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.
Why is HD4000 not good enough on 2012 mini?
- Thread starter propower
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, though acknowledging your points doesn't detract from the fact that profit margins will of course be significantly higher on premium-priced products aimed at the more lucrative, prosumer/consumer market, which the iMac is primarily targeted at. A Mini with a more enhanced GPU, even if slightly more expensive, still risks eating into those iMac margins.
Of course I'd love such a Mini now, as would many others, regardless of higher price. Naturally, that price couldn't be anywhere near as much as an entry-level iMac as it'd be treating consumers, who still have to get a separate monitor, as utter mugs. So Apple hobble the Mini, hoping to push more consumers into buying iMacs.
As I can't stand AIO's (from previous experience) & Mac Pros are overkill for my needs at too high a price, I've added a PC with a decent GPU to my Mini.
However, if Apple had provided me with a more powerful Mini or, preferably, a cheaper upgradable Mac Pro, that money would have gone to Apple instead. I'm confident that many others have done similar to me. They've opted for a Mini & bought a PC, whereas that extra money may have gone to Apple if those said Macs had been available.
Hence a more powerful Mini, or a cheaper upgradable Mac Pro, wouldn't necessarily just be "rearranging the deck chairs". But I easily see why Apple prefer to stick with a business plan that primarily works very well for them, regardless of what some users want.
My operative words in previous post are "anytime soon". Just as today's Mini almost holds its own even against some Mac Pros of a few years ago, it's quite conceivable that future Minis could be almost as powerful as today's iMacs. However, for me & I'm sure for many others, the expected waiting time is much too long.
Also, as the future design roadmap for iMacs appears to be increasingly thinner designs, it casts serious doubt about how much more powerful GPUs they can use inside some iMacs in future. The increased heat generated by incrementally more powerful graphics, inside ever thinner designs, is eventually bound to adversely affect longevity of other components
I also agree that the next generation of Minis seem highly unlikely to get the top-end Haswell chipsets. But I'm fine with that, not least as in future I expect to run more graphically intensive stuff on my PC.
That is not a fact. A fact is something that is true. Not a choice.
The profit margin on a mini could be 30-40% at exactly the same level as the iMac and the Mac Pro.
The amount of money the margin corresponds to goes up as the prices going up. A 30% margin on $800 is $240 , but on $1800 it is $540 . I don't buy that the price elasticity of someone with an $800 budget is necessarily dramatically lower than than someone with an $1800 budget. Both could perhaps tolerate a 30% swing. However there is no "of course" to the notion that if the price is higher so buyers just throw even more money at the item. There some folks like that. Not most though.
If Apple has a corporate target of 35% margin and all of their major products have 35% margin, it is extremely simple to roll in every quarter with a report of 35% margin.
The problem with most PC companies is that they get into have to sell everything to everybody more. So they have to sell a $400 box. At some lower bound it just isn't practical to go that low and have 35% margins. Apple just skips those markets. Or make other products that can fit in that space with those kinds of markets with very different technology ( iPods or iOS devices that have much cheaper components and volumes ).
Sorry but this is the "have to sell everything to everbody" argument. It doesn't necessarily lead to good outcomes. As I pointed out most PC vendors follks that mindset and none of them of doing similar volume have Apple's margins or money in the bank.
the xMac arguments always end of but they are missing out on me and my XX buddies. Chasing the xMac is likely going to cause just as much rearranging of the deck stairs any any market growth. There is a subset of those "new folks" that will result in a net growth gain.
That growth can also be gotten by just expanding the market with the limited set of products that Apple has. They don't have to get everyone, just the customers they are after.
If focused expanding the market for the current products can be done by leveraging new technology. After first iMacs used laptop class CPUs. At the technology improved (and the screen size grew a bit) Apple moved to desktop CPUs. Surprise the number of iMacs went up. Top end iMac GPUs have entry level desktop GPU performance. Again iMacs have gone up.
Similar thing is going to take place with the Mini. It is likely seen decent enough growth for Apple to keep it in the mix. But this industry fusion of CPU+GPU is eventually allow the mini to expand its reach. At the lower price point and normal supply/demand forces the Mini outsell the iMac. It doesn't in part because the tech isn't there yet. It is coming and Apple has patience to wait it out.
It doesn't hurt that over that time while they are waiting that the margin is just as high on the mini as the iMac. Both product equally help them meet their overall corporate goal.
If Intel and other suppliers were willing to sell supercharged performance at much lower prices... Apple would put it in the Mini. If the mini could bring in twice as much revenue as the iMac and the margins are the same Apple would be sitting on top of much larger pile of money.
$400-700 products is what has built a large fraction of the $100B cash horde they are sitting on top of. It wasn't about selling more expensive boxes. Just profitable ones in growth markets.
The generic "box with slots" market is not a growth market.
It casts little to no doubt. As long as Intel and other fab vendors can keep Moore's law on track and do decent power management the "mobile" GPUs of 2-3 years from not will be just as fast or faster as entry level desktop GPUs of today.
Only the edges of the iMac got thinner. Toss the ODD and have no use for flat edges and ta-da trimed edges. ODDs are not necessary largely through better available alternative tech.
Actually, it is a fact. The percentages are not as important as the overall profit gained per Mac. Naturally, Apple try to protect sales of their most profitable lines by hobbling less profitable ones like the Mini. That's all people are saying here.
Surely that was one reason for going with the weaker integrated Intel cards in the 2012 generation of Minis & dropping the more powerful, discrete HD 6630M from the previous high-end Mini. How many other hardware companies are you aware of that weaken a computer in at least one significant aspect when doing an update for it about a year later?
Also, of course Apple sell far more iMacs than Minis. There's no "notion" about it. It's plain fact. To suggest nuances of differences here is to appear to argue for its own sake.
As I'm not knocking Apple's business plan nor PCs, I'm also not getting into a PC v Apple argument. We know that one main reason why Apple get away with selling only premium-priced computers is OS X. No-one else has the legal licence to compete in this domain.
As many people have too much invested in OS X to switch entirely to Windows, I included, people will pay those higher prices, despite much cheaper options being available elsewhere. Many of those cheaper options often serving people just as well for many everyday computing tasks.
Let's hope so, but the doubt will remain. Another law with heat-sensitive computer technology is that, generally, the thinner a computer desktop's designs get & the more heat-generated inside, the greater the likelihood over time that the lifespan of some of those components will be reduced. That's why I doubt that incrementally thinner computer designs in future years can accomodate increasingly more powerful GPUs, without any negative consequences.
Mindful of the fact that most people don't publicize an issue when it goes wrong, I'd say that for any premium-priced product like the iMac, it's a concern that there are threads on various forums detailing hundreds of iMac logic board failures with previous generations. I've linked one such thread. FWIW, it happened to me. Let's hope that in the coming years the problem doesn't get worse with the quite pointless, superficial, thinner iMac designs:
https://discussions.apple.com/message/21319442?ac_cid=tw123456#21319442
FWIW, I like my Mini, but when doing graphically-demanding tasks, my HD 6630M Mini gets far hotter than my PCs. That includes an inexpensive PC laptop. Many other Mini users have made similar observations. That's another fact.
Bottom line here is, I need a Mac. However, thanks to Apple's limited hardware range, I was compelled to look at alternatives. I found that the other side (Windows 7) actually offers a fine complement to my general computing needs. In this sense alone, Apple have inadvertently done me a huge favour.
Off to work, so catch up later.Well, its simple. Different computers are designed for different things. You can't expect a tractor to win a drag race but a ferrari won't make a very good plow. Mac Mini is first and foremost a very compact machine for the office, and its price reflects the amount of engineering that went into making it that way. A standard graphics card is already physically longer than the Mac Mini itself and gaming-oriented cards are actually thicker.
No dual-core mobile chips:
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012121601_Specifications_of_mobile_Haswell_CPUs.html
That is also the reason, why we will NOT see a Haswell MBA in this summer. The iMac uses desktop-class CPUs, and should appear in Q4/2013.
There is no law. Components create the same amount of heat whether in a large case or a small case. The difficulty is with removing said heat from a smaller case. However, with a properly designed case there is little to no issue. It may require the use of better heat transferring materials (oh hey like aluminum that Apple already uses vs plastic and steel) and better designed cooling systems (assymetirical fans that are found in the Retina Macbook Pro maybe?!?!). I expect that the next Mini will probably be less upgradable / thinner / etc. (and if it isn't the Haswell Mini it surely will be for the Broadwell). My guess is eventually (with the exception of the Mac Pro or whatever they call the future versions of those) all Macs will be virtually impossible to upgrade. The way you buy it, will pretty much be how you use it.
What people are asking for is a BTO option, with an expected HUGE margin for Apple, that would satisfy the desire of having a discrete GPU in the mini without having to buy a laptop or unwanted built in monitor.
You are making it out like Apple is somehow going to lose money on the mini by offering a $200+ CPU upgrade on the top end, non-server, mini. The only loss involved in this scenario is the loss of sales for the MPB and iMac as people buy the machine they want(discrete GPU+mini) instead of a machine that fits the needs(mac+discrete GPU), but not in the exact form factor they ultimately desire.
We are not talking 6100, 7100, 8100, 9100, 6150, 7150, 8150, 7200, 7500, etc... crap from the 90s, like you are saying. We are talking a BTO option on the mini that Apple would make big margins on. There is one and only one reason Apple doesn't do it. Deep down you know it as well.
The dual-core mobile chips will probably be revealed in June. The IB ones were revealed around the same time last year.
No, it isn't. If all the major products that Apple sells has 30+% margin profit just happens. It doesn't really matter how many of each are sold. At the end of the year the bills would be paid , the lights on , and Apple lives to fight another day.
Revenues for revenue sake isn't the issue. If talking about what pumps the stock price it is growth. As long as the mini and iMac and overall Mac market is growing that is primarily what "counts". More people think have a "great" collection of products. Apple continues. The objective is to find a larger group of those folks next year. Rise and repeat yearly.
Goosing the margins higher really does nothing positive for Apple. At some point that actually inhibits growth.
Destorying margins on the mini and then trying to make them up with higher margins on the iMac ( and perhaps Mac Pro ) is playing a "rob Peter to pay Paul" game. It typically doesn't work over the long term.
No. The mini has entry model MBP 13" and MBP 15" parts largely to get better margins on both the Mini and those two products by selling more of those parts to get better discounts from the suppliers.
The iMac, other than staying out of its assigned pricing zone of $1000-1,999, isn't the primary issue here.
LOL. If a significant number of folks didn't always have their underwear in a twist about what Apple might do if they weren't doing what they are actually doing these forums would be awfully quiet.
VG points & little I'd go against. BTW, my use of "law" in the previous context was mostly intended rhetorically to underscore some of the future impracticalities of using increasingly more powerful GPUs in ever decreasing spaces. You're right of course that no such law exists.
If you re-read what I wrote, I didn't claim there'd be more heat in thinner designs per se. Rather, if more heat was generated with each future update in designs that got thinner over time, as would happen if using more powerful GPU's, then the thinner the design, the greater the risk that other components crammed into ever decreasing spaces may degrade faster over time. I stand by that. The origins of the point lie in the likelihood of Apple continuing to evolve their Mac desktop designs to be even thinner in future.
I've owned Macs since 2005, so I appreciate the generally seamless, user-friendly experience these computers offer me. However, while no doubt we all see the obvious advantages of thinner, lighter laptops, some of us see no such advantage in evolving similar designs for powerful desktops. Esp if it then restricts the technology that is practical for use within those confined spaces.
This of course already happens with all Mac desktops, bar the Mac Pro, via the enforced compromise of either integrated chipsets or under-clocked, mobile cards.
I'd prefer my Mini to be taller & have the option of a decent GPU, despite the extra costs. If that option had been available, there's little doubt I'd have not bought a PC desktop to use alongside my Mac, though I've nothing against Windows 7 & I already had a PC laptop. Cheers!
They can. If the BTO configuration is overly complex and conflicting that can lead to inventory control problems. Either holding extra inventory or buying parts in too small of orders can lead to increased costs and lower margins.
The most stuff the more complex system you have to have to track all of that stuff. Put that on a feedback cycle where it increasing gets more complex and it starts to grow overhead.
Finally, the more complex the product mix the more you delute your design/engineering talent. Just assigning more bodies necessarily get to better systems (e.g., mythical man month).
There is far more than just a bill of materials and a trusty screwdriver and some thermal paste than go into these products. That's why lower complexity leads to better margins.
Jacking up the BTO options to sky high margins leads just as much to lost customers as additional ones.
Like Intel isn't holding back some info. Dates for every single product released in deep detail months before the announcement.
Old roadmaps had the rollout in early Q2 and it has slid till late.
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013012201_Availability_date_of_Haswell_processors_confirmed.html
That would only mean that duals due in late Q2 would slide to Q3. Indeed some aspects of Haswell are in Q3
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013012702_Haswell_GT3_graphics_to_launch_in_Q3_2013.html
So no, your 2 month older cpu-world article isn't as insightful as you make it out to be.
that is largely immaterial. there is little reason to lauch a new iMac if Apple has just recently caught up to demand. So June-August are highly unlikely. They would have just gotten to point had ironed out all the issues before starting up for a another outage for the transition to Haswell. They released late in 2012 so can release late in 2013.
That nicely matches becauce the mini's procesor isn't necessarily going to be all that early. Apple will need to wait for the MBP 13" and 15" models which also likely need the mini's processor to get out and stable before launching the mini. October works just fine for both the iMac and mini.
Attachments
The impact of the graphics on the mini, to me, are the lack of displays, lack of gaming and rendering performance, lack of vram to drive multiple displays, and overall sluggishness when working with a super high resolution workspace. I think I'll keep my Quad GPU desktop, thanks.
You say that, but Apple's history says otherwise. The first 21.5" and 27" iMacs were released in late 2009 (in fact Oct 20, 2009). There were major issues with supply. I know this because I didn't get my 27" iMac until late January 2010. So again, the supply issues were the same (although back then it was caused by the 27" panel used was so new). Guess what? Apple released an updated 27" iMac at the end of July. Meaning that brand new iMac 27" was only on the market for 9 months before it was replaced by an upgraded model. I only had mine for about 6 months, before it was no longer the new model (even though I ordered it not long after it was announced).
So no. Apple has shown that they are quick to replace a new model with a 2nd generation regardless of how bad the supply problems were.
There was no major issue with supply anywhere close what to the clusterF*ck of last quarter. Apple shorted 770K iMacs. That's alot.
Alot. Back in 2003 Apple sold roughly that many desktops total in an entire year. So marginal launch hiccups that have occurred previously is not even the same scope.
If it was within the same tick-tock cycle the context is different (it is easy to do a speed bump or "tick"/process shrink update). This one isn't. Socket is changing and will need substantially new software drivers. Having transitioned to a new board for Ivy Bridge they'll need another new board for Haswell. Yeah it will be an incremental change, but a change none-the-less.
Haswell is late so the laptops are going to need a refresh. OS X 10.9 is also in July. Pulling iMacs forward only means entangling rollouts for no good reason.
I don't think the circumstances are the same. I know there is going to be a bunch of "new iMacs for back to school" rumor positioning but that I don't think that really has much traction for Apple here.
Buyers guide average has iMac at 335 days. If talking about Apple's past track record being insightful for the future Sept-October 2013 is much more aligned with their track record. Historically the "shorter than average" iMacs cycles have been usually associated with "tick" (process shrink) transitions.
I've had to dash off to catch up with a few other things, including watching an ongoing football match, but I'd just like to acknowledge your points.
I've thought about what you've said. However, as you have no way of validating anything that you claim, as neither have I of course, & as both of us have very different, but strong opinions on a few points (not least Apple's business plan & the relevance of various Macs), which seem most unlikely to change much from either side, if at all, I'll opt to respectfully disagree.
If you can't see how the iMac is a much more lucrative & thus more important product to Apple's business than the Mini is, there's probably nothing I can add that's likely to change that.
However, I'll still keep track of this interesting thread when I return. Cheers!
Really? There wasn't?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...e_Apple_to_delay_iMac_orders_resellers_report
http://www.macworld.com/article/1145075/imac_delays.html
http://gigaom.com/2009/12/14/apple-delays-imac-shipments-says-sorry/
These were just a basic google of 27" 2009 iMac. Apple bungled that and still released new iMac's 9 months later (and only started mass delivery after the 1st of the year JUST LIKE THE 2009).
While I understand your point about the 2003 macs, by 2009 Apple was selling over 600,000 macs A month. So yeah, a 2009 big delay was a lot of Macs. This wasn't 2003, it was 6 years later when Apple was really starting to take a major bite out of the PC market.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/11/16/macs_worldwide_market_share_reaches_15_year_high_at_5
And socket changes mean virtually nothing.
I rest my case.
What you need to find in google is that quarter in 2009 where Mac growth dropped year over year. This bungled rollout did do that. They aren't in the same magnitude.
Not only was the rollout screwed up but the old model shutdown was jacked too. Shutting down too soon was one of the errors of the Fall. Repeating that against would be a very bad outcome.
Apple needs a couple of months of steady state demand in order to predict how to run the old model shutdown. That isn't going to happen by picking willy nilly release dates for no good reason.
With the integrated GPU in haswell, the assumption is mostly plug and play. If they have to redesign the motherboard to switch from a G2 haswell to a G3 haswell, then you have a valid point. The present second tier mini has two cpu options. People are asking for that second or a third to have the G3. IF it is mostly plug and play, the reason for not offering it is to make sure the mini is NOT good enough graphically to take away from the sales of iMAcs and MBPs.
Yes, more than plug and play, and you have a point. Add
This isn't the 90s. You have the mini, iMac and Mac Pro when it comes to desktops. We're not talking about 20+ different version numbers active at the same time like the roaring 90s. All three have their distinct differences.
So let me get this straight, having another BTO option, that most people won't even know exists, other than another radio button option on the order page, is going to lose customers? I don't think so. Lower complexity leads to better margins, I agree. But then, using that logic, Apple should strive to remove ALL BTO options, right? With their "everything glued one" approach they have undertaken, the BTO options are going to have to increase these days. So that alone tells me that it's not akin to going under, as you make it out to be.
All you have to do is look at the iPad mini versus the regular iPad. Someone recently reported that they are likely going to ship more mini's than regular iPads in 2013. You think Apple would want 30% margins on a $500+ item rather than a $329 item? Heck yeah. Do you think they would LOVE to gimp the mini in some way to usher more people towards the regular iPad? Well, they can do it with the mini, by NOT offering a legit GPU option.
Last edited:
The dubious assumption here is that the GT3 option hits the same TDP limits as the others. That isn't very likely at all. The mini has caps. The notion that the ball pins layout is the same so any chip with that same layout will work doesn't really work in real contexts.
I think Intel has probably done some "hot rod" GT3 versions but the likely have come in at "hot rod" TDP criteria also.
The other slightly less confining restriction is price.
No. Very low volume BTO options tend to have very high mark-ups and hence higher prices. That is a feedback cycle as higher prices cause lower volumes. People will see the option's price and balk. That is just Econ 101. Prices too high ---> fewer customers. Sure there will be a few customers who happen to have money and a high fixation on this specific offering but will rapidly see diminishing returns.
If not enough folks will pull the trigger on the option it isn't worth carrying. It is far more effective to spent more time improving the core product's value proposition to a wider number of customers the product is primarily targeted at than to chase low marginal volumes at the fringes.
If put $100K into more BTO options nets 10K new customers and putting $100K into a core feature(s) nets 10K new customers, then it is more effective to do the second rather than the first.
You don't run Apple's product matrix process. The above is clearly evident in what they are doing. They are extremely unlikely to change unless can come up with an argument about how the current approach is not financially successful.
No. The approach to add just enough but no more. "As simple as possible and no simpler".
Apple has more money coming in than they know what to do with. If Apple can get the mni to the same margin percentage as the iPad they aren't going to care.
Greed for greed sake isn't good. Apple is making buckets of money. Even with the mini at slightly lower than targeted margins. If Apple raises the margins then it isn't a problem.
This hand waving is all in a vacuum. The iPad has competitors. The mini has competitors. If Apple doesn't sell at the lower price points that more folks can afford then those competitors are going to squeeze them out of the overall market.
Expanding into new submarkets is a straightforward approach to generating growth. That is exactly why Apple kept the whole mobile but under $999 price points open while they got the iPad ready to put into place. The iPad is cheaper than any Mac laptop. That alone is going to generate a larger customer base if the iPad does well what those folks want.
Appe isn't going to "gimp" the Mini is that means giving more of the mini targeted customers to their competitors. The mini and iPad are aimed at different groups. I think the confusion stems from the fact that some of those folks were "forced" to buy an iPad because it was the only option. Those folks were always on the verge of bolting. They aren't the targeted market. Those are just "happened to buy the product" folks. If the iPad is being primarily supported by "happened to buy" users then it deserves to fail. It is not properly refined and targeted at the appropriate audience.
No. This is flawed approach to creating and targeting products. Find distinct markets and target products directly aimed at matching max value proposition for the people in those markets.
You end up with people who really like the products alot. Those folks will probably buy more from you in the future.
If have a minimum number of products there are going to be a relatively much smaller number of customers to fit in the gaps. Those folks are going to wail and complain. However, sometimes the need of the many outweight the needs of a few. The overall big picture is all that matters.
Apple doesn't and shouldn't care that new technology has allowed a subset of users "down market" to more affordable stuff. That is going to happen in tech. Trying to avoid it is just swimming upstream of many billions in R&D resources allocation. It is bound to loose long term.
What naturally flows down market will flow down market. Apple doesn't have a problem with that. If the iMac incrementally offers move value fewer folks will go down market, but some will.
However, what is totally avoidable is trying to overlap products to maximum coverage because "nobody gets through the cracks". That is an impossible task because millions of people are different from each other in millions of ways. That path only leads to complexity and inevitably inefficiencies.
LOL. The CPU+GPU of the mini is largely driven by what the CPU+GPU are in the MBP 13" and 15" models at this point. (will probably shift to rMBP if those disappear.). They select those because it drives higher margins for the mini. Most of your argument is about how it is great to make more money. Well they can make more money if use parts they get a bigger discount from Intel on. How do you get bigger discounts? Use the component in more than one Mac product. Volume goes up. Price down. Bigger margin. Basically make more money (or perhaps give mini more BOM price cap headroom to put in more value. which leads to more money through higher mini sales. )
If Intel delivers the high performance GT3 at the same price and TDP as the other mini options Apple would put it in. Don't hold your breath because Intel know about price-to-value methodologies also. Eventually they will, but by then the iMac will have moved on.
I give up. We will just have to agree to disagree deconstruct60. Every argument on your part is to remove any possibility of Apple proactively deciding to limit the mini in any way shape or form.
I think it's mostly a business decision to NOT put in the G3, you do not. We are at an impasse.
I think it's mostly a business decision to NOT put in the G3, you do not. We are at an impasse.