Open letter to Steve Jobs. Re: Mac Mini Pro

[jodelli]

Apple doesn't offer a consumer desktop; the Mini is a headless Mac Book.

It can work, but I don't have to like it even though I have owned just over two dozen Macs in my lifetime.

 

[DHart]

Apple doesn't offer a consumer desktop; the Mini is a headless Mac Book.

It can work, but I don't have to like it even though I have owned just over two dozen Macs in my lifetime.

jodelli... the next total revamp of the MacBook should be here by Fall (with, perhaps 2.6 GHz C2D processor) and the totally reworked Mini (with 2.4 GHz or perhaps 2.6 GHz C2D) should be here in a month or two. I think either of those machines coupled with a great external monitor will be the mid-line set-up that a lot of us are eager to have.

None of the Apple offerings are exactly what any of us would find to be perfect. But since my first Mac which I bought in 1986, I too have had quite a few Macs and loved them all, all along the way! I'm happier now with my Macs than I've ever been with Macs... and when the revamped Mini arrives, I think I'm going to love that machine too. I'm amazed with what great performance I'm getting from the humble 2.2 GHz MacBook as a graphics workstation. Things Apple just keep getting better and better!

 

[eXan]

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

People who buy Macs are usually buy them not to worry about hardware part of their Macs, unlike those "I'll make it myself" people who search tons of shops, sales to find the component they like to put into their "Lego"-PC, browsing loads of sites in cearch for drivers, compatibility guides/tricks, etc. Mac users don't do that. In fact, a lot of Mac users switch to Macs because they are fed up with all this headache and want their machine to "just work".

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

Not because I say so, but because you have no other choice.

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.

You basically want a Mac mini refresh, not a separate line of Mac towers. I can't argue with this - they really should refresh mini's.

But you also know that even a 4 core Mac Pro would last a LOT longer for that type of work than any other Mac - also a factor to consider when shelling out for (multiple) work systems.

You can whine here all you want, but this won't grab Apple's attention, so better go and send feedback to them.

 

[TBi]

You basically want a Mac mini refresh, not a separate line of Mac towers. I can't argue with this - they really should refresh mini's.

Maybe a mini with a Quad core CPU, discrete GPU and 3.5" drive. Now that would be a nice machine.

I quite frankly wouldn't care if the graphics card was low height PCI or MXM as long as it was discrete and you had a choice.

The machine might end up the same size as the original Cube but it would be a heck of a lot faster than the mini as it is now.

 

[Jack Flash]

Maybe a mini with a Quad core CPU, discrete GPU and 3.5" drive. Now that would be a nice machine.

I quite frankly wouldn't care if the graphics card was low height PCI or MXM as long as it was discrete and you had a choice.

The machine might end up the same size as the original Cube but it would be a heck of a lot faster than the mini as it is now.

For photo editing, though, you don't need a discreet GPU, which is what most of the complaint is over; people want to use their own monitor for editing photos.

 

[TBi]

For photo editing, though, you don't need a discreet GPU, which is what most of the complaint is over; people want to use their own monitor for editing photos.

Maybe not... but i want one

 

[DHart]

You basically want a Mac mini refresh, not a separate line of Mac towers. I can't argue with this - they really should refresh mini's.

But you also know that even a 4 core Mac Pro would last a LOT longer for that type of work than any other Mac - also a factor to consider when shelling out for (multiple) work systems.

You can whine here all you want, but this won't grab Apple's attention, so better go and send feedback to them.

Yes, you're right... I don't see a need for a separate line of towers... when it comes to towers, the MacPro line is fine.

And yes, I DO want a mini refresh because I think that can fill the huge gap that currently exists in the lineup. It would fit perfectly with my portrait studio needs and budget coupled with the $600 HP LP2465 monitors.

I do believe that we'll see a nice NEW MINI in another month or so. And I'm so hoping that it will have an upper end option which hits at least 2.4 GHz with an XMA3100 graphics chip and 4 GB RAM capacity (current MacBook specs). I couldn't care less how big the internal hard drive is (well... as long as it's at least 120 GB).

 

[pcorajr]

I agree with this guy, I am still a new mac user, I purchased my first mac back in August when the new Alum iMac. My Beef with the iMac is expandability and price, so far the computer has lived up to the expectations but i would rather have a tower so i could upgrade monitor. I have a 24 inch monitor i share with my PS3 and Mac currently.

Apple needs to fill in the big gap they have between the mac mini and the mac pro. And please don't tell me thats what the iMac is.

 

[QCassidy352]

I don't like the tone of the article. The language is very aggressive and pointed. Not a good way to win someone over to your way of thinking. He should have let the facts speak for themselves without embellishment.

I agree.

Additionally, he is only thinking about it from the consumer's point of view, not from Apple's. If apple sells you a mac pro, you'll keep it for years, but you've made a big investment, and they've made a big profit. If they sell you an imac or mini, it's a much lower margin, but you'll replace it a lot sooner.

If they sell you a cheap, upgradable desktop? They have a small margin and you upgrade it for years, giving your money to third party vendors. See why Apple isn't crazy about that idea?

Yes, many customers would prefer the "mac pro mini" or "mac mini pro" or whatever. But, unlike this guy, most will eventually give in and buy one of apple's current offerings

Moreover, he's missed out on the best option for his situation - a mac pro with only 4 cores, and 3rd party HD/RAM upgrades. He'll come in under 3k rather than the 4k he says a mac pro would cost. Or, he could get a refurb mac pro from the last generation, such as a $2000 2.66 quad.

Oh, and one final point. I really liked this line:
"If you continue to refuse to listen to your customers, your stock won’t 'hang in there' and will continue to fall from the $200 a share it was, past the $122 it is now (Feb 8), and down to where it belongs in this highly competitive technological age."

Just goes to show that this guy should stick to his creative work because he doesn't understand the stock market and what drives it. Today's price is $188/share. I'm pretty sure they haven't introduced a mac pro mini since he wrote his article.

 

[pcorajr]

I do believe that we'll see a nice NEW MINI in another month or so. And I'm so hoping that it will have an upper end option which hits at least 2.4 GHz with an XMA3100 graphics chip and 4 GB RAM capacity (current MacBook specs). I couldn't care less how big the internal hard drive is (well... as long as it's at least 120 GB).

You call that a refresh? the GPU is the largest problem minis followed by the HD.

is not about introducing a new line of product but filling the gap that needs to be filled. Apple is missing out on a lot of sells by having this big gap. And users have been asking for this for a long time. Now you have Hackintosh and Phsystar taking advantage of this. Apple get a clue.

 

[Jack Flash]

You call that a refresh? the GPU is the largest problem minis followed by the HD.

is not about introducing a new line of product but filling the gap that needs to be filled. Apple is missing out on a lot of sells by having this big gap. And users have been asking for this for a long time. Now you have Hackintosh and Phsystar taking advantage of this. Apple get a clue.

And very quickly, Apple will be making it impossible for the OSx86 project to continue.

 

[inkswamp]

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.

The majority of desktop PC buyers want exactly this kind of computer and yet you attempt to pigeonhole them into a niche group of gearheads and tinkerers. That is simply inaccurate. A majority of the buyers of desktop PCs want some expandability and some options. If you're suggesting that Apple doesn't want those people, then fine. I would agree. As evidenced by Dell and HP's market share, I think Apple is doing a poor job of attracting those folks--poor enough that I would also conclude that Apple isn't interested. But please don't try to write off such a massive segment of computer buyers as "make it myself" types. I'm also willing to bet that a large chunk of those buyers are businesses.

And very quickly, Apple will be making it impossible for the OSx86 project to continue.

I doubt it. If they were able to do it, why wouldn't they have stopped it by now?

 

[furious]

The guys points are sound. It is just that he comes across as a **** the way he forces his points.

I for one would love a more expandable Mac that is not the price or performance of the Mac Pro. A middle Mac.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

A majority of the buyers of desktop PCs want some expandability and some options.

Mostly agree -- but for me, it's not so much about "expandability" as
"accessibility," and industry-standard high-performance components:

- two internal HDD bays -- cheaper, faster, and less clutter than external
hard drives. Easy to replace a failed HDD or update storage capacity.

- one standard tray-loading optical bay -- instead of dog-slow, inaccessible,
ridiculously expensive (un)Superdrive that can't handle 8 cm media or BR.

- slots for 4 or 8 GB of garden-variety (cheap, non-ECC) RAM

- one video card slot -- with a choice a few "Apple-approved" GPUs. One
basic entry-level option; one pro-level, dual-link DVI, dual-head capable.

- One or two PCI slots -- for Apple-supplied, extra-profit, accessories.

Apple could sell it at $1500 (same as the 20" iMac, with the same level of
performance) and pocket the cost of the display and fancy iMac package.
Customers could add a $1200 professional monitor and still save big $$$$
(plus lots of space and kW-hr) compared to the ridiculous, over-the-top
Mac Pro.

...WHO needs 4 video cards, 6 drive bays, and a 1KW power supply?

LK

 

[UltimateSyn]

Wow! This guy absolutely friggin' nails it, calling Apple on their BS.

Indeed! A friggin' Mac Tablet for a suitably cheap price? Hell yeah! Even a Mac mini pro I might go for in the future, I hope Steve Jobs actually reads this and replies/pays attention and releases those products!

Maybe a special event later in 08'? Boy would I be happy! A new Mac Tablet for Christmas??!!
I'd even be happy with a MacWorld 09' release
Of course, my single opinion doesn't matter, but as expressed by some of the previous posts on this thread, lots of people agree!

All the best, oh and this is my 100th post, I'm a regular now! *looks around at people with thousands of posts*
~Austin~

 

[Cave Man]

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...

Let me know how you get on

Well, how about an Xbench score of 171.76 at 2.4 gHz? This puts it up with the Mac Pro - a bit higher than Apple's quad-core, I think. It took about 3 hours to put the hardware together, but I could do it in an hour or less, now.

The fan blows all the time, so I'm going to have to readjust from my Mini for sure. But it's nice having a 750 gig drive and 256 mb NVidia card. I have a couple of issues to address (network and sound), but this machine is remarkable for $1,000.

 

[bigwig]

Apple doesn't offer a consumer desktop; the Mini is a headless Mac Book.

If only it were so powerful. The CPU is a couple notches down and the GMA950 doesn't cut it. Worse, it's probable the Macbook will get an X4500 when it upgrades to Montevina, while the Mini will probably only get an X3100. Again, the Mini is a full generation down on graphics and a couple hundred MHz down on CPU. If I could buy a Macbook without paying for the screen, I would.

 

[DHart]

If only it were so powerful.

In the next month or two, the soon-to-be-revamped Mini will likely be at least as powerful as the current MacBook (2.4 GHz/GMA3100/4 GB RAM) which is a fairly potent little setup!

The CPU is a couple notches down and the GMA950 doesn't cut it. Worse, it's probable the Macbook will get an X4500 when it upgrades to Montevina, while the Mini will probably only get an X3100. Again, the Mini is a full generation down on graphics and a couple hundred MHz down on CPU.

For many graphics users, the MacBook 2.4 GHz and GMA3100 are quite nice: I'm a professional photographer/studio owner and use a MacBook paired with an HP LP2465 24" S-PVA widescreen panel for tons of Photoshop editing and desktop publishing.... and I'm really happy with the MacBook's potency for what I do. Would I like to have the X4500? Sure. But I don't feel a "need" for it with the 3100. Gamers and heavy duty video people may not like the GMA3100, but for the many of us who aren't gamers or big into video, the 3100 does a great job.

If I could buy a Macbook without paying for the screen, I would.

You might be surprised on that. Having the screen is a really nice option sometimes... when you just want to get away from your desk for awhile! It makes the computer super versatile as a desktop brain driving a big, high quality monitor AND as a laptop for computing on the sofa, in bed, at Starbucks, wherever.

In fact, rather than buying the new mini I've been itching to get when it comes out, I may just upgrade my current MacBook for the new aluminum MacBook in the fall.

 

[phalewhale]

Forgive me, but is it possible to have the macbook hooked up to an external monitor but with different images on each screen? That seems to be what this picture depicts.

Wow, I didn't realise it was possible. I'm sending my iMac back and I'm gonna invest in a 23" ACD instead to save a bit of money...

 

[DeuceDeuce]

Forgive me, but is it possible to have the macbook hooked up to an external monitor but with different images on each screen? That seems to be what this picture depicts.

Wow, I didn't realise it was possible. I'm sending my iMac back and I'm gonna invest in a 23" ACD instead to save a bit of money...

Yes, you dont need to mirror the screens.

 

[phalewhale]

Yes, you dont need to mirror the screens.

Thanks DeuceDeuce! Although I love my shiny new iMac, I'm gonna return it on Monday. Instead, I'll get a 23" ACD to go with my MBP.

Thanks again.

 

[DHart]

brill... you will love the versatility of using your MBP with the bigger screen. You can have the two screens have identical display (mirror) or not. Actually, my preferred working method is the MacBook CLOSED and using only the big screen... but sometimes I'll use the big screen for my editing work with Mail or Safari open on the MacBook screen. There is a ton of flexibility using a MB or MBP with a large external display.

P.S. TO use the MacBook while it is closed, you just close the top to put it to sleep and wake it up by inserting something into a USB port or clicking the keys on your external keyboard... this wakes the MacBook up without having to open the MacBook... now you're using the MacBook purely as the brain. NICE!!!

 

[adamfishercox]

What I don't get is why Apple markets the Mac Pro as starting at $2800, but they actually offer a 4 core option for considerably less. Why wouldn't they advertise a lower price!?

 

[phalewhale]

brill... you will love the versatility of using your MBP with the bigger screen. You can have the two screens have identical display (mirror) or not. Actually, my preferred working method is the MacBook CLOSED and using only the big screen... but sometimes I'll use the big screen for my editing work with Mail or Safari open on the MacBook screen. There is a ton of flexibility using a MB or MBP with a large external display.

P.S. TO use the MacBook while it is closed, you just close the top to put it to sleep and wake it up by inserting something into a USB port or clicking the keys on your external keyboard... this wakes the MacBook up without having to open the MacBook... now you're using the MacBook purely as the brain. NICE!!!

Ah fantastic! So that means the keyboard simply plugs into the display? The to wake the sleeping MBP, I just plug the keyboard into the MBP? However, I do really like the sound of being able to use my laptop for stuff like mail/iCal. That sounds so cool. Thanks DHart!

 

[rpaloalto]

What I don't get is why Apple markets the Mac Pro as starting at $2800, but they actually offer a 4 core option for considerably less. Why wouldn't they advertise a lower price!?

Apple's line of mac pro's are, all the 8 core models now ''standard''.
The current 4 core 2.8 is not too different than the last models, entry the 2.66 quad. Also the new 8 core model is priced cheaper then the last generation's 8 core.