“When it comes to the Mac mini, there are people out there who know everything there is to know… and now, those savvy sources are telling TUAW that they are confident a new Mac mini is set to be announced at Macworld Expo 2009 next week,” Steven Sande reports for TUAW.
“While many details are still vague — we still have no idea if the dimensions of the new mini are at all different from the existing model — some details are starting to emerge,” Sande reports.
Details such as an optional second internal hard drive in place of a SATA optical drive and the new mini’s case will be composed of “black plastic and aluminum,” Sande reports.
More in the full article here.
Maybe this is another reason why Jobs won’t be there…doesn’t he hate the mini? This way he doesn’t have to personally showcase it or even talk about it.
Ryan
nerdhook.com
Sounds good I was thinking of replacing my old imac G5 with a new imac. I have since been thinking how nice it would be to have a larger screen.
So what you think of a new mac mini with a 32 or 37 HDTV? Good combo or what?
But, Ryan, if Steve jobs is the ubermensch of Apple, Inc., and if only he can lead the company to its promised Olympian heights, how is it that the Mini exists at all? Shouldn’t it have been squashed immediately following its initial release, much like the Newton and eMate, if His Steveness hates it?
Or . . . could it be that others in his company actually have a voice in Apple’s direction, focus, marketing, and product development? And if so, why is everyone so damned terrified that he might someday pass the torch to one or more of those aforementioned “others”?
Just musing . . . .
i want a mac mini with the 24″ LED display from apple! cant wait
@Randian,
I made my comment (mostly) in jest; I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I do think in Jobs’ perfect world, the mini wouldn’t exist at all.
Ryan
nerdhook.com
Ed: I have my current core duo mac mini plugged into a 37″ HDTV and it has worked out quite nicely. Quite flexible.
The only thing to remember is that a 37″ HDTV will have nothing like the resolution of even a 30″ Apple display.
Even a 1280p HDTV will have maximum resolution of 1920×1800, while the Apple 30″ display is 2560 x 1600.
If you are going to use a mac mini + HDTV setup in lieu of an AppleTV it works out quite nicely. If you are planning to use the HDTV in lieu of a large, high resolution LCD monitor then be prepared to buy a lot of Excedrin with your HDTV.
I just saw a Compaq at Wallmart for $398 with LCD monitor in the box. I know about Apple’s higher quality standards, but I don’t see why $499 can’t buy you a complete Mac system with monitor. Is microsoft paying Compaq to include Vista or something?
Ed, you can get some pretty good monitors with FullHD resolution (1920×1080) or greater (1920×1200) for a good price.
In fact, I just bought 2 ViewSonics. A 26″ (1920×1200) Pro model VP2650wb ($565 Amazon) and a 22″ VX2260wm (DVI, VGA and HDMI) for $270 (OfficeDepot before $40 rebate). They’re both quite nice… I use them for VectorWorks CAD & 3D work… but the speakers in the 22″ are pure crap, my MacBook Pro speakers are MUCH better… seriously! Yeah, both have MATTE screens!
Samsung makes good 24″ and 26″ models (1920×1200), too.
As for the mini, now that I have a Sony Blu-ray player (thanks santa!) I want to add a mini to my HDTV setup for Netflix and viewing photos.
I hope that update or not, the Mini’s price will be lowered, perhaps to a $399 or $449 model, and a $599 and $649 model. I think that regardless of higher quality, etc. consumers are too hesitant right now to buy a computer for $600 that does not even come with a monitor.
While it’s something to say that people know they are buying a better machine with the Mini, the Mini is clearly marketed towards the resource-limited or non-tech-interested buyer. I think that a much lower pricepoint is necessary to entice them, because with the added expense of a monitor, mouse, etc. the purchase will still easily total $600-800. (assuming they are not buying an apple Cinema screen) I just think in this economy no one is going to buy a $600 computer without a monitor.
Anthony says “non-tech-interested buyer”.
Pffft, if these come with space for a second HD, I’m buying two, one to replace our web server and the other as a dedicated e-commerce server.
Sadly I fear nothing new announced and thus another unnecessary stock price hit 🙁
I have 2 friends that have Mac minis attached to their HDTVs. One of whom uses it as his only computer. If not for the lack of Blu-Ray, the new one would make the ideal home theater setup.
The Mac Mini is the most unique product in Apple’s lineup. It also has the broadest range of applications.
An MacMini connected to an HDTV could work as a media server for both iTunes content and services such as Netflix.
Apple need a compelling reason for people to buy into their video related products. The iPhone and iPod products use the popularity of the music and phone services to sell. The AppleTV doesn’t have that advantage.
Netflix has a credible service. I just bought a BluRay player that has Netflix built in. I can get content on demand with my regular subscription.
The AppleTV is limited to iTunes. The iPod was successful because it did not rely on Apple supplied music. Apple needs to make the AppleTV or MacMini to use any video service if they want to make it successful.
Did you notice that apple cinema display contrast ratio is only 700:1
Sounds low. most hdtv are much higher
@Algr
The problem is that the Mac Mini is so small and therefore uses laptop components that work out more expensive than what you’d normally get in a desktop computer.
@Al
I understand that, but why do it? I’ve seen PC mini towers that achieve a nice “Cuteness” without resorting to laptop components.
Why not a thick 17″ iMac with plain DVD burner in the base?
Mini Xserve!!!
OpJ: The only thing to remember is that a 37″ HDTV will have nothing like the resolution of even a 30″ Apple display.
The new mini should get the new Nvidia GPU; With that, even the mini will be able to drive 30″ resolutions.
Algr: I just saw a Compaq at Wallmart for $398 with LCD monitor in the box. I know about Apple’s higher quality standards, but I don’t see why $499 can’t buy you a complete Mac system with monitor. Is microsoft paying Compaq to include Vista or something?
Almost. A significant part of such dumping prices is in the preinstalled “crapware” which comes with such machines and whose producers pay for the preinstallation.
Another aspect is that such extremely cheap machines not just eat up your time which you could use for better things, they usually also consume a lot more energy than a Mac mini.
What you’re “saving” at the counter on the initial purchase you’ll keep paying as long as that piece of crap will live and probably more, both through investing your time for Windows and hardware maintenance and debugging and not least through your electric bill.
Being penny wise but dollar foolish, as the saying goes…!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
OpJ: The only thing to remember is that a 37″ HDTV will have nothing like the resolution of even a 30″ Apple display.
Ping: The new mini should get the new Nvidia GPU; With that, even the mini will be able to drive 30″ resolutions.
Obviously, pingbat, which is why you don’t want to use it as a desktop machine plugged into an HDTV that is larger than a 30″ monitor but has the resolution of a 17″ screen. Great media setup, but if you spend a significant amount of time trying to do work on a setup like that your eyes will be in pain. I have a mini plugged into my HDTV, but I do work on an iMac.
You question, “if Steve jobs is the ubermensch of Apple, Inc., and if only he can lead the company to its promised Olympian heights, how is it that the Mini exists at all? Shouldn’t it have been squashed immediately following its initial release, much like the Newton and eMate, if His Steveness hates it?” suggests deep philosophical shortcomings (or, perhaps only philological misunderstanding?).
Why wouldn’t an/the “Übermensch” allow the Mini to “exist at all”? Why would “His Steveness”, the SuperSteve, want to end the Mini? Because it is, “not as good” as the Mac Pro, etc.? Because the SuperSteve would want EVERYONE to have an Über-Mac? Is it because such a Superman believes that we all have equal needs, because we are all equal men?
Sounds more like the untermenschen logic of the all-too-common Randian than like our SuperSteve. Better men need and deserve better computers, and the best men need and get Macs- the Mini is simply the first step UP the trail.
You, Ayn, and the rest of the Rand-tards need to read/reread On the Genealogy of Morals. Do it- you will learn.
@Anti-Rand
You obviously need to re-read Ayn Rand if you believe Objectivism/ Objectivists is a kind of inferior watered-down Nietzschesan philosophy. Objectivism is about fully using reason to understand reality so that you may achieve your values through your own efforts. It is not about gaining values through the exploitation of others (as a Nietzschesan Superman would do). As such it represents not a weaker version of his ideas but an outright rejection of his ideas.
“Is it because such a Superman believes that we all have equal needs, because we are all equal men? Sounds more like the untermenschen logic of the all-too-common Randian than like our SuperSteve”
There is so much wrong with those two statements that I find it hard not to laugh. No Objectivist believes in the kind of egalitarianism implied by that statement. All men/women have different values and different goals in life. For our purposes here, this means that no two people are going to have the same exact needs when it comes to computers. In order to make an objective decision you have to consider the facts that are relevant in a person’s situation. I’m sure Steve Jobs himself would tell you that not every customer of his would be best served by getting a tricked out Mac Pro with dual 30 in Cinema Displays, 32 GB ram, and four internal 1TB hard drives. In other words, objectivity requires context.
As for Steve himself, he is not some megalomaniacal Ubermensch that must dominate. He is simply a great entrepreneur whose integrity, rationality, and independence allows him to focus his employees on producing brilliant work. Philosophically he is a mixed case as he believes in a kind of secular humanistic approach to philosophy mixed with Bhuddist elements. He is closer to being Howard Roark than an Ubermensch.
As for the book mentioned (On the Genealogy of Morals) much of that work is comprised of attempts to deal with false dichotomies that Rand’s philosophy cuts through with greater effect as such subjects are tackled at a metaphysical/epistemological level rather than historical/psychological level. Read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff for a systematic presentation of her ideas.
Adam
http://www.adambuker.com
MDN word: waiting
yeah , whatever
i reckon we’ll see an apple tv morph into the mac mini and vice versa
lots of peeps are buying mac minis and elgato gear and bypassing the apple tv all together
apple should buy elgato , stick apple tv sw and eye tv onto every mac and make the new mac mini the ultimate small multimedia combo
i bet sony and ms will be worried as theyre touting the 360 and ps3 as their versions of the apple itunes thang
flappo, Elgato is just a software company. Their EyeTV hardware is actually Hauppage.
To Adam:
I apologize for allowing myself to be so easily misunderstood. I didn’t intend that Rand, her supplicants, nor her Objectivism be considered a, “watered-down Nietzschean philosophy”- I would never give her, them, or it that much credit- He’s in a better class.
You are right in implying that my knowledge of Rand/Objectivism is dated and/or limited. It has been nearly two decades since I read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but I have to say that I was bothered by her epistemology back then, before I’d ever even gone off to college, taken courses in philosophy, and determined what that term even means. (Of no importance, I noticed a common affection/appreciation for Rand in the 100 level courses of philosophy I’ve taken and taught, but none in the students or professors in the upper division, save in the department of economics. Such is life.)
My point, and I do have one, is that I never bought (and, perhaps, I merely never understood, feel free to explain it to me) her attempt to move past Humean and/or logical-positivist skepticism. Her assertion of a metaphysically minimalist Absolute- my terms- what the hell did she call it?, the basis of her Axiom’s?- It seemed philosophically/epistemologically equivalent to other people’s faith (I am suggesting this- I know that she would say that the exact opposite is true.) There seems to be, to my mind, “No There, there, in her there.” In British politics her kind of assertion used to be called a “TINA”- “There Is No Alternative”; I believe we have the false assertion of the existence of a TINA, however pretty TINA might be . . .
One final aside, I was not personally asserting that Steve was a, “megalomaniacal Übermensch that must dominate”; I admire Steve a great deal, and I was making a joke based on what I believed to be “Randian”‘s response to a previous post. I believe Steve is a GREAT guy, in a variety of senses (including the common sense) of the term.
Anyway, got to go, and I apologize for my rush. I HONESTLY appreciate your detailed response and I wish I had more time to reply to all of your points (You deserve better). I can see that we disagree about Objectivism and the value of Nietzschean/Post-Nietzschean revaluations, which likely matters to none but us- or maybe only to me- but I will check out your website sometime soon, and e-mail you thereafter. Take care.