Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The real 2014 Mac mini announcement
- Thread starter Cansalt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This won't happen soon as the PR guys have not yet come up with a credible explanation. There is certainly no technical reason why Apple cannot design a headless Mac.
The iMac was first and the Mac Mini was launched in 2005 as an afterthought to attract price-sensitive customers and switchers. Steve Jobs introduced the Mac Mini as "the cheapest, most affordable Mac ever".
Over the years, Apple made the Mac Mini too powerful despite the slow update cycles and usage of last-gen CPUs and had to put more distance between the iMac and Mac Mini in order to avoid cannibalization. That's what happened with the 2014 downgrade (which they call refresh).
Apple doesn't seem to care about a few disgruntled customers who despise their strategy and it probably makes sense from a business perspective to have a clear boundary between the Mac Mini and iMac. Customer retention? Who cares if the overall customer base is still growing. Mac sales and Apple's share price is up. So, everything seems to work out well for Apple and its shareholders.
P.S.: Doesn't mean I agree with Apple's strategy.
Last edited:
I find it very cynical that Apple has crippled the Mac Mini like this. Its popularity was built on its price, form factor and versatility. It (was) like the swiss army knife of the apple range. By downgrading its specs and taking away the upgradability options you have to wonder who exactly will buy it? Very poor show Apple.
Regarding RAM prices, you guys need to stop making it seem like Apple is the only bad guy out there. Last time I purchased a Dell, their RAM upgrades were ridiculous too. It is just the way it is.
If this Mac Mini does not suit your needs......DO NOT GET ONE. Out of all the Mac Mini sales, how many upgrade their ram? I have upgraded my RAM only ONCE in my life, and I do After Effects and Photoshop work.
My Mac Pro - my After Effects machine - only has 8GB of RAM, and I do not feel like it is lacking. I got it in 2010 with 8GB of RAM.
Personally, I would rather sell my 2014 Mac Mini when the new Intel chips are out and get a new one. The quad core model might come back for the new chips, we do not know.
Hmm. Get a 2014 Mac Mini, and upgrade the RAM in a year or two.
OR
Get a 2014 Mac Mini, sell it in a year or two for some money for the newer *2016* model with the base config having more ram (maybe), newer processors (most likely), better graphics (maybe).
If this Mac Mini does not suit your needs......DO NOT GET ONE. Out of all the Mac Mini sales, how many upgrade their ram? I have upgraded my RAM only ONCE in my life, and I do After Effects and Photoshop work.
My Mac Pro - my After Effects machine - only has 8GB of RAM, and I do not feel like it is lacking. I got it in 2010 with 8GB of RAM.
Personally, I would rather sell my 2014 Mac Mini when the new Intel chips are out and get a new one. The quad core model might come back for the new chips, we do not know.
Hmm. Get a 2014 Mac Mini, and upgrade the RAM in a year or two.
OR
Get a 2014 Mac Mini, sell it in a year or two for some money for the newer *2016* model with the base config having more ram (maybe), newer processors (most likely), better graphics (maybe).
It is a sad state for Apple's product line. They used to market their machines as being more powerful than comparable PC's. Then they switched to using the same hardware.
This seemed great at the time, because it looked like we'd finally keep up with PC's and technology. But instead, Apple kept us a few steps behind and charged us more.
Reliance on OS X as a reason to buy a Mac has also become a dead end. Realistically, OS X is feeling dated and showing its obsolescence.
And, it's all about obsoleting prior models and software versions. The most significant changes in each new OS X version, is what is being obsoleted. Which machines, hardware, or software are being put out to pasture with no compelling reason to upgrade (other than to have the latest or some new minor feature).
But, is it worth obsoleting / retiring our old Mac just because the new version of OS X offers one tiny feature that could realistically be added to any prior version of OS X?
Even iTunes is now set to require a new Mac. How long before they update iOS to require iTunes 12.x or later for updates and syncing?
While they discontinued support for my Mac Pro, they continue to support windows machines nearly 6 to 8 years older with iTunes 12.x.
Essentially, they stab their loyal customers in the back, and give better support to people who have computers from other competitors which are much older.
The sad reality is that their new business model screws loyal Apple Mac owners, and benefits users who saved money by purchasing cheaper computers from their competition.
I was a Mac switcher with OS 7.0. I was also someone who abandoned Apple when Apple a banned us loyal Apple Ii users. That stung when you've just purchased a $2500 computer as a loyal customer to be told a month later that effective immediately your entire architecture is discontinued and unsupported and tried to shove a useless overpriced and fledgling Mac at us.
So I've switched before and I'll be doing it again. And unlike last time, I'm not expecting to switch back to Apple. I'll use my current machines until they die. But the Mini I was going to buy last month isn't happening. And by next month I'll have a more powerful quad core windows machine at a cheaper price.
I've got a lot of Apple hardware, but the transition away from Apple will be both cheap and painless. I've already got 2 other windows machines in the mix. And I see a smooth transition away from OS X.
This seemed great at the time, because it looked like we'd finally keep up with PC's and technology. But instead, Apple kept us a few steps behind and charged us more.
Reliance on OS X as a reason to buy a Mac has also become a dead end. Realistically, OS X is feeling dated and showing its obsolescence.
And, it's all about obsoleting prior models and software versions. The most significant changes in each new OS X version, is what is being obsoleted. Which machines, hardware, or software are being put out to pasture with no compelling reason to upgrade (other than to have the latest or some new minor feature).
But, is it worth obsoleting / retiring our old Mac just because the new version of OS X offers one tiny feature that could realistically be added to any prior version of OS X?
Even iTunes is now set to require a new Mac. How long before they update iOS to require iTunes 12.x or later for updates and syncing?
While they discontinued support for my Mac Pro, they continue to support windows machines nearly 6 to 8 years older with iTunes 12.x.
Essentially, they stab their loyal customers in the back, and give better support to people who have computers from other competitors which are much older.
The sad reality is that their new business model screws loyal Apple Mac owners, and benefits users who saved money by purchasing cheaper computers from their competition.
I was a Mac switcher with OS 7.0. I was also someone who abandoned Apple when Apple a banned us loyal Apple Ii users. That stung when you've just purchased a $2500 computer as a loyal customer to be told a month later that effective immediately your entire architecture is discontinued and unsupported and tried to shove a useless overpriced and fledgling Mac at us.
So I've switched before and I'll be doing it again. And unlike last time, I'm not expecting to switch back to Apple. I'll use my current machines until they die. But the Mini I was going to buy last month isn't happening. And by next month I'll have a more powerful quad core windows machine at a cheaper price.
I've got a lot of Apple hardware, but the transition away from Apple will be both cheap and painless. I've already got 2 other windows machines in the mix. And I see a smooth transition away from OS X.
Or save much more money by buying a cheaper windows machine with a longer useful life cycle and skipping the 2014 mini altogether.
It's laughable that I have a Windows PC from 2002 that is still better supported by Apple than my much newer Mac OS X machines.
That's great. I've upgraded my ram *twice* just on my current machine. That ability to upgrade allowed me to purchase it inexpensively and upgrade as needed.
Personally, I use my mac for real work and can't have the downtime associated with buying and selling machines because "green" apple has decided to make throwaway computers.
With each generation apple takes more and more... First it was sealed batteries, then soldered ram, then proprietary ssd. There is absolutely no reason for this on a desktop computer. They've really become consumer unfriendly.
You may not like them, but those engineering design choices are not intrinsically bad. They have their pros and cons. The balance is dependent on your wants in a computer.
We are in the final phase of the transition into all solid state being the default design choice for virtually all consumer/prosumer computers. (Though for economic reasons alone spinning platter drives are obviously going to remain the choice for bulk storage for quite a few years yet. But that will just be done separately on external drives, and is not a big issue since USB 3 & TB appeared on the scene.)
My bitch with Apple over those features is the price they gouge for them. I mean, $240 (AUD) for an extra 8 GB RAM, and $960 for a 1TB SSD? I don't mind a modest Apple Tax, but that is a little steep.
Glad I picked up a refurb 2012 quad.
How so? It's a very nice windowing front-end for a flavor of Unix. I love to tweak my machines, but the most important thing to me is that they are dependable. I probably get half a dozen system crashes per year on my Macs, rather better than any Windows machine I've owned.
Color palletes, opaque vs transparent windows and menus, and skeumorphism(sp?) are transient styles and not real indicators of deep innovation.
I'm quite willing to criticize Apple (just look at my posts!) but I'm really curious--what does OS X not offer, that you wish it did?
They also created the illusion of being less expensive for the consumer. When in reality the TCO increases dramatically.
My biggest concern is that Apple is betting the farm on the "Lifestyle" thing relying almost entirely on residual magic and the RDF that no one wants to admit doesn't exist anymore. Refocusing on the Mac won't be enough to make up the difference when the lifestyle angle doesn't live up to the absurd expectations of Wall Street. Maybe Microsoft will knock it out of the park with Win10.
In a perfect (desktop / server) world I'd just like to build a Linux box suited to my wants and desires and virtualize whatever OS's I want on top of it.
Last edited:
You don't need any downtime. Get a 2016 Mac Mini (or whenever you NEED an upgrade), run both computers at the same time for a while. When you have a few minutes here and there, transfer your data (which should actually be on a external hard drive if it is work related and backed up to a third source too BTW).
This is a better option. Not only will you get more RAM in a newer model, you will get a MUCH better processor, video card, maybe SSD only, and more.
I suspect the problem is the opposite.
Apple know full well just what the thermally constrained Mini could do with the cooler Haswell chips, so they deliberately crippled it, processor wise, to avoid eating into iMac and Pro sales.
Haswell quads in a Mini. It's a nice thought.
Can't say I am too impressed with the prices for the top processor/RAM combination, a dual-core i7, 16GB. Dual core. OK price for a quad, but not a dual.
Makes a man want to switch to a Linux box.
I think this is more along the lines of 'We don't have a server version, so we can back off the horsepower'.
I had a client that wanted to use Mini's for their POS system (that's Point Of Sale, not Piece Of *) and a quad-core i7 would be a drastic waste of cash.
But look at Compaq. They had a lot of proprietary parts in their days, people bitched, and they kept doing it.
In many ways, today's proprietary becomes tomorrows standard. The soldered in RAM isn't that great of a deal. In my decades in the computer business, users very often never upgrade their computers, and if the motherboard has a socket for a second processor, it remains empty for the life of the box, unless it's filled at the time of original purchase.
And you think Apple doesn't realize that?
The 'tinkerer' is a HUGE minority of the computer buying public. Heck, half of them just go in and buy whatever the kid at the local Best Try says to buy. I've seen many people talked out of buying a Mac at the local Worst Buy place just on the 'it's hard to learn' lie. As if Windows 8 is a cake walk...
The mini is now aimed at the people that it should be aimed at: low experience, low intelligence, low expectations users who will never upgrade the box. Ever.
If you aren't that type of user/purchaser, then buck up and get an iMac, or a used mini, or older Mac Pro. Heck, the ONLY TIME I had to upgrade a mini that I've owned was because it came with 2g of RAM and Snow Leopard needed (demanded) 4g as a minimum. If it would have installed on the 2g, I'd never likely upgraded it, but I have a Pro, and an iMac. You don't need huge memory to serve music and be a garage system for looking up parts and manuals online.
Sorry guys, the Mac mini is what it should have been. A basic home computer for people looking to dump their 5 year old Windows box and use their old keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
I agree with you, but my very old iMac with 2GB of RAM is able to run Lion just fine. Maybe it was just a snow leopard issue?
When all windows PCs are only available with soldered ram that is grossly overpriced, then let's talk. When it has standard slots it's just a non-issue what Apple or Dell charge.
I think thats the road Ill be taking the next time around (my 2014 Mini will be arriving in a few days), although I will buy instead of build. I used Linux years ago for a specific programme package, and it was a bit of a chore. From what Ive heard, though, Linux has since become much more user friendly. I just cant afford the time right now to dick around with a new OS.
I switched from PCs to Macs also years ago, in large part because I was no longer willing to feed the evil, greedy giant. But Apple is now the evil, greedy giant. I need to run Windows for my business, and also need to frequently access the internet for information, and Im not willing to go anywhere near the internet in Windows.
Im on a five-year hardware cycle, but I think a reliable PC running Linux with Windows in a virtualisation programme will likely replace my last Mac, unless Apple revisits its pricing policy.
Sorry, my bad, it was Mountain Lion, but still...
No, it came right up and said that it needed (I needed) a minimum of 4g of RAM. The other mini I have couldn't even do that! The processor was not on the support list, and the install never got very far at all.
But anyway... They have come a long way from the single core processors.
----------
But I think the cost in the accessory memory upgrades are in the testing, and markup at the cash register. Probably more markup than anything. The RAM that is installed at the factory seems to be more reasonable. Maybe I'm wrong, but...
I seem to remember the 'stacked RAM' on the Apple III being hideously outrageously expensive in the day, but each 'chip' had to be manufactured, then soldered together, then tested, etc...
Anyone remember the 'Twiggie' drives from the first Lisa?
It costs $300US to upgrade the base mini to 16GB of ram. It costs $135 purchase top quality (crucial brand) third party ram. How is apple's price more reasonable?
----------
Exactly. Apple has great marketing and is very convincing to a lot of people, but there is absolutely no good reason to not have upgradable ram. Otherwise 8GB should be standard across the board with a reasonable cost to go to 16GB. They pull the same bs on their phones... 16GB of storage? No option for 32GB instead forcing you to pay for 64GB if you want more? That is insane.
You ARE wrong. It would cost me over 346. us dollars to upgrade 12 more gb in the base mini to max it out at 16 (the extra money is only for the 12) . Well over 50% of the cost of the mini itself. It doesn't cost them any more at the factory for labor, it's the same work soldering any size ram in and that's where it's done.
Look at it this way. Apple is already charging you, who knows how much, for the 4gb. Then add 12 more gb for 346.00.
Crucial memory for the 2012 (since it was interchangeable) mac mini is 16gb for $165.99 as per their website and is probably better than the bulk buy stuff you get from the factory. When you replace the 4gb inside you sell it and then the price is even lower, probably close to 100.00 plus whatever apple charged for the 4gb. From the factory it's 346.00 plus what they charged for the 4gb. HUGE difference by anyone's standards and not more reasonable in this or any other world.
OK, I'm guilty...
Someone either upthread, or on another thread said that the difference to double the memory was $100. So that sounds reasonable to me. To go from 8g to 16g is only $200.00 on the fastest model. Who here would ever buy the 'Entry Model' of anything? I wouldn't. If you are carping about the cost of memory on the lowest performing system they make in that model, you really shouldn't be allowed here to carp about performance. Am I Right?
I kid...
I have had systems crash from 'bad' memory. It was a brand that I respect and have used for decades and aside from an HP Laserjet, has never let me down.
For me, the cost of going to the Apple Store to diagnose/replace a system, or the cost involved in diagnosing it myself, and living with a hobbled system waiting for the 'Lifetime Warranty Replacement Memory' to arrive is time I could be using my system and getting things done. I consider the price, if it is remotely reasonable, to be a good investment in a machine that I hope to have for at least 4 years.
I rarely upgrade my systems, once installed, except for my Sun server which got a major step up in processor speed, a doubling of the memory, and a SAS drive upgrade. But it's a server. I start all my MBP's with the max memory because at the time I last bought one, I needed the memory. Now I'd probably get by with the standard amount.
So 'reasonable' is an elastic concept, and if you are going to be buying a 'base Model' anything, expect to get hosed for major upgrades. So I'm not "wrong", from my point of view...
Just sayin'...
----------
Again, the key words here are 'base mini'.
And from a different point of view, Apple's price IS reasonable, because you can't upgrade on your own.
And for both of you: You can't even upgrade the processor on the 'base mini'! Do you really want to start that far behind? And you are complaining about the cost of memory upgrades? Really?
Last edited: