2014 Mac Mini Teardown Highlights Increased Difficulty For User Upgradability

[DudeDad]

I really think this is complete over-reaction. Yes, the die-hard fanboys (I'm one) are disappointed, but to the masses that purchase Macs, it's a non-issue and they will easily get over it.

Walk down the hall at work and ask the question I did: "How many cores does your home computer have?" and you will either get a shoulder shrug or a confused look about what a "core" is.

Most of you who say you need 4 cores probably don't. It's hard to admit, but it's likely true. If you need something that powerful, which you probably don't, get a Mac Pro (which is a great machine, but overkill for most people).

My 2012 mini with my Datatale thunderbolt drive is great for editing raw images in lightroom and for serving as my Sonos server for my large music collection. If it dies, I'll pick up a new mini and it will work as well. Yes, I'll have to pony up for the ram rather than get it from OWC, but there are more things to worry about than self-replacable ram.

The sky is only falling on paper....just like it did when Apple changed the iTunes icon a few years ago (this board went insane over that...an icon...)

 

[iolinux333]

If last years pro performance levels aren't trickling down into next years high end consumer kit, then the only way to get it at an affordable price in the future may well be to snag last years entry-level pro machine when it becomes next years second hand device.

Nice post. I enjoyed reading it. I agree the above seems to be the way to go at the current time.

The issue that may arise in doing that, that Apple does time and again, is artificial obscelesence through software.

I guess they're doing this because their business model is focused on profit through hardware sales and that's hard for me to come to terms with because I can still install Windows 10 on a 15 year old machine and it will still have all features, just slower.

There used to be some mainframe company (IBM?) that dropped off a maxed out mainframe into your building, and as you needed more processors, you would call them, they'd take your money, flip a switch, and more processors would instantly come on line. They did the same with software features: pay more, switch flip.

hmmmm.

 

[Oracle1729]

Most cars last 10 years. Apple does not want people using the same computer for 10 years. I would guess 3 years is more likely their goal to make you replace it.

So much for Apples hold their resale value so the high prices aren't really so bad.

 

[Toltepeceno]

I did read. You said:

The Air and macbook Pro are already almost identical.

Which is complete and utter nonsense. They are not almost identical, they are not even close. The highest air processor is not even close to the lowest mac pro processor. That is not almost identical, it's not even close.

read next time


I said:

The macbook Pro will be ENDED within 2 years.
The Air and macbook Pro are already almost identical.



There will be an Air and an "Air pro"

3 or 4 machines


SAME as the 2012 Mini....dual core and quad core models spread over 4 machines.


4 versions of the Air, one singular chassis.

 

[wr90]

On the UPSIDE, there are now 2 PCI-express ports on the motherboard. If you remove the wireless card and just use Ethernet for Internet, you could find another use for that nice slot...

It is a bummer we can't upgrade the ram ourselves when 16 Gb of ram gets cheaper. But if you're really worried about it, just upgrade it for 200$ when you buy it from Apple. That price is comparable to market price ($180).

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I can understand why Apple made every change they did except going to the trouble to redesign the case ONLY to make it harder and more expensive for people to open it up. Surely mini's represent some tiny revenue number to Apple for that effort and retooling cost. And of the few mini buyers how many actually go to the effort to open it up just to add RAM? It seems very vindictive.

That said, it's better than no mini at all. I'd hate for the entire line to go away.
The low end mini still makes a great music server -- that's what I use my entry level 2012 model for in conjunction with the iOS Remote app.

 

[wizard]

I have to wonder if people realize that many Intel mobile chips can't even address more than 16 GB of RAM?

I would have accepted soldered RAM had Jony and co built a new enclosure that was 70% smaller/thinner and thus required flash disks and a tiny Logic board, but that's NOT what happened here. This is just punitive to those wanting to buy into the Mac product line for less $, and it also serves to alienate would be PC switchers that are somewhat accustomed to easy RAM upgrades, minimally.

Baloney! The base machines are pretty good as it is. If you upgrade the RAM to max you really aren't laying out that much more cash when all is said and done.

If Apple came out and said, "hi, so this new Mac mini is truly Mini, it's the same size as a Rubicks cube or a few decks of playing cards!" Then I'd accept a sealed device with no upgradable anything, but they just got lazy and sealed what was previously a viable product.

It isn't any more sealed up that before. At worst you have to buy a new Torx screwdriver.

 

[LordVic]

I really don't get this way of thinking. Actually, it strikes me as a bit bizarre. A lot of commenters here on macrumors seem to identify with Apple as a profit-maximizing company. Of course Apple wants to make money. That's fair enough. But why should we as consumers applaud when Apple is making things more expensive for us? Why? In what way does it increase your quality of life that Apple makes even more money?

I think it is beyond obvious that buying Apple products, for me, is about ME. How can it be otherwise? I have bought Apple products because I've liked them and they have suited my goals. I have never ever bought a single consumer product out of love for the company that makes them. But if you want to buy Apple products out of an altruistic wish to increase Apple's profits, then by all means, go ahead.

Couldn't have responded better.

Listen (to the guy you responded to), if Apple was making this change (less CPU options, non upgradable RAm, harder to upgrade hard drive etc) because of some tangible benefit to the consumer, I think there would be less complaints here.

But they did non of that. There is absolutely, Zero innovation here. There's no thinner chassis. There's no advanced thermals or internals. They have made the change exclusively for their own profiteering goals. To maximize their profit at the cost of consumer choice and capability.

If they came out with a postage stamp computer, and said "sorry, can't upgrade cause, it's well, a postage stamp size", nobody would complain. But they didnt change a single thing with the size to dictate the change.

 

[Oracle1729]

I really think this is complete over-reaction. Yes, the die-hard fanboys (I'm one) are disappointed, but to the masses that purchase Macs, it's a non-issue and they will easily get over it.

They'll know when their mac is sluggish and the Apple experience is unpleasant. Even if they don't know or care why.

Most of you who say you need 4 cores probably don't. It's hard to admit, but it's likely true. If you need something that powerful, which you probably don't, get a Mac Pro (which is a great machine, but overkill for most people).

So in your world, nobody has a need for computing power between a macbook air and a xeon with $2000 worth of GPUs? Wow. Yet even then you say the Mac Pro is overkill. So you think nobody uses computers for more than web browsing and email?

If it dies, I'll pick up a new mini and it will work as well. Yes, I'll have to pony up for the ram rather than get it from OWC, but there are more things to worry about than self-replacable ram.

True, like having a decent CPU. Oh, wait.

 

[stuffradio]

An honest question: will that even be possible? Without replacing MB?

I was speaking in hyperbole for now, but I wouldn't put it past Apple to invent something to do something like that.

 

[Akula971]

We all should be very grateful to Apple. They have your best interests at heart. They knew they made their best products from 2008-2012. They know that you wouldn't buy such an inferior machine, it is after all for the dum dums. They have saved you bundles of cash, by producing machines that you simply don't want. Safe in the knowledge that our old machines have years of life left in them. The've produced new operating systems with flattened icons, pretty colours were you don't need them, and features for the on the go chattering youth who must publicise their every move. Not for serious work orientated people.

So I'll continue on, using my 2010 Mac Mini and my old faithful 2008 Mac Pro. safe in the knowledge that my cash is going nowhere, well certainly not in Apple's direction.

For the dum dums out there, I'm being sarcastic.

 

[wizard]

Why use an uncommon torx?

Curiosity a bad thing Apple?

It isn't uncommon at all in the electronics industry. Torx has replace Philips screws in many applications as it is more amendable to mass production. It is the same reason you see Torx used extensively in the auto industry.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I wonder if these scores are based on "retail" or whether they case into consideration that tools will be able to easily open these later would influence the score.

eg. will the score increase, when readily available secure Torx bits available for everyone for these smaller types, if not already.

I think the score is based on the fact it now requires a tool to get in the box, and not just any tool, a custom one not available at the local hardware or electronics store. Maybe Apple was throwing a bone to iFixit. Ha.

 

[gwales123]

People need to really retire this nonsense argumentation. There is not a person on this planet that is locked in to Apple's ecosystem in a desktop sense. Especially OS X and all Apple software are completely open. If you use pages and numbers you can export to .docx and .xlsx and continue to work in any other environment.

In the mobile environment many people have spent lots of money on apps, which makes it difficult to move to another platform without suffering a loss. But this is the same situation on other platforms.

So please think yourself before you regurgitate what you have read somewhere else. Ecosystem lock-in is absolute nonsense.

"Locked in" was not what I meant to say. I really meant "invested in", but it amounts to much the same thing. I have Office 2008 because I got it free as a teacher. Lucky I can use it to see two pages next to each other, isn't it. Apple doesn't think I need to do that. Apple doesn't want to support older software because they want you to buy the shiny new hardware, and they don't want to support the old hardware because they want you to upgrade to the latest software, which needs the latest hardware to run.

I have watched this game for the last ten years. Having supported hundreds of Macs in labs I know what I'm talking about. I remember the embarrassment of not wanting to explain why programs wouldn't run properly any more when I had mixed older and newer Macs. iLife was a nightmare, then it was iWork. Now it's free (if you buy their hardware), so stuff the users who rely on it to get things done. No wonder Apple lost the education market in Australia.

 

[Altis]

I really think this is complete over-reaction. Yes, the die-hard fanboys (I'm one) are disappointed, but to the masses that purchase Macs, it's a non-issue and they will easily get over it.

Walk down the hall at work and ask the question I did: "How many cores does your home computer have?" and you will either get a shoulder shrug or a confused look about what a "core" is.

Most of you who say you need 4 cores probably don't. It's hard to admit, but it's likely true. If you need something that powerful, which you probably don't, get a Mac Pro (which is a great machine, but overkill for most people).

You make some good points. I'm aware Apple is now concerned about the masses only, and that in general, the average person probably doesn't need anything more than a 5 year old core 2 duo or first gen i3, 4 GB of RAM, and on-board graphics.

Some people consider the new product to be worse than the previous one. I think some trims are exempt from this, but paying $300 to go from i5 to i7 duo seems extreme, especially when I can buy an entire retail-boxed version of an i7 4770 for that kind of money. Nobody likes to be ripped off, or taken for granted.

As for not needing 4 cores, you're right that a lot of people don't need it, but I would say that most of the people that want it need it at least sometimes. I don't want to buy a Mac Mini and then have to upkeep my desktop PC with a more powerful processor for those times I'm working with more complex programs. I'd like to have one computer that can perform all of my tasks, even if 75% of the time I'm in an office suite or web browser.

Bottom line: Sure, the average user won't care. But there is a large enough fan base of this product that spends far more (both on the upgrades and on more frequent replacements) -- the very demographic that kept Apple afloat not long ago -- that is now being left out of the offerings. These people are some of the most dedicated Apple fans... if you can convince them to leave, what does that say?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

It isn't any more sealed up that before. At worst you have to buy a new Torx screwdriver.

But of course it is. The previous model entry panel was removable with a hand. The new one requires a tool. That sounds more sealed to me. And the tool seems to be proprietary to some degree, not your usual T-whatever torx in your tool kit, so you have to order one. Then its smaller than small makes it a giant PITA. So several barriers to entry. Easily overcome, but barriers that didn't exist with the previous model.

 

[gwales123]

We all should be very grateful to Apple. They have your best interests at heart. They knew they made their best products from 2008-2012. They know that you wouldn't buy such an inferior machine, it is after all for the dum dums. They have saved you bundles of cash, by producing machines that you simply don't want. Safe in the knowledge that our old machines have years of life left in them. The've produced new operating systems with flattened icons, pretty colours were you don't need them, and features for the on the go chattering youth who must publicise their every move. Not for serious work orientated people.

So I'll continue on, using my 2010 Mac Mini and my old faithful 2008 Mac Pro. safe in the knowledge that my cash is going nowhere, well certainly not in Apple's direction.

For the dum dums out there, I'm being sarcastic.

I was right with you, until the last paragraph. Then I re-read and didn't know where you were being sarcastic and where not. I think Yosemite's look and feel is a bad move by Apple. It's awful design is neither ergonomic nor attractive. But I'm 'locked in' to the Apple ecosystem, I hate Windows 8 and Android does not appeal.

 

[wizard]

I last met a person who upgraded his computer four years ago. Upgradability on computers, removable battery on phones & memory cards on tablets are interesting perhaps to less than 1% of the market.

The problem with upgrades is that three years down the road you are throwing good money after bad. If you need more performance you should be buying hardware which will be substantially improved.

Some people really need to stop trying to conserve technology products for ages and get a new device when the time comes, just like the rest of us. In 2014 tech products are designed to be easy to manufacture & be thrown away when their time comes. Deal with it

Well that isn't the right attitude either. The smart thing to do is to retask old hardware, hand it down or even sell it to somebody that can make use of it. Throwing away computing hardware is just bad for the environment.

----------

I've already started moving away from . I've stuck it out long enough. Nearly 20 years. It's just not worth the headache and the money anymore. Too many options out there.

I suggest others start considering it. I mean, Watch, really?

Sooner or later the rest of the industry will follow Apple. The reality is memory systems are the next subsystem of a computer to be remade for better performance. We saw recently the transition to solid state storage and RAM will go through the same transition.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I read it in the traditional way, e.g. "Columbus discovered America."

No European could claim to have discovered the Americas after Columbus, so the usage is still wrong. Nothing can be "discovered" twice, by definition. It is not a synonym for "confirmed" or "also found." Not nearly. Every day is a new adventure in the English language at MR.

 

[Altis]

It isn't uncommon at all in the electronics industry. Torx has replace Philips screws in many applications as it is more amendable to mass production. It is the same reason you see Torx used extensively in the auto industry.

It appears to be a Torx security bit, not a standard one. They tend to have a pin in the center of them. This looks like a 6-star Torx security bit... I'm not sure how hard they are to get, but I've had a 5-star security Torx that was very difficult to acquire.

Standard Torx wouldn't have been an issue, I don't think.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The problem with upgrades is that three years down the road you are throwing good money after bad. If you need more performance you should be buying hardware which will be substantially improved.

This is a key point I don't understand why more people don't get, especially with the high resale value of Apple products. The money people pour into "upgrades" when a machine is aged is better spent with the proceeds of the sold device to buy a brand new one with better performance than the "upgrade" would have provided.

 

[wizard]

This is complete nonsense! It is only slower than the old quad core when running HIGHLY multithreaded benchmarks. Otherwise the Mini is significantly faster with the new Haswell processors. The majority of users out there are better served with good single threaded performance. That means a core with a high clock rate and good execution efficiency. These new Minis should be excellent upgrades for the users they target.

You Apple white knights are getting really old.

Nope we are just relaying the truth. The vast majority of people out there complaining probably don't have a clue as to what a "thread" is.

No one expects Mac Pro performance, they expect performance better than the OLD MAC MINI.

Yep and that is exactly what they get substantially better performance.

The new one is a step backwards with the soldered ram and slow cpus.

Your argument is brutal

Your argument is ill informed and likely the result of a personality that follows the crowd over the cliff instead of looking ahead.

 

[LordVic]

The problem with upgrades is that three years down the road you are throwing good money after bad. If you need more performance you should be buying hardware which will be substantially improved.

While I would agree with you, this is computers, where there are bottlenecks to performance, and software requirements might increase that bottleneck to one place only, but not others.

The point is, and what people are saying here, is people want to be able to make that choice themselves and not be dictated to.

Example: An Old Pentium 4 Dualcore. it was dog slow by todays standards, for web, and launching things. Based on Apple's mentality, if everything was locked / soldered in, this thing would be thrown in the trash and a new $1,000 computer would need to be purchased.

However, instead, replacing a $100 hard drive and a $45 RAM stick, The computer was more than capable of modern word processing, and web browsing. The thing was never used for gaming. Never used for heavy processing. A simple, cheap, upgrade made the computer more than enough for it's intended use, nearly 15 years after it was created. (in fact, my brother even played Diablo 3 on the bloody thing after the RAM upgrade).


I understand that the Mac Mini is a small form factor and that some limitations are required. Hence the ULV based chipset and soldered CPU. But Apple proved in the last iteration of the Mini, which was the same dimensions that you COULD easily fit a SODIMM slot for RAM upgrade. So moving to soldered on circuitry in this iteration did NOT have consumer facing point. it was done for their purposes only as moving to this direction had absolutely no benefit to the consumer.

if Apple wants to change my mind on this, all they have to do is say "we soldered the ram on becase _______"

 

[iMacaque]

No European could claim to have discovered the Americas after Columbus, so the usage is still wrong. Nothing can be "discovered" twice, by definition. It is not a synonym for "confirmed" or "also found." Not nearly. Every day is a new adventure in the English language at MR.

You must be a hoot at parties.

"I discovered a new restaurant today..."

<long diatribe about the use of the word "discovered">

The English language is descriptive and not prescriptive, so it doesn't matter what you think if people use the word differently.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

Apple should worry when we would not complain about it ...

I have not got an illusion complaining will change the matter, but al least it shows we still care.

Apple doesn't come to MacRumors to see this. If you have a complaint, submit it directly to them on their website. That's the only way they see it.