8
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
6
So?
Are Apple losing it? That’s what I think following today’s underwhelming launch of new Mac minis and the iPod Hi-Fi. I’m not a happy bunny.
The new Mac minis are indeed faster than the previous ones, which is great if you want a low cost Mac – although these new minis are more expensive than their predecessors. This time around, the Mac minis come with Front Row. Perhaps that’s why they needed the speed-bump, because when I ran Front Row on my Mac mini I had time to read a book between selections. And still, Front Row doesn’t suit plasma displays. Let’s also not forget the nice new integrated graphics chip that now, shock, horror, shares memory with Mac OS X.
Okay, so perhaps I’m not the target audience for a Mac mini. But I am. I have a Mac mini for my music, the output of which goes to my hi-fi. My Mac mini lives in my lounge. It’s sole purpose is to play music.
And what of the iPod Hi-Fi? Is it really hi-fi? I’ve heard similar devices – those Bose all-in-one systems are reputedly hi-fi. But they aren’t hi-fi. No way on Earth are they hi-fi! They’re just loud. However, I guess they are okay if you live only to listen to U2 24/7.
Would I really replace a hi-fi with an iPod Hi-Fi? No. Would I go scurrying around my computer to load my latest collection of music onto an iPod, then plug it in? No. Would I take the iPod back to my computer every time I purchased a new album? No. Would I sit in front of the iPod Hi-Fi to choose what music I wanted to listen to, fiddle with the menu to get the speaker output, then sit back on my sofa? No. Would I really want to listen to speakers situated just over one feet apart, trying to convince myself it is stereo, also wondering what happened to the top-end frequencies? No.
Here’s some more perspective. My Harman/Kardon Soundsticks cost about half the price of an iPod Hi-Fi. You can position the speakers. They have a frequency response of 44Hz to 20kHz. They are, frankly, brilliant. The iPod Hi-Fi frequency response is 53Hz to 16kHz. And not a tweeter in sight.
This is not good.

1 March 2006 at 08:30 AM
Mark wrote: