Slashdot Mirror
Intel Flaunts Mac mini Knock-off
Rollie Hawk writes "Remember how the Mac mini was designed by Apple to steal PC customers? Now Intel wants to steal them back. Adopting a shockingly similar lunch box shape and light-weight design, Intel's upcoming Mini PC features all the sleekness and portability (physical, that is) of the Mac mini with none of the Mac benefits. Well, at least it will probably have a faster processor. Now if only someone would make a Cobalt Qube knock-off for me."
Now I remember why I buy AMD.
they haven't done anything but stick a clock on the face of an empty stylish plastic box yet.
apple is shipping....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
From the second paragraph of the article: " It's unlikely that Intel itself would build such a device."
Then, the article clearly goes on to say that this is a empty plastic shell, designed merely to inspire Intel's partners, not an example of any upcoming Intel product. I guess that doesn't sound as exciting and inflamatory, though.
Sam
Intel has a habit of showing off empty shell concepts and hoping that some manufacturer will pick it up. It's highly likely that this was the case here - no new product yet, just a plastic case that looks kinda like a Mac Mini.
Intel can make whatever shaped/sized box they want, but it's still going to ship with Windows for Joe Consumer. A box that can get easily 0wned is what people are growing weary of. Mac Mini targets those folks as well as iPod users (not necessarily separate groups there). This knock-off once again misses the point.
What makes this interesting is how well it runs Linux. Otherwise.... pfffft!
They always seem to want to copy what Apple does... but they muck it up and end up going nowhere with it. I would think that they would have learned after everyone and their mother tried to copy the iMac with no success.
Get Paid to search
Way to go there, Intel. Suprisingly, it's about as functional as any XP machine once it's been let onto the Internet(s).
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
If Intel is truly the industrial leader (true)and innovator (questionable), then they should come up with a radically different concept PC to compete with Mac mini, and yet can target the same audience. Having a carbon-copy of Mac mini is the same as saying :
their design is superior, the only thing special about ours....we use a x86 cpu!!
Reminds me of Creative Zen looking awfully similar to the iPod mini, but much uglier colors.
That case looks JUST like a Mac Mini. Almost identical. It reminds me of the iMac knockoffs (I'm talking about the original iMacs which came in one colour (Bondi blue) and looked vaguely like a gumdrop) that came out shortly after the launch of that product.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Let me see if I have this right...
Apple creates something beautiful again, and everybody says "Wow, it's perfect, but it's an Apple".
Then within a few months {"Intel", "Dell", "Microsoft", "Compaq"} tells the rest of the world "it's alright, go ahead and start copying Apple".
So everybody does, and tells {"Intel", "Dell", "Microsoft", "Compaq"} how great they are.
again.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
The whole poing of the Mac Mini is that it's a small affordable system that comes preinstalled with; an OS, a Photo Editor, Movie Editor, Music Player, DVD/VCD designer, and Music Composition software. Additionally most Macs comes pre-installed with Apple Works and World Book Encyclopedia.
Not to mention the splendor of no Adware or a major risk of viruses.
So far, Intel has enforced market segmentation: You could get a laptop *or* a space-heater. This model is an indication that laptop processors will now be allowed to trickle into the general market. Ipod sized servers and child-pizza sized desktop comps are well within Intel's ability - just look at the size of the "computer" in your laptop.
Microsoft will doubtless resist the move: if it's not a "PC" then clients might not want "Windows", that clunky 19th century command center for a steam-powered computing box. Dell etc will also resist, because clients might get into the nasty habit of upgrading their CPUs only; even worse, some might dump laptops in favor of just taking their company "mini desktop" home in the backpack.
Summary - the Mac mini has broken Apple's hi-price policy, but it has also broken many of the unwritten laws of the PC cartel. Clearly, a form factor who's time has come !
This is not a signature.
I was a Dos/Windows (then to some extent Linux) user my entire life. I now am the proud owner of a Mac Mini. I haven't booted into windows once since I got it. I got sick of all the viruses/spyware/malware in windows and the fact that , althought windows gets the job done, it's not enjoyable to use.
I would have NEVER bought a mac had they not released the mini because I was not about to pay a premium for hardware when I don't do any graphic design work or play many games. So all these companies that are trying to release a Mac Mini killer are barking up the wrong tree when they just release a traditional pc with a small footprint. It's the operating system, stupid! I don't have an answer for them because I just don't think linux is ready for prime time yet, but I am evidence that people are ready for an alternative, but it has nothing to do with the fact that our computers are too big now. If apple had released a $499 machine that was the size of a G5 tower, I would have bought that as well.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
...Mini Me Too?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
That seems to be more disturbing than Intel trying to get manufacturers to compete with a mini-esque PC.
Sadly, it does seem to me that Apple is the only one out there that innovates and inspires.
At one time, Compaq, Dell, and even Microsoft could be expected to innovate. Just look at the original Armada. Visual Basic 3.0. the Pre-inspiron laptops. Ya, they weren't the best products ever, but they were very innovative, industry-changing ideas at the time.
Now they're just a slow evolution of an old idea. For people who don't like the press that Apple gets, and would like to see others garner some press time - well, what the hell has ANYONE in the industry done in the past 5 years?
Intel does not need to inspire the industry with a Mac clone. The industry has seen it - and is merely betting that people won't switch.
That's a good bet, but it shows me how much the PC industry has totally lost it's spark of innovation, despite loads of inspiration from a non-competitor.
is that the maketing position for the Mac Mini is to convert Windows iPod users who are sold on the Apple brand but think even the iMacs are too expensive.
Who, exactly, is the target market for the x86 Mini? PC's are already dirt cheap, and we know that shrinking down the form factor like that will only raise the price over existing desktop PC's. They aren't going to convert Mac users, because Mac users a) don't buy on price alone, and b) already have a Mac option in that category, so they will buy the Mac Mini.
Logically, for Intel to compete against the Mac Mini, they need to develop an iPod killer, not another desktop system.
What the hell is happening to the PC industry? It used to be all about making better faster machines with more features and now the trend is to make smaller machines with less features?????
What happened was that people got fed up with big ugly boxes that used a lot of power to make a lot of noise and heat. Especially since few people apart from gamers need the processing power of new machines. Being small, unobtrusive, less energy hungry, cool and quiet are also features you know, stuff that a lot of people are obviously willing to pay for. Hardly marketing spin.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Maybe it's shifting towards adequetly powered machines with features that actually work all of the time.
computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?
As soon as Joe Consumer wanted one in the living room instead of just the home office. Why is this a bad thing? Miniaturization will just increase the pervasiveness of computer hardware in general. There *needs* to be a paradigm shift in the PC industry. These things need to go from tempremental monsters that need more attention than my two year old, to appliances on par with my Tivo. To an extent, Mac is successfully in this transition state already. (no - I'm no fanboy, don't even own one, but I think they're well made)
Because the Mac mini shipped. It's why Doom 3 shipping is news, while the milestone of Duke Nukem Forever is not.
Mini ITX boards have been around for years; Mac minis are 1/3 the volume and 1/2 the size. Nano ITX has been announced many months before the Mac mini, but hasn't shipped yet, while the mini has. Even still, when someone took a prototype nano-itx board and tried to fit it into a Mac mini, it was discovered it didn't fit; they hat to saw down the heatsink AND they had to remove the optical drive, so the Mac mini is STILL smaller than nano-itx.
There's nothing revolutionary about the mini, other than it's size AND price; the only similar PC is the Cappuccino PCs, which are slightly smaller, but nearly twice as expensive. Even Shuttle based boxes, which can hold almost 3 Mac minis inside them, cost more.
GPL Deconstructed
The mac mini qualifies as news less for its form factor and more for its price. An actual Apple computer for $500? Scandalous. It's certainly applicable to slashdot, where for years people have been talking about how they're fascinated by OSX, they respect the general quality of Apple's hardware, they just couldn't justify the high prices for a machine to play around on.
All of a sudden, an entry level Mac is now truly entry level on price. And a lot of people have said that price was the biggest thing that PC's had over Macs.
The empty box from intel is interesting just because it's so obviously inspired (copied) from Apple. It really looks like they just painted over the apple logo, put a couple lines across it, and glued a little digital clock to it. It's amusing for the same reason that the early imac knockoffs were. There's hundreds of ways to make an all-in-one machine, and using curvy, translucent, brightly colored plastic isn't the most obvious one. I'm all for sharing and the progression of knowledge, but there's a difference between building upon what came before, and just throwing out a me-too product.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
This is exactly the same as when Intel unveiled the Aztec prototypes right after the introduction of the original iMac...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Yep, it was "announced", but it's still not available! have you seen one for sale? Anywhere? Not to mention that their performance sucks when compared to Mac Mini. And their price is more or less the same as the Mini. And you can't run OS X on one
The Mini is interesting and newsworthy because it does the same thing Mini-ITX and the like do, only better. And because it's the cheapest Mac there is.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
That was NOT Intels new "mini" computer, only the new heatsink required for the next generation of Intel processors.
1) Imitation the sencerest form of flattery.
9 78&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312/
2) Its not the power brick, powering this unit. But the cooling tower you also need to hang off of it! With the earplugs included in the box!
3) Intel been doing this "odd shape case thing" for years and no one has coppied them yet. Remember the Aztec pyrimid? Uggly shape and colors.
4) But Microsoft want to go to the "Teddybear" form factor case!
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=545
5) The "low heat" and also "low power" micro/Pico-ITX form factor MB are not made by Intel but are being driven by VIA CPU's and chipset!
6) And is this from the same Intel that was hyping so much bleeding edge stuff, over the last few years. That after X months usually said we can't do it?
Has the PC industry really gotten that bad so that they don't do anything but copy Apple?
As any Apple-watcher will tell you, this has been SOP with the Wintel world for decades now.
The only thing dumber than the folks surprised at Intel's shameless copycat effort are the ones who mistake that empty plastic box for a fully-functional, shipping, ready-to-go-on-your-desk computer.
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
"A computer is a tool, not a toy, when did we see a shift from functionality to marketing spin?"
Actually this is a shift to functionality. The Mac Mini comes with everything the average person needs. FireWire for dumping video and hooking up your iPod. Ethernet for networking. A good but not great video card. USB for hooking up mice, keyboards, scanners, memory drives and game controllers. You can add an airport to the Mini as an option. The only thing I see missing from the Mac Mini is a video in.
As a tool these new computers are complete and simple. They are more functional for most people.
You see I have been in computers a long time. I can remeber when you had many players in the market each one very different. Back in the 8 bit days you had Commodore. Atari, Tandy, Ti, Apple, and Sinclair. Each had it's own OS if you want to call it an OS. You had many different types of CPUs z80, 6502, 6809, and the TI chip. Even fast forward to the late 80s and you had Amiga, Atari ST, and Mac pushing to innovate. The PC you have now SUCKED compared to the Amiga, Atari ST, and Mac. The PC only won because of marketing spin. Look at a PC from 85 and look at the Amiga. The Amiga was cheaper, had better graphics, stereo sound, would multi task, could have a hard drive partition bigger then 33 megs and access more than 640k of ram with out doing all sorts of strangeness. A pc at the time was a 286 running at maybe 16 mhz and ran DOS 3.3, maybe windows 1 but no one really used that. The idea that PC industry has gone from technically driven to marketing drive just now is very very funny. It has been all marketing for the last 20+years.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
A plastic box the size of the Mini to inspire partners. Heck it is not even a prototype, just a plastic mock up.
Intel would be a lot more inspirational if they showed up with a circuit board prototype for a small form factor that comes in with a reasonable dollar cost and heat envelope.
A hunk of plastic when intel doesn't really offer a solution that fits in the plastic seems kind of pointless. Does intel offer any explanation of What processor/chipset would power their partners? A prescot would melt anything that size unless that was the heatsink.
Only really leaves Dothan solutions, which intel doesn't really sanction or price for desktop usage.
The only PC form factors close to this are micro-itx (non intel but shipping/working) and nano-itx (also non intel and maybe non shipping).
Maybe Intel is inspiring it's partners to think about using Via Epia solutions.
How much does design cost? Pulling a few numbers out of my ass, let's say that this took a team of 20 people to design, test, fabricate, etc. this design. Let's say it took them a year, at $100k. (Engineers make more, secretaries make less). That's two million bucks.
According to some news sources, Apple plans to sell around a million of the things. The cost of the design comes out to two bucks a unit.
Supposing I'm off by an order of magnitude, we're still talking about $20 per unit paid to the designers. So I really don't think that it's the design driving the price of the units.
I think that the price of Apple computers is generally driven by basic economics: how much are people willing to pay for them? If that number is greater than the cost to manufacture (including the $2 to $20 for the fancy design), then they do it; otherwise, they don't. The manufacturing cost only sets a lower limit on the price, but it doesn't set it.
People are willing to pay more for Apples, because they like the design and reliability. Some of that comes from spending more on designers; some comes from more expensive components (Apple for years insisted on using pricey SCSI before finally joining the rest of the world in IDE, for example).
A lot of it comes from the price of alternatives; Apple almost certainly looks at the price of a Dell marketed to the same audience and adds 20% or so. People are willing to pay a premium because they're getting a better piece of equipment. Apple has a tendency to tell people that they want a better computer than the one Dell is marketing to them.
Dell will happily sell you the cheapest machine they think you'll buy; Apple would rather sell you a computer that would make you happy. That gives them only a portion of the market, but it's a very cheerful market segment.
Design is the reason they can charge more, but it's not to pay the designers. Designers are cheap compared to the rest of the process. There might be some room for a competitor to Dell to arise with the same philosophy in the Wintel platform, but they'll be stuck with the same small market share Apple gets from seeking the high end, and they'll still be stuck with Windows as the OS, which will limit how much users like the product no matter how spiffy the physical design.
If Microsoft installed a full version of Win2K on the X-box and installed several standard USB ports and a VGA plug, and sold them at cost($300?), they could flood the market. As long as it still played X-box games just think of the multimedia possibilities.
Science is the Real TRUTH!
Ives likely makes more like three to five hundred thousand a year. He drives a Bentley...
But custom as opposed to commodity parts cost quite a bit of coin. Of course, not the amount that would make up for a large cost diference, perhaps fifty bucks per. I remember going to the plant that produced the NeXT cube and well as Linn tonearms, and the mold was pretty amazing. The final piece also required custom finishing, as molds have seams, and Steve wanted a seamless design. The stuff is more costly than you think. Which is exactly why so few companies invest in the processes, people, and long term commitments to producing excellent design.
I'm sure I'll regret voicing this, but I'm curious why there's such a strong reaction from such a pro-Linux community. Wouldn't this enable you to create a myriad of products, gadgets, etc. that ran Linux, looked more elegant, and carried a much lower price point than custom system builds? It seems like a boon to the Linux hacking community.