Apple should reduce the 2014 Mac mini Core i5 price to $299

Darmok N Jalad

macrumors 68030
Sep 26, 2017
2,793
11,786
Tanagra (not really)
Why don’t you build your own PC with the same specs in a tiny case for $299?

Give it a go, then get back to me and share your thoughts why it might not be viable for a company to price it at $299.
Exactly. I think the cost of materials today is what keeps them from refreshing it in the first place and still keep it at its current price point. I would love to see them use a Raven Ridge APU in an updated mini, but I suspect we won’t see it refreshed until Apple transitions to their own SOCs.
 

alien3dx

macrumors 65816
Feb 12, 2017
1,201
238
keep dreaming. If they sell new 8 GB . Imac 2017 baseline will be worthless. If they sell 300 dollar i think it will level down of apple premium product.They will stick same price and sell 8 GB default instead of 4GB struggle
 

krause734

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2010
592
1,404
I got sick of waiting for Apple and got an Intel NUC with a current Intel processor (capable of 4K @ 60hz) and latest Samsung SSD for less than the current ancient entry level Mini that is a sorry excuse for a 2018 computer. Linux Mint is great and free (runs smoother and more secure than MacOS). There are plenty of other companies filling this niche besides Apple (can't believe standalone desktop computers are a niche now in this smartphone/tablet world).
 
Last edited:

Hexley

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 10, 2009
1,021
103
(can't believe standalone desktop computers are a niche now in this smartphone/tablet world).
A lot of first time smartphone owners never owned a personal computer.

Smartphone upgrades are "pushed" to people on a postpaid phone subscription so ownership is easier to pay on a monthly basis over 24 months.

Smartphones have more utility for most people.

For most people personal computers are already so powerful that there is no compelling need to upgrade as frequently as before. Average upgrade cycle has lengthened to every 6 years. So if you're on a computer you bought before June 2012 then you might want to opt for an upgrade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,576
2,452
United States
A lot of first time smartphone owners never owned a personal computer.

Smartphone upgrades are "pushed" to people on a postpaid phone subscription so ownership is easier to pay on a monthly basis over 24 months.

Smartphones have more utility for most people.

For most people personal computers are already so powerful that there is no compelling need to upgrade as frequently as before. Average upgrade cycle has lengthened to every 6 years. So if you're on a computer you bought before June 2012 then you might want to opt for an upgrade.
My primary computers are the ones in my signature. I still can’t find a compelling reason to upgrade.

I have Windows machines as well. But they aren’t really any more modern.

My newest tech computer is a 2 year old HP laptop with an AMD APU with integrated GPU. And it’s a sloth. I can’t even be bothered to use it. I could drive across town, and get to a public computer before that AMD system is actually ready for me to do anything. And I hate typing one letter at a time and waiting for multiple seconds before it’s ready for the next letter.

Nothing wrong with the computer. Just ridiculously underpowered. I’m considering installing Windows 7 on it. But it’s much newer. So that’ll depend on whether I can find Windows 7 drivers that support a computer that came out so long after Windows 8 was discontinued.

Strangely, on old AMD Athlon systems, Windows 10 is blazing fast. But on my couple year old AMD system, flat out useless.

So, as long as we rely on Intel processors, I really haven’t found a compelling reason to get a computer newer than 2010.
 

Boyd01

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 21, 2012
4,876
2,227
New Jersey Pine Barrens
So, as long as we rely on Intel processors, I really haven’t found a compelling reason to get a computer newer than 2010.
Guessing that you don't do things like edit video or rip DVD's? There's a pretty dramatic speed increase for this kind of thing with the Core-i processors. I ripped most of my 1200 DVD library with Handbrake over a period of a few years. It was taking about 75 minutes to rip a one hour episode of a classic TV show with my 2008 MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo 2.4 ghz). The same thing takes 25 minutes or less on my 2013 1.7ghz i7 MacBook Air.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ApolloBoy

flyinmac

macrumors 68040
Sep 2, 2006
3,576
2,452
United States
Guessing that you don't do things like edit video or rip DVD's? There's a pretty dramatic speed increase for this kind of thing with the Core-i processors. I ripped most of my 1200 DVD library with Handbrake over a period of a few years. It was taking about 75 minutes to rip a one hour episode of a classic TV show with my 2008 MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo 2.4 ghz). The same thing takes 25 minutes or less on my 2013 1.7ghz i7 MacBook Air.
Look at the machines in my signature. Obviously I’m not using the iMac for ripping videos.

And my Mac Pro did the task just fine. One hour movies are a 15 minute job or less. Average is 10 minutes. And that’s ripping them at the highest quality settings. The standard presets on Handbrake are good. But I customize them a bit to increase the quality.

And with 6 DVD drives, I just load it with discs and walk away and come back when it’s done and swap them out.

That is the lightest task I use the Mac Pro for. It’s primary job is editing video that I produce in high definition.

It’s secondary job is audio and music production / editing.

And of course there is whatever other task I might have. And it will work on ripping dvd videos, rendering my own high-def videos, and processing my multi-track audio files simultaneously.

It does it quite well. Never bogs down, and gets the job done.

It works faster than I do. So I just load it up and let it work on things while I keep working on other tasks.

While DVD ripping is not its primary function, I did use it to rip 1500 of my own DVD’s and Blu-ray movie discs last year in a period of one month. Then I did another 2000 television episodes the next month. I find those more annoying to rip and tag (because some studios use a crazy track system to throw you off).

That was a project that had been ongoing for years as I had brief interest in it. And last year I decided to get everything in there and move to having everything on my AppleTV instead of physical media.

When I find a task that I cannot efficiently handle with the equipment I have, then I might consider an upgrade.
 

Hexley

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 10, 2009
1,021
103
The problem is paying the same price for the computer as when it came out four or six years ago...
That is why I think Apple should lower the price of the Mac mini further if they have no intent to update it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yvan256

sublunar

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2007
1,356
799
That is why I think Apple should lower the price of the Mac mini further if they have no intent to update it.
It's a logical argument but $299 is frankly ludicrous. While most people would expect some sort of price cut for Apple hardware over time, 299 is a loss making price and totally against Apple's profit-making philosophy.

The better thing to do for fans is to stick to a regular release schedule to avoid doubt and if they can't they should just discontinue it so the rest of us can spend our money on a high spec PC instead ;)

Bear in mind that the extremely high residuals for Apple hardware is due in part to rarity and lack of discounts. You can't have your cake and eat it - though Apple are trying very hard to do so...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hexley

borgranta

macrumors 6502
May 9, 2018
304
96
BH has it for $399. Apple should lower this to $299 if they have no intention to update it for 2018.
Perhaps they should offer it as buy one get one free to unload stock in preparation for the new Mac Mini next year.
 

twalk

macrumors regular
Apr 22, 2009
160
153
The problem is that if you look at all the custom designed and built stuff along with higher end stuff in a Mini, it almost certainly costs Apple more that $300 to build it, much less sell it for a profit
 

alien3dx

macrumors 65816
Feb 12, 2017
1,201
238
long live prosper MAC MINI;) . Sadly for a performance but reality it's freakin 2018. 5 years product should be obsolete
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes

Future-Proof

macrumors regular
Apr 29, 2018
132
109
BH has it for $399. Apple should lower this to $299 if they have no intention to update it for 2018.
I'd rather see a refresh than a price drop on the same 2014 hardware. Apple doesn't seem to be willing to do either one.
I’d love to see both a refresh AND a lower price for these old models. Would snap one up in a jiffy.

I got sick of waiting for Apple and got an Intel NUC with a current Intel processor (capable of 4K @ 60hz) and latest Samsung SSD for less than the current ancient entry level Mini that is a sorry excuse for a 2018 computer. Linux Mint is great and free (runs smoother and more secure than MacOS). There are plenty of other companies filling this niche besides Apple (can't believe standalone desktop computers are a niche now in this smartphone/tablet world).
How exactly is Linux Mint more secure than macOS???
 

Boyd01

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 21, 2012
4,876
2,227
New Jersey Pine Barrens
Well I don't see anything in that article that would make me want to install Linux on my Mini''s. I am all for Linux, I setup a mail and web server for my company using RedHat back in 2002. I started using BSD unix in 1985 and was very excited that I could do the same things in the shell when Apple introduced MacOSX.

If Linux does what you want then that's great. I'm still happy with MacOS.

From that article:

The clear consensus among experts is that Linux is the most secure operating system. But while it’s the OS of choice for servers, enterprises deploying it on the desktop are few and far between.
_____

As Moore explains, “Linux has the potential to be the most secure, but requires the user be something of a power user.” So, not for everyone.
_____

Security researcher Lee Muson of Comparitech says that “macOS is likely to be the pick of the bunch” when it comes to choosing a more secure OS, but he cautions that it is not impenetrable
______

Joe Moore of Wolf Solutions gives Apple a bit more credit, saying that “off the shelf, macOS X has a great track record when it comes to security, in part because it isn’t as widely targeted as Windows and in part because Apple does a pretty good job of staying on top of security issues.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Future-Proof

alien3dx

macrumors 65816
Feb 12, 2017
1,201
238
Well I don't see anything in that article that would make me want to install Linux on my Mini''s. I am all for Linux, I setup a mail and web server for my company using RedHat back in 2002. I started using BSD unix in 1985 and was very excited that I could do the same things in the shell when Apple introduced MacOSX.

If Linux does what you want then that's great. I'm still happy with MacOS.

From that article:

The clear consensus among experts is that Linux is the most secure operating system. But while it’s the OS of choice for servers, enterprises deploying it on the desktop are few and far between.
_____

As Moore explains, “Linux has the potential to be the most secure, but requires the user be something of a power user.” So, not for everyone.
_____

Security researcher Lee Muson of Comparitech says that “macOS is likely to be the pick of the bunch” when it comes to choosing a more secure OS, but he cautions that it is not impenetrable
______

Joe Moore of Wolf Solutions gives Apple a bit more credit, saying that “off the shelf, macOS X has a great track record when it comes to security, in part because it isn’t as widely targeted as Windows and in part because Apple does a pretty good job of staying on top of security issues.”
for me , linux just for more control and memory management pretty goood . If i can develop xcode in linuz i wouldnt buy their imac
 

krause734

macrumors 6502a
Jul 30, 2010
592
1,404
1. As Moore explains, “Linux has the potential to be the most secure, but requires the user be something of a power user.” So, not for everyone.

2. Security researcher Lee Muson of Comparitech says that “macOS is likely to be the pick of the bunch” when it comes to choosing a more secure OS, but he cautions that it is not impenetrable.

3. Joe Moore of Wolf Solutions gives Apple a bit more credit, saying that “off the shelf, macOS X has a great track record when it comes to security, in part because it isn’t as widely targeted as Windows and in part because Apple does a pretty good job of staying on top of security issues.”[/COLOR][/I]
1. Linux is great for basic users, not just power users. It's just not as well known as an option and the variety of distros make it confusing to pick one.
2. Mac has had a few security lapses lately. I wouldn't say that's why I switched but it's one reason to. I got sick of iTunes and no new desktops from Apple and being locked into their hardware.
3. MacOS isn't a big target because it's less popular than Windows. That is changing. Linux is still a distant 3rd so it is targeted even less.

It's good to have options. I wouldn't say any one OS is better than the others for everyone. If you love gaming, you have to go Windows even if you have to put up with their BS OS. If you love aesthetics and iOS devices syncing, MacOS is a no brainer. If you love ease of use and a simple, clean OS that you are in full control of that operates fine on older hardware, Linux is great. Many people aren't even aware it's an option or what it is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Boyd01
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.