Anyone know why the Intel NUC has not caught on better?

[Hero1711]

Still not sure what you mean.



Every year?? Show me a business who wants to buy ANY piece of equipment they know they will need to replace in a year. It's just not cost effective when you account for project costs, downtime, etc... Again - MAYBE if you're talking a company with a full time IT guy in-house, but we're talking small to medium-sized businesses.



No, not really.

You said the NUC was a piece of hardware that you could grow with right?

Note the "Upgrade as you need".

As in a thin client infrastructure you do not need the desktop side of the client. Employees have their own VM session on the cloud, you pay for unused resources = waste.

 

[Kremlar]

You said the NUC was a piece of hardware that you could grow with right?

I said it was flexible. You can use it as a full desktop, or use it as a thin client. You can install Linux, use it as a web server, perhaps a firewall, take it home and use it there. Your proprietary thin client box is not flexible. They are throw away.

But yes, you can also upgrade the RAM and storage space with ease if needed.

What you're saying is all good in theory, in a perfect world where the internet stays up 100% of the time, you have high-speed fiber to your office, your cloud provider is 100% reliable, you don't need to scan large documents and store them, no need for a user to install any applications. etc.

I feel you lack practical experience - at least in the small to medium-sized business market.

 

[capeconsultant]

Well, they could save some cash by ditching the high quality box that plays the Intel theme when you open it.

Maybe save enough to actually include a power cord

 

[nForce2]

Was it too hot and/or too loud?

Seems like with a little tweaking, like the Chenbros case that can handle a 2.5" drive would be very welcome.

Too expensive for what it was made to do (+ 128GB mSATA SSD + 2x4GB RAM + wifi card ~ $500).

The NUC's main purpose is to be used as a home theater mini computer,

It'd make a nice DIY HTPC, but it's too expensive for that

What? That's absolutely *not* the main purpose of the NUC. They just happen to make pretty awesome barebones HTPCs.

The reason I didn't get my parents one, is they wanted a internal optical drive still.

And cd-rom drives? I mean really? People still use those? We have this thing called the Internet that obviates the need for those landfill disks

i'd probably get one if it could mount a bluray drive internally and the price was right.

Anyways, great discussion.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:


These snippets, even if out of context, pretty much nail the reason why the NUC isn't dominating the HTPC market - there are just too many different ways that people use "HTPCs" for a machine like the NUC to fit all of the requirements. Especially given that it was designed with size as the #1 priority, which isn't always the #1 priority for the HTPC users.


Without sufficient internal storage (TB+), the NUC isn't ideal for those who run HTPCs as DVRs, without resorting to an external NAS or USB drives. Without a DVD/BD drive, the NUC isn't ideal for those who run HTPCs as a replacement for otherwise standalone physical media players. And for many, making the thing just an inch bigger to give better cooling for lower noise levels would have been a huge bonus. But combine the shortcomings with the high cost? Many HTPC users would find better results and a better value elsewhere. :\

Not to forget the large segment of HTPC users that don't record, and stream content instead of using physical discs. For those users, the NUC has stiff competition from the established dedicated media consumption devices - the Roku, Apple TV, WD TV Live, Boxee, etc, etc, many at less than half of the cost. So while some in this category would still want a HTPC for it's ability to "do more", a large chunk of the potential customer base is satisfied with other alternatives, making the NUC a difficult up-sell.

 

[blackened23]

As a preface, I'll state that I love the concept of the NUC. I want a Haswell NUC very much, and was considering an IVB NUC - until I saw the deal breaker (discussed below).

Basically, the NUC has not yet hit a price point that is desirable. The base unit on average is 300-400$, and that does not include a display (although, most folks will already have one in mind), does not include a SSD/storage, and does not include memory. The SSDs aren't a trivial cost since they're not using a standard SATA connector (mSATA instead) so they cost more than the typical SSDs.

The way I look at it is this. By the time I can get a NUC fully configured, i'm out of 500$. For 500$ I can get a bare minimum 300$ NUC, 120GB SSD, and a serviceable amount of memory. On the other hand, I can get a macbook air for 800$ with discounts. That macbook air includes a display, storage, and memory (obviously). Or you can get a prior year discounted ultrabook for even less. Why bother with the NUC again? For HTPC use, I get it. It can work there. Then again, it still is not a desirable price for even that. You can grab an LGA AMD APU an assemble a HTPC using that for a significantly lower cost. Heck - you can use a G2020 or an i3 for a lower HTPC cost as well.

The bottom line is - I don't understand the high price at all. Basically intel is giving us a box without storage and without memory but they expect 300-400$ for it. Come on. Too much for what you're getting. I say that as someone who really loves the NUC concept and would love to buy one as well. The price just needs to go down, IMHO.

 

[capeconsultant]

$200 or maybe tops $250 would be much better! I still see its biggest market as small business office desktop computers. I think they could sell a billion of them if they would market to that crowd.

 

[Childs]

I was looking at the NUC for a Plex media server, but it uses mSATA, and doesn't have USB3. Both issue equaled a dealbreaker. if it was a little bigger and you could put in 3.5" HD, or had USB3, I could work with it. Foxconn and Gigabyte make better versions, but in the end I think I will just go with a Mac Mini.

 

[Kremlar]

and doesn't have USB3

The i5 unit I've been using a lot of does. Not sure about the lower-end NUCs.