Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Latest Mac Mini Turns Four Years Old Ahead of 'Pro-Focused' Refresh Expected Later This Month

It is concerning that Apple is paying so little attention to its desktop lineup and in particular the Mac Mini.
I really hope that the update finally comes. What will be a deal-breaker however is if the new model doesn't have upgradable RAM - like the "current" model. Ideally, I would like to see a new Mac Mini support up to 64GB of RAM, so that I can start out with 16GB and upgrade over its life, in much the same way as my current 2011 Mac Mini server started out with 4GB and now has 16GB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
Other than the mini and the Mac Pro, why would you say that?
Click to expand...
The air.

Yes, three out of eight models are not indicative of anything.

You can make all the excuses you want for apple, but at the end of the day if the wealthiest company in history chooses to leave products to rot there’s only one reason: they don’t give a f&@ck. Hence, for people interested in such products, apple has chosen to be perceived as unreliable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gertruded, stevekr and Yvan256
CmdrLaForge said:
Because the computer industry is a fast paced year over year changing industry and Apple keeps selling a desktop computer that was outdated when introduced in 2014 and outpaced by the Mini from 2012. The current Mini is a 2010 model. That’s 4 to 8 years depending on how you see it. As a trillion dollar company with plenty of money and really a not to difficult task at hand (keeping the line up-to-date)
Click to expand...
I would imagine that the mini and the Mac Pro probably have weak enough sales (by Apple's standards!) to be the topic of a few "Keep 'em Ditch 'em?" debates at Apple HQ. To Apple, the "Everyman's Desktop" slot is nicely (and reasonably-priced) served by the iMac. That thinking also begat the iMac Pro.

But they have come to realize that those two products really don't reach all the "corners" of the market, and that, now that Intel has (finally!) gotten a little more performance (and a lot more power-efficiency!) out of their CPUs (and their GPUs are getting a lot better, too), and their I/O is getting SERIOUSLY dated (sorry, USB-A is NOT the future!, and TB2 is pretty much a goner, too, nevermind FIREWIRE!), it is clearly time to Upgrade them or ditch them.

Apple has already committed to what their decision is in that regard; so all we are doing now is letting their R&D team do their thing.

Frankly, it sounds like they are starting with a relatively clean sheet of paper for both the mini and the Pro, and I, for one, am pretty excited to see what they are cooking up in that spaceship!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CmdrLaForge
A dream come true would be an affordable (significantly cheaper than a MacBook Pro) Mac Mini that performs like a decent desktop with good GPU options, that is repairable and upgradeable. And I'm not asking for much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nathansz
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
I would imagine that the mini and the Mac Pro probably have weak enough sales (by Apple's standards!) to be the topic of a few "Keep 'em Ditch 'em?" debates at Apple HQ. To Apple, the "Everyman's Desktop" slot is nicely (and reasonably-priced) served by the iMac. That thinking also begat the iMac Pro.

But they have come to realize that those two products really don't reach all the "corners" of the market, and that, now that Intel has (finally!) gotten a little more performance (and a lot more power-efficiency!) out of their CPUs (and their GPUs are getting a lot better, too), and their I/O is getting SERIOUSLY dated (sorry, USB-A is NOT the future!, and TB2 is pretty much a goner, too, nevermind FIREWIRE!), it is clearly time to Upgrade them or ditch them.

Apple has already committed to what their decision is in that regard; so all we are doing now is letting their R&D team do their thing.

Frankly, it sounds like they are starting with a relatively clean sheet of paper for both the mini and the Pro, and I, for one, am pretty excited to see what they are cooking up in that spaceship!
Click to expand...


I, for one, am pretty scared.
 
dan110 said:
He actually answered your question and substantiated my response. Good day, Sir.
Click to expand...

Dude, Yes i get alerts. He said it was cheaper for his folks and not have to retrain them how to use iOS. Has nothing to do with your response.
 
Black Belt said:
It’s longer than four years. The last “upgrades” were really a downgrade to the CPU
[doublepost=1539806337][/doublepost]Tim Cook doesn’t even use a Mac. He couldn’t care less about Mac Users. He’s running the line into the ground through lack of vision and incompetence. He needs to go.
Click to expand...
Where did Tim Cook say he doesn't use a Mac? In fact, he is on record saying that macOS and iOS are different animals for different uses, and that they shouldn't (and won't!) be merged.

So obviously, HE sees a need for the Mac, and I am SURE he has at least one in his home and his office.

In fact, this (first hit) on Google has Tim Cook saying he uses BOTH (as you would logically assume). In fact, he is quoted as saying:

"I generally use a Mac at work and I use an iPad at home. And I always use the iPad when travelling. But I use everything and love everything."

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...s-and-ios-i-dont-think-thats-what-users-want/

I'd say that is probably the case for many Apple users these days; especially those who travel a lot; but don't have to do much "heavy" work while travelling.

The iPad Pro is getting to be a fairly viable system for a lot of use-cases (see, Photoshop!); but it will be a couple of more decades before the last laptop and desktop are produced and sold.

But I couldn't find any references to "Tim Cook doesn't use a Mac". So, please favor us with a Citation...
 
  • Like
Reactions: the johnmc
Manzanito said:
The air.

Yes, three out of eight models are not indicative of anything.

You can make all the excuses you want for apple, but at the end of the day if the wealthiest company in history chooses to leave products to rot there’s only one reason: they don’t give a f&@ck. Hence, for people interested in such products, apple has chosen to be perceived as unreliable.
Click to expand...
Nobody in their right mind puts the same effort into products with fairly low sales (even at the best of times) that they do into their top-sellers. Even with a company the size of Apple, experienced product development teams are not an infinite resource. Sounds like an excuse; but it is actually a REASON.

So, it's not a matter of "Not giving a f&ck". It is a question of "allocation of resources".

Now, if you want an example of a company that just keeps adding teams to churn out every cockamamie idea that someone in their Research labs dreams-up, you need look no farther than Microsoft.

And if you want to hold THEM up as an example of how a "tech company" SHOULD operate, be my guest. I (and MANY others!) will just sit back, point, stare, and laugh...
 
dabocx said:
I wonder how many of these get sold every month.
Click to expand...
Well, they sell (very roughly) 4m macs per quarter, roughly 80% are MacBooks and a further 15% are iMacs, so it splits 200,000 sales per quarter with the mac pro...
 
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
Where did Tim Cook say he doesn't use a Mac? In fact, he is on record saying that macOS and iOS are different animals for different uses, and that they shouldn't (and won't!) be merged.

So obviously, HE sees a need for the Mac, and I am SURE he has at least one in his home and his office.

In fact, this (first hit) on Google has Tim Cook saying he uses BOTH (as you would logically assume). In fact, he is quoted as saying:

"I generally use a Mac at work and I use an iPad at home. And I always use the iPad when travelling. But I use everything and love everything."

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...s-and-ios-i-dont-think-thats-what-users-want/

I'd say that is probably the case for many Apple users these days; especially those who travel a lot; but don't have to do much "heavy" work while travelling.

The iPad Pro is getting to be a fairly viable system for a lot of use-cases (see, Photoshop!); but it will be a couple of more decades before the last laptop and desktop are produced and sold.

But I couldn't find any references to "Tim Cook doesn't use a Mac". So, please favor us with a Citation...
Click to expand...
Maybe he was thinking of Nadela, who was using an iPhone while W10M was floundering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the johnmc
Manzanito said:

I, for one, am pretty scared.
Click to expand...
Why?

Even if they just do a processor and I/O refresh, it will be a FAR better computer than what is currently available in those models.

Always Remember: Apple didn't get their well-deserved reputation as industry-leaders by simply aping what everyone else is doing. They may not ALWAYS get it exactly right (see, G4 cube, cylindrical Mac Pro); but more often than not, they do.

...and then the OTHERS have to follow (again!).
 
dalidrama said:
And the 2014 Mac Mini model was really just a soft refresh of the 2012 model, the real last upgrade.
Click to expand...

The 2014 mac mini lineup was actually a downgrade from the 2012 lineup in more ways than one:
  • Literal hardware downgrades (the 2.6Ghz option was an i7 in 2012, downgraded to a 2.6Ghz i5)
  • Soldered memory (easy serviceability was the whole point of the bottom access cover)
  • Removing any option for an optical drive without making the device slimmer (remember it used to have one and it fit just fine?)
  • Removed many i7 processor options (in favor of the i5 on all but the maxed out one.)
  • Removing the os X server configuration.
  • Increased prices.
https://www.macstories.net/news/the-mac-mini-family-tree/

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/...te-2012-aluminum-unibody-mac-mini-models.html

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i7-2.6-late-2012-specs.html

https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_mini/specs/mac-mini-core-i5-2.6-late-2014-specs.html
 
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
Why?

Even if they just do a processor and I/O refresh, it will be a FAR better computer than what is currently available in those models.

Always Remember: Apple didn't get their well-deserved reputation as industry-leaders by simply aping what everyone else is doing. They may not ALWAYS get it exactly right (see, G4 cube, cylindrical Mac Pro); but more often than not, they do.

...and then the OTHERS have to follow (again!).
Click to expand...
Well, I’ll tell you why. After all, even if our opinions are so different, we’ve managed to keep it civil so far.

In the last decade the only constant in apple’s design regarding computers is “make them smaller at the cost of performance and reliability if need be”.

They had a shot at making the mac pro smaller (which almost nobody was asking for) and they screwed up badly. So the logical thing would be giving us a cheesegrater with updated internals. Even allocating a tiny fraction of their scarce resources to that would have produced results a year ago.

Them taking so long only indicates they are overthinking the thing again, and except for the overheating part, I think it’ll have the same flaws as with trashcan 1.0 (i.e., lack of upgradability except for the RAM, unreliable, etc).

Besides, the amount of effort they are putting into mantaining the classic mac pro makes me think the new mac pro (might as well call it vaporware mac pro at this point) is nowhere near its announcement, let alone its release date.
[doublepost=1539810009][/doublepost]
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
Nobody in their right mind puts the same effort into products with fairly low sales (even at the best of times) that they do into their top-sellers. Even with a company the size of Apple, experienced product development teams are not an infinite resource. Sounds like an excuse; but it is actually a REASON.

So, it's not a matter of "Not giving a f&ck". It is a question of "allocation of resources".

Now, if you want an example of a company that just keeps adding teams to churn out every cockamamie idea that someone in their Research labs dreams-up, you need look no farther than Microsoft.

And if you want to hold THEM up as an example of how a "tech company" SHOULD operate, be my guest. I (and MANY others!) will just sit back, point, stare, and laugh...
Click to expand...
Is keeping up to date their only three desktops models too much to ask? Other companies, without the huge amount of money apple has, manage to do so without becoming microsoft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yvan256
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
Let's see: 2006 to 2018... That's TWELVE years on the same computer! And it was OBVIOUSLY still fulfilling their needs.

That means even the 2014 model will fulfill their needs for at LEAST that long (or maybe even longer, given no HD to fail).
[doublepost=1539798787][/doublepost]
I would bet you'd be VERY surprised.
[doublepost=1539798977][/doublepost]
I have a friend that also has a perfectly-working 2009 iMac, too. Display is getting a little dim; but the rest of it is operating 5 by 5...
Click to expand...

I use my Mac Pro from 2008 as my main home machine. I have four spinning HDs in it total of 20TB and 10GB of RAM. When I bought it I was big into hobby video and BZFlag map development. Not doing either of those things anymore.

I finally decided I HAD to get a more modern machine when Apple made an OS which didn't support the 2008 dual-xeon 2.8Ghz anymore. That was two OSs ago. Latest I can run is El Capitan. Since then I've been watching. I almost bought a trash-can Mac Pro but Thunderbolt 1 was already out-dated so I figured i'd wait for the next desktop machine Apple came up with which had current Thunderbolt. Over the last month i've been pondering a small iMac. I'm still pondering. I don't need retina displays. I need big displays. My Mac Pro has two 27" HD displays. If I had a 21" iMac I'd put a 32" 4K display on it. The fact that the iMac has a monitor of its own is a minor point for me. I really want a no-display computer, all solid state, that has the features of the i7 MacBook Pro. I'd almost buy a 2018 MacBook Pro but they are hugely expensive for what they do for me and they have crappy cooling. So what, I enhance a MacBook Pro to improve the cooling? maybe. Or get an iMac 27" Maybe?

What I want (and think might be coming) is a Mac Mini with the same ports as the MacBook Pro, and user not-accessible RAM, perhaps soldered-down SSD. Since it would be AC power always, and could have a taller package, it could run full speed CPU all the time if needed. I predict $1400 with 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM, same graphics as low end MacBook Pro. Built in power supply. Ethernet, WIFI, four USB-C/Minidisplay port and one HDMI2 port. I'd buy that.

What I wish they would do is make a CPU box that has user accessible RAM, a socketed CPU compatible with 9th-gen Intel CPUs or LGA1151, four USB-c thunderbolt sockets, built in WIFI, no video output, no boot drive. Then sell a series of accessories. First accessory would be basic-dock, a boot/video/ethernet/usb 2 dock. It would have Thunderbolt USB-c back to the Mini. Built in reasonable graphics and 512GB SSD, HDMI x 2 outputs. That plus the main CPU box would be what a consumer would need as a starter desktop machine. Anybody who wants great graphics already knows how to add that without paying for the basic-dock. Ditto RAIDed M.2 SSD fast drive. The only problem with this is that now they'd have two limited run chassis they'd have to make, the MacMini itself and the basic-dock. That, unfortunately, will boost the price. Forcing power users to pay for the built in 'reasonable' graphics and built in crappy drives is probably a better deal for Apple and maybe a better price for us. Dunno.

If there is no new Mac Mini this year, I may get a 21.5" iMac. Dunno. I think anything Apple sells now other than the 2014 Mac Mini is faster than my Pro in multi-core performance. It's been a while since my pro beat out a low-end Apple in single-core performance.

I'd really like Apple to make a sub $1000 desktop personal computer whose hardware puts Dell, Compaq, Acer and their ilk to shame. Show me!
 
MacRumors : Upcoming : Mac mini --> late 2018. Well, they're not counting on Holidays' boost for this one.

The trend here. IOSs' are up to date, but 2 of 3 mac OSs' are obsolete. Don't trust moving large iTunes library to Windows...though, I'm curious.
 
Manzanito said:
Well, I’ll tell you why. After all, even if our opinions are so different, we’ve managed to keep it civil so far.

In the last decade the only constant in apple’s design regarding computers is “make them smaller at the cost of performance and reliability if need be”.

They had a shot at making the mac pro smaller (which almost nobody was asking for) and they screwed up badly. So the logical thing would be giving us a cheesegrater with updated internals. Even allocating a tiny fraction of their scarce resources to that would have produced results a year ago.

Them taking so long only indicates they are overthinking the thing again, and except for the overheating part, I think it’ll have the same flaws as with trashcan 1.0 (i.e., lack of upgradability except for the RAM, unreliable, etc).

Besides, the amount of effort they are putting into mantaining the classic mac pro makes me think the new mac pro (might as well call it vaporware mac pro at this point) is nowhere near its announcement, let alone its release date.
[doublepost=1539810009][/doublepost]
Is keeping up to date their only three desktops models too much to ask? Other companies, without the huge amount of money apple has, manage to do so without becoming microsoft.
Click to expand...
First off, I don't think that Apple has sacrificed performance for thinness. They can't do more with Intel than what they can buy from them (one of the reasons why Apple controlling their own CPU destiny is a Very Good Thing(tm) ).

I don't want to get into the USB-C/TB3 debate (again!). Look up my posting history for an exhaustive(!!!) defense of THAT decision.

As for the cylindrical Mac Pro: Again, as I have said many times, Apple's main miscalculation with that design was NOT the thermal limitations (that just made upgrading the same form-factor rather impossible); but rather that they miscalculated the adoption of Thunderbolt. But I will lay the blame for that mostly at Intel's feet: They wanted to control TB, and price it exhorbitantly; and with the advent of fast-enough USB, TB had a tough row to hoe...

I, for one, am glad that Apple isn't rushing this Update. But I also wouldn't hold my breath that they would take a clue from 2005 and release another Cheese-Grater Mac Pro. I'd rather seem them get back into the rackmount server game if they want to have a blast from the past...

Mmmm, an ARM-based XServe, with 64-core CPUs...

Oh, and remember, Apple is on record as using the term "Modular" and "upgradeable" in respect to both the Mac mini and Mac Pro redesigns; so I think they are taking the time to figure out how best to do that (Hint: It won't involve a bunch of PCI-e cards in slots).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miat
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
Oh, please!

Don't like it; don't buy it. Simple.

Who's getting "ripped-off"?
[doublepost=1539796219][/doublepost]
So when did YOU last upgrade your Mini; because the 2012 and 2014 Mac minis STILL get upgrades, even into Mojave.

http://osxdaily.com/2018/06/05/macos-mojave-compatible-macs-list/
Click to expand...

The base one includes a Intel Graphics 5000, a 2013 gpu.

The average customer is getting ripped off. They don't know the ins and outs of the machines and would expect them to be up to date. Buying that machine when it was new represented better value, so much better value than now, and so Apple is ripping off its customers selling them out of date hardware at inflated costs.
 
tadd said:
I use my Mac Pro from 2008 as my main home machine. I have four spinning HDs in it total of 20TB and 10GB of RAM. When I bought it I was big into hobby video and BZFlag map development. Not doing either of those things anymore.

I finally decided I HAD to get a more modern machine when Apple made an OS which didn't support the 2008 dual-xeon 2.8Ghz anymore. That was two OSs ago. Latest I can run is El Capitan. Since then I've been watching. I almost bought a trash-can Mac Pro but Thunderbolt 1 was already out-dated so I figured i'd wait for the next desktop machine Apple came up with which had current Thunderbolt. Over the last month i've been pondering a small iMac. I'm still pondering. I don't need retina displays. I need big displays. My Mac Pro has two 27" HD displays. If I had a 21" iMac I'd put a 32" 4K display on it. The fact that the iMac has a monitor of its own is a minor point for me. I really want a no-display computer, all solid state, that has the features of the i7 MacBook Pro. I'd almost buy a 2018 MacBook Pro but they are hugely expensive for what they do for me and they have crappy cooling. So what, I enhance a MacBook Pro to improve the cooling? maybe. Or get an iMac 27" Maybe?

What I want (and think might be coming) is a Mac Mini with the same ports as the MacBook Pro, and user not-accessible RAM, perhaps soldered-down SSD. Since it would be AC power always, and could have a taller package, it could run full speed CPU all the time if needed. I predict $1400 with 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM, same graphics as low end MacBook Pro. Built in power supply. Ethernet, WIFI, four USB-C/Minidisplay port and one HDMI2 port. I'd buy that.

What I wish they would do is make a CPU box that has user accessible RAM, a socketed CPU compatible with 9th-gen Intel CPUs or LGA1151, four USB-c thunderbolt sockets, built in WIFI, no video output, no boot drive. Then sell a series of accessories. First accessory would be basic-dock, a boot/video/ethernet/usb 2 dock. It would have Thunderbolt USB-c back to the Mini. Built in reasonable graphics and 512GB SSD, HDMI x 2 outputs. That plus the main CPU box would be what a consumer would need as a starter desktop machine. Anybody who wants great graphics already knows how to add that without paying for the basic-dock. Ditto RAIDed M.2 SSD fast drive. The only problem with this is that now they'd have two limited run chassis they'd have to make, the MacMini itself and the basic-dock. That, unfortunately, will boost the price. Forcing power users to pay for the built in 'reasonable' graphics and built in crappy drives is probably a better deal for Apple and maybe a better price for us. Dunno.

If there is no new Mac Mini this year, I may get a 21.5" iMac. Dunno. I think anything Apple sells now other than the 2014 Mac Mini is faster than my Pro in multi-core performance. It's been a while since my pro beat out a low-end Apple in single-core performance.

I'd really like Apple to make a sub $1000 desktop personal computer whose hardware puts Dell, Compaq, Acer and their ilk to shame. Show me!
Click to expand...
Well, there is a lot in there to chew-on!

It really DOES suck when a perfectly-good machine gets passed-by. I felt that way about my 8500, my G5 tower and now (almost) my 2012 MacBook Pro (which is still my daily-driver).

Small point: The 2012 Mac Pro had TB2 ports (SIX of them!!!), not TB1. But still...

I have similar hopes for modularity as comes to the Mac mini and Mac Pro. It will be interesting to see what Apple's vision is for that... It has been many years since Apple released a machine with processor upgradability (and then they just squandered the capability); but they used the term "upgradable" when talking about the new Mac Pro; so we'll see...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miat, Oculus Mentis and Manzanito
MacsRuleOthersDrool said:
First off, I don't think that Apple has sacrificed performance for thinness. They can't do more with Intel than what they can buy from them (one of the reasons why Apple controlling their own CPU destiny is a Very Good Thing(tm) ).

I don't want to get into the USB-C/TB3 debate (again!). Look up my posting history for an exhaustive(!!!) defense of THAT decision.

As for the cylindrical Mac Pro: Again, as I have said many times, Apple's main miscalculation with that design was NOT the thermal limitations (that just made upgrading the same form-factor rather impossible); but rather that they miscalculated the adoption of Thunderbolt. But I will lay the blame for that mostly at Intel's feet: They wanted to control TB, and price it exhorbitantly; and with the advent of fast-enough USB, TB had a tough row to hoe...

I, for one, am glad that Apple isn't rushing this Update. But I also wouldn't hold my breath that they would take a clue from 2005 and release another Cheese-Grater Mac Pro. I'd rather seem them get back into the rackmount server game if they want to have a blast from the past...

Mmmm, an ARM-based XServe, with 64-core CPUs...

Oh, and remember, Apple is on record as using the term "Modular" and "upgradeable" in respect to both the Mac mini and Mac Pro redesigns; so I think they are taking the time to figure out how best to do that (Hint: It won't involve a bunch of PCI-e cards in slots).
Click to expand...
No, they’re not rushing it. At least we can agree on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back