well I'm not pissed about spending the money but I did what you did. I probably don't have the HD space or ram you have (only just received my additional 4gb), but I'm quite pleased. Sure, if a mac mini pro existed then yeah, I'd go that route, but I love this power whilst using Aperture...it ran like a dog on my G4 Powerbook.

 

[Tilpots]

I'd love a Mini for my wife, but I don't see it as entirely suitable (pretty close, though).

Great line. I'm totally taking this out of context, and I mean no offense, but talk about a computer that wouldn't meet your "needs?"

Back on topic... Nice letter, evil letter, happy letter, angry letter; it doesn't matter. How many rants have you seen on these boards? How much ass kissing have you seen on these boards? Apple's gonna do what Apple's gonna do.

 

[feakbeak]

I'm typing this on a new 24" iMac, top of the line. Doesn't fate just like to bite you in the rear!

My fiancee and I had been considering getting an iMac as an additional computer, we both have PCs currently. Hers was aging though and instead of replacing her PC with another and getting the 20" iMac to have since like OS X she just decided to get a nicer iMac and make it her primary machine and dual-boot Windows on it.

We went to "look" at the iMacs again tonight and she decided it was time to bite, so here I am a few hours after posting complaints about Apple not offering a standard desktop product, typing on a new iMac. /sigh

I've always been reluctant to get an iMac as a primary machine due to the limitations so we'll see how this experiment goes, if it doesn't work out in the long run due to expandability or something we can always fall back to the old plan of building her a new PC and letting the iMac be whatever it is - which for us is mostly a way to use OS X.

 

[DHart]

The displays in the current iMacs keep me from replacing the four white 20" CoreDuo iMacs in my studio, which have SUPERB displays. Current iMac displays suck (glossy surface, far too high incidence of gradient/bleed problems, TN drawbacks in the 20")! And as long as the iMac displays suck, I am waiting for a super-mini (if not a mini Pro). Even a mini which is configured like the 2.8 GHz iMac would be a wonderful mid-range offering. I'd PAY $1500 for a reasonably powerful Mac mini!!!!!

The MacPro is WAY more than I want - especially in price

The iMacs displays are too compromised for graphics pros.

The current mini is too anemic.

What we really, really need is a headless compadre to the iMac line.

A 2.8 GHz C2D, 4 GB RAM capability, decent graphics card. Then many if us can buy the Cinema Display (or other *quality* display) that we desire and work as we need to without having to go far overboard with the MacPro.

Certainly, some graphics professionals do need a MacPro and will buy them... but many other graphics professionals simply don't NEED a Mac Pro and won't buy one. SO why try to force ALL graphics professionals into mega computing options and sky high pricing when many of us simply don't need that and won't buy it?

YES!!! I'd pay $1500 for a headless 2.8 GHz Mini that has a decent graphics card and 4 GB RAM capability... but I won't pay uber dollars for the MacPro.

 

[inkswamp]

I'd PAY $1500 for a reasonably powerful Mac mini!!!!!
[...]
YES!!! I'd pay $1500 for a headless 2.8 GHz Mini that has a decent graphics card and 4 GB RAM capability... but I won't pay uber dollars for the MacPro.

Same here. I think a lot of people who are against this idea assume people like you and me want this mythical headless machine at the same price points as the Mini. I don't, nor would I ever expect that. I think Apple could really knock one out of the park with a $999 headless model similar to what you describe and maybe another priced at $1500 with a faster processor, better GPU, etc.

I'm not against paying extra for Apple's quality. I never have been. I just want a little more choice and flexibility with it. I don't like having to choose a machine based on whatever drawback I can live with, and all of Apple's desktops have major drawbacks right now.

 

[DHart]

Same here. I think a lot of people who are against this idea assume people like you and me want this mythical headless machine at the same price points as the Mini. I don't, nor would I ever expect that. I think Apple could really knock one out of the park with a $999 headless model similar to what you describe and maybe another priced at $1500 with a faster processor, better GPU, etc.

I'm not against paying extra for Apple's quality. I never have been. I just want a little more choice and flexibility with it. I don't like having to choose a machine based on whatever drawback I can live with, and all of Apple's desktops have major drawbacks right now.

Agree totally... most of us would gladly and eagerly pay a higher price for a premium mac mini... I agree that Apple would probably sell them by the boatload. Two tiers would be great at 999 and 1499. PLEASE, APPLE, DO THIS!!!

As for making the mini even smaller? Totally wasted effort... we don't need a smaller mini, we need a more capable mini! A smaller mini would be about as useful as a thinner iMac.... puhleeze! Why compromise potency, utility, effectiveness, screen display quality just to have an even smaller or thinner form factor.... that's chasing after the wrong goal for most of us.

 

[lamina]

If we don't tell Apple what we want then how will they know we want it?
http://www.apple.com/feedback/

"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."
- Henry Ford

Apple is not a company that needs to listen to its customers. Well, to a certain degree they do, but they are very much a company who tells their customers what they want.

 

[inkswamp]

"If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."
- Henry Ford

Apple is not a company that needs to listen to its customers. Well, to a certain degree they do, but they are very much a company who tells their customers what they want.

The problem is that Apple is may be doing something better than the "faster horse," but all those things have serious shortcomings and Apple doesn't appear interested in addressing them.

See, it goes both ways. To some extent, customers need to sit back and not demand the "faster horse," trusting that whatever is coming is going to outdo that. However, there are some times when the business should be smart enough to listen to its customers and cater to those needs.

 

[MM123]

The displays in the current iMacs keep me from replacing the four white 20" CoreDuo iMacs in my studio, which have SUPERB displays. Current iMac displays suck (glossy surface, far too high incidence of gradient/bleed problems, TN drawbacks in the 20")! And as long as the iMac displays suck, I am waiting for a super-mini (if not a mini Pro). Even a mini which is configured like the 2.8 GHz iMac would be a wonderful mid-range offering. I'd PAY $1500 for a reasonably powerful Mac mini!!!!!

The MacPro is WAY more than I want - especially in price

The iMacs displays are too compromised for graphics pros.

The current mini is too anemic.

What we really, really need is a headless compadre to the iMac line.

A 2.8 GHz C2D, 4 GB RAM capability, decent graphics card. Then many if us can buy the Cinema Display (or other *quality* display) that we desire and work as we need to without having to go far overboard with the MacPro.

Certainly, some graphics professionals do need a MacPro and will buy them... but many other graphics professionals simply don't NEED a Mac Pro and won't buy one. SO why try to force ALL graphics professionals into mega computing options and sky high pricing when many of us simply don't need that and won't buy it?

YES!!! I'd pay $1500 for a headless 2.8 GHz Mini that has a decent graphics card and 4 GB RAM capability... but I won't pay uber dollars for the MacPro.

Same for me 100%, unfortunately I'm sceptic, it's a long way to Cupertino from here ...

 

[DHart]

Well... considering that Apple is known to be completely revamping the mini, I think there's a reasonable chance that the revamped mini may actually pack a decent punch... I'm sure hoping for that, anyway.

I don't care about more hard drive capacity or slots for cards... just a current/speedy C2D processor (2.6 or 2.8 GHz), at least X3100 graphics, DVI output, super drive and 4 GB RAM capacity will make me very happy... and I think that's a fairly predictable/likely configuration for the new mini.

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the revamped mini will have at least what the current MacBook has:

• 2.4 GHz C2D
• GMA X3100 graphics
• 4 GB RAM capacity
• SuperDrive
• 160 GB 5400RPM Hard Drive

and that would be good and I'll buy a couple of them. If they go farther than that... GREAT, I'll buy two or three!

 

[Dustman]

Well, I've tired of waiting for the Mac Midi. I'm going to try the hackintosh route. I've ordered the parts for a quad-core E6600 in a nice and quiet mid-tower, advanced logic board (with a 6-port ICH9 SATA controller, 4 ram slots, 6 USB, 1 FW, 2 eSATA, 802.11n, and optical and coaxial digital audio ports), 750 gig hard drive, DVD burner, 4 gigs of RAM and 256 mb dual-DVI 8600GT, and another copy of Leopard. All for just over US$1,000. It makes me a bit nervous, but from what I've seen on the web it's become much easier to do the install. Once it's up and running, I'm going to OC the cpu to 3 gHz. I'm sure I'll have a busy weekend...

I also gave up and switched back to Windows. With Vista, Windows still sucks but at least they made it look a little better. I got an inspiron 530 desktop and the only regret i have is that it doesn't run OS X. I COULD hack OS X onto it, but Vista doesn't bug me THAT much, its just far less elegent and intuitive.

 

[DHart]

I also gave up and switched back to Windows. With Vista, Windows still sucks but at least they made it look a little better. I got an inspiron 530 desktop and the only regret i have is that it doesn't run OS X. I COULD hack OS X onto it, but Vista doesn't bug me THAT much, its just far less elegent and intuitive.

Nothing about the current offerings or lack of offerings of Apple Macs would make me even dream of switching over to Windoze. The Macintosh hardware/OS combination, even lacking a mid-level headless mac, is just so superior.

 

[phalewhale]

Whining for them to offer a product is just sad.

I actually think that is a sad statement. But I'm not wanting to pick a fight.

Feedback should be welcomed - by any company. Whilst I agree with the underlying message of the TS, I do think it could be put together in a more professional way.

Maybe those interested could agree on a standard template that we could post on here, then copy and paste into the "comments" field on the feedback form at http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html

Just another thought... Unless it could be posted in some better place?

 

[Jack Flash]

I think a lot of people over estimate their computing needs.

 

[Cave Man]

I think a lot of people over estimate their computing needs.

I think that's a highly presumptuous statement.

 

[CWallace]

Do BMW and Mercedes lower their prices to increase market share?

Yes they do, but they do it via smaller, de-contented models.

The Mercedes 190 Series in the 1980's and the new BMW 1-Series are both examples of this. They are not cheap, but neither are they nearly as expensive as their bigger brothers (E Class, 5 Series, etc.).

The Mac Mini is Apple's 190/1-Series. It's smaller then the iMac. It has less performance and content. And it isn't cheap, but it is cheaper then an iMac or Mac Pro.

 

[Jack Flash]

I think that's a highly presumptuous statement.

I think you're wrong.

 

[whtrabit]

I would just like to see an updated Mac Mini. Why not a single quad chip and up to 4GB of RAM? 500GB HDD?

 

[eXan]

This "open letter" is nothing more than a rant of a guy who wants everything for nothing. Thats NOT the way to write this kind of letters Reading it I got more and more convinced in his incompetence. Just some angry guy who doesnt want to pay for his tools.

Those who want that 1500$ headless iMac (or Mac mini Pro) are missing the point.

Apple HAS offered a single-CPU Power Mac G5 at 1500$, a single-CPU Power Mac G4 for 1500$ before that, etc. Nobody bought them. Thats the only explanation to their short lives.

I remember everybody complained about the G5 that it was just the iMac without a display in a Power Mac case, for the same price as the iMac. Sure it had the same CPU, GPU, FSB and RAM as iMac, but it offered something a lot of people on this forum praying Apple for - expandability. It had 4 PCI slots, 4 RAM slots, 2 HD slots and it had no display. So why nobody bought it?

Apple realized their mistake of making such machine and never sold it since. Instead, they are now giving an option to get a single-CPU Mac Pro for just a little over 24" iMacs, which is fair price considering how MUCH you get with a Mac Pro! And it appears to be selling well, because most people I meet buy this 4 core Mac Pro, instead of standard-configuration 8 core.

People whine because they dont know what they need from a computer or just because they dont want to pay the (reasonable) price for 4 core Mac Pro.

I would just like to see an updated Mac Mini. Why not a single quad chip and up to 4GB of RAM? 500GB HDD?

Because there are no 4 core mobile CPUs available yet. And 500 GB 2.5" HDs cost more than Mac mini itself.

 

[Goldenbear]

I think a lot of people over estimate their computing needs.

I totally agree!

...Those who want that 1500$ headless iMac (or Mac mini Pro) are missing the point.

Apple HAS offered a single-CPU Power Mac G5 at 1500$, a single-CPU Power Mac G4 for 1500$ before that, etc. Nobody bought them. Thats the only explanation to their short lives...

But I think you're missing the point that not everyone wanting a headless iMac wants one in the humongous Mac Pro enclosure. Yes, the so-called "graphics pros" want PCI Express slots and what-not. Well, there are a lot of us who don't necessarily want all that. We just want a fast CPU + fast GPU without an attached display.

And really, that highlights one possible reason Apple hasn't addressed this issue yet... we the customers can't even agree on what we want!

Apple certainly isn't going to pump out fifty different models to suit everyone's whim.

 

[DHart]

Those who want that 1500$ headless iMac (or Mac mini Pro) are missing the point.

People whine because they dont know what they need from a computer or just because they dont want to pay the (reasonable) price for 4 core Mac Pro.

Headless computers make a LOT of sense for a LOT of people, especially people with special needs (graphics people, gamers, etc.) and those who don't want a cheap TN panel (20" iMac) or struggle with glossy screen surfaces and the great likelihood of gradient issues and light leaks (24" iMacs) and possible multiple returns/exchanges/headaches!

If the 24" iMacs had the option of matte screens and were for the most part free of gradients and light leaks, there would be less of a case for headless Macs between the mini and the Pro. But the fact has been for some time and continues today with the current models that displays on the iMacs involve a lot more compromise than screens on iMacs once had. Some of us want the mid range iMac performance capability without having to suffer the attendant display issues associated with today's iMacs. Hence the current emphasis on a mid range "headless" Mac.

In the Mac "headless" lineup there is a HUGE price AND performance gap between:

• $800 Mini w/2.0 GHz C2D/GMA 950

and a

• $2300 MacPro w/2.8 GHz Quad Core/Radeon 2600XT

And simply because some don't find the appeal to something in the middle of that range doesn't mean there aren't a HECK of a lot of people who DO have a need and desire for an option somewhere between those two extremes.

I, FOR ONE, would put my money down IMMEDIATELY for a $1500 Mac Mini that fell somewhere in the middle of those extremes in price and performance. I don't want nor need a lot of expandability nor internal bays... but I DO want a reasonably fast C2D chip (let's say 2.4 to 2.6 GHz) and the ability to cherry pick the head (display) that meets my needs perfectly without having to spend $2300+ for the body.

A middle point (let's call it a "SuperMini") makes a LOT of sense to a GREAT many people, even if some don't "get" the point. Such an option doesn't require another line of computers... all it calls for is two variants of the mini: one with enhanced level iMac internals and a version with entry level performance. Now they would still have three lines: Mac Pro, iMac, and SuperMini/Mini.

I believe that we're going to have something of a "Super Mini" when the newly reworked mini debuts... even if it's two performance options essentially mirror the high end and low end MacBook. Intel is pushing the chips to the point where the mini will have the "mid-level" performance many of us want so very much.

 

[eXan]

Headless computers make a LOT of sense for a LOT of people, especially people with special needs (graphics people, gamers, etc.)

And simply because you don't see a need for a price/power point somewhere between a:

$800 Mini w/2.0 GHz C2D/GMA 950

and a

$2300 MacPro w/2.8 GHz Quad Core/Radeon 2600XT

doesn't mean there aren't a HECK of a lot of people who DO have a need and desire for an option somewhere between those two extremes. I, FOR ONE, would put my money down IMMEDIATELY for a $1500 Mac Mini that fell somewhere in the middle (like $1550) of those extremes in price and performance. I don't want nor need a lot of expandability nor internal bays... but I DO want the ability to cherry pick the head (display) that meets my needs perfectly without having to spend $2300+ for the body. A middle point makes a lot of sense to a great many people, even if you don't particularly like the idea.

Apple was selling 1500$ towers, but not for long. They were just NOT selling well. Sorry, you're in the minority.

 

[inkswamp]

In the Mac "headless" lineup there is a huge gap between:

$800 Mini w/2.0 GHz C2D/GMA 950

and a

$2300 MacPro w/2.8 GHz Quad Core/Radeon 2600XT

And simply because some don't find the appeal to something in the middle of that range doesn't mean there aren't a HECK of a lot of people who DO have a need and desire for an option somewhere between those two extremes.

Exactly. Why is it so difficult for so many people on this particular forum to fathom this? I get the sense that there is a knee-jerk defensiveness to any criticism of Apple. What's really amusing to me is that a lot of people reflexively writing off the need for this machine would be back on these forums the day after its release talking about what a brilliant move it was for Apple to release it and how amazing the computer is.

Apple was selling 1500$ towers, but not for long. They were just NOT selling well. Sorry, you're in the minority.

I'm not sure how $1500 became the de facto price for this machine, but what most of us are talking about is a range of machines between $800 and $1500. The problem with Apple making a low-end version of their Mac Pros (or PowerMacs in the past) is that people looking to buy those generally aren't looking at the low-end. Those machines were marketed to power users and pros who want the biggest and the best. What we're talking about is a mid-range headless machine, not a low-end Mac Pro. IMO, that would sell.

Another factor to consider too is that the $1500 tower you're talking about was available at a time before OS X and Macs had grabbed such widespread attention. There are a lot more people looking to buy Macs now than then. And a lot of them wonder why Apple doesn't offer a headless machine at that price.

Seriously, go looking around at other forums on the Web, forums not so Mac-biased as MacRumors. You'll see a lot of chatter out there. People want Apple to make this machine.

 

[eXan]

Exactly. Why is it so difficult for so many people on this particular forum to fathom this? I get the sense that there is a knee-jerk defensiveness to any criticism of Apple. What's really amusing to me is that a lot of people reflexively writing off the need for this machine would be back on these forums the day after its release talking about what a brilliant move it was for Apple to release it and how amazing the computer is.



I'm not sure how $1500 became the de facto price for this machine, but what most of us are talking about is a range of machines between $800 and $1500. The problem with Apple making a low-end version of their Mac Pros (or PowerMacs in the past) is that people looking to buy those generally aren't looking at the low-end. Those machines were marketed to power users and pros who want the biggest and the best. What we're talking about is a mid-range headless machine, not a low-end Mac Pro. IMO, that would sell.

Another factor to consider too is that the $1500 tower you're talking about was available at a time before OS X and Macs had grabbed such widespread attention. There are a lot more people looking to buy Macs now than then. And a lot of them wonder why Apple doesn't offer a headless machine at that price.

Seriously, go looking around at other forums on the Web, forums not so Mac-biased as MacRumors. You'll see a lot of chatter out there. People want Apple to make this machine.

I'm sure some people want it, the entire MacRumors forum is filled with them. And yes, Apple has more market share than in 2004. Its all true.

But Macs aren't for everybody! Apple's move to introduce the single-CPU Mac Pro is a clear sign that they aren't making the modest Mac tower. I'm actually surprised they are offering it, but it turned out to be a really good machine.

As its has been said earlier in this thread, Apple doesn't want "I'll make it myself" kind of customers - people who build their own PCs, or upgrade them from inside-out. Its just not the target market of Apple. And those who dont like the display, should either get a Mac Pro if they REALLY need a good display and cant stand the glossy screen of 24" iMac, or reevaluate their need for "good display" because those cost a lot of money, and if you can't afford it do you really NEED it?

 

[DHart]

Apple was selling 1500$ towers, but not for long. They were just NOT selling well. Sorry, you're in the minority.

That was a time and place and state of computing and hardware availability that differs considerably from today. I don't agree with your point at all. And as for being in the minority.... so are Mac Pro buyers. And so are Mac mini buyers... do you propose dropping all lines but MacBooks and iMacs?

As its has been said earlier in this thread, Apple doesn't want "I'll make it myself" kind of customers - people who build their own PCs, or upgrade them from inside-out. Its just not the target market of Apple.

Not valid either... Pro and mini buyers are required to make plenty of choices to make to customize and round out their systems.

And those who dont like the display, should either get a Mac Pro if they REALLY need a good display and cant stand the glossy screen of 24" iMac, or reevaluate their need for "good display" because those cost a lot of money, and if you can't afford it do you really NEED it?

You're telling us that we should do this because you say so? Alrighty then! ;-) Rediculous.

I'm a professional photographer and studio owner. I don't create games or do video editing on my computers. I use Photoshop and various other graphics and general use programs all day long. On multiple machines. I DON'T need MacPros to do this. But I DO need very good, even, accurate displays!!! This can be done for a LOT less than even the cheapest MacPro.

I have paired a MacBook 2.2 GHz with 4 GB of RAM and (upgraded) a 250 MB Hitachi internal hard drive with an HP LP2465 display (24" wide screen with S-PVA panel technology) and have a great mid-power set-up for around $1900. It's really versatile too because the brain doubles as a laptop when I'm away from the desk.

If the MacBook were switched out for an upcoming MINI model with 2.4 GHz or 2.6 GHz C2D with 4 GB of RAM selling for, perhaps $1000, it would be even faster and probably run around $1600 TOTAL. This particular monitor, a $600 S-PVA HP 24" display, is a superb graphics monitor with accurate colors, matte screen surface, no brightness gradient, no light leakage of any consequence at all, and a nice wide viewing angle.

TO pair this HP display with the least expensive MacPro would run $2900. Let's see how happy you would be having to write a check for four of those $2900 systems vs. four $1600 systems which perform quite well for a lot less money! ($5200 savings!) If you don't need all the expansion slots and customization capability as the Pro offers, then a mid-line, good performance MINI paired with a good monitor can provide superb professional service for MUCH less money. And I know there are a LOT of us who want that! (And in another month or so, I think we're going to GET that MINI!!!)

Please don't presume to tell me what I need or don't need to buy or spend to get what I need. I know what I need and what it can be had for.

A Mac Pro and Cinema Display is a great but very expensive and often unnecessary option for many graphics professionals, but there are other very nice Macintosh options to be had which are nearly as effective for professional graphics work for a lot less money.

If you had to buy four $2900 MacPro workstations vs. four $1600 MacMini workstations for photoshop editing in your portrait photography studio, you would understand all of this quite readily! Your perspective is limited.