Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Mac Mini and iPod Hi-Fi Over-Hyped? 317

Posted by Zonk
from the isn't-everything-nowadays dept.
RX8 writes "Analyst Michael Greeson takes a look at Apple's new products, the Mac Mini (Intel based) and iPod Hi-Fi and explains why they were over-hyped and how that can damage Apple. Michael explains that when you are 'an industry innovator - when your products fall short of being truly original, your own success becomes your worst enemy.'" Update: 03/04 00:07 GMT by Z : As many posters have pointed out, the article here has little to do with the synopsis. This article is mostly about the design for the mac mini and its remote, which is a fairly interesting topic. Mea culpa, folks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac Mini and iPod Hi-Fi Over-Hyped?

Comments Filter:
  • Amateur Hour (Score:5, Informative)

    by American AC in Paris (230456) * on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:22PM (#14845312) Homepage
    Zonk, the Slashdot headline and summary have virtually nothing to do with the article.

    For one, Greeson specifically states that he's not going to go into whether or not Apple overhyped their latest releases; by the tone he takes, one suspects that he sees the grumbling of "Apple's fanatical base" as a largely unavoidable cost of taking innovative risks. Beyond that, though, the focus of his article is on the remote control included with the mini; how it is simultaneously easy-to-use and powerful--he calls it "sophisticated simplicity"; and how he hopes and expects future devices to try to mimic Apple's design choice.

    Instead, this summary takes a throwaway bit from the introduction and completely ignores the entire point of Mr. Greeson's article. The summary goes on to state that Mr Greeson thinks Apple over-hyped their latest product release--even though he explicitly says otherwise in his article. If I were Mr. Greeson, I'd be more than a little peeved that you'd so fundamentally butchered and misrepresented my work. Not even two minutes of the most basic editorial work would have revealed this.

    You've been trolled, Zonk, and now it falls to us to clear the air. Of course, the joke's on us, too: we're not the ones who are getting paid to do the job in the first place.

  • Wait... (Score:4, Informative)

    by DrEldarion (114072) * on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:22PM (#14845320)
    That's not what the article is about at all, really. He even comes out and specifically SAYS For the purpose of this essay, let's forget about whether Apple failed to live up to its own PR.

    The article is praise about its remote.

  • by Space cowboy (13680) * on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:22PM (#14845321) Journal
    For the purpose of this essay, let's forget about whether Apple failed to live up to its own PR. In fact, let's ignore the PR strategy altogether and focus on one of the product announcements: the new Mac Minis.
    ... and in any event, what hype is it that we're talking about here ? All Apple did was issue invitations (with no details on what was about to be disclosed) to a bunch of people in the press. In no way, shape, or form is this "hype" (verb: to promote or publicize a product or idea intensively, often exaggerating its importance or benefits) - it was an invite to a product release (with no details of the product) for crying out loud!

    As soon as the invitations hit the 'net, all sorts of rumours (note: these are *not* Apple-created) surface. Some people publicly projected their own desires onto the event, irrespective of how likely it is, and then these self-same people get all disappointed when their fantasy doesn't come true. These people need to (a) get out more, (b) have more sex, and (c) move on from the mental state of a five-year-old ("Me want", "Me want", "Me want"). [aside: note that (c), as applied to (b), is more likely after (a). Just a hint to get you started...]

    The fault here lies solely, completely, and utterly with those who raise Apple on too high a pedestal. There's only so much cool stuff any one company can make (although I thought the new mini *was* pretty cool, personally).

    Simon.
  • by nvrrobx (71970) on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:28PM (#14845382) Homepage
    Maybe I missed something, but how does this go about explaining how they were over-hyped?

    He explains why the 6 button remote is a great idea.

    The article clearly says:

    For the purpose of this essay, let's forget about whether Apple failed to live up to its own PR. In fact, let's ignore the PR strategy altogether and focus on one of the product announcements: the new Mac Minis.
  • by TaoTehChing (954321) on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:32PM (#14845429)
    "Frequency response: 53Hz to 16kHz ± 3 dB" should never be regarded as hi-fi, Apple must have picked some really cheap drivers, especially for the high end. I don't have Karma to burn, but I must say that this really makes me question Apples supposed superior engineering.
  • Re:Mod article down (Score:3, Informative)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:33PM (#14845437) Homepage Journal
    Or subscribe and tag it [slashdot.org].
  • Re:Wait... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Golias (176380) on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:41PM (#14845505)
    Both spellings are correct.

    Don't take my word for it. Look at line 1 of the wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor [wikipedia.org]
  • Re:Wait... (Score:2, Informative)

    by rhombic (140326) on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:44PM (#14845530)
    Maybe you should check your references before calling someone an idiot for spelling it "Ockham"? See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [stanford.edu], for instance (see point 2). Occam is the French spelling of the very English name of William of Ockham. Maybe the patronization was justified?
  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:45PM (#14845547)
    When you are simply downloading media from ITMS (and other sources), what use do you have for "channels".

    Apple is bypassing the whole legacy model of Broadcast that is so ingraned, even technical people think we need "channels" instead of browsing for video content like we browse the web. Do you visit a web page on channel 8, then browse it for 30 minutes only to have it suddenly vanish?

    The Mac MINI is primarily a home media center, not a PVR (though you can use it as such).
  • Re:Snoozer (Score:3, Informative)

    by Golias (176380) on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:49PM (#14845594)
    An iPod ghetto blaster? Kinda goes against the whole portable movement, doesn't it?

    Not really. It runs on d-cells just like any other portable boom-box.

    That said, it has several strikes against it:

    1. It costs to much to take it with you while tubing down the Apple river or to a tailgate party at a St. Paul Saints game. For the kind of places one usually hauls a boom box, you want to bring something that won't make you break down in tears if it gets run over by a car or smashed against rocks.

    2. It's called a "Hi-Fi" in spite of sounding like a piece of turd fished out of the Bose washroom. Seriously. Go listen to it, then go to your mall's Bose outlet and compare. Same goofy sound; different branding.

    3. The iPod rests gingerly on top of it instead of loading into a nice, sturdy enclosure.

    4. There's no top handle, so carrying it around with one hand is kind of awkward.
  • Zonk, your fired!!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Enrique1218 (603187) on Friday March 03, 2006 @04:58PM (#14845669) Journal
    I thought I was I going stupid there for a moment. I read the article and it had nothing with the slashdot title. If anything, it seem to praise Apple. But I realized from post, it wasn't I going stupid- it was Zonk. Zonk, you need to buck up man and pay attention!!!
  • by Golias (176380) on Friday March 03, 2006 @05:03PM (#14845726)
    Yes, they are already in the Apple Stores.

    As I said elsewhere, they sound a lot like the compact Bose offerings.

    In other words: Fancy use of fake imaging, exaggerated bass boost with no real bottom end, and overall unsettlingly nothing like true high fidelity.

    In other words, it's designed with the intention to dazzle the casual observer long enough to run their credit card through the register, not to faithfully reproduce music.
  • by UttBuggly (871776) on Friday March 03, 2006 @05:34PM (#14846033)
    "Um, it adds 802.11 and Bluetooth, a larger HD (80 vs 40 GB) and a faster processor (1.5 vs 1.25 GHz) for an extra $100. Otherwise the specs are the same. If you're disappointed by that, I don't see how it's Apple's problem. They're laughing all the way to the bank."

    Which, if you added those options to the "old" Mac Mini, would have sent the price to about $700. It's actually a better deal. Plus, if it is 2 to 4 times faster, where's the beef?

    I wish every one of my relatives running Windows would switch to a Mini; my annual free family support hours would drop to ZERO.

    And that would be PRICELESS!

  • by markjhood2003 (779923) on Friday March 03, 2006 @07:19PM (#14846845)
    There are non-Apple products that do what you want -- check the Roku WiFi Radio at http://www.rokulabs.com/ [rokulabs.com]
  • by mpaque (655244) on Friday March 03, 2006 @08:32PM (#14847301)
    Where? I see a Firewire and a DVI port, no composite, S-Video, 75ohm coax, or component video you'd expect for the term "dedicated TV output".

    Yeah. There isn't even a switch for channel 3 or 4, and there's no tin box with a slide switch and double-sided tape for me to put in series with the rabbit ears on my Magnavox.

    By the way, while you were out, TV sets have been going digital. There's this new broadcast standard, and newer sets, the ones that will handle digital signals, tend to ship with the DVI/HDMI connectors that accept the signal from the Mac Mini.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...