They don't want to sell more mini's than any other of their computers. They want to FORCE the captive audience to spend more $$$ on iMacs, MBPs and Mac Pros.
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.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
The Smartphone was a paradigm shift in the way people live and interact ... it made almost every computing task extensible. We've been deeply affected by this shift and there's little happening today that represents the same exponential leap - thus boredom and muted visions about what to do next. To get the same "rush" will require yet another exponential leap - thinness and clock speeds don't cut it - battery life could be "epic" if improved well beyond current limitations but that's about it until something changes in the way we interact with the desktop when in "task or programming" mode.
Auto type and auto-correction are limited steps in the right direction. I seem to think "programming and intensive" interaction would have to move to a more symbolic structure where blocks of information are positioned in a string (i.e. "i want to execute" would simply be a block that precedes the next block which would be a block representing the app or program). A new language if you will where the smallest or shortest "character" is a block of information.
Apple is more than likely seeking the next "big" thing which may involve AR, wireless charging and beyond - I don't think they're interested in the profit margins from desktop evolution.
Auto type and auto-correction are limited steps in the right direction. I seem to think "programming and intensive" interaction would have to move to a more symbolic structure where blocks of information are positioned in a string (i.e. "i want to execute" would simply be a block that precedes the next block which would be a block representing the app or program). A new language if you will where the smallest or shortest "character" is a block of information.
Apple is more than likely seeking the next "big" thing which may involve AR, wireless charging and beyond - I don't think they're interested in the profit margins from desktop evolution.
Last edited:
Er... no. The iPhone did nothing that was not already available on other cell phones. The only thing different is that it did those things in the Jobs manner -- with a UI as simple and as minimalistic as humanly possible.
For a phone, this is good. Phones are meant to be used to consume media; either audio (communications with other people, or listening to media), video (to the extent that such a small screen is usable), or very light applications (e.g., games).
For a machine that involves deeper human-computer interaction, this is not good. I was just spending some time earlier this weekend trying to help my mom rearrange the icons across different home screens of her iPad. The technique is simple, but not terribly easy; holding down an icon and then dragging it to the very extreme edge of the screen turns out to be a bit of an effort for aged fingers. I think it'd be physically easier to press buttons, but of course, Jobs hated buttons...
Back to the future, eh? The sort of technology that was pioneered way, way back in the 1970s?
But, that was the thing -- while Jobs always loved the latest tech, he was never driven by the latest tech. The big profitable items he came up with under his watch -- the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad -- were just all long-existing products (the mp3 player, the cell phone, the tablet computer) that he reimagined using his own views on user interface design.
The big profit margins come when you develop a product that people want to buy. Jobs fundamentally understood his customer base, and always drove his designs using that understanding. He wasn't chasing the "next big thing" -- he was creating it. If the latest tech fit into his design, great! If not, doesn't matter, he's still going with his own design.
I think the real problem is, Jobs or no Jobs, this is an unsustainable position for a company. Sure, the profits for creating a new market are tremendous (although I would argue that Jobs was not creating entirely new markets, but rather providing goods for an existing technophobic market that he understood well); but in the long run, a profitable company remains a profitable company by establishing and maintaining a loyal base of customers. If you only have your eye on the profits you can generate from your customer base in six months, and ignore the value of maintaining these customers five or ten years down the road, your company will simply go bankrupt the first time it fails to come up with a hot enough new product...
Last edited:
"Er... no. The iPhone did nothing that was not already available on other cell phones."
Thanks... truly should have said "Smartphone" but then again I did ...
Thanks... truly should have said "Smartphone" but then again I did ...
He's actually right. When it was first launched, the iPhone did nothing that even my Razr (I miss that thing) could do. In fact, it was missing features the Razr had, like MMS. The original iPhone wasn't anything like what we have now. It was a glorified feature phone that had an amazing interface.
The first thing that amazed me about iPhone was pinch to zoom. Was that available elsewhere?
(I was convinced iPhone would flop hard, by the way. Steve Ballmer and me.)
(I was convinced iPhone would flop hard, by the way. Steve Ballmer and me.)
Somewhat. Here are a few quotes from the Wiki page on "Multi-touch" technology:
Apple didn't invent multi-touch capacitive screens, but Steve Jobs took the concept and turned it into a commercial success. It certainly fit perfectly into his minimalistic UI world-view.
This is close to where it is at for me. While I am not technophobic, I certainly cannot be bothered dealing with it. I am just an average Joe, who wants to get a bit of stuff done with minimal hassle. Using a Mac Mini, OS X (now MacOS) and mainly apps that come with the computer, I am able to do just that.
In my observation and experience, cheaper computers using Windows or Linux are not as reliable, and are more hassle to use. Geeks who like to meddle may enjoy benefits, but to me the slightly more expensive Mac is more cost effective, even if the specs are not cutting edge. I am after something that does the job, not bragging rights.
I have owned only 2 computers, the original 2005 Mac Mini, and the early 2009 that I am using now. The latter has had a couple of trips to the workshop. The first was to install and extra 4 GB of RAM and Mountain Lion (I had neither a credit card nor a decent internet connection to do the job). The second was about a year ago for a general clean out, check up and advice on replacing the HDD (stick with the original and add an external was the advice). There will probably not be a third trip to the workshop. Replacement with a Mac Mini that is almost certainly coming is likely to be the most cost effective scenario…….. Ergo, customer retained.
Thanks to all those folks who update their iDevices as newer models are released…… They generate huge profits to keep Apple solvent and developing Macs (albeit at a slower rate than in the past) and MacOS.
Yes, I agree that's why I wrote in my previous discussion that apple should review its changes.
THIS! Yes, this is the sweet spot for the Mac. This is what actually propelled me to get a Mac in the first place, and to evangelize it to my friends and family.
But man, I've just gotta ask, is Apple really interested in this any more? The key aspect of pretty much all Apple products today is "thinness", not so much "ease of use". Whether or not I'm an "average Joe", I want to get work done with minimal hassle. Removing ports, soldering down RAM, reducing upgrade options, and forcing users to connect a plethora of external devices that, in the past, would have been internal devices, tends to increase hassle for me. And while having the thinnest item possible may provide some sort of bragging rights, it doesn't help me get work done.
Its like car bumpers today ... all about form over function because technology is supposed to augment all function in the minds of some- this isn't always effective when you have to replace that $3000 cheap plastic bumper and half of the car when steel would have only involved the bumper and supports - function is lost here just like fender-benders that deploy airbags costing $3000 for something with a little more impact than a shopping cart.
There's so much functionality available they want to steer you with form over functionality. "Elegance" was the word that came to mind in the past when I thought of Apple - I now associate Apple with the following adjectives - stingy, intolerant, petty, myopic, disrespectful, money-grabbing, dumbing down, monopolistic and sadly "foolish" to move away from the edict of functional elegance.
The whole dongle thing is disrespectful and unsightly for a company that wraps products, accessories and cables like fine jewelry and sets prices accordingly.
There's so much functionality available they want to steer you with form over functionality. "Elegance" was the word that came to mind in the past when I thought of Apple - I now associate Apple with the following adjectives - stingy, intolerant, petty, myopic, disrespectful, money-grabbing, dumbing down, monopolistic and sadly "foolish" to move away from the edict of functional elegance.
The whole dongle thing is disrespectful and unsightly for a company that wraps products, accessories and cables like fine jewelry and sets prices accordingly.
Last edited:
I heard that they found all those 5400rpm spinners in an ancient cave in Qinghai province, China.
Some are rumored to date back as far as the Bronze age.
Where’s the trail to Cold Mountain?
Cold Mountain? There’s no clear way.
Ice, in summer, is still frozen.
Bright sun shines through thick fog.
You won’t get there following me.
Your heart and mine are not the same.
If your heart was like mine,
You’d have made it, and be there!
That makes no sense. Car bumpers are designed the way they are because the crash structure is there to protect your body, not the car. I'd rather have a $3000 repair bill than a $30,000 hospital bill because the car didn't protect me. People walk away from accidents that would have killed them in the steel bumper era. In that sense it's very much function over form.
Apple's dongles make no sense outside of a future where the hardware they are pushing now will be outdated.
The analogy does make sense because you could have both form and function by employing high grade metals and state of the art R&D - you'll find the aerodynamic bumpers on Mercedes, VW, Tesla and Rolls do in fact provide superior protection relative to strength/weight ratio due to sophisticated engineering and steel inserts that is lacking in non-luxury vehicles - something like styro foam is used in that case ya know, like 16gb of RAM and 4.5 hours of intensive-use battery life.
And why on earth should bodily protection and structural integrity be mutually-exclusive especially when there's technology like airbags, seatbelts, auto-braking, rear cameras, lane-sensing etc. - add these technologies to the cars of old and survival would be far superior.
No - you've bought into the cool-aid that you must give up something to take steps ahead. What you give up now becomes profit for Apple and inconvenience for many. This is exactly what Apple is missing today "value add" and exactly what everyone on this board is bemoaning.
And this thing of taking wonderful working ideas and trashing them like MagSafe. upgrade-able RAM and the headphone jack is analogous to saying _uck-you!
And why on earth should bodily protection and structural integrity be mutually-exclusive especially when there's technology like airbags, seatbelts, auto-braking, rear cameras, lane-sensing etc. - add these technologies to the cars of old and survival would be far superior.
No - you've bought into the cool-aid that you must give up something to take steps ahead. What you give up now becomes profit for Apple and inconvenience for many. This is exactly what Apple is missing today "value add" and exactly what everyone on this board is bemoaning.
And this thing of taking wonderful working ideas and trashing them like MagSafe. upgrade-able RAM and the headphone jack is analogous to saying _uck-you!
Last edited:
Too late for me. I'm more than happy with what I've built.
Back a decade ago, the Mac Mini was a revelation to me. A high-quality, relatively inexpensive, decently powerful device capable of running a Unix-based operating system with a world-class user interface. It really was the PC that could do everything for everybody.
Today, the available desktops are esthetically pleasing (well, pleasing if you really really like "thin"), but are increasingly expensive, low-power, inflexible devices apparently designed for people with a lot of money to burn and not much computing to get done.
They still have OS X, but they are no longer devices for me.I'm sure Cook has more "great desktops" on his "roadmap", wherever that mythical document may exist. Problem is, I don't think I have the same definition of "great" as he does. So no, I don't expect any new Macs to fit either my needs or my budget. I'd love to be surprised, but I'm not going to wait to be surprised.
Too late for me. I'm more than happy with what I've built.
Me too. No regrets. I got the power for cheap $$$
And I still may be doing a custom build for fun.
In the U.S. a "scab" is a piece of dried blood we flick off a wound. So... hmmm... maybe it translates. Lol.
My Hackintosh and Sierra REALLY don't go well together, but neither does my rMBP, so I am happy to stay on El Cap and inform y'all that except having to wait up to two days (SHOCK) for NVidia drivers all is fine.
Yes. But how large is that roadmap? Do we measure distance in meters or miles?