Apple Stops Selling Mac Mini With OS X Server, No Longer Offers 2TB Storage Option

[Brian Y]

But at least if you'd bought the previous low-end model (because of price), you could, after 3 years, upgrade it with more RAM and SSD etc. Now that is not possible.

My question to you is this: If so few people bought a top-end mini, why do Apple offer top-end specs in the 15-inch MacBook Pro line then? (i.e. Quad core CPU).

Surely most users don't need this either (they may want/need the larger screen though.)

I personally don't care too much about the HD options and soldered RAM (I'll just buy the max, which benefits Apple), but the lack of Quad core and Iris Pro makes the 2014 model relatively pointless (compared to a 2011 model!)

At a guess? I'd say because they're pro machines. People who pick them tend to need them to be fast (most "consumers" will pick the MBA or 13" pro). People who tend to pick the 15" will need a fast machine.

Again, this is just my opinion - maybe someone here works at a shop somewhere and knows sales figures - but I'd be very surprised if the top end Mini sales accounted for any more than half a percent.

 

[Plutonius]

If Apple wants to stop selling Minis, they should just stop selling Minis.

Why ? People will still buy this even if you don't.

 

[Pakaku]

Why ? People will still buy this even if you don't.

They'll still buy it, but that doesn't change how I think Apple is acting passive-aggressive over having to keep selling the Mini. They killed the iPod Classic, so that's probably as far as they want to go this year.

They also seem to be acting passive-aggressive towards the iPad Mini, if you saw how they 'updated' it.

As for me, I'm not buying it because I already have a computer, but thank you for the concern anyways.

 

[Spectrum]

At a guess? I'd say because they're pro machines. People who pick them tend to need them to be fast (most "consumers" will pick the MBA or 13" pro). People who tend to pick the 15" will need a fast machine.

Again, this is just my opinion - maybe someone here works at a shop somewhere and knows sales figures - but I'd be very surprised if the top end Mini sales accounted for any more than half a percent.

So: by the same logic, why don't you think the exact same user-base (Pros) want a top-end Mac mini? That is exactly who I am, and what I want! I have a Mac Book Pro (Quad i7) and I want a Mac mini with the same specs for the same reasons!

The MBPro is for home and travel. With most of my storage held /synced online, I do NOT want/need to carry it with me to work and back every day.

 

[H2SO4]

No Server version and no quad core then it's a no buy for me or the church that we do media for. Would've of bought 3 right away. Was looking forward to this update. What a disappointment.

I may go the refurb route myself.

 

[H2SO4]

Guess I'll be buying a 4K Dell monitor then.

Sure……..?

 

[TXCherokee]

First the Base 2012 was the only $599 model, the only 2014 mini for "the same money is the base 2014 with 8Gb ram. That Base 2014 mini is vastly inferior to the Base 2012 mini. The Mid 2012 mini which costs 100$ more is 50% faster than the mid 2014 . Only the high end 2014 model is able to definitively beat the base 2012 model. So paying 400$ to beat a 2 year old computer is kinda funny. Look how the 2011 mini spanked the 2010. Thats is what i call a huge upgrade.



The Mid 2012 mini is 50 % faster than the mid 2014 mini and 20% faster than the high end 2014 mini.


The HD 5000 more like 40% faster than the HD 4000, not 90% as you claim. There is aslo no way you can pay the same $599 this year and get a 40% increase in CPU performance of the Base 2012 model.

Since you said you "just need a desktop", why would you even care about a marginal increase GPU/CPU performance?

I can see value in the 2014 Mac mini for certain people, but not for people upgrading from a 2012 mini. You also probably think the iPad Mini 3 is a huge upgrade, at least with the Ipad mini 3 they did not make it slower than the mini 2.

I believe you are incorrect:

I have a base 2012 with 8gb of ram. Same cost as the mid 2014.
- Processor is 3rd gen 2.5 vs 4th gen 2.6.
- Graphics is 4000 vs Iris.
- Storage is 500 GB v 1 TB.

I call that a vast improvement.

And when I said I use my Mac Mini as just a desktop. I meant I don't use it as a server like most the people on this forum that are complaining about the lack of a quad-core option. However, I coach several youth sports teams and use iMovie a lot and I would benefit from a better (but not prosumer level) machine.

 

[RobQuads]

How does the too end dual core in the 2014 compare to the 2012 quad?

Dropping the server brand is sensible imo. They now have the app in the store so can let people spec accordingly and get the app If they want

Dropping the 2TB is a shame but if it was a small percentage of the sales it's understandable, specially with the thunderbolt/USB3 connectivity it now has

 

[soundguyami]

It's not an iMac

Seriously people...it's a Mac Mini...you shouldn't expect to do high end things on these..get a grip. They are fine for day to day task..but if you need to do graphics or editing video this has never been a good option. Stop complaining. I have 50 of these units in a university computer lab and they have done an awesome job...even with dual boot. No complaints.

 

[cfedu]

I believe you are incorrect:

I have a base 2012 with 8gb of ram. Same cost as the mid 2014.
- Processor is 3rd gen 2.5 vs 4th gen 2.6.
- Graphics is 4000 vs Iris.
- Storage is 500 GB v 1 TB.

I call that a vast improvement.

And when I said I use my Mac Mini as just a desktop. I meant I don't use it as a server like most the people on this forum that are complaining about the lack of a quad-core option. However, I coach several youth sports teams and use iMovie a lot and I would benefit from a better (but not prosumer level) machine.

Thats the base plus a Ram upgrade so 599$ plus 100$. For a 100$ more two years ago you could have got a computer 50% faster than the mid 2014 mini. So you spent 700$ 2 years ago and another 700$ this years and still have inferior performance to a 2 year old $800 computer.

Since you plan plan on getting one with the hard drive, good luck in ever upgrading the PCIE ssd and an economical price, if even possible. If you truly want a Vast improvement in performance you should get a 100$ ssd and set up a fusion drive.

I don't think many of people on this forum are using their Mini's as SERVERS as you claim. They are using them as desktop computers doing tasks that require computational power like encoding. Do you know what a server is? I'm asking because it could explain a lot if you do not understand.

 

[farmkittie]

The MacBook Pro wasn't around for Panther and Panther wouldn't even run on it. The MacBook Pro 1,1 originally shipped with Tiger, or more specifically Mac OS10.4.5.

Ok, I have my timing a little mixed up. I remember Jaguar, Tiger, and Panther. I just remember we had two MacBook Pros in the lab around 2004/early 2005.

 

[sseaton1971]

No server version? Buy the dual-core i7 (option) Mac mini and purchase server for $20. It would be nice to have the quad-core processor, but I don't think it is necessary for most users of server. I am not so sure soldered memory is that big of a deal either. And large amounts of storage can be handled with external options. That said, I wonder if Apple is planning another option for people wanting a headless Mac (for either client or server deployments) but do not want to go the expensive Mac Pro route.

Hey, at least there is another Thunderbolt port!

 

[TXCherokee]

Thats the base plus a Ram upgrade so 599$ plus 100$. For a 100$ more two years ago you could have got a computer 50% faster than the mid 2014 mini. So you spent 700$ 2 years ago and another 700$ this years and still have inferior performance to a 2 year old $800 computer.

Since you plan plan on getting one with the hard drive, good luck in ever upgrading the PCIE ssd and an economical price, if even possible. If you truly want a Vast improvement in performance you should get a 100$ ssd and set up a fusion drive.

I don't think many of people on this forum are using their Mini's as SERVERS as you claim. They are using them as desktop computers doing tasks that require computational power like encoding. Do you know what a server is? I'm asking because it could explain a lot if you do not understand.

Okay, I think I see the problem. It's just a matter of perspective. You are correct in thinking that the higher end machines are no longer the value they once were. Additionally, the quad-core machine not being available is problematic for a certain group of users. A lot of people here fall in these two camps and are upset. I get that.

However, I didn't buy the high end mini two years ago. I bought the low end with a memory upgrade (which was, as you pointed out, about the same price of $700, as this years mid range). I do encode video, but not that much (maybe 40-50 hours worth a year) So, FOR ME, this years mid-range machine, at the same $700 I spent two years ago, is a good value and a much improved machine (see the specs I pointed out in the last post) then what I currently have. And I'm happy about that.

Whether or not Apple made the right move here, losing sales by upsetting the 'I can't believe the quad-core version is gone' crowd versus gaining sales by offering a more affordable machine to (as they said in the Keynote) first time Mac buyers, is the $64,000 question.

 

[MacSince'85]

You are correct in thinking that the higher end machines are no longer the value they once were.

Horrible value actually. I tried configuring the new mini and I am coming up with $1428 with a fusion drive and 16Gb of memory (+ HDMI to DVI cable). I could get the 2012 with 2.6 quad core for $839 and the difference in price leaves me with $600 to play with adding more RAM and a SSD.

 

[milo]

...it's a Mac Mini...you shouldn't expect to do high end things on these...

Except for the fact that before yesterday you could do fairly high end things on a mini. This is a major downgrade on the high end, why are you defending that? Particularly when that price point is the same if not higher.

 

[usarioclave]

Note that the previous-gen i7 mini is on the apple refurb store right now.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_mini

 

[usarioclave]

The mini was the best power/performance machine, especially in the refurb zone. It's still the cheapest mac, but the older minis are now probably a better value.

When I think of what I actually use my mini for (home server), I don't tax the CPU much. I don't care if transcoding takes forever, because it takes forever now. The low-end mini probably will fit just fine.

Or, I can get an old Mac Pro, slap 32GB into it and use it as a home server + VM box. It'll be bigger, but it'll be just as much as the low-end 2014 mini with 16GB of ram and perform better.

One thing's for sure, my iMac'll be around for at least another year.

 

[Plutonius]

They'll still buy it, but that doesn't change how I think Apple is acting passive-aggressive over having to keep selling the Mini. They killed the iPod Classic, so that's probably as far as they want to go this year.

They also seem to be acting passive-aggressive towards the iPad Mini, if you saw how they 'updated' it.

As for me, I'm not buying it because I already have a computer, but thank you for the concern anyways.

I'm in the same boat. I was hoping to buy a Touch 6 (didn't come out) or an iPad Mini 3 (terrible specs for an update). It now looks like I will not be spending any money this fall on Apple products .

I somewhat disagree with you on the reasons why Apple released the products they did this fall. I believe that Apple tried to actively differentiate between most of their products (i.e. if you need a quad processor, they want you to upgrade to an iMac or Mac Pro instead of the Mac Mini).

 

[cfedu]

Okay, I think I see the problem. It's just a matter of perspective. You are correct in thinking that the higher end machines are no longer the value they once were. Additionally, the quad-core machine not being available is problematic for a certain group of users. A lot of people here fall in these two camps and are upset. I get that.

However, I didn't buy the high end mini two years ago. I bought the low end with a memory upgrade (which was, as you pointed out, about the same price of $700, as this years mid range). I do encode video, but not that much (maybe 40-50 hours worth a year) So, FOR ME, this years mid-range machine, at the same $700 I spent two years ago, is a good value and a much improved machine (see the specs I pointed out in the last post) then what I currently have. And I'm happy about that.

Whether or not Apple made the right move here, losing sales by upsetting the 'I can't believe the quad-core version is gone' crowd versus gaining sales by offering a more affordable machine to (as they said in the Keynote) first time Mac buyers, is the $64,000 question.

Of all the specs you mentioned, only the hard drive is a big difference 500GB vs 1 TB. So to get a 1 TB drive in your mac you decide the best value is buying a new 700$ PC. You will pay $700 to double your hard drive size to 1TB, when you could triple your storage to 1.5 GB for $50-$80. That $50-$80 is probably what the sales tax will be on your mac mini where you live (90$ were I live)

Or put an SSD in your current Mac Mini and actually have a noticeable increase in performance! A 100$ SSD will give your computer bigger upgrade than the 700$ you will pay for new mac mini.

If the new 1.4 GHZ mac mini can not have its hard drive and memory increased after purchase, it will cost the first time Mac buyer more money in the long run and be of less value!! Now add in 29$ for the DVI adapter that no longer comes with the mini.

2014 base mini with 16 GB ram and 500Gb hard drive will cost $886
2014 Mid mini with 16 FB ram and 1 TB hard drive will cost $986

Faster 2012 base mini 16 GB RAM 1.5 TB hard drive for $825
( $599+150 for 16 GB ram+ 75$ 1TB hard drive)


No matter how you add it up, the 2014's are of less value than the 2 year old 2012 models. That does not mean that they do not have value, just not as much.

 

[talmy]

Wanted to replace my 2012 iMac with this, since I really only use it as a PLEX server.

But lack of quad-core and potentially soldered RAM? No thanks.

I'm in the same boat, I'm planning to just build myself a Linux box and stuff it full of 4tb hard drives over time. Plex media sever runs great on Ubuntu.

Lack of quad core is a deal breaker for me, quad is a must if you want to be able to transcode extreme high def videos like I do.

If all you want to do on the server is run Plex, then a Linux box is certainly the least expensive route anyway.

My 4+ year old mini server does Plex (without extremely high def video -- SD to 1080P TV quality) and a bunch of other things just fine. The 2014 base model has a stronger CPU and would also do the job. Probably consume less power as well. No need for a quad core.

That said, I just grabbed a refurb 2012 mid-model (with quad core i7) to replace my old server. Total cost will be about $650 by the time I up the RAM to 8GB.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Whilst it is great to offer a cheap-as-chips 1.4Ghz option,

Except that, like when the iMac got it, the 1.4 GHz chip isn't cheap as chips! Unless Apple is getting a special chip, the only Intel CPU that matches the specifications (Core i5-4260U) costs *MORE* than the Iris-containing, faster-at-base-than-this-at-turbo, Core i5-4308U!

In fact, the CPU is more expensive than the 3.0 GHz, Iris Pro, quad-core Core i5-4670R! (The 1.4 GHz chip uses significantly less power, though.)

 

[Cheffy Dave]

Note that the previous-gen i7 mini is on the apple refurb store right now.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_mini

and not one of the complainers have bought it

 

[milo]

and not one of the complainers have bought it

Two posts above yours:

I just grabbed a refurb 2012 mid-model (with quad core i7) to replace my old server. Total cost will be about $650 by the time I up the RAM to 8GB.

And now the refurb store is already out of quads. No surprise there.

 

[darkslide29]

Note that the previous-gen i7 mini is on the apple refurb store right now.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_mini

Two posts above yours:



And now the refurb store is already out of quads. No surprise there.

Do you happen to know how much the quad cost? Since it is now sold out, I am not able to see. Thanks.

EDIT: A few posts above me estimated 650 after a ram update, so it sounds like around 600-ish.

I would have jumped on it. Quad core has always intrigued me. And apple artificially made handoff not work with 2011 mac mini, despite it having bluetooth 4.0 as required. And here I am looking for a replacement... Well played, Apple.

 

[milo]

Do you happen to know how much the quad cost?

I forget exactly but it was under 600. Maybe something like 589? They won't stay in stock long priced like that.