I talked earlier this week about how I’d rationalize Apple’s MacBook lineup, so now it’s time to look at the desktop lineup.
I argued on Tuesday that the MacBook range was more complicated than it needs to be, and could be simplified by having a ‘good’ and ‘better’ version of each model, with custom-builds available for those who want ‘best.’ I also suggested that Apple be a little more generous with its specs as part of that simplification process.
Things are a little less clear-cut with desktop Macs, but I still think some cleaning-up of the options would be beneficial …
The desktop range has eleven models:
- Three Mac minis
- Six iMacs (in two sizes and three resolutions)
- Two Mac Pros
Let’s begin with the Mac mini.
The original rationale behind the Mac mini goes back to the days when desktop PCs were the norm, and the average PC owner had their (huge) PC box, then a separate mouse, keyboard and monitor. The thinking was that you could give PC owners a relatively inexpensive way to switch to a Mac by just buying the (very much smaller) box, and continuing to use their existing peripherals.
Desktop PCs comprising separate units are, of course, far less popular today, but they still have their fans, and the reasoning remains valid. Given that the idea is to encourage switching, you want to keep the entry-level Mac mini as affordable as possible – but even here, I don’t see a reason for a spinning metal disk.
Even the entry-level mini should get a fusion drive as a minimum, but better would be to replace the 500GB hard drive with a 256GB SSD and let people attach storage as needed. Storage is cheap now, and unlike a laptop, there’s little inconvenience involved in using external drives, so faster performance trumps greater on-board storage.
There’s a second type of person who opts for a separates-based desktop over a laptop: those who don’t need portability and want to max out on performance. Anyone who wants extreme power will, of course, opt instead for the Mac Pro – but the pricing puts that into serious ‘professional use only’ territory. So here I’d take the same approach as the 12-inch MacBook: a low-cost entry-level machine, and a ‘serious hobbyist’ version, with nothing in between. Retain the custom-build versions for those who want to squeeze in as much power as possible without hitting Mac Pro levels.
Most of those who prefer a desktop to a laptop opt for an all-in-one, which of course is how the Macintosh began its life. Apple currently offers six iMac models in three different resolutions.
The entry-level machine is a 1.6Ghz machine with an HD display, basic graphics card and a 1TB spinning metal disk. Again, I’d swap out the 1TB hard drive for a 256GB SSD as it will provide a far snappier machine, and it’s cheap and easy to add external storage to a desktop machine, whether you want spinning metal or solid-state. As with MacBooks, I’d also argue that hi-res screens have fallen so much in price that Apple could give even the entry-level iMac a Retina screen.
I’d once more lose the in-between machine. Even when a 4K display was new to the range, the top-of-the-range 21.5-inch laptop was only $200 more than the mid-range one, and I suspect that could easily come down to a $100 premium now. Given a choice between non-Retina at $1299 and Retina at $1399, I doubt many would opt for the former.
The 27-inch iMac doesn’t need an entry-level machine: that’s the job done by the smaller model. In any case, there’s really remarkably little difference in spec between the $1799 bottom-end model and the $1999 mid-range one. Same processor, same RAM, same display, marginally better GPU – plus one difference that ought to be significant but really isn’t: the Fusion Drive.
In principle, Fusion Drives are a great idea, creating a hybrid drive with an SSD component to allow the machine to quickly boot up and open apps, and a spinning metal component for file storage, where speed is (for some applications, at least) less critical. You get a lot of storage without the expense of large-capacity SSDs. But there are two problems with this approach.
First, the generic issue with fusion drives. While it’s no problem having small and simple files – most Office or iWork documents – on hard drives, these days a lot of people are working with audio, video and large quantities of photographs. With these files, SSD definitely does make a big difference.
Second, as we’ve mentioned before, Apple made the frankly ridiculous decision to reduce the SSD component of the 1TB fusion drive in the iMac from 128GB right down to a crazy 24GB.
While I’ve generally suggested that Apple should lose hard drives altogether, replacing them with SSDs now that the technology is so much cheaper, really big SSDs are still expensive. There’s no way Apple could offer a 2TB one at any kind of sensible price, and if you’re buying a 27-inch iMac it’s likely that you’re using it for multimedia work, so large on-board storage capacity is the right route to take here – which right now means fusion drives.
But Apple does need to be a lot more generous, so I’d suggest that we need a 256GB element of its 1TB and 2TB fusion drives, and 512GB in the custom-build 3TB model. I’d also like to see it offering more than 1TB all-SSD storage in the custom-build options. Sure, it would be expensive, but I bet some multimedia pros – those who work with large files but can’t justify the significant price premium for the Mac Pro – would go for it.
Which brings us to the monster of the range, the Mac Pro. Clearly the very idea of an entry-level Pro is a silly one, so Apple’s two-model approach seems to makes sense. However, I do wonder whether things could be even simpler here: a standard machine plus custom-build options.
There would seem (with thanks to Mac Pro owner Jordan for his input) to be three types of Mac Pro buyers …
First, those who have absolutely no need of that kind of performance, but have enough money to just automatically buy the best – or enjoy the bragging rights of doing so. Second, those who do need a decent chunk of power, but prefer the customization options you get with keeping the computer separate from the monitor. Third, those who need the most powerful Mac possible.
The first type will either just buy the base model or max out on the custom-build, depending how much money they have and/or who they want to impress. But the second and third are thoughtful buyers. If you’re in that category, you know the specs you want. You know the level of CPU power you need, the GPU performance you want and the amount of RAM that will genuinely speed up your work. In short, you’re going to head straight to the custom-build options anyway.
I get there may be some lazy buyers in the first two categories who will see the second standard option and click that instead, but my aim here is rationalizing the product range for customers rather than maximizing Apple’s upsell opportunities.
All of which would give us the following range, reducing eleven models to seven:
- Entry-level Mac mini
- Serious hobbyist Mac mini
- ‘Good’ 21.5-inch iMac (but better specs)
- ‘Better’ 21.5-inch iMac
- ‘Good’ 27-inch iMac
- Better’ 27-inch iMac (plus extended custom-build options)
- One Mac Pro, with the rest as custom-builds
Where MacBooks were concerned, 80% of you agreed with my suggested lineup, a further 14% of you agreeing that rationalization was needed but with your own ideas about how to do it. Let’s see how things compare on the desktop front – please take our poll, and again share your thoughts in the comments.
Photos: Drive shot iFixit, other shots Apple
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Ben Lovejoy: He’s got opinions.
Ben, how come you’re never on the Happy Hour podcast? These posts would be great discussion fodder.
I tend to find the writing process is what clarifies my opinions – don’t think it would be the same in a live medium.
some have “face for radio” maybe Ben has “voice for articles”?
j/k… lol.. .hehe
Hehe. My voice gets a very occasional outing on 9to5Mac: http://viptest.9to5mac.com/2015/04/24/apple-watch-uk-plug-video/
The high end Mac Mini needs to offer quad core cpu with the 250GB ssd as base and affordable RAM upgrades.
Mac Mini needs to become available with the same specifications as the high-end iMac, minus the built-in monitor (obviously). Apple has crammed a full-fledged gaming GPU into the Mini before, so I don’t see why it’s barely competing with MacBook Air in GPU power these days.
I think that apple will soon abandon the Mac Pro line
too many features lost in el capitan, too many constrains in the mac pro hardware customization
if it wasn’t for the fact that mac pro is the only piece of apple hardware assembled in USA there woulnt even have been a mac pro 2013
I’m gonna be cynical and say if the 2013 Pro was released under Jobs people would be fawning over it still. I’m sure the marketing for it has not been up to par, but the thing really deserves a better shake – by customers and by Apple.
Mac pro is outdated by two generation in CPU’s and 2 Generation in Ram(DDR4-2133<DDR4-2400) 3 generations behind in GPU 2 generations behind in Flash storage(PCie 2.0×4 MLC planar NAND < pcie3.0x4 planar MLC Nand< pcie 3.0X4 3d V-NAND) Connectivity DP 1.3 HDMI 2.0a Thunderbolt 3 USB 3.1 type A and type C
Apple should kill the mid-level machines and make only entry level ones and upgradable pro ones.
Something like the entry Mac Mini and entry iMac could get A series chips or other custom Apple processor and then have a mid tier with i5 Slake chips and pro with i7 or Zeon chips depending on the model.
As things stand now I agree there should only be entry and Pro models with build to order options.
The 1.6 GHz 21″ iMac is still good for education markets, but agree they could all gain retina screens, Look how fast the 27″ 5k went from $2499 to $1799.
All the iMacs should have flash storage and user replaceable ram slots. The 1TB Fusion Drive is a joke. It is crazy they charge a $200 premium better the base and middle 5K model for a 24 GB SSD.
For me I originally planned on getting the base late 2015 5K model with the 1 TB as an option for $1899, but the 24 GB SSD killed that idea, so I look at the mid tier again in has the 24GB SSD for $1999. So, then I look at the 2 GB Fusion Drive mid tier model which is a $200 option making it $2199. So I look at the top tier model with 2 GB Fusion, better processor and better graphics for $2299 and end up going with it spending $400 more then planned, because Apple crippled the ! TB Fusion Drive.
The biggest gripe of the built to order option is the ram. $200 for 16 GB(2 8 GB modules) high but not crazy. 32 GB (4 8 GB modules) $600Apple is charging $150 every module instead $100 here. On Amazon i purchased 2 sets of 16 GB sets for $160.
One thing they need is user accessible Ports and USB-C if they want to keep them behind the chin,
Get rid of the trash can Mac Pro, a sign of Apple’s design Hubris. Make a tower with great specs for pros. Price it accordingly. Imagine a Mac Apro at the $3k price point that spent all it’s money on engineering instead of fancy design that makes it incompatible with many production rooms. Who cares what it weighs?
Pro machines don’t get moved around like the furniture. Build it like the best hackintosh and price it like a mac.
Make 2 iMacs, representing the different sizes and priced accordingly.
Make 2 minis and give them a reason to be bought, not as a compromise, but as Macs whose form factor appeals to a certain market .
finish designing the Macbook as a real sub-notebook with real specs for the price. Get rid of the Macbook Air.
Make MacBook Pros with more video card options.
I think they are waiting for the new video cards coming out the 2nd half of the year.
I say move the MacBook to entry laptop with an education model that runs with an Apple processor and lower the price.
Make 13″ and 15″ Air with i5 and i7 Sylake chips.
Make MacBook Pro’s in 14″ and 16″ with the latest GPUs.
I have to say the old Power Mac G4 and G5 were easy to grab and more with the handles on the top. I was always lugging around my G4 Quicksilver.There was nothing wrong with those designs, besides the idiots they decided liquid cooling them was a good idea.A modern take on the g4 or G5 tower would be leaps and bounds better then the trash can.
“Get rid of the trash can Mac Pro, a sign of Apple’s design Hubris. ”
Well said. It reminds me of the beverage machine in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy that made something that was “almost but not quite exactly not like tea”. The current Mac Pro is almost but not quite exactly not what most pro users I know want. They loved the chassis for the G4 and G5 mac Pro. Lost of drive slots, lots of card slots. Everything customizable. The only limits were if there were Mac drivers for the particular card you wanted to use.
Now the hardware is the limiting factor. And no, having lots of drives setting all over the floor connected by cables is not a good solution.
The’ve already been there with the open-box Mac Pro and guess what? It didn’t sell well. And that’s an understatement. Unit sales for Mac Pro tower models could be counted in the thousands while every single other machine was counted in the millions. And I don’t mean hundreds of thousands either. I mean under 10 thousand.
The spinning drive are so awful on the new machines, it makes the experience so much worse when compared to the SSD counterparts. You would think experience would be a top priority for Apple products. Someone made the mistake of ordering new iMacs at our school with spinning 1TBs, and they are so slow that I can’t tell the difference between a new out the box, and ones we have from 2008.
Amen. I have bought TWO new Macs in past year or so, and the spinning drive CRIPPLES THEM. UN-USE-ABLE. period.
I put SSDs in them, and daaaaaaaaaaaang!
Unusable – hardly. Slower maybe, but your First World Problem is showing.
Overall great concepts here – but I feel like one point that is missing and key is this – bring back the magnetic opening of the front of the case on iMacs. Then if you feel you got stingy hardware and have the means later you can upgrade. Have Apple sell the parts in OEM packaging at a REASONABLE price even if with a mark-up and maintain warranty status if done properly. Seriously though – these days, a 512GB Samsung EVO 850 – the pack leader of SSD performance on SATA is $210. A 1TB version is around $400 – Apple’s upcharge for SSD at 1TB from 2TB Fusion is $630. Which means they are charging roughly double, factoring in the removal of the Fusion Drive itself.
The fact that if I want to upgrade anything in these machines beyond RAM requires cutting open sticky tape and then re-sticking it all together on a $3,000 computer makes me queasy. The older iMac design was great – get some suction cups, open the scren et voila, the whole machine there for hobbyists to jump into.
I know Apple loathes to have people inside their machines, but people will be people. Those who do not ever want to do that, never will. Those that do will find a way (I’m looking at you ifixit.com :)…
In fact, I may argue that the thoughts above should be combined thusly…
Create a set of proper displays with all the ports and an umbilical connector. do a 20, 24, 27, 30 all in retina resolutions. Then all desktop macs will either be PRO or Mini. The Mini will take the place of the guts of an iMac and the Pro will grow further. Sort of what Razr did with the Blade and Core but for the office/desktop.
Sadly, much as I’ve always been an upgrader myself, we’re very much in the minority these days. Apple would rather sell a 1mm thinner device than an easily-opened one.
I miss pulling the handle on my quicksilver Power Mac G4.Open the handle it all hinges down and its simply to replace anything.
When the 5k iMacs stated at $2499 it was very off putting that the only thing you could swap was the ram. It still sucks, but is not as bad with the lower prices It still would be great if the back could henge open after you remove the stand so we could replace the Hard Drive, graphics card and ram.
I have an old 2010 Server edition Mini that I wanted to put an SSD in. Funny thing is that Apple had to replace the original drive in it a few years ago and broke a board/connector.
When I researched the SSD swap process on YouTube I started breaking out in a nervous sweat and sent it in to Other World Computing. They did a great job. While I love the Mini’s I won’t ever open one up.
On principle, I agree with what you’re saying here, but I think there’s an element to the Apple shopping experience we’re missing.
There’s a reason Amazon implemented the “Buy with 1-Click” option. It’s for impulsive buyers who don’t want to sit there and deliberate whether they “should or shouldn’t” buy. That issue becomes a bigger problem when you’re talking about technology, and even BIGGER when you’re talking about premium technology.
From a technical perspective, we could simplify this all by offering the base-line model and just allowing users to customize it to their liking. But not everyone will want to do that. Not everyone knows how much RAM is “good”, or how how much a terabyte is.
The Mac Pro might be the only exception because, as you said, if you’re entering Mac Pro territory, you’ve got money to burn.
But it’s difficult for the average consumer, especially one who is migrating from the Windows PC/Chromebook realm, to simply glance at an Apple product and know what they want. By offering the extra “in-the-middle” option, Apple is catering to the impulse buyer who knows that bigger numbers means better.
Apple is a trend right now, and people will want in on the trend. But for those who have a hard time diving in at pre-determined prices, or aren’t knowledgeable enough to customize their purchase, having more “standard” models allows Apple to offer clear tiers for every budget, saving the user time and research. I’d like to see how many purchases Apple gets from their “middle tiers”.
I agree with the point you make here about non-tech buyers, and I’m sure Apple’s range is carefully calculated from a business perspective, where buyer confusion can be a source of profit. I’m unashamedly looking at this purely from the consumer perspective.
i would love bare bone mac pro that i can build myself
I agree that the desktop lineup needs adjustments but I’m not sure the proposed lineup is correct.
On the subject of two varieties of each model versus three… the main reason for three models is the Goldilocks choice. Most people will go for the middle choice as it seems like a safe bet between cost and performance. And in most cases, this turns out to be true. It’s mostly an emotional decision, but having three choices gives people reassurance, which helps encourage them to actually make the purchase.
As for the Mac Pro… it’s not really a professional machine, except for the narrow speciality of Final Cut Pro workstation. For the rest of the professional users and advanced amateurs who want a pro machine… Sometimes you need a scooter, sometimes a sedan, and sometimes you need a truck. The current Mac Pro is not a truck. It’s a Porche with a trailer hitch.
But I do agree that Apple should stop selling non-Retina iMacs.
You’re better off buying a 10K Hackintosh than the 10k mac pro
I would rather buy the Mac pro then deal with hackentosh.
I think Apple’s long-term goal is to simplify their “truck” line-up to MacBooks, iMacs, and Macs. They will get rid of the Macbook Airs, and the Macbook Pros, and have 12″ and 15″ MacBooks that are customizable from low-end to high-end. They will get rid of the Mac Mini and have a low-end, or entry-level, Mac Pro, and they will drop the “Pro” moniker. They will keep the iMac line-up as is.
3 things to mention.
1. The entry level 21 inch iMac is purposely underpowered and purposely has a spinning drive. It was added to the lineup late in the game and specifically targeted at school labs. I am in charge of tech at a school and still wont buy that model but can understand what $200-$300 in savings can do when you are bulk ordering Lab machines that you dont need highly specced. This also answers why external storage is an issue here because anything external will get destroyed by students over time.
2. I believe the Mac Pro is already one machine. When we bought ours we kept playing with customizing the base model vs buying the higher model and kept finding it to be exactly the same. I think the higher model is just a shortcut to Apple reconfiguring a few specs for people. Doesnt really bother me either way.
3. The other main reason people get a Mac Mini is as a server or Media device. Every school (and likely business( that runs anything Apple has a few of these. It does not make sense to have to plug in an external drive for this purpose. It would be a mess. The HD storage is relevant here.
Yes, I can understand having an education model, but don’t think consumers need to see that. As for servers, I’m not sure external storage is an issue there. I have a Time Capsule with a couple of drives plugged into it, all tucked away out of sight. Whether it’s one box or two/three doesn’t make much difference for something you never need to see, I think.
@Ben Lovejoy:
It will be quite tough for Apple to put a 4K display into an entry-level iMac of $1099… It’s not just the display that costs more, but you’ll need a lot more power than a mobile chip with only two cores and subsequently low-end graphics. (Intel HD6000 vs HD6200)
4K is just not yet mainstream because the hardware to power it is still too expensive for entry-level machines.
The 12-inch MacBook has a Retina screen with a mobile processor, so I don’t think it would require a major increase in component cost.
Well, as the 12″ MacBooks main selling point you can make some compromises to make it last longer on the battery and more compact/lightweight. In that way you can accept that it can’t do graphically more heavy tasks. An iMac is a machine that should be quite a bit more productive as a main computer… In that way you can’t compare.
Also, a 4K iMac has a resolution of 4096×2304 = 9.437.184 pixels.
12″ MacBook? 3.317.760 pixels, so almost three times less. Also imcomparable.
There’s no way they’ll put a comparable chip inside an entry-level 4K iMac. The graphics need to be quite a lot faster, so the price will go up.
Ben, again you’re spot on. As a minimalist, I do think there might be an opportunity to find a sweet spot iMac with a 24″ display in smaller body (less bezel) to replace both, provided it comes at optimal resolution. I’d really like to see just three lines, consisting of 5 products. But I realise this may not suit everyone.
To go against the bulk of the comments, I think you’re being a little too conservative. I would get rid of the high end 21.5 and the low end 27. The custom builds can fill in that territory. That would put it down to 5 options. I’m still not sure about the high end mini. I’m thinking that could be a custom build option too.
Ideally, 4 options would be the best. I think that would suit at least 95% of people, and the other 5% can do the custom thing.
Neat ideas. However, I suggest two slight modifications:
1. Just one Mac Mini but with optimization choices;
2. And two Mac Pros; one as described, the other to fit the performance hole between the MINI and the “superPro’.”
Also, provide Apple hardware for those of us who have a huge pile of DVD and BluRay discs and no time, energy or inclination to do ripping.
Apple have a simple well structured line up that is far easier to understand than any other manufacturer. Certainly they could be more generous with memory prices / storage (iPad/iPhone!) & fusion or hybrid drives should be standard. There is no need for more than 16-32GB of SSD cache as 99% of people’s workflows easily fit into that data set. Seagate do hybrid drives with 8GB which speeds things up nicely.
My lineup:
Entry level:
Mac Mini
iMac 21″
iMac 27″
Pro (with higher Specs):
Mac Mini
iMac 21″
iMac 27″
iMac with Ultrawidescreen
MacPro (Entry Level)
MacPro
Displays:
3 new Displays 21″, 27″ and Ultrawidescreen
Every Mac should be with custom-build options for those who need / want more power.
Why an Ultrawidescreen iMac or Display? It’s fantastic to work on a Ultrawidescreen display. A totally new dimension.
There are so many people out there who are working with two 27″ displays. Why not one great iMac / display with a giant Ultrawidescreen without this “border” in the middle?
Heh, I hate to think what a 54-inch Apple display would cost, but it certainly would be a thing of beauty!
The sad thing is that the choices available among current Macs to drive today’s high-end monitors are lacking. Only some Mac Pros do it well, and they haven’t been updated in over two years. I’m really hoping the next Mac mini refresh will improve significantly in this area.
Are you going to take on the iPhone and iPad next?
I would have done the iPad before the latest update, but I think the line-up now makes sense, with low-end and high-end in two of the sizes, and the 32GB WiFi model effectively the low-end option in the daddy size. Phones make sense too, though I’d ideally like to see a 128GB SE.
I think they need to straighten out the naming and release schedule on the iPhone. They should release three phones at once with the same naming convention. So in September, we would get simultaneous releases of the iPhone 7, iPhone 7 plus, and iPhone 7… mini? SE? Smaller Edition?
The iPad also needs some clarification. Is the iPad Air 2 still an active member of the iPad Air line? Will there be an iPad Air 3? Or is the iPad Air 2 now considered an old model that they will keep around for another two years, and the iPad Pro 9.7 is a replacement?
Both lines are in a weird place right now. There’s been a release pattern from the beginning of each product line, and that’s now in flux.
My theory on the SE is nothing with the iPhone 7 launch, then a refresh alongside the 7s to bring the timings in line. At that point, yeah, iPhone 7se, maybe. On the iPad side, I think things make sense today, but it does depend what happens next time around.
Dude, it’s late in the UK. Go to bed.
I would get stop selling the mini 2 and lower the price on the mini 4. With the Air 2 and mini 4 being the same price I don’t see hardly anyone opting for the smaller size.As always the naming could use work.
I’m still afraid the 9.7″ Pro will get a minor refresh in the fall along with updated 12.9″ true tone and better processor. I don’t see Apple skipping holiday sales with no updated iPads at all. I think a spring event makes more sense. Spring iPad releases and more optimized iOS update to go along with new models would be good.
I at this point would prefer padOS to address the UI, multitasking and productivity of iPads.ios besides split screen apps is just a blown up version of the iPhone software. iPad hardware is great and would argue it is the best product Apple makes. The software is the weak link for the iPad. it definitely needs its own focused yearly updates. With tvOS,watchOS, and macOS(assumed at WWDC) padOS makes a lot of sense and I would argue its the most in need of a tailored UI.
I think the 7 model range is a big improvement.
While the Mac line isn’t going away in the anytime in the near future. I am a little concerned about the Mac mini. Cook seems much more “pro Post-PC” then Jobs was, and I feel Cook looks at the Mac Mini and see the iPad as a replacement. And, in a way he’s probably right. People who just need a basic computer for email, web browsing, etc, really don’t need a desktop anymore.
As someone who loves the Mac Mini, I think the only way for it to stick around would be to slightly rebrand it. Since entry level desktops aren’t a big market anymore, it should really diversify the use of the Mac mini. In a sense it makes a better “hub” then an iMac would for the common consumer.
My idea would be to change the name from Mac mini to Mac Home. The use of “Home” can stand for “home computer”(although “Mac PC” would be a fun name), “Home Server” and a “home” to store all your files. Plus apple usually uses “mini” for screen size, this doesn’t apply to the Mac mini
While most people’s computing needs can be accomplished with an iPad or iPhone, I think the vast majority of those people still want to store their files on a hard drive. In this case they could keep using spinning hard drives, but 5400-rpm needs to go. The Mac Mini or Mac Home, allows people who don’t want everything in the cloud, to be able to have the storage they need on a Mac. To forgot about the Mac mini would really let other desktop companies get in, where a customer who prefers a Mac, but simply can’t afford or defend purchasing an iMac
I mostly agree with you, except that I think they should just have one base model for iMac at the two sizes and one custom model.
Or maybe just have one model for all their computer lines, but make it configurable.
Maybe something like a “Get a Mac” screen, and then a picture of a Mac mini, an iMac, and a Mac Pro. When you click on them it defaults to a predefined base config. But there’ll be a shortcut button at the top to automatically select better components.
I admit this sounds farfetched though.
Apple is encroaching on its Performa strategy employed long ago — too many products, too little differentiation. The only product line I truly care about is the Mac line. iOS is an abomination in my mind. I’m so much more productive with macOS.
Regarding the desktop Mac, Apple does not even make a model I care to buy today. I’m willing to pay the Apple tax, for a Mac Pro even, but it must offer more — namely expandability, thus flexibility.
Anyhow, looking at your product line proposal, it’s not so bad. But I would probably go with…
* Good Mac mini (entry level)
* Better Mac mini (serious hobbyist)
* Good ~21 iMac
* Better ~24″ iMac
* Best ~27″ iMac
* Mac Pro with custom builds
My biggest change would be with the Mac Pro. It would be replaced by a user serviceable machine, one that is expandable. You know, like the previous version. If Apple insisted on keeping the new closed form factor, then it should make a Mac Prosumer model, one that is expandable, one that uses the ~fastest i7 CPU. Either way, it’s important that Apple make an open box. You never know, there might be two guys in a garage that have some revolutionary thoughts.
Yes, I do think the internal expansion of the old Pro made more sense, but I think the new design is here to stay.
People continually overlook the fact that the Mac Mini is an extremely versatile and necessary system for certain applications. We deploy them as built-in systems for conference rooms with large screen displays, as low end file servers (with external storage) for small design shops, and as specialized 1-trick-pony systems such as software licensing and RIP printing servers. Without the Mac Mini in the line-up, I have absolutely no idea what we’d use for these applications. It’s an absolutely essential piece of equipment.
A point I disagree on is losing a “good’ or ‘entry” 27-inch, as a powerful 21.5 could fill that role for a user. I think screen size, in and of itself, is as big of a factor as the performance. Having a “better” or “best” 21.5″ does nothing for someone who values a larger screen over more power. I’m a photographer, make my living as one on staff at a magazine, and while they provided me with a fully-spec’d 21.5″ (though I use a work issued 15″ MBP for 90% of everything) I prefer my relatively entry model 27″ 5K at home. It does everything my work 21.5″ does for me, but the screen size is the difference maker. If I had to pay $200 more, and couldn’t, I would have been Saint to buy a refurb 27″ before going with a 21.5″.
Sure, but I would think relatively few professional photographers would buy an entry-level machine. Photo processing is an example of a task where processor speed, drive speed and RAM all make a significant difference.
I’d just stick with one mini model: make it all customizable.
It’s been years since I’ve used spinning disks for anything but external backup drives. SSD-only all the way. Then people can add whatever external storage suits their budget. I see little benefit to having the drives internally, especially these days with Thunderbolt 3, and certainly not for slow spinning disks.
Apple and generousity don’t go together. You could argue that SSD are chip, but if spinning metals are one cent cheaper, Apple would put them in.
Apple knows fast storage isn’t a luxury and everybody wants them, so they will make the 512 upgrade option only for the most expensive model. They are that evil.
I gave up the idea of buying a new iMac after my older iMac burned itself to death having its ventilation outlets clogged with dust. I could have upgraded the spinning metal to a solid state storage. but Apple limits the SSD size according to the model you choose, this is ugly, this is a deal breaker, I’m not willing to play this game. I’d better do without an iMac. From now on I’m only buying a computer out of box. No upgrades, no waiting 30 busiiness days for a custom machine. It should have everything needed out of the box, and that includes fast storage. I’m not ruling out switchinig to Windows 10 if Apple continues to be this greedy evil beast.
I agree to a point, but the Mac Mini should be all quad core! It’s ridiculous to do a dual-core machine with hyper-threading plus each machine level should have a minimum of 8GB of RAM. I don’t care if Mac OS uses RAM differently than Windows does, 4GB is not enough for a desktop OS.
Honestly, they seriously need to rationalize the Mac lineup and focus on three kinds of users: 1)Beginner users , 2)Typical folk desktop users , 3)Pro users , quite realistically speaking, They need to create a sweet spot Mac for very typical users, as they have done in the previous years(That’s how OSX became popular among users in that respect), Apple has missed out on those users, There is still a ton of mileage left out of Mac OS X and now that Apple could change the name of the OS to macOS during WWDC 16, They need to launch a whole load of Macs (priced at $500-2,000), targeted at professional, desktop and beginner users. I really like the OS X operating system (things like Final Cut Pro, which is better and cheaper than Adobe CC),but the big problem is that there is no particular Mac targeted to someone like myself, it’s simply either a slow 12″ ultrabook or $5,000 Mac Pro or nothing!
I doubt Apple will continue much longer with the Mac Pro. Apple is slowly but certainly leaving the “Pro” market to concentrate on consumers, and that is sad, because it was the Pros in the business who kept Apple alive when it was at the verge of oblivion. Removal of Aperture, and very slow updates in Final Cut suite and Logic Pro are a good indication of that; and trying to find their dedicated pages on the Apple Website is an exercice in frustration. Those who saved Apple are now long forgotten and have migrated to much much more powerful solutions at much much lower prices running Windows. They mostely don’t like it, but they had no other solutions.
I think the two tiers of Mac Mini and iMac 21.5 should have very similar specs of good and better and should only discount the value of the monitor for the mini. Apple should sell a hard drive housed in an Mac Mini shell that could be snapped below a Mac Mini to keep a unified “seamless design and provide extra storage in various sizes (1-3Tb) with a dedicated “high speed” connection and make Mac mini with a standard HD of 128 or 256 in SSD’s. If designed properly it could also be integrated to the back of the iMac’s for extended storage.
Agree with many that the Pro design is extremely unpractical and not well suited for your very reasonable customization approach.
Rationalize? We need a Mac for gaming that can be upgraded by the user!