[fowlerpower]

Someone here needs to explain it to me because I just don't understand.

We have the largest computer company in the world, a shit load of people work there, supposedly smart people. Yet they can't put together a refresh of many of their desktop machines. Why the fuck not? What do all those people getting paid all that money do all day? I can only imagine the conversations, "it takes years it has to be super innovative". No it fucking doesn't not on the PC, just put the latest processors and tech in it. You don't have to innovate every fucking time, not on the desktop PC. We see this all the time with Apple devices and I can't understand it.

I mean I don't understand what do they do all day every day for 800 days that they can't refresh this simple Machine. Maybe I'm being nieve here or I'm missing something.

[mattnewton]

As an apple alumnus, I believe it has to do with a culture of "laser focus" There is an internal course called "what makes apple apple" that you can take, but it's not necessary to pick up one of the key pieces of culture: the importance of saying No to most things.

Apple has built their reputation on high quality. To continue to deliver takes immense effort, even for incremental programs, and often almost if the talent internally shifts to whatever is new or deemed important, at the expense of everything else. So it's not that they don't know, it's not that they don't care. It's that they believe in sacrificing opportunities elsewhere so that they can focus on what is truly important.

Another shift that happens internally is executive focus. Executives at apple are extremely hands on with products. They don't micromanage, but instead constantly judge whether a product is on course and has taste. We use to prepare monthly keynotes that went all the way to the top, hitting each executive along the way, who was interested in taking the pulse of every project underneath them. This approach does not scale to more than a handful of product lines per executive.

There is a lot of risk inherent in this approach, because if they line up a home run with half the company over a few years and then you whiff, you could be in a tough spot. By that's exactly what apple does. And one of the advantages is that people are rarely worried about whether apple is committed to an entirely new product, because they go all in each time they move. For example, apple is absolutely committed to making the watch dominate the smartwatch market. It isn't a hobby for them.

The solution the internal apple devoutiees would see to this problem is to cut the Mac mini entirely if it stopped selling, rather than refresh it. It is believed to not be worth splitting the companies attention.

Edit: as other commenters have mentioned, apple is also not the largest maker of these products, just the one with the largest valuation. They have less, more focused talent, and larger margins.

Edit edit: I just remembered the giant picture of Steve jobs in Infinite loop I used to walk past to lunch all the time that said "I think if you do something and it turns out pretty good, then you should go do something else wonderful, not dwell on it for too long. Just figure out what's next." pretty much sums this up.

[ScottBurson]

Total laser focus on one thing seems like a great mantra for building a company (or turning around a failing one). But for sustaining a company that's already successful, I'm not so sure. If you really believe there's a Next Big Thing that you can bet the company on and win, like the iPhone, then maybe it makes sense to let other product lines languish. But, now that most of the world's population carry a computer in their pocket at all times, what if there is nothing else that big that remains to be done?

There's still lots of room for Apple to grow their existing Mac business. They've started to make inroads into the enterprise market, traditionally dominated by Windows. They could really press that. They could stay competitive in more markets than just the thin-and-light laptop market -- the Mini is one example, the high-end laptop market is another, and the workstation market is a third.

Instead, they're apparently conceding these battles, and turning their massive resources toward finding another Next Big Thing, which may not even exist.

[nextos]

I agree. Is the Mac Mini so special it can't be updated by a small team periodically? Nope. It is in fact a quite mainstream machine, nothing too special about it.

The uniqueness in the Mac Mini lies in Mac OS. No laser sharp focus is needed for incremental hardware updates.

The Mac Pro has unique hardware, but between major redesigns it does not need any incredibly hard work. Just incremental improvements.

I find it absurd too that a company with so much cash in the bank cannot keep a few people performing incremental improvements on their product lines. The Mac Pro for example, is hopelessly outdated now.

I think they underestimate the compound effect of an ecosystem. Several little products, even if they don't bring in insane revenues such as iOS, can help attracting key users which are those that drive innovation. It also contributes to the overall experience of regular folks. For example, by discontinuing screens or routers, things are not as seamless as they once were.

[beautifulfreak]

"It is in fact a quite mainstream machine, nothing too special about it." The mini introduced a form factor that has since been emulated so often that it seems less special than it was at first, but it was something new. Small computers extant back then were larger than the mini. Most were based on the Mini ITX motherboard design, introduced in 2001, and all of them looked like boxen (ugly). The mini's dimensions gave it a non-computer look. It might seem plain now, a very simple form, but that was the genius of it. To allege that it's mainstream and not special, something to be incremented, is to cast it as just another box, a mere container. To Apple, it's an optimum solution to both engineering and aesthetic challenges. Maybe they resist the idea that it is just a box, and that is why they don't just increment the internals.

[jdietrich]

The Mac Mini was special over a decade ago. It's now just commodity hardware in an aluminium unibody. There are a multitude of competing machines from Intel, Gigabyte, Asus, Zotac and others. There is absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't redesign the Mac Mini chassis to take an industry-standard NUC motherboard and offer a refresh every 12 months.

I won't buy Apple hardware any more because I don't want to be locked into their ecosystem. I don't want to be subject to the whims of a "tastemaker" who decides that I don't need PCIe or USB or a headphone jack. I don't trust Apple not to neglect a key platform for years.

Apple can afford to lose me, because iPhone sales are equivalent to the GDP of some countries. If at some point that golden goose starts looking unhealthy, they might regret pissing off their most loyal customers. They might suddenly realise that the creative professionals who were a cornerstone of their brand have abandoned them.

As of today, the Mac Pro has gone 1137 days without an update. Three years is an eternity for a music producer or a video editor to go without fresh hardware. The introduction of 4K video has only exacerbated the issue, as has the fiasco of FCPX.

A lot of people feel deeply betrayed by Apple. People who would happily give Apple $10,000 every couple of years for a fully loaded Mac Pro. People who have bought every Apple desktop since the Macintosh. People who are role models in their fields. People whose choices define the term "industry standard". Can Apple afford to alienate those people?

[dustinmr]

This, which was posted a short time ago, seems relevant to this comment.

http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21711011-...

[beautifulfreak]

I actually feel the same way. I wanted to buy a Mini in 2014, to upgrade from a 2012 model, but the new one was no better than the one I had, at least not in the ways that were important to me. My comment was about the psychology of Apple. I do wonder if their engineers don't see Apple computers as containers, as boxes. They abandoned the cheese grater Mac Pros, the most box-like in design (and best for users). Maybe Jonny Ive et al resist the slippery slope of their computers being seen as commodities. There could be wisdom in that. The Apple brand relies on the perception of design virtuosity. But I agree, they should have had more in the pipeline. Let's hope they get back to the drawing board and make up for their neglect.

[mattnewton]

Maybe, but that is what makes apple apple. They could also focus on pushing their mac line and lose all their top talent who want to work on something inspiring, and become the next Hp, a respectable hardware company that no one cares about the future of. Already they hemorrhage talent to sexier projects like tesla.

Also, I don't think they will change for anyone or anything. Many of the executives have witnessed firsthand the death and resurrection of apple by Steve Jobs and seen the formula work again and again, from the iMac to the iPhone. They truely believe that they are either going to make products that makes a dent in the universe or go bankrupt trying.

[bootload]

"I believe it has to do with a culture of "laser focus" "

The problem with this ^focused^ (linear) thinking is the real value of apple in the past has been from ^diffuse^ (intuitive, unconscious wondering connections, slightly riskier) thinking. I know this is simplistic but the successful apple will be using both modes.

[mattnewton]

I don't think that was meant by laser focus. I think it meant to really hone in on a few things that will have large impact, at the expense of linear improvements.

Apple is in love with the big, sexy revolutionary unveiling and that thrill and opportunity is what they are laser focused on. If it doesn't get them to that point, they say No to it.

That thing might require linear or divergent thinking to make work. But it's all this fixation on that end goal, that flash of excitement and freshness that they, their shareholders, the press and the majority of their users are all hooked on.

[bootload]

"Apple is in love with the big, sexy revolutionary unveiling and that thrill and opportunity is what they are laser focused on."

Fair point. Direction at apple doesn't have Jobs for aesthetics. apple has long forgotten the brilliance of Woz and open access to hardware. We'll see how this plays out (as I type out on mbp kb).

[jamesfmilne]

So we forego any updates on the Mac Pro for 3 years so that Apple can dominate the smartwatch market?

/me shakes head in dismay

[tim333]

I see what you are saying but you'd think you could update some of the chips in the mini without needing much company attention?

[mattnewton]

Apple doesn't just update chips and throw it over the wall. It is, for better or for worse, always a large scale qa, supply chain and engineering effort.

[wineisfine]

Still, I don't have the impression this was happening under Jobs. He would still had 2 guys in there, updating the chip in the Mini right now.

Total neglect of 60% of their products (Mac pro, Mac Mini), and ditching complete other productlines (Cinema displays, Routers) at the same time, is unprecedented...

I really think Cook is messing it up. Especially not even having the option of a regular keyboard on a 15" MBP, is almost insulting.

[prirun]

I am still using a Macbook Pro laptop from 2010, running Snow Leopard, because it does what I need and I haven't felt the need to upgrade it, other than install an SSD. I like Apple's stuff, though I'd never buy another Mac Mini: they're too damn hard to upgrade (disk). It's like doing microsurgery, and I'm no surgeon.

Apple may be neglecting 60% of their products (not sure if that's accurate...), but if 60% of their products are generating 1% of their revenue, it seems like a good idea to neglect them.

I think Apple has gone way beyond the days where "power graphics/media users" are important or even relevant to them. Every kid I know has an iPhone, wants to upgrade their iPhone, or "drops" their iPhone on purpose every 2 years, crushing the screen, so they "have" to get a new one using Mommy & Daddy's phone upgrade. One $10K PowerMac == 20 $500 iPhones.

If it were your business, what would you focus on? Not saying I like it, because I still have a slide phone and don't give a shit about Apple's consumer products, and wish they still cared about a great developer machine. But I understand why they don't.

[hollerith]

>I'd never buy another Mac Mini: they're too damn hard to upgrade (disk). It's like doing microsurgery, and I'm no surgeon.

I had no problem replacing the hard drive in my 2011 Mac mini, and it was only the second time I'd ever worked with laptop-type components. And the first time I gave up shortly after opening up the case (of a machine that had been given to me in non-working condition).

[caleblloyd]

They did with the MacBook Air for years. 1440x900 TN panel over 6 refreshes from 2010-2015 and still on sale today.

[unusximmortalis]

Exactly.

[CoolGuySteve]

Apple is not above doing side projects if they integrate existing components. The early Apple TV and iPod Touch come to mind.

IMO the bigger issue with the Mac Mini is that it used to be designed with very similar internals to the plastic/polycarbonate MacBook.

When they discontinued those machines in favour of laptops with integrated RAM and storage, my suspicion is the design path became less clear and required more engineers.

[MaysonL]

So why isn't there somebody with total laser focus on the Mac Mini? The Mac Pro? iOS for the iPad? Seems to me that these are some of the functions that the supposedly functional Apple organizational structure is neglecting.

[nkkollaw]

You're saying that Apple is focused on providing the best quality possible.

How is a 3-year-old PC good quality?

[techdragon]

It was when they cared. The point is that they are utterly blind to anything beyond the release of the next big thing.

It's like they are chasing exploding fountains of gold, with tunnel vision and no rear view mirrors.

[derefr]

> It isn't a hobby for them.

Can you explain what exactly was meant (in an internal-politics sense) back when the Apple TV was referred to in each keynote that mentioned it as a "hobby project"?

[spydum]

It's waaaay more profitable to sell the same device for three years without updates: it costs nothing in r&d. This wholy explains the mind boggling profit margins doesn't it?

[mwfunk]

No, because while those ancient computers probably do have amazing margins at this point, they don't sell in sufficient quantities to make a big impact on quarterly earnings. Those mind boggling margins and profits really do come from mostly new devices. It really is just a matter of either poor multitasking by the organization, a very depressing long-term strategy, or both.

It's weird- the practice of never talking about product roadmaps started in an era when whatever customer angst and uncertainty it generated was vastly outweighed by customer and media delight when the next step in that roadmap was finally revealed, which at the time happened like clockwork at 6-month intervals. Now people want them to talk about product roadmaps not because they're excited to know when/what the next great Mac is going to be, but because they're worried that there won't BE any Macs anymore (at least not any that they would want to buy). :(

[tqkxzugoaupvwqr]

Sounds short-sighted. You assume they continue to sell the same number of devices per quarter. I argue the quarterly number declines with outdated specs. Taken to the extreme, 40% profit margin on 1k sold units is nothing compared to 30% of a million sold units. Also, how hard can it be to put new CPUs and more RAM in? You don’t need a design team for that.

[unusximmortalis]

Exactly. Which saying what about this company?

[dgregd]

I ask myself the same questions. It seems that Apple is lost in internal politics.

It was right decision at the time to build the new OS only for mobile devices. But now laptops and desktops have also touch screens. It was easy to foresee this. So Microsoft decision to build touch OS for laptops and desktops payed off. But who at Apple will take the blame for the decision made 5 years ago to still have two separate OSes? I guess it is safer to continue Steve Jobs vision, even knowing that Steve often changed his mind.

That lack of Mac Mini internals upgrade is really insane. It seems that no exec wants to be associated with that simple project. In most innovative and valuable company everyone has to work on something revolutionary, otherwise someone will be not considered as the right person for Apple.

I guess that "laser focus" and "saying no" are now mostly used in internal office fights.

[flycaliguy]

I think they are folding their desktop and laptop stuff into the IOS stuff, planning on a singularity in the next couple years.

The iPhone will be able to carry their business over the hill of user discontent in the meantime.

[eanzenberg]

That's exactly what they're not doing, and I dunno why everyone thinks they will.. maybe because that's what msft is doing?

Apple repeatedly said their laptop/desktop/macos variants will remain for hardcore users who need that freedom, while ios is for users who want simplicity.

[JustSomeNobody]

The same hardcore users who dislike the new Macbook Pros?

[maolt]

How many of those do you ?

How many of those hardcore users actually do like the new MBP and do not bother talking about it ?

I would honestly appreciate to see a bit more fact & figures instead of anecdotal evidence.

[AnOscelot]

I'd love to see that too. Sales seems to be high for the MBP so maybe there's more quiet supporters than loud detractors. However the very existence of loud detractors about a product line, which historically has had far more fervent defenders than critics, indicates the hardcore users are unhappy overall.

Apple, more than any other tech company, usually attracts the "can do no wrong" type of fans. They're still around for this product lineup but much quieter than usual. That should be worrying for Apple, assuming they still care about Macs.

[mstolpm]

At any given time, some (heavy) users were critical about new Apple products and Apple decisions, lamenting that they forget about their most valuable and vocal fans. Apple killed the floppy drive, multiple connectors, "great" products (clickwheel iPod, anyone), resetted software products (FCP, Pages), killed services and so on. Heck, they even killed the Apple ][. And some users cried foul on each of these decisions.

Just now, the internet and clickbait journalism give these voices much more weight. Apple isn't the underdog anymore and Apple bashing produces page views.

That said, of course Apple products aren't perfect. But they never were. But even 10 or 15 years ago, a lot of Apple supporters didn't buy 1.0 releases of new products, didn't install OS/X x.0 releases and so on.

How reasonable are these critics? E.g.: How many users do really need 32GB RAM on their MBP, an option not available before, but now a big failure if you read comments, blogs and articles about Apple. I bet its a tiny minority that is truly limited by this constraint. But still, everyone is complaining.

[josephg]

Yes - I know a bunch of software developers who excitedly bought one of the new MacBook pros on launch day. And Apple has said that by volume it was one of their best laptop launches ever. I think regarding the new mbps the internet echo chamber doesn't mirror reality.

[tqkxzugoaupvwqr]

> by volume it was one of their best laptop launches ever

I argue: One reason is that it took Apple one and a half years to refresh the MacBook Pro, leading to pent up demand. Previous models were refreshed after max. 0.8 years, from 2015 to 2016 it took 1.7 years.

[protomyth]

> I dunno why everyone thinks they will

Probably because we constantly hear stories that they have combined their OS teams. The recent problems with PDF Kit seem to confirm that there is a convergence and quality / features of the macOS side of the house are not a priority.

[krzyk]

Largest? You mean employing the most people or having the largest area?

As for the employees, Apple has about 115 thousands, IBM has about 379 thousands, Samsung has 319 thousands, HP has 289 thousands (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio...).

You probably meant the most valuable (stock number * stock price).

[mwfunk]

He probably just meant "having the most resources" in some very general sense. But it's true, in terms of # of employees it's nowhere near the largest. In fact the vast majority of those 115000 people are retail employees. I would estimate that in terms of engineers, it's more like 20k or less.

[Eric_WVGG]

If that figure includes Apple Store employees, the number of engineers and product people is even lower.

Cook has said multiple times that their biggest challenge is acquisition and retention of talent.

[mahyarm]

Maybe they could give market rate offers (ie facebook or google rates) to sr engineers then.

You have to work there for 2 to 3 years before you start matching FB or Google.

[desireco42]

Per product, they probably have most employees, both overall and if you count R&D

[intrasight]

I think what you're missing is that Apple pursues high-margin endeavors, and competing with a $300 NUC isn't going to be a high-margin business. Some easy money for Apple would be to sell OS licenses for Intel NUCs.

[wl]

Apple could sell a $300 NUC for $600 and people would still buy it. The issue is that Apple doesn't sell anything decent in this form factor that runs macOS.

[intrasight]

I agree that they could and should - I'm just speculating as to why they don't. As they probably could make their desired margins, it must be they would consider it a "distraction" from future endeavors (VR, cars, etc.)

[hendersoon]

The NUC in question, the NUC7i5BNK, is $620. That is without RAM or storage, so add another $50 for 8GB RAM, $80 for a 128GB M.2 SSD, and $100 for a Windows license. Total price is $850. This guy isn't cheaping out, he just wants more hardware for his money.

$700 at Apple gets you a much slower 3 generation old i5 with a 1TB hard drive. But, with MacOS.

It's one thing for Apple to charge a premium for better hardware. But that is NOT what they're doing. They're charging the same amount for ancient, inferior hardware.

[sliken]

Never pay MSRP, the NUC7i7BNK is going for $500 ish on preorder. The NUC7i5BNK is going for $400. The i3 version for $300, and the celeron or whatever is below the i3 is going for $200 ish.

However the nuc generation7 i5 is the lowest model with the iris graphics.

[derefr]

There are some little things a Mac Mini has that you can't get by just (essentially) Hackintoshing a NUC.

For example, Apple's custom UEFI, plus a Bluetooth controller that boots in HID mode and loads configured pairings from NVRAM, allows you to "hold down [key combination] at boot" on your Mac Mini's Bluetooth keyboard.

Or the fact that all the desktop Mac models have internal speakers (and not just the motherboard PC speaker kind) and internal microphones, so OSX can guarantee it always has those devices available to use to play system event notification sounds, or for Siri, or for FaceTime, or for visual-impairment accessibility tooling, etc.

Or the fact that you can still plug FireWire or DisplayPort devices into a Mac Mini through its Thunderbolt port (with a passive adapter to map the pins) and the motherboard will happily accept the device; whereas no PC would have any idea what to do with those wire protocols, even if you plugged them into the port of an explicit Thunderbolt PCIe card you bought.

If you could get these things from a NUC, then sure, there'd be no point in the Mac Mini.

[mmagin]

It's a reality of the accounting, financial reporting, and executive incentives that in any large publicly-traded company today, product lines that bring in a small percentage of revenue are going to not get the chance they deserve.

[tacostakohashi]

I guess they've painted themselves into a bit of a corner with the way they do their pricing, and product announcements with a lot of hype.

If they were to do the kind of update you suggest, there would be a lot of bad press stating the obvious ("It's just the same as before, but faster and more RAM. No new alloys or anything!"), and it would drive down prices for inventory of the old model.

[benologist]

Apple has stated they think the iPad Pro is the next computer for everyone. I would bet Apple is quite far along making tools for the iPad Pro that let you create apps for the iPad Pro and iPhone. They released a first foray into this kind of tool last year with their Swift Playgrounds, a language they designed to replace old things, using all-new APIs like Metal. The computers we like all stem from what we call Apple's history and legacy!

[figers]

Allow a mouse to connect to it and as a developer I would agree with you...

[benologist]

I kind of expect they'll only enable iOS development on iPad Pros, leaving them unable to create apps for platforms with mice.

[massysett]

This makes a lot of sense when you wonder why they aren't putting a touch screen on the Macs. Microsoft took a desktop OS and bolted a touch screen onto it. Apple will take a tablet OS and bolt a keyboard onto it.

[edit] Makes even more sense when you consider who has what apps. Microsoft had a huge lead in Windows apps, so of course you want to bolt your touchscreen onto that. Apple has the huge lead in iOS apps, so better to bolt a keyboard onto that than a touch screen onto the Mac.

[mahyarm]

They've done plenty of speed bumps in the past, where the device is unchanged and they just upgrade the CPU to whatever is the latest.

[gutnor]

Indeed, there is no announcement either. The price/spec just changes on the Apple Store. Most of the time, the reaction is positive - people just like to see that Apple care.

Keeping the same price for a machine over 3 years and not even going through the motion of offering spec bump is no very considerate. That really looks like Apple keep the line just for that sucker that is born every minute.

[HillaryBriss]

roughly 12% ($5.7 billion/$46.9 billion) of Apple's revenue comes from Mac sales, so they don't emphasize Mac development, i guess.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apple-q4-2016-financial...

[eanzenberg]

My guess is they're mostly working on the "next big releases", so between iphone, ipad, and previously the touchbar mac and watch.

[JustSomeNobody]

They are trying to figure out how to make them thinner. Apple is very weight-conscious.

[cbsmith]

I think this post itself a pretty good explainer as to why.

Customers aren't even aware of the lack of competitiveness.

[dba7dba]

It's the management, not the product managers, designers or engineers.

With the management led by a logistics/operations man, you end up with products that are UNinspired.

It's a pity Mr. Jobs picked Mr. Cooks to be the successor.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

If the share holders didn't like it could they vote him out of that position?

[importantbrian]

Of course, but Apple is enormously profitable. That's what shareholders care about, so why would they?

[AnthonyMouse]

Because it's short-sighted. If you let your products stagnate, the current profits are higher because people who are tied into your ecosystems still have to buy something, so they buy the low-cost obsolete product for the high price, and you are very profitable right now.

But doing that burns goodwill with your customers.