Mac mini and iMac 17" to be discontinued?

Sad Professor

So says (the usually reliable) AppleInsider:

Some have gone so far as to call the mini Apple's bastard child; the neglected Mac that never was. At the same time, the history behind its creation and the reasons for its seeming abandonment are comparatively fuzzy. There is some speculation that Apple conceived the Mac mini under pressure from shareholders who wanted a sub-$800 Mac, but never really saw much in the design itself. It's almost as if the mini stood in direct contrast to Apple's fundamentals from the get-go.
...

But with the advent of Apple TV, Apple seems to have shoved the diminutive device into the far corner of what had already been a niche audience.

Therefore, it comes as little surprise that sources, for whom AppleInsider holds the utmost respect, are now pointing towards the mini's impending demise. For it's according to those people that the miniature Mac will soon follow in the wake of its similarly-proportioned counterparts of years past: the PowerBook 2400, the PowerMac G4 Cube, and, most recently, the 12-inch PowerBook.

Whether Apple will squeeze another revision from the mini, and how long it plans to allow existing models to linger, are both unclear. But as the extended Memorial Day break dawns upon us, the point being driven should be clear:

Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead.

Full article: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/24/closing_the_book_on_apples_mac_mini.html

And the from ThinkSecret about the iMac 17" (though this was originally reported by AI back in March):

Apple's pending iMac update will spell the end of the day for the 17-inch iMac, the most affordable computer in the line. The refreshed iMac, currently on track to arrive by the end of June according to sources, will feature just 20- and 24-inch models.

Source: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0705imac.html

What does everyone think of this?

triple h

Well, When i set out to a but an apple computer (for the very first time in my life) last december, i looked at the my options and this is what i was thinking at the time----

1)--why would anyone buy a mac mini, i won't even read about this option.---- Although i have read articles since and anyone that seems to have a mac mini loves it and are most likely to vote it their favourite apple computer ( and these people would have a few computers.)

2)--Laptops or book tops whatever you call them

---

i want a desk top, so i did not look into this option.

3)--The mac pro----i would love that computer, but........

4) the imac, my best option---I did want to buy the 20" i was so close to getting it, but most people i talked to said 17" was big enough for anyone and as you said professor, it is the most affordable computer in the line.

In a way, i am not surprised to see these two computers go.

heggie

i'm more surprised about the 17" imac. Once again, apple are going to be a considerably more expensive option that a pc system, unless they bring out a basic notebook or something.

K.O.Kiki

heggie wrote:

i'm more surprised about the 17" imac. Once again, apple are going to be a considerably more expensive option that a pc system, unless they bring out a basic notebook or something.

Or they could bring down the price.
Don't spread FUD!

Also, they have a basic notebook. It's called the Macbook

Oriel

The 17" iMac was one of their best selling machines. I could understand it if they offered a 20" for the same price.

heggie

dont get me wrong, I use macs all the time, for a basic user looking for a computer, price would be an issue (im not ever saying they're bad value) but when someone who knows nothing can get a dell laptop for 400 euro, apple can't compete. The macbook is not as basic as pc counterparts, its actually been upgraded to quite a powerful machine now.

Diarmuid

heggie wrote:

but when someone who knows nothing can get a dell laptop for 400 euro, apple can't compete.

Do they really want to compete with Dell?
Dell's profit margin is 5.1% and Apple's 12.9%. Apple's earnings and revenues are growing, Dell's shrinking. If I was going to copy one of those companies business model, I know which one it would be.

jester77

I really hope they don't ditch the mini or if they do have something similar to replace it with. I'm waiting on the new OS to be released and I was going to get a mini to replace my MCE PC which is just too buggy. The apple TV is not adequate for what I want and the mini with HDMI and an MCE style app (something like centerstage) would be a winner! Really hope there's no truth behind this

faceman

If it wasnt for the 17" i wouldnt have coverted to mac because of the price. Now that i have am mac converted i know that the 20" would have been the best option. But hindsight is a great thing.

If apple want more new business (from non mac users), upping the price isnt goin to help and could alienate apple imo

Diarmuid

I doubt very much that they will change their price points. They might discontinue one model but another similar one will replace it at the same price (IMHO)

Sad Professor

Whatever about the mini but I think discontinuing the 17" iMac is stupid. I can understand people involved in design, photography or video editing may need the larger screen but imo the 17" widescreen display is plenty for most people. I stream video to my xbox so I've no need for my iMac to double as a television. If it weren't for ridiculously over-priced and inadequate media centres would anyone really want to watch video/divx files on their computer?

If this is true, then as usual Apple is unnecessarily placing it's products outside the price-range of most people so they can be the Rolls Royce of the computer world. But with the company turning more and more in the direction of ipods and phones (where they make most of their profit), I'm starting to worry about the future of the mac.

Diarmuid

Sad Professor wrote:

If this is true, then as usual Apple is unnecessarily placing it's products outside the price-range of most people

But in the article you quote indicating the end of the 17inch, they say the following: "...making the cost difference for Apple between a 17-inch display and a 20-inch display almost negligible"

So they are replacing one model with one which has 30% more screen area for almost the same price and you are complaining?

Sad Professor wrote:

I'm starting to worry about the future of the mac.

Considering what Apple went through (and survived) in the 90s and how it is performing now in comparison, I don't think there is a need to worry.

Sad Professor

Diarmuid wrote:

But in the article you quote indicating the end of the 17inch, they say the following: "...making the cost difference for Apple between a 17-inch display and a 20-inch display almost negligible"

So they are replacing one model with one which has 30% more screen area for almost the same price and you are complaining?

Yes, but why don't they continue the 17" at a lower price? They probably save manufacturing costs by keeping the product line simple but it still seems silly to keep macs so expensive when they could easily provide a cheaper model that would attract more users.

Considering what Apple went through (and survived) in the 90s and how it is performing now in comparison, I don't think there is a need to worry.

I know but they were a just a computer company back then. They are no longer dependent on the mac to survive and could easily chuck the whole thing in and focus on making ipods and phones, which is increasingly were their priorities seem to lie imo. This is unlikely to happen while Jobs is at the helm but what about when he's gone? I just think he needs to be ensuring the future of the mac while he can.

Dr_Teeth

The 17" version was a bit of an abberation, it was different from the other iMacs internally - more like a Mac Mini (eg. crap graphics card). The line-up is better off without it tbh, and it's more efficient for Apple to keep the number of different models as low as possible.

Sad Professor

Dr_Teeth wrote:

The 17" version was a bit of an abberation, it was different from the other iMacs internally - more like a Mac Mini (eg. crap graphics card). The line-up is better off without it tbh, and it's more efficient for Apple to keep the number of different models as low as possible.

Actually there are two 17" models and only the first is as you describe. The second has a real graphics card. The first one was intended for schools afaik.

faceman

the second 17" model (the one i have) has the exact same spec as the 20" with the expcetion of the display size obviously

Diarmuid

Sad Professor wrote:

Yes, but why don't they continue the 17" at a lower price? They probably save manufacturing costs by keeping the product line simple but it still seems silly to keep macs so expensive when they could easily provide a cheaper model that would attract more users.

Because it's not their business model. They aren't competing for the 600-800Euro customers, more users does not equal more profitable company.

condra

I think the mac mini is a fantastic little yolk and I am very sad to see it will be discontinued.

K.O.Kiki

You remember this is still a rumour, right? A R-U-M-O-U-R.
Right... *cough*

ZENER

I could understand why the 17" iMac would go. It's as cheap now to make the 20", the panels have come way down in price. The 24" would be my preferred option in the range at the moment. For those who haven't used one it's a sight to behold. Photoshop is stunning on that huge screen. On the 17" it's that little bit less comfortable IMO and the 20" is just right for the beginner. Also consider that the standard monitor for PC nowadays is a 19". I think Dell supply these with all their systems.

As for the Mini, are they nuts ?? this has to be the numero uno choice for a HEPC. I've set a couple of these up for very happy customers who love it's small size, bluetooth and wireless abilities and simple remote controlled Frontrow. The only downside to the Mini is that it has problems picking up certain brands of LCD TVs, i.e. Samsung, and using the full resolution. More an Intel problem than Apple though. If you think of its predecessor -the Cube - it's only in recent times that it's charmes were noticed. Beautiful design and small size, the Mini was the obvious next step.

ZEN

ZENER

ZENER wrote:

The only downside to the Mini is that it has problems picking up certain brands of LCD TVs, i.e. Samsung, and using the full resolution. More an Intel problem than Apple though.

I had a PowerPC mini for a while but I'd never go for the Intel option because of the graphics, I wouldn't touch shared memory graphics solutions with a barge pole and I'm not even a heavy gamer! I've just seen in my many years of working with PCs that UMA will always slow down the machine pretty significantly. And the Intel ones are PCI, not even AGP!

Going back to the mini... I quite liked the one I had, didn't set me back too much and gave me a taster of the alternative (starting to sound like Enda Kenny now ). Oddly enough I've been looking at the 17" iMac (the higher spec one), have no idea what to do now really. Though I could build a better PC for the same money... that's the thing that's got me in limbo.

K.O.Kiki

Karsini wrote:

I had a PowerPC mini for a while but I'd never go for the Intel option because of the graphics, I wouldn't touch shared memory graphics solutions with a barge pole and I'm not even a heavy gamer! I've just seen in my many years of working with PCs that UMA will always slow down the machine pretty significantly. And the Intel ones are PCI, not even AGP!

Going back to the mini... I quite liked the one I had, didn't set me back too much and gave me a taster of the alternative (starting to sound like Enda Kenny now ). Oddly enough I've been looking at the 17" iMac (the higher spec one), have no idea what to do now really. Though I could build a better PC for the same money... that's the thing that's got me in limbo.

Buy one.
You already know the OS; and since you're, by your admittance, "not a heavy gamer" there's no reason to play spec wars & increase your e-penis slightly