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

[saxofunk]

The Mac Mini should look like a Fire Stick at this point that plugs into an HDMI port and have an quad-ARM proc with 8 GB RAM, 128GB flash, and 2 USB-C/TB3 ports. This would sell like hotcakes and restore the original spirit of the Mac Mini. $300 for the on it...

Upgrades to 16GB and more flash storage would suffice. The current Mini format can become the Mac Mini Pro then without hurting too many feelings and support eGPU via TB3 and of course soldered on RAM and CPU so that they can stick to their idiotic model of making things that can't be upgraded and not updating the product for half a decade.

I still remember when new Macs were being released more than once a year.

 

[zen]

And it almost killed the company when they tried it before.

That was a long time ago, when the Mac was all that Apple was. Now, the Mac forms only a small percentage of their business.
[doublepost=1539875158][/doublepost]

The problem for Apple would be that such an action would decimate the Mac product line.

Seems pretty decimated already to me.

 

[ICEBreaker]

Sell the MAC computer division.

Macs are held hostage by Apple who clearly do not want to spend any resources on them. Look at an iPhone and look at a 15" Macbook Pro.

Which has the higher profit margin?

Put a $499 Mimi next to an iPhone and it's worse.

Macs are dead unless they are broken off and sold to a Dell or HP who would be thrilled with their profit margins.

How I wish this would happen. But like a failed marriage, Apple still wants complete control over the entire ecosystem. A divorce is not going to be forthcoming. What surprises me actually is how many models they have. Given their lack of interest in the Mac, I would assume that they would have a maximum of two notebook lines (MacBook and MacBook Pro) and one desktop line (iMac).

 

[the johnmc]

Be gone troll.

Oh wait, you're still here? I thought it was "high time you left Apple".

 

[zen]

How I wish this would happen. But like a failed marriage, Apple still wants complete control over the entire ecosystem. A divorce is not going to be forthcoming. What surprises me actually is how many models they have. Given their lack of interest in the Mac, I would assume that they would have a maximum of two notebook lines (MacBook and MacBook Pro) and one desktop line (iMac).

Oh, for the old days.

Consumers: iBook, iMac.
Professionals: PowerBook, PowerMac.

Easy.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Apple is not, and never has been, an industry leader .
They have very appealing product designs, and used to have a great OS .
That's about the sum of it .

Today they make most of their money with a decade old smartphone they keep putting lipstick on, related random peripherals , and some content and user data management .

Tablets never took off as predicted by Jobs, another major strategy failure , yet here we are stuck with an iOS centric company trying to copy and catch up with other gadget makers - and not winning that battle either .

Macs and OSX peaked in the early 2010s, it's been downhill since ; relevant software for Mac gets more rare by the day, Mac hardware gets more crippled with every update .
Apple then tried to pull a fast one with the iMP - a slap in the face for everyone waiting for a replacement of the ill conceived tcMP for ages .

Will no due respect, that's a crock.

100% of it.

Not even worthy of a rebuttal; I've got better things to do.
[doublepost=1539876513][/doublepost]

Apple is not, and never has been, an industry leader .
They have very appealing product designs, and used to have a great OS .
That's about the sum of it .

Today they make most of their money with a decade old smartphone they keep putting lipstick on, related random peripherals , and some content and user data management .

Tablets never took off as predicted by Jobs, another major strategy failure , yet here we are stuck with an iOS centric company trying to copy and catch up with other gadget makers - and not winning that battle either .

Macs and OSX peaked in the early 2010s, it's been downhill since ; relevant software for Mac gets more rare by the day, Mac hardware gets more crippled with every update .
Apple then tried to pull a fast one with the iMP - a slap in the face for everyone waiting for a replacement of the ill conceived tcMP for ages .

Will no due respect, that's a crock.

100% of it.

Not even worthy of a rebuttal; I've got better things to do.
[doublepost=1539877068][/doublepost]

My comment (which may not have been clear) was directed towards the Mac Mini and to some extent the Mac Pro.

It is horrendous that, for 3-4 years, Apple has completely neglected the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. They don't offer any other system that comes without a screen, so this alienates a part of the user base like myself which need such a solution.

1. They have updated the Mac Pro at least once with (IIRC) a GPU upgrade.

2. Just because an iMac/iMac Pro comes with a built-in monitor (which pretty much EVERY computer needs to at least have access to, anyway!), I see ABSOLUTELY no reason why an iMac (or a Mac laptop) can't be used for the same applications as a "headless" computer. So your assertion that you NEED a headless Mac is pretty much just you refusing to think of anything but a tower as a "real computer".

 

[Phlashman_]

I'm getting quite concerned about Apple's Mac position. Not just because I'm currently waiting for some news so I can get a new Mac or pull the trigger on a hackintosh.

It's obvious that Apple's focus is the consumer, that's where the money is and no-one can blame them for it. But it's certainly leading to professionals and content creators feeling neglected. I think we're kidding ourselves if Apple aren't aware of this problem and aren't putting effort into fixing it, but at the same time I feel a little leak of info about a new modular Mac Pro, a new iMac or the Mini would help a lot of people right now. Given the amount of time since the Mini Mac, Mac Pro and even iMac last refreshes, they must be working on something sizeable.

Personally, I feel the time is right for them to release MacOS so hackintoshes can go legit. Letting anyone install MacOS would just bring more people into the ecosystem, pros and creators will be able to build what they need and they can still produce premium hardware for people who love premium design. Release a barebones Mac Pro, with a case, motherboard and cooling then you can either spec the rest or get it yourself. Stick a T2 chip on the motherboard that once combined with a new Thunderbolt display gives you faceID.

Give the whole Mac brand a "for the pros/creators" make over, home users just aren't getting desktops anymore so focus on the pros.

 

[The_Interloper]

1. They have updated the Mac Pro at least once with (IIRC) a GPU upgrade.

2. Just because an iMac/iMac Pro comes with a built-in monitor (which pretty much EVERY computer needs to at least have access to, anyway!), I see ABSOLUTELY no reason why an iMac (or a Mac laptop) can't be used for the same applications as a "headless" computer. So your assertion that you NEED a headless Mac is pretty much just you refusing to think of anything but a tower as a "real computer".

1. No they haven't (I own one, so I know). They removed the base model quad-core machine from sale with D300 GPUs and left only the 6-core, 8-core and 12-core variants with D500 and D700 GPUs. The specs of all machines are exactly the same as upon release and still carry the 'Late 2013' model identifier.

2. There are workflows that require beefier CPUs/more cores and greater cooling than the physically restricted chassis of a MacBook Pro or iMac/iMac Pro can accommodate. The 'top end' i9 MacBook Pro has been proven to throttle. On top of that, all these machines come with screens that many users simply do not need as they have already invested in displays. People may also want/need non-glossy screens and larger sizes than 27-inch, among other reasons.

 

[DVD9]

How I wish this would happen. But like a failed marriage, Apple still wants complete control over the entire ecosystem. A divorce is not going to be forthcoming. What surprises me actually is how many models they have. Given their lack of interest in the Mac, I would assume that they would have a maximum of two notebook lines (MacBook and MacBook Pro) and one desktop line (iMac).

If Apple updated their computers like other companies then that's what they would have.

If you buy one of those Mac Mini's it was probably manufactured over three years ago, same with the Mac Pro.

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

Just to be clear, you're seriously telling us that there haven't been any 'meaningful' updates to CPU's in ... FIVE YEARS?

If that really is the case - and it's debatable at best - then why update now? If the newest Mac models are so much faster than previous models, what is the difference?

I haven't said there haven't been ANY improvements in that time; clearly there have. But considering the sales of the Mac Pro and Mac mini, and the massive cost and resource-sucking of both the R&D process, and quite frankly, even more annoying, the Agency Approvals for a gazillion countries (each with their own agendas and procedures), the numbers just didn't "add up" (no pun).

But now, there really HAVE been some more significant improvements in Intel's CPUs and GPUs, and changes in I/O trends. And so it is starting to make sense. Not to mention that, as a practical matter, it's probably getting kind of hard to source some of the parts, like FireWire controllers, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Intel and/or AMD have maybe even EOLed critical components such as the CPU or GPU used in those machines.

But obviously, Apple isn't taking the easy way out (which they might not be able to do with the Mac Pro; but which certainly could be done with the mini) and just update the internals a little. So, IMHO, it will be quite interesting to see what rabbits are going to be pulled out of Apple's hat...
[doublepost=1539879199][/doublepost]

Useless analogy: Cars don't have mechanical components that double in effectiveness every 18-24 months. Computers do have CPUs and components that double in speed every 18-24 months. Also cars have a completely different set of purposes from computers.

Wrong.

CPUs USED to follow Moore's Law (to which you are making a side-reference); but then, a funny thing happened: Physics got in the way.

Desktop CPUs haven't enjoyed a Moore's Law "curve" for nearly 10 years now. The performance gains year-over-year are marginal, at best.

I'm not saying we're "done" with CPU power increases; but at this point, we're scratching pretty hard at that ground to get even one new seedling to sprout.

And at some level, cars and computers are both means to an end; not an end unto themselves. They are both TOOLS. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

I haven't said there haven't been ANY improvements in that time; clearly there have. But considering the sales of the Mac Pro and Mac mini, and the massive cost and resource-sucking of both the R&D process, and quite frankly, even more annoying, the Agency Approvals for a gazillion countries (each with their own agendas and procedures), the numbers just didn't "add up" (no pun).

But now, there really HAVE been some more significant improvements in Intel's CPUs and GPUs, and changes in I/O trends. And so it is starting to make sense. Not to mention that, as a practical matter, it's probably getting kind of hard to source some of the parts, like FireWire controllers, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Intel and/or AMD have maybe even EOLed critical components such as the CPU or GPU used in those machines.

But obviously, Apple isn't taking the easy way out (which they might not be able to do with the Mac Pro; but which certainly could be done with the mini) and just update the internals a little. So, IMHO, it will be quite interesting to see what rabbits are going to be pulled out of Apple's hat...
[doublepost=1539879199][/doublepost]
Wrong.

CPUs USED to follow Moore's Law (to which you are making a side-reference); but then, a funny thing happened: Physics got in the way.

Desktop CPUs haven't enjoyed a Moore's Law "curve" for nearly 10 years now. The performance gains year-over-year are marginal, at best.

I'm not saying we're "done" with CPU power increases; but at this point, we're scratching pretty hard at that ground to get even one new seedling to sprout.

And at some level, cars and computers are both means to an end; not an end unto themselves. They are both TOOLS. Nothing more; nothing less.

While we have different perspectives and opinions on what constitutes an 'improvement' - and subsequently how frequently Apple should upgrade their hardware to take advantage of those - we're really debating the past... which can be entertaining but is generally not productive. Moving forward, we are indeed aligned that it will be interesting to see what Apple does. Will they actually release new Mac Pro's and Mini's? Will they SHIP those announced products versus just more vaporware? Will they release a new format that successfully bridges one or more of the gaps?

Regardless, it will be fun to watch!

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

1. No they haven't (I own one, so I know). They removed the base model quad-core machine from sale with D300 GPUs and left only the 6-core, 8-core and 12-core variants with D500 and D700 GPUs. The specs of all machines are exactly the same as upon release and still carry the 'Late 2013' model identifier.

2. There are workflows that require beefier CPUs/more cores and greater cooling than the physically restricted chassis of a MacBook Pro or iMac/iMac Pro can accommodate. The 'top end' i9 MacBook Pro has been proven to throttle. On top of that, all these machines come with screens that many users simply do not need as they have already invested in displays. People may also want/need non-glossy screens and larger sizes than 27-inch, among other reasons.

1. I stand corrected. Sorry, I don't pay as much attention to the MP as I should. Out of my price-range (and need-range!).

2. EVERY notebook "throttles". Pretty much comes with the territory; but I get your point. As for the other "needs", they belong to a pretty small percentage of users. But I agree that those users have to compromise a bit.

Fortunately, we will soon be able to stop speculating, as the October 30th Event (which, from the location and "Teaser" is almost certainly going to focus on "Pro" content-creation), will reveal what the reality is...

 

[Peperino]

Apple's entire computer line up is embarrasing.
But 4 years to do an update (if they say they are oign to do it), is a joke of bad taste.

This shows HOW LITTLE APPLE CARES ABOUT THE COMPUTERS AND INNOVATION, and HOW MUCH ABOUT MAKING MONEY...

So SAD...

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Will no due respect, that's a crock.

100% of it.

Not even worthy of a rebuttal; I've got better things to do.
[doublepost=1539876513][/doublepost]
Will no due respect, that's a crock.

100% of it.

Not even worthy of a rebuttal; I've got better things to do.
[doublepost=1539877068][/doublepost]
1. They have updated the Mac Pro at least once with (IIRC) a GPU upgrade.

2. Just because an iMac/iMac Pro comes with a built-in monitor (which pretty much EVERY computer needs to at least have access to, anyway!), I see ABSOLUTELY no reason why an iMac (or a Mac laptop) can't be used for the same applications as a "headless" computer. So your assertion that you NEED a headless Mac is pretty much just you refusing to think of anything but a tower as a "real computer".

Regarding point #2, that's total hogwash. Sure, that works for a lot of people - and may work great for you - but what works for you doesn't not necessarily work for everyone. I have a beautiful, curved 37" ultra-wide monitor sitting on my desk. At 52 reading small text just isn't fun anymore. Plus, I can have multiple documents open side-by-side. THAT meets my preferences and workflow needs. An all-in-one with a 27" monitor... doesn't. In addition, while I could connect my external monitor to the iMac... why would I want to? It would just be in the way.

 

[BCWorld]

Machine is older than my toddler and Apple is still selling it. SHAME!

 

[Hrududu]

Remember in 2005 when Steve stood up at WWDC and felt bad they couldn’t deliver a 3GHz PowerMac? Even with 2 decent upgrades to the machine in 2 years it wasn’t good enough. How much more shameful is it now that the Mac Pro and Mac Mini are 4-5 years old without even a single speed bump STILL on the website for the same price. That is truly embarrassing.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

I'm getting quite concerned about Apple's Mac position. Not just because I'm currently waiting for some news so I can get a new Mac or pull the trigger on a hackintosh.

It's obvious that Apple's focus is the consumer, that's where the money is and no-one can blame them for it. But it's certainly leading to professionals and content creators feeling neglected. I think we're kidding ourselves if Apple aren't aware of this problem and aren't putting effort into fixing it, but at the same time I feel a little leak of info about a new modular Mac Pro, a new iMac or the Mini would help a lot of people right now. Given the amount of time since the Mini Mac, Mac Pro and even iMac last refreshes, they must be working on something sizeable.

Personally, I feel the time is right for them to release MacOS so hackintoshes can go legit. Letting anyone install MacOS would just bring more people into the ecosystem, pros and creators will be able to build what they need and they can still produce premium hardware for people who love premium design. Release a barebones Mac Pro, with a case, motherboard and cooling then you can either spec the rest or get it yourself. Stick a T2 chip on the motherboard that once combined with a new Thunderbolt display gives you faceID.

Give the whole Mac brand a "for the pros/creators" make over, home users just aren't getting desktops anymore so focus on the pros.

As much as I would love to agree with you on formally releasing MacOS for 3rd Party hardware, this has the potential to create a world of hurt. I actually had a Hackintosh for several years but keeping it running was more ... fun ... than I needed.

That said, living within the Apple ecosystem - where all of my devices are aware of and share information - is an amazing experience and one that I would not prefer to give up. Just my opinion, but if Apple would focus a bit more on the non-Phone components of that ecosystem they could actually drive additional iPhone adoption. Making it incredibly expensive... just keeps people away.

 

[saintstryfe]

But now, there really HAVE been some more significant improvements in Intel's CPUs and GPUs, and changes in I/O trends. And so it is starting to make sense. Not to mention that, as a practical matter, it's probably getting kind of hard to source some of the parts, like FireWire controllers, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Intel and/or AMD have maybe even EOLed critical components such as the CPU or GPU used in those machines.

That's why we had a minor update to the Macbook Air last year, because the previous chip in the 2015 model was limited so they went to another 4th gen Core i5 that was more available (and a tiny hair faster).

 

[MacsRuleOthersDrool]

That's why we had a minor update to the Macbook Air last year, because the previous chip in the 2015 model was limited so they went to another 4th gen Core i5 that was more available (and a tiny hair faster).

But now that the "Invite" is out, I suspect that the mini refresh will be much more of a "reimagining/redesign" than a spec-bump.

 

[Smeaton1724]

Bought a Mac Mini for my son-in-law in 2013, upgraded the RAM to 16GB. He gave it to my daughter (his wife) because he wanted a 'gaming' computer - which he bought. If that's what people want to do with their desktops and time, they should remain single - and GET A JOB.

That’s possibly the most strange reply with my post quoted I’ve ever had in 20 plus years of being on the internet. Not sure what any of that has to do with my post but thanks for the quote non the less

 

[JRobinsonJr]

How large is that headless-Mac user base, as a percentage of Apple's customer base? Therein lies the answer as to why the Mini gets little attention. I suspect the number is very small.

You are most likely correct, except that in the scale of Apple this is a flawed argument. How many people use a headless-Mac? I do... and judging from the years of negative observations on MacRumors I'm willing to be that a lot of others do to. Heck, Apple continues to manufacture and sell them... so there is certainly a viable market.

The flaw in the argument is that even 1% of 1% of a trillion-dollar company is a sizable number. Even the Watch - which many pundits consider a failure - is likely larger than some fortune-1000 companies. So, to suggest that the Mac mini is a small market is to ignore the reality of Apple's size.

 

[BarbaricCo]

Yup!
It takes Apple 4 years to figure out how to make Mac mini more expensive.

Let's name it Pro!

 

[the johnmc]

You might be right, except that I - the consumer with the $$ to spend - don't want an all-in-one. I already have a full setup. Just need the core components.
[doublepost=1539871665][/doublepost]

Emoji are beautiful, take minimal time to to create, and keep Apple in line with unicode. No one is seriously complaining about that, except people (apparently like you) who can't seem to grasp complex arguments.

The issue is that there are too few announcements of real products. If Apple was both announcing - and SHIPPING - new products on a regular basis then no one would even care about emoji.

No, I absolutely can grasp a complex argument, which is why railing against emoji on a discussion about hardware is completely pointless. You have zero idea how Apple's R&D budget is spent yet you proclaimed that they "spend the majority of their R&D on autonomous vehicles and the development of really pretty emoticons".

 

[JRobinsonJr]

No, I absolutely can grasp a complex argument, which is why railing against emoji on a discussion about hardware is completely pointless. You have zero idea how Apple's R&D budget is spent yet you proclaimed that they "spend the majority of their R&D on autonomous vehicles and the development of really pretty emoticons".

Well, given that you don't seem to understand hyperbole I actually do question your ability to understand complex arguments.

Putting that aside, since you seem to know, please enlighten us on what they DO spend R&D funds on?

• Until very recently the hardware didn't get refreshed on a regular basis
• iPhones, iOS and MacOS are on yearly cycles, so let's leave that out of the equation
• The only truely new items announced in the past 18 months - MacPro, AirPower, Wireless case for AirPods - have all been total no-shows (to date)
• Yet Apple spends billions annually on R&D and infrastructure
• At the same time, Amazon and Google seem to be growing in every aspect

 

[jwdsail]

I'd even argue that the 2014 mac Mini was a downgrade in many respects from the 2012 model. I hope the 2018 upgrade (if there is one) solves these issues. Letting a machine languish for 4-6 years is inexcusable.

It doesn't need to be "thinner" or in some odd shaped (e.g. cylinder) enclosure. It doesn't need to be much more than a solid, utilitarian upgrade. Current CPUs, current GPUs, 32-64GB RAM as options, larger SSDs.

Hear here!

2012 (still user serviceable) case with current innards is pretty much what users have been begging Apple for for 4+ years..

Good Better Best, i3, i5, i7 (dare we hope for BTO i9?) BTO 32-64GB user upgradeable ram, BTO discrete graphics options, BTO user upgradable ssd up to 2TB..

Ship it Apple. I'll buy 2 on launch day, and a third in January.