[kieran]

A story on Giz just went up saying suppliers are being told they can no longer order the Mac Mini.

Here's the story

It would be pretty stupid of them to discontinue it, but pretty stupid to not update it as well.

I was looking at getting my parents one of these in a year or two when I claim my iMac G4 back from them.


(Not much of a Spec and Rumors kinda guy, so that's it from me.)

[Luca]

As usual, Apple wants to do neither. Keep selling old hardware at inflated prices to people too dumb to know that they're getting a bad deal. Don't bother updating it because the profit margins aren't thick enough.

The Mini should always be a desktop-ized version of the MacBook. Same specs for much cheaper. But over time, it's fallen behind.

[psmith2.0]

Well, that means only one of two things (assuming this is legit): it's been discontinued, or it's finally getting an update after 14 months.



When they say it's "gone and expect no more", they could be telling the truth (you know how Apple and Jedis can be...choosing their words very carefully, etc.).



There might be something coming that's in that area (a small, affordable headless Mac), but simply not called or marketed as the "Mac mini"?

Maybe it's just the Mac? Or Mac nano? Or...

*SMACK!*

I don't know.

So does that mean Apple is going to go back to the $1,000-and-up days of the past?



I hope not.

If the mini is killed (and nothing with a different design/name replaces it), that means the cheapest Mac you can get is the previous generation MacBook in white plastic, for $999. Anything else - the newer, aluminum stuff was the new graphics, DisplayPort, etc. - start at $1,199 and go up from there.

Aww, man.

Surely they're not this shortsighted and arroga...well.



The time is perfect for a capable little headless Mac for switchers. If Apple's lamenting the slow sales of the mini, perhaps they should get a clue and realize that's usually what happens when you don't update something for a year. Is it the chicken or the egg? It's always lagged behind everything in specs and updates, to the point where it just got ridiculous. You can't expect anyone to lay out $599+ for a machine that hasn't been touched in well over a year (and the specs 14 months ago were already iffy or questionable, compared to everything around it).

My money's on a new, small headless unit. They've put all this time into the aluminum carving and perfecting it, they've got the smaller DisplayPort interface, they've got this spiffy new graphics thing from nVidia that they just put into the MacBook, they've shown their willingness to yank a major port off their best-selling machine (although a mini without FireWire probably wouldn't be a huge loss, considering), the Intel processors are faster and run cooler than every before (right?), etc.

So how could there not be a new, small headless "switcher Mac"? Seems like they could make it even smaller and sleeker than the Mac mini we know, and actually give it MacBook-like specs and watch it actually *gasp* sell!

If they do this, and kill it completely, it'll be like 2001...nothing under $1,200 (except for last-rev MacBook, and those won't last forever).

EDIT: the story's been picked up by MacRumors and already has 109 comments...

[Satchmo]

It's tough to believe Apple will offer any cheap updated Mac mini. I think they sent quite the message with the recent laptop announcements that they really don't want to play in the low cost arena.

That $999 white MacBook was more of a PR stunt, than a sign that it's prices are coming down. Apple knows Macheads will wants the latest offerings and so that $1299 entry point the unibody design will sell huge numbers.

However, I think a new Mac mini is still possible. But at similiar prices we have today. The main reason to keep the Mac mini is simply to drive greater sales of that new 24" Cinema Display.

[Luca]

Way I see it, they'll either keep selling the current Minis without changing any configurations or prices, or they will replace them with a new, updated version similar to the new MacBook that is only available in a single configuration for $699 or $799. Unlike the new MacBook, though, there aren't many ways they can actually significantly improve the value of the Mini. At least the new MacBooks have an LED-backlit screen and that aluminum unibody construction, but neither of those really apply to the Mini.

Watch them release a $699 Mini and market it as a "price drop" (since currently, it costs $799 to get one equipped with a DVD burner).

It seems like Apple to finally make the move to an all-DVD-R lineup by simply cutting out the low end configurations that used to ship with Combo drives, rather than actually giving DVD-Rs those lower end configurations.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Satchmo It's tough to believe Apple will offer any cheap updated Mac mini. I think they sent quite the message with the recent laptop announcements that they really don't want to play in the low cost arena. That $999 white MacBook was more of a PR stunt, than a sign that it's prices are coming down. Apple knows Macheads will wants the latest offerings and so that $1299 entry point the unibody design will sell huge numbers. However, I think a new Mac mini is still possible. But at similiar prices we have today. The main reason to keep the Mac mini is simply to drive greater sales of that new 24" Cinema Display.

Exactly. If people can get into a decently-spec'd mini for $500-600, many might say "hey, what the hell...it's only another $800" (or if Apple eventually brings that design to the 20", even better). As a current 20" (1680x1050) user, I can say that it's an awesome blend of size/resolution for general, fun use (surfing, having your Mail and iChat windows still visible), as well as large working spaces in the iLife stuff. Oh, and I really like viewing a full letter-size page in Illustrator at 100% with room to spare for the various toolboxes all around (I've still got gobs of pasteboard area too).

In other words, this size/resolution is plenty for all but the most hardcore, pixel-pushing, frame-tweaking, knob-twiddling professionals, IMO.



Maybe that's part of an upcoming announcement...a new, redesigned mini (called something else), and a new 20" display (matching the 24" in LED, DisplayPort connectivity, black frame, iSight, etc.

If anything, that makes more sense because, unlike the notebooks, the mini has no iSight and would be the one Mac that would benefit most from the display having one.

Maybe something like that is in the cards? A mini for $599 with new MacBook specs, and a new 20" display for $499?

Apple could spur sales by offering a one-time-only $100 cut (good only when you purchase the mini) to bring the 20" to $399...just so they can say "we offer a full desktop solution for under $1,000").

Originally Posted by Luca Way I see it, they'll either keep selling the current Minis without changing any configurations or prices, or they will replace them with a new, updated version similar to the new MacBook that is only available in a single configuration for $699 or $799. Unlike the new MacBook, though, there aren't many ways they can actually significantly improve the value of the Mini. At least the new MacBooks have an LED-backlit screen and that aluminum unibody construction, but neither of those really apply to the Mini. Watch them release a $699 Mini and market it as a "price drop" (since currently, it costs $799 to get one equipped with a DVD burner). It seems like Apple to finally make the move to an all-DVD-R lineup by simply cutting out the low end configurations that used to ship with Combo drives, rather than actually giving DVD-Rs those lower end configurations.

Yeah, that kinda stinks. They're making gobs as is, these margins. People get all bent out of shape with the oil companies. Apple is who you should direct some of that toward too!



Just kidding; they're allowed (and supposed) to sell this stuff at whatever price people will pay. They're not hurting, it seems. I don't see a mass exodus from the platform, do you?



You're right about the mini not really benefitting from those things that the MacBook does (Unibody and LED). But with a new design (aluminum and black), SuperDrive-only, easy RAM access, DisplayPort (and a 20" display option), it might be enough to stir up some interest again.

There's nothing wrong with the mini that a MacBook-like upgrade couldn't fix. It's not like the thing is ugly or useless. And if the economy is as lousy as everyone says, wouldn't they want to keep a Mac around that's less than $1,200 for Joe the Plumber and whoever the hell else is out there?

They can't spend two years luring and tempting everyone to the Mac, and then yank the $599 rug from underneath, can they? That would suck. It's hard enough selling the $699 mini at those specs. What would Apple do once their "low-end" is back up to ~$1,200 and nobody new is buying them because they're all going to Best Buy and getting a better-spec'd computer for $700-800 (one that could've been the mini).

I think people can fudge and forgive $100-300. When it gets to $500 and up, forget it...

[Luca]

Actually, I don't think Apple should try to make the Mini cheap anymore. They can't do it. I was just at Dell.com and they have a system that is equal to or better than the Mini in every area except the processor... for $279. BTO processor upgrades are cheap as well and you can give it a quad-core for under $500.

I think it would be better to either give the Mini a whole bunch of cutting edge new features like the MacBook, or give it a Blu-Ray drive and some video adapters and aim for people who want a drop-in media center.

[psmith2.0]

Ooh, really? How do those users stack up, in numbers, to just "regular people" who want to e-mail, do some Word stuff and organize their pics in iPhoto?

Making it a niche-y "home entertainment" component seems like it might make it an even slower seller. But I don't know what that market's like, so maybe I'm wrong?

I never expected (or asked) Apple to get down to that "low 'n' dirty" point of $279 or even $399. They can't, and they won't. But I've got no beef with that $500-800 area, provided they bring the damn thing squarely into late-2008, spec-wise.

I'm reading some of the thread over at MacRumors and there are people saying "well, if it's not selling, they should kill it..." and variations on that.

And does it ever occur to anyone that the reason it's not selling is because it looks so weak and out-of-date, compared to everything else in the lineup? If the MacBook can go from the 950 to the X3100 to this new nVidia stuff and not increase in price, can't the mini? Nobody's asking Apple to sell an iMac-level system for $299. But if you're going to have a computer on your site (and on your store), with the intention of people possibly buying it, you've gotta do one of two things: keep the specs and give it a reasonable price (does anyone here think the current $599 mini justifies that in any way whatsoever?), or keep the price and give it reasonable specs (like the MacBook just got).

I prefer the latter, but if the former is all they're willing to do, so be it...

[Luca]

Yeah, all I'm really saying is that if they want to charge $600-$800, they should make it worth $600-$800. It does use laptop-sized components, which cost more, so of course it won't be as cheap as a Dell desktop. But if they'd at least update the thing... I mean, they really ought to put 2 GB as standard equipment on both, or at the very least on the more expensive one. The hard drives are also pretty skimpy.

A media center would be nice for a few people but you're right, it's probably not the biggest audience. The reason I suggested it is because it's one of the ways they could make it worth the asking price. But I think media center needs would be better served by an upgraded AppleTV with a built-in Blu-Ray drive. But that's another matter.

Another thing... I'm perplexed as to why Blu-Ray still hasn't made it to Macs. It's been an option on Windows machines for months now, and generally costs about $200 as a BTO option.

[ezkcdude]

You know you want one. It's sooooo cute.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Luca Another thing... I'm perplexed as to why Blu-Ray still hasn't made it to Macs. It's been an option on Windows machines for months now, and generally costs about $200 as a BTO option.

Not sure. They're often as late-to-the-party as they are miles ahead of the curve (remember CD-R?)...

[Luca]

ezkcdude: Actually, that basically already exists.

Origen AE S21T



This is basically an empty PC case with a motorized 12" (1280x800) touchscreen LCD monitor on the front of it that slides down to reveal the optical drive and media card readers. You have to buy all the guts of a computer to put in it, and just the case itself costs about $1000, but there you go.

Of course, you could always just make a cheaper iMac yourself to avoid the premiums Apple charges for monitors:

[psmith2.0]

Hey, I didn't realize the Mac mini had four USB ports! That's more than the iMac and Mac Pro!

[Mugge]

Luca, that's probably the most ugly Mac I've ever seen. If Jobs ever sees that picture then the Mini is surely doomed.

[psmith2.0]

It's probably this guy's computer:

[Windowsrookie]

Hopefully they're just updating it to work with the new monitor. I know a few windows users, the Mac mini is the perfect Mac for the first timers.

[psmith2.0]

Exactly. They'll wind up cutting out a strong switcher path if they kill this thing completely.

[Kraetos]

I don't think the current mini or the original philosophy behind it still fits into Apple's continuing lineup. I would be in no way surprised if the mini went the way of the dodo.

There are any number of problems with the mini. First, it's underpowered. The mini will lose a direct spec comparison against any computer with the same price tag - by a very wide margin. Normally I'm the first to say "most people don't care about specs" but the mini is simply so underspeced it is hard not to notice. It stands out like a sore thumb in any Apple Store; even the least tech-savvy customers notice that the mini doesn't seem as Snappy™ as a nearby iMac or MacBook. Also, most Apple Stores put their mini's right next to their Mac Pros. Talk about a comparison you don't want to draw.

But this is really just a symptom of a larger problem: Apple is trying to bring an above-average experience to a market that, by definition, isn't interested in it. Bargain hunters make crappy customers. Especially when it comes to computers, because computers are two-faced: on the one hand, it's very easy to quantify computers, because just about every aspect of them can be measured and compared. But there's much more to a computer than the parts you can measure. Build quality can't really be quantified in a way which can be easily conveyed to consumers. Thanks to the new aluminum unibody, Apple is very far out in front of the competition on that front. There's also a lot of effort that goes into designing a computer — which isn't just about making it look sexy! Size, weight, internal layout, the physics behind the cooling systems, and other things I'm sure I'm forgetting are all very important and practical considerations that go into designing a computer, that affect the final product in ways which can't always be quantified.

Now, obviously Mac OS X is a much more important differentiating factor than good hardware design. But the difference between Windows and OS X is similar to the difference between a Dell and a Mac, just a lot more pronounced. Many things about Mac OS X that I love and couldn't live without, just don't matter to most computer users. This isn't a function of me being smarter than 90% of computer users, I just have a different set of priorities. And contrary to popular belief, Windows is completely workable as long as you don't stray far from basic functionality, which most people don't.

Mac OS X is more than the sum of its parts. While many of the Macs advantages are very tangible — complete lack of malware, for instance — most are not. Many things that make Mac OS X "better" are very nuanced and subtle. Many of these nuances and subtleties rely on the symbiotic relationship between Apple hardware and software which is all too frequently understated. But all these parts — small and large — mesh together to make a very well-oiled machine which no other OS can match when it comes to desktop computing, topped off with an unmatched level of polish and attention to detail.

Unfortunately, once you cross that thousand-dollar-mark, the target market begins to cares less and less about quality, and more about what's merely adequate. Can you blame them? Does it really make sense to spend $1199 on an iMac if you use your computer for an hour a day to check your email, Google a few things, write a letter and maybe track your budget in a spreadsheet? The physical size of the mini highlights it's paradoxical nature. Aside from initial amazement ("they fit a whole computer in there?"), does it really matter that the mini is 6.5x2x6.5? If Apple was serious about breaking into the bargain computer market, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to design a computer that had three or four times the internal volume so Apple could use off-the-shell desktop parts to make it?

This line of thought leaves us with an even bigger problem, however. It would place Apple in very direct competition with Dell and HP — companies committed to cutting costs above all else. That's not Apple. It never has been Apple, and I hope to god it never is. Apple would find it very difficult (if not impossible) to compete on this level and still maintain the essence of Apple. So we're back where we started: Apple should stick to their guns and differentiate from the "me too" PC market with good design and good software.

So where does that leave Apple? It leaves them trying to sell a computer to people who aren't interested in what differentiates it from the competition. In fact, some of the mini's advantages come at the expense of factors which would make it more appealing to its theoretical target market. But they can't make it cheaper or more generic because it pushes them further and further into Dell's territory where they have no desire — or even ability — to compete. I see no reason for Apple to stick to anything but the "luxury" market.

[thegeriatric]

Personally i love my Mac mini. I do not want an iMac. I want to be able to choose my own display. I hate all in one devices, in most cases anyway.

I am quite happy to pay a premium for Apple products, Bearing in mind the quality, superb OS etc.

Update the Mac mini, or give us a new design. I'd buy it, surely there must be others like me?
It can't be such a poor move can it? After all the PC mob copied the design, that tells you there must be something in it. Doesn't it?

Mind you maybe my opening statement says it all. Personally?

[Chinney]

Great post, Kraetos. I generally agree with what you suggest, except...

Originally Posted by Kraetos [...] I see no reason for Apple to stick to anything but the "luxury" market.

...if that is the case, then let's bring on a luxury Mini....say....a Cube.

[thegeriatric]

Originally Posted by Chinney except... ...if that is the case, then let's bring on a luxury Mini....say....a Cube.

Exactly. Long overdue.

[psmith2.0]

They could do it again, and do it right this time...the processors are faster, smaller and cooler, the graphics are there, etc. They could do the aluminum thing (no acrylic/silver plastic) and it would probably be pretty nice.

I'm so curious now what they're going to do...

[rasmits]

Apple will kill the Mini citing lack of consumer interest as the reason.

I can see Jobs saying, "Consumers clearly prefer notebooks and our sales of the Mac Mini have reflected that."

Never mind the fact that it's an overpriced, underpowered joke. The Mini has had it wrong all along.

[psmith2.0]

They never really gave it a chance, especially in the past year or so. A shame, huh? It could've been quite a thing (still might, but I can easily imagine Steve saying what you just pointed out).

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Chinney ...if that is the case, then let's bring on a luxury Mini....say....a Cube.

The mini doesn't stack up because of external competition. The kind of customers that the mini is meant to attract, aren't attracted to the mini because there are (arguably) better options from other manufacturers out there.

Cube failed because of competition from Apple's own products. You could get a more capable, more reliable, and better built Power Mac for only a little more a Cube.

But the Cube's terrible build quality didn't help either.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Kraetos The mini doesn't stack up because of external competition. The kind of customers that the mini is meant to attract, aren't attracted to the mini because there are (arguably) better options from other manufacturers out there. Cube failed because of competition from Apple's own products. You could get a more capable, more reliable, and better built Power Mac for only a little more a Cube. But the Cube's terrible build quality didn't help either.

Yes, but that was then. As 'scates suggests, this time they could do it right. As has been argued here for some time (forever, it seems), Apple's line-up could use a headless option at the consumer level. If the Mini does not fit the bill, then let's get on to something new.

Incidentally, as an owner of a Mini, I do not understand the degree of dislike of it expressed by some posts on this thread. For me, it has been a quiet, reliable, adequately fast (for e-mail, Internet and word processing and a bit of photo work) and perfectly-sized second computer for the small space I have available for it. Sure it could use an update, if not an substantial upgrade, but the basic idea remains a very good one in my opinion.

[psmith2.0]

Nobody hates the mini, Chinney. But even an owner of one can't defend/explain how it has sat untouched for 14 months, while everything else - the MacBooks and iMac - has received one and two updates respectively in that same time period (and in the MacBook's case, two leaps in graphics card: 950 -> X3100 -> nVidia).



It's a fine machine, but Apple, through neglect or indifference, has just let it sit there. Any "lackluster sales" the mini is chalking up in the past 6-12 months is kinda on them. I don't blame anyone for not buying a computer that hasn't been updated that long (or one that Apple doesn't even seem to acknowledge, other than taking up space on their website).

But I'm not bagging on the mini in and of itself - nobody is - but, rather, Apple's treatment of the thing.

I love the idea of it and what it represents, as well as its potential! I'm convinced it would be a very popular model, simply updated with some current specs (and not treated like an afterthought, or a test product they forgot to remove from the site).

I don't think anyone here is expecting (or demanding) an iMac or Mac Pro-level powerhouse. But come on...the things we're asking for are not outrageous or impossible.



I don't want to see it go. I just want to see it given a bit of attention and be a good seller because not everyone can shell out $1,200 or more to get a Mac. The mini certainly has its place, but it needs to be somewhat current and "of this moment"; otherwise who'll bother?

[Robo]

Kraetos, I agree with your post, except for when you talk about "bargain hunters." The Mac mini, at $599, is not a bargain computer. Even at $499, it wouldn't be a bargain computer. A bargain computer is the $299 eMachines I just saw at Wal-Mart, or the $399 model with the 17" LCD. There's a difference between "low-end" and "bargain." Apple may be the BMW of computers, but BMW still has a car for under $20k - a Mini of their own.

Even if it's not for the bargain hunters, I think it's important to have a Mac for under $1,000. Under $500, if possible.

I think there'd be a market for the Mac mini if Apple just gave it the attention it deserved. When it first came out, at $499/$599, it worked. For $599/$799, it just doesn't, at least not with its current specs. Either up the specs to match the price, or drop the price to match the specs.

But yeah, Apple will probably just kill it. Jobs seemed to hate the mini from the very start.

[Capella]

If the mini only got a SuperDrive everywhere and the new MB graphics, I'd buy one that day, darnit! As pscates and others have been saying, it's a gorgeous little guy- it just need more modern specs. I could get a Dell tower that does what I need for $399, but I'd happily pay $599 for a mini if it only had the two things I mentioned above. It'd take up a lot less space in my dorm!

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Capella If the mini only got a SuperDrive everywhere and the new MB graphics, I'd buy one that day, darnit! As pscates and others have been saying, it's a gorgeous little guy- it just need more modern specs. I could get a Dell tower that does what I need for $399, but I'd happily pay $599 for a mini if it only had the two things I mentioned above. It'd take up a lot less space in my dorm!

Totally.

I'm not saying the Mac mini has to match all those generic desktops for specs - there will always be an Apple tax, and it's worth it, for OS X and iLife, not to mention the cuter hardware <3 - but even completely ignoring PCs...it looks like a horrible deal from within Apple's ecosystem. That's why it's a problem.

I mean, it's not like the iMac has better bang-for-buck than a big generic plastic PC, either. But it's not a bad deal "for a Mac."

The Mac mini, however, is a bad deal, even "for a Mac."

If Apple would just give it a little attention - it doesn't even need Pscates's redesign, as hot as that is - it would be a viable option again, and it would find an audience again.

Apple finally got over that maddening $1,099 hurdle with the MacBook, and priced it at $999 (with a SuperDrive, no less). If they'd just do the same to the Mac mini - get it to $499, and stop using SuperDrives as an excuse to charge people an extra $200 damn dollars like this is 2001 - it would instantly be a much more viable machine, even if they didn't touch anything else (although I hope they would). Apple could even keep on selling their keyboard and mouse separately, because I'm sure they make megabucks on that.

OR, if Apple doesn't want to sell the Mac mini for $499, that's okay. But it needs specs that match its $600-800 pricetag, then. Nvidia graphics. DisplayPort. 2 GB RAM. Hard drives that are larger than iPods. The processor can stay the same - nobody is complaining about that - and the look can stay the same (for now), except for another re-arrangement of ports in the back - but Apple essentially took the pricing upmarket without ever taking the Mac mini upmarket.

Still, Apple is so close to that $499 pricetag that I kind of hope they get there, just so they can say "Give the gift of Mac. The world's best computers start at just $499." or whatever it is they'll throw up on their homepage next month. And there's no law that says they can't do both. Why shouldn't there be a $499 Mac mini and an $899 one? It's not like there's any other Macs in that price range Apple would be stealing sales from.