Apple CEO Tim Cook: Mac Mini Will Be 'Important Part' of Future Product Lineup

[Niklas_nick]

Just my speculation on what I'd like:

Mac nano in Apple TV size with A12y (or something but A number number is iPhone and added x is iPad) for basic computing, home cinema server, home kit/smart home/family iCloud base etc.

Mac mini, some redesign, cascadable into computer clusters and servers since they don't have real server solutions; get one mini for base use, connect with second one for double the power up to Mac Pro computing levels

Mac Pro or not ? promised modular system might be cluster minis, though other extra casings would be needed for pro hardware. Not quite convinced though that Apple would sell an "unclean" modular tower solution. So maybe something more like good old tower Mac Pro's..

 

[Falhófnir]

Wondering if they will retain parity with the 13” Pro, or go for parity with the 12” macbook... having said that, with Microsoft demonstrating that 15W chips can be done fanless with a seemingly minor penalty maybe we will see a best of both worlds version - fanless 15W cpu in a new enclosure, and a chip bump for the higher end (i7?) versions in the same form factor...

 

[MarkJames68]

Happy Birthday, Mac MIni 2012 model!

Obvious next major milestones for the Mac Mini:

• February 2018: The Mac MIni will have gone over 1200 days without being refreshed thus beating the Mac Pro's previous lengthy update drought.

Technically the Mac Pro hasn’t been updated, just repriced. Still same CPU and GPU from 2013.

 

[fischersd]

There was a render someone did to demonstrate our fears with what Jony might do to the mini (can't find it now) - it was about 1/4" thick with one port.
I also wonder, now that they're taking Touch ID away from the iPhone - will we not get our wireless keyboard with Touch ID for unlocking and paying with Apple Pay on our Mac's? Hope that still comes to fruition (or maybe they're working on the webcam that will use Face ID and hang off of our monitor/TV sets?) If the latter, I'll make the face ID my ass so I moon my TV every time I want to pay for something.

Hopefully Apple's "spies" here on MR have sent the angst over what they did in 2014 up the chain, so Apple can turn the tide and make the next revision something we actually want.

And, hey, if they want to do colours again (like they did back with the iMac in the day) that would be pretty awesome too...so long as it comes in black. Jet black...you hear me Jony? DLC coat that!!!

Oh...and HDMI 2.1....and a GPU that can do at least 5k @ 60Hz?

 

[MH01]

And that role is now no longer needed. At least from Apple’s perspective.

The future of the Mac is probably as some high-end AR/VR/App content creation machine. You are not going to be using a low-end Mac mini for that. For everything else, the iPad is going to get better until it suffices as a general-purpose computer for the masses.

Apple is clearly positioning the iPad as a Mac alternative.

It’s the same with the Mac Pro. Apple likely never had any intention of updating it, and were planning on the iMac Pro taking its place. They walked back their position only upon seeing the massive backlash in forums like this.

Maybe we will see the Mac mini live on spiritually as some entry-level option of the Mac Pro, but as far as Apple is concerned, it has no place in their grand vision of things. Which I believe is as follows:

1) Release an Apple Watch that is fully independent of iPhone.
2) Position Apple Watch to handle more tasks currently given to iPhone.
3) Release accessories that complement Apple's expanding wearables strategy.
4) Position iPhone as an AR navigation device.
5) Position iPad as a genuine Mac alternative.
6) Position Mac as a VR/AR content creation machine.

https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2017/10/18/apples-grand-vision

None of which specifically calls for a Mac mini.

Foremost you cannot have a grand vision for Mac with grap GPUs..... and even apple admits you need an external GPU....so

Look at the intel Skull canyon , add a razor core + 1080ti and not a single of my Macs at home is able to keep up with this machine setup.

So if you are talking AR/VR , all Macs offered suck without an external GPU, a new Mac mini with a nice quad core + external GPU will make an excellent VR/AR machine.

The issue is that the Mac mini needs to be less ATV and more intel skull canyon.

 

[convergent]

Foremost you cannot have a grand vision for Mac with grap GPUs..... and even apple admits you need an external GPU....so

Look at the intel Skull canyon , add a razor core + 1080ti and not a single of my Macs at home is able to keep up with this machine setup.

So if you are talking AR/VR , all Macs offered suck without an external GPU, a new Mac mini with a nice quad core + external GPU will make an excellent VR/AR machine.

The issue is that the Mac mini needs to be less ATV and more intel skull canyon.

The grand vision of the Mac is that it goes away and is replaced by iOS.

 

[MH01]

The grand vision of the Mac is that it goes away and is replaced by iOS.

Agree. All cook cares about is profits , right now macs are last on his agenda .

Frankly I don't even think Cook has a grand vision or any of his execs, it's to milk and make Apple as profitable in the short term before the lot of them retire , Steve ballmer style . They are just getting lazy while accepting big bonuses.

Tim "Steve balmer" Cook will bring in huge profits..... and the next person will get the job of cleaning up the mess....

 

[0947347]

Would anybody know, how would it be, computer-wise, if they would put 4x A11 bionic in a Apple TV sized “Mac mini” and run iOS on it (if it is indeed possible)?

How would this kind of unit run against, let’s say, latest latest MacBook Pro?

 

[Yvan256]

Would anybody know, how would it be, computer-wise, if they would put 4x A11 bionic in a Apple TV sized “Mac mini” and run iOS on it (if it is indeed possible)?

If it runs iOS then it's not a Mac. I don't know why people keep thinking A10/A11/etc has to run iOS.

Remember that at the beginning, Mac OS X ran on both PowerPC and Intel. I'm sure Apple has macOS running on Intel, AMD and A11/etc in their labs right now. They want to avoid another IBM G5 scenario.

There's a lot of things to consider when trying to compare Apple's A10/A11/etc vs Intel i3/i5/i7:
- price
- power required
- space required
- heat generated
- cooling requirements
- processing power per watt
- processing power per dollar

While we don't really know how much Apple is paying for one A11 vs one intel i5, we can guess via benchmarks how many A11 would be required to equal one i5. One thing is for sure, Apple ordering 25% or more of the same CPUs to fabs would lower their overall cost per CPU.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Would anybody know, how would it be, computer-wise, if they would put 4x A11 bionic in a Apple TV sized “Mac mini” and run iOS on it (if it is indeed possible)?

How would this kind of unit run against, let’s say, latest latest MacBook Pro?

Some workloads are amenable to running on many cores. Rendering and transcoding are examples of tasks that are highly parallel and thus can be effectively spread across dozens of cores.

But for many tasks, one or two threads running at the highest possible speed (with complex instructions) give the best performance. So for apps that don’t take much advantage of multicore processors, performance would suffer greatly. 2 cores of A-series RISC compare poorly against 2 cores of Intel CISC.

This is by design; a couple cores of A series running at full speed must only use a couple Watts of power. Intel has no such limitation, and a dual core is designed to be able to consume and dissipate 50 or 60W. The heat sink and fan that allows that is heavy, large, gets hot, and needs a power supply that’s easily 10 times the volume of an iPhone. But it’s perfectly at home in a desktop case.

 

[Appleaker]

I would assume at least a year, since no timeframe was offered.

Have you looked at the $699 model? 2.6 GHz, 8 GB, 1TB, iris graphics, gb Ethernet, 4 USB3, 2 TB2, HDMI, wifi ac.

If this model was refreshed tomorrow, it would probably have a slightly faster processor, USB-C (and everyone would complain about needing dongles, aka new cables), TB3 and a somewhat faster GPU. Hopefully for the same price. (Ethernet and SD slot may go.)

Yes, the current machine is 3 years old, but it’s perfectly suitable for the vast majority of its target audience—users looking for a $700 Mac. Use it for a few years, sell it for $350, and it has cost you all of $10/month.

Unfortunately, if you need a slightly better $700 mini, you’ll have to wait. If you need a quad core, 16 GB, latest cpu and ports mini, you’ll have to wait (and that’s not a $700 box either, more like 1100 or 1200).

I wish Apple would have done a refresh by now, but they haven’t—and I do sympathize with you. But that’s the reality.

That is not what would happen if it was refreshed tomorrow.

 

[bopajuice]

Agree. All cook cares about is profits , right now macs are last on his agenda .

Frankly I don't even think Cook has a grand vision or any of his execs, it's to milk and make Apple as profitable in the short term before the lot of them retire , Steve ballmer style . They are just getting lazy while accepting big bonuses.

Tim "Steve balmer" Cook will bring in huge profits..... and the next person will get the job of cleaning up the mess....

If the iPhone 8 and X do not meet sales expectations, we can kiss the mini goodbye for the foreseeable future. The phones are their bread and butter at this point. Many said their staff looked nervous on stage during the last keynote. Wonder why...

 

[MH01]

If the iPhone 8 and X do not meet sales expectations, we can kiss the mini goodbye for the foreseeable future. The phones are their bread and butter at this point. Many said their staff looked nervous on stage during the last keynote. Wonder why...

Spot on. Apple will do everything to keep the cash cow on top. I think the mac lin is in for more disappointment .

 

[MarkJames68]

If the iPhone 8 and X do not meet sales expectations, we can kiss the mini goodbye for the foreseeable future. The phones are their bread and butter at this point. Many said their staff looked nervous on stage during the last keynote. Wonder why...

They’re certainly pushing the 8...keep on seeing commercials for it. I have no plans to upgrade either my work 6s or my personal 7 plus at this time.

 

[Bacillus]

Tim's pipeline:
|============================================================|
[serious leaks at regular intervals]

 

[Lankyman]

They’re certainly pushing the 8...keep on seeing commercials for it. I have no plans to upgrade either my work 6s or my personal 7 plus at this time.

They're pushing the 8 because it's rumoured they have lots of unsold stock and are cutting production for the next couple of months by 50%. Their share price dropped 3% on these reports.

 

[0947347]

If it runs iOS then it's not a Mac. I don't know why people keep thinking A10/A11/etc has to run iOS.

Remember that at the beginning, Mac OS X ran on both PowerPC and Intel. I'm sure Apple has macOS running on Intel, AMD and A11/etc in their labs right now. They want to avoid another IBM G5 scenario.

There's a lot of things to consider when trying to compare Apple's A10/A11/etc vs Intel i3/i5/i7:
- price
- power required
- space required
- heat generated
- cooling requirements
- processing power per watt
- processing power per dollar

While we don't really know how much Apple is paying for one A11 vs one intel i5, we can guess via benchmarks how many A11 would be required to equal one i5. One thing is for sure, Apple ordering 25% or more of the same CPUs to fabs would lower their overall cost per CPU.

Sorry, my typo, I meant MacOS not iOS
[doublepost=1508801790][/doublepost]

Would anybody know, how would it be, computer-wise, if they would put 4x A11 bionic in a Apple TV sized “Mac mini” and run MacOS on it (if it is indeed possible)?

How would this kind of unit run against, let’s say, latest latest MacBook Pro?

 

[brucewayne]

Apple stopped updating the mac mini because it was getting to close to the Mac Pro in performance. Circa 2012 a lot of creatives (photographers, graphic artists, video producers) were buying the quad mini since it was 75% of the performance of the pro for 1/3 the money. The main advantage of the pro at that point was internal expansion which was taken away in 2013.

If there was a quad kaby lake mini right now with even a halfway decent graphics card no one would be buying a mac pro at all. Look at the people on youtube (MKBHD and Neistat for example) that are doing all their editing on a 15" MacBook Pro while a trashcan mac pro sits in the background because the i7 handles video encoding so much faster.

 

[thealkimist]

1) Citation needed.
2) You clearly don't know the mac mini market. Hint -- read a bit of this thread.

1.) It is dictated by a multitude of factors: power per watt, hardware specifications, look and feel, cost, specific individual needs, brand loyalty, etc. But one thing is for sure: the majority of computer consumers out there do not care that much (nor is it the most important factor in their decision making) about hardware and its specifications. And the ones that do, I wonder how much of them even care that much about the ARM vs Intel debate. I certainly don't.

2.) MacRumors is not a reliable measure for knowing the majority of Apple's consumers. You should know better than that.

 

[thealkimist]

Hmmm - It'd be interesting alright, and may-be what's behind the delay and Tim's slightly cryptic comments, but i still doubt it. Too big a step i reckon. I can't see them transitioning a desktop mac away from Intel.

You may be right. MacOS would probably require a massive overhaul architecturally so it's probably not that feasible.

 

[Micky Do]

MacRumors is not a reliable measure for knowing the majority of Apple's consumers. You should know better than that.

Consumers? What are you on about?

Doncha realise that the average desirous MacRumors dilettante is the consumer.

 

[Abazigal]

Agree. All cook cares about is profits , right now macs are last on his agenda .

Frankly I don't even think Cook has a grand vision or any of his execs, it's to milk and make Apple as profitable in the short term before the lot of them retire , Steve ballmer style . They are just getting lazy while accepting big bonuses.

Tim "Steve balmer" Cook will bring in huge profits..... and the next person will get the job of cleaning up the mess....

Macs are last on his agenda because they don’t really have much of a place in Apple’s grand vision of the future of computing, not because of profits.

https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2017/10/18/apples-grand-vision

https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2017/4/12/the-mac-is-turning-into-apples-achilles-heel

The people who hope that Apple fails as some sort of “payback” for neglecting the Mac? They will be disappointed. Apple will go on to become even larger and more successful, and it will be because they were willing to let go of the Mac (which in turn frees up resources to focus on other areas), not because of it.

 

[navaira]

it will be because they were willing to let go of the Mac (which in turn frees up resources to focus on other areas)

It's fascinating to think of Apple as a company that needs to "free up resources".

 

[avemestr]

Wondering if they will retain parity with the 13” Pro, or go for parity with the 12” macbook... having said that, with Microsoft demonstrating that 15W chips can be done fanless with a seemingly minor penalty maybe we will see a best of both worlds version - fanless 15W cpu in a new enclosure, and a chip bump for the higher end (i7?) versions in the same form factor...

I'm not sure what you're smoking...

My 2012 Mac Mini has a Passmark score of 7375.

A 2012 Mac Mini could be upgraded with i7-3720QM with a score of 8133.

A 2017 MBP 13" with no touch bar but fastest processor available (i7-7660U) gets 6088.

A 2017 MBP 13" WITH touch bar and fastest processor available (i7-7567U) gets 6537.

(A 2014 Mac Mini with the fastest processor (i7-4578U) gets 4719)

So when you want "parity" with the 2017 laptops, you're asking us 2012 Mac Mini heads to accept a performance decrease.

So, a GREAT start for Apple would be to bring out a Mac Mini in the year 2017 with performance at least similar to their 2012 offering! I don't care if the TDP is 15 og 45W. It's a desktop computer!

 

[Falhófnir]

I'm not sure what you're smoking...

My 2012 Mac Mini has a Passmark score of 7375.

A 2012 Mac Mini could be upgraded with i7-3720QM with a score of 8133.

A 2017 MBP 13" with no touch bar but fastest processor available (i7-7660U) gets 6088.

A 2017 MBP 13" WITH touch bar and fastest processor available (i7-7567U) gets 6537.

(A 2014 Mac Mini with the fastest processor (i7-4578U) gets 4719)

So when you want "parity" with the 2017 laptops, you're asking us 2012 Mac Mini heads to accept a performance decrease.

So, a GREAT start for Apple would be to bring out a Mac Mini in the year 2017 with performance at least similar to their 2012 offering! I don't care if the TDP is 15 og 45W. It's a desktop computer!

Ah starting off with a nice casual personal insult, the mark of a great debater as it stands, desktop class chips are gone from the mini line never to return, U series laptop chips are what you’re getting unless they decide the mini needs to become a little Mac Pro powerhouse rather than the cheap consumer entry product in the line. Otherwise maybe they will offer an excruciatingly expensive build to order that puts in a desktop or H series mobile chip to further their newfound focus on VR and AR. I expect, though, that will be reserved for iMac and Mac Pro territory.

Benchmarks are well and good, but raw power measurement doesn’t take into consideration other advancements like hardware decoding, thermal improvements allowing for better sustained performance under load, and those sort of tweaks and refinements that add up and mean a supposedly far inferior modern chip often doesn’t perform quite as poorly as the numbers would suggest. Perhaps in the case of the 2012->2014 models this was less marked, but Kaby Lake has a lot of said improvements.