Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New 2014 Mac Mini Has Soldered RAM, Not User Replaceable
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This tells me that the Mac mini is going to be discontinued in a year or two, otherwise it would have had a makeover. The replacement will be to push people to the 21" imac. After all the real purpose of the mini was to push PC users to mac so they'd only have to buy the computer and they could still use their monitors and ancillary devices. Now that Apple has wormed it's way into the hearts and minds of the PC public courtesy of the iPads, it's time for pc users who want to try mac to throw away their crappy screens, keyboard and mouse and get the full mac experience with the iMac. Because truth be told it's a better experience.
And I don't think it's a bad idea. The bitching on this thread is really no different to what was said when Apple introduced the new thinner iMac with soldered ram, glued screen and at first only a fusion made with a 128gb ssd as way into the SSD world.
Sure is gouging. If the price was more reasonable I would have no problem with soldered RAM, it has its advantages (more reliable connection, and takes up less space).
But the blatant gouging on soldered RAM, in a machine where reducing component size is not a high priority, is truly ******.
Just a thought...
Is it possible that only the low-end model, given that it has the same 1.4GHz Dual-Core ULV Haswell Core i5 present in both the new low-end 21.5" iMac as well as the MacBook Air, that only the entry level Mac mini has the RAM soldered on?
I recognize that this is unlikely and that the "Memory" section of the "Configure to Order" page for all three models of Mac mini only have the sizes of RAM not the SO-DIMM denominations (as is still seen on the iMac and the non-retina 13" MacBook Pro). But hey, worth hoping for until teardowns prove us wrong, right?
Is it possible that only the low-end model, given that it has the same 1.4GHz Dual-Core ULV Haswell Core i5 present in both the new low-end 21.5" iMac as well as the MacBook Air, that only the entry level Mac mini has the RAM soldered on?
I recognize that this is unlikely and that the "Memory" section of the "Configure to Order" page for all three models of Mac mini only have the sizes of RAM not the SO-DIMM denominations (as is still seen on the iMac and the non-retina 13" MacBook Pro). But hey, worth hoping for until teardowns prove us wrong, right?
Only non-profit reason I could see apple going this direction is more control over quality. If you put specific ram that has been tested to work you are less likely to get people having issues because some idiot put in the crappiest/cheapest ram you could find. Many motherboards have a list of tested ram but hardly anyone actually follows that.
I've done a few and they are awesome outside of installing a new OS and Patching. Kinda makes new OS releases not as fun... It is rewarding though.
Man, this sucks Apple. On your lowest denominator Mac you take away any essence and spirit of what made the Mac Mini special. To me, your soul seems to have died with this one. It was just the little upgrade ability that at least kept a kid trying. It doesn't even look thinner. You could have done better and to top that off it comes preloaded with Yosemite.
I never understood why apple changed this. The 23" inch cinema displays were overpriced in 2003-2006--but they were attractively designed at a time other displays were hideously cheap looking. Now I have a 23" display that I bought for 1/4 of the what I paid for an apple display back then and it is well designed and a great display.
I can only assume margins are so thin apple decided not to bother
My iMac '06 is nonfunctional, why?
ATi mobile graphics card... What a piece of trash.
Luckily it's... you guessed it... soldered to the motherboard!
They quoted me the estimated repair costs, well... the costs for a replacement...
That's when I got this iMac. It too get AMD mobile graphics problems, but it had a replacement program (my former did, too, but I missed the timeframe - all my fault there, granted)
My point is: SOLDER IS EVIL.
Of course it's the margins.
They are very proud of saying no to the many things they could do, but let others do the low-margin work.
You know, just like RAM and storage, oh no wait, we found a way to start locking them in.
Yeah, that'll work...
Apple, watch it.
You're moving to the thinner ice here.
Glassed Silver:mac
It's my increasing opinion that apple was planning to do a mini makeover. But that the new model required followthrough from intel that did not materialize. If this model was planned, for example, they could have released this model many months ago.
So instead we have what is basically a punt. And they've chosen to fill it with all manner of leftover parts. Like extra processors they bought for MacBook airs that didn't sell as well as expected. And they sold through their quad chips and decided not to order more for as few as they expected to need before the next revision.
The soldered ram is the only part of this that doesn't fit the theory. I mean, what other product...
... unless this is also over stock from underselling MBAs? They do both list the same 1600 LPDDR3. Hmm, it all fits together: 1) bring together what's left in the warehouse, 2) make a few Frankenstein minis, 3) buy time until we can make the mini we wanted to make.
Sounds like behavior from a company being run by a logistical master to me.
Last edited:
Excuse me for not reaing the whole thread, but isn't this guy just speculating? Almost seems like he is trying to gain attention by making a sensationalist claim of confirmation. In his article, he writes this:
Really disappointing that Macrumors joins in on this bad journalism.
Now "It's really looking like..." is absolutely nothing at all like a confirmation to me, and he doesn't even make any mention of a source of information for saying why it looks likely. This is a bunch of crap, really. Let's wait until someone actually gets their hands on one.
Really disappointing that Macrumors joins in on this bad journalism.
On one hand, it's just inexplicable and lame that Apple would consciously design a machine this way.
On the other, it's the low-end Mac. You have to wonder how many people actually bother to upgrade a Mac Mini before they just buy a new one. They're not exactly expensive machines.
On the other, it's the low-end Mac. You have to wonder how many people actually bother to upgrade a Mac Mini before they just buy a new one. They're not exactly expensive machines.
Apple is a beast in LEAN manufacturing and supply chain processes. It is highly unlikely they have warehouses full of unused and unsold parts.
More likely is that they wanted to do a proper makeover with a new smaller form factor, but something didn't come off. A couple of key components (like Broadwell CPU's) didn't come through and so they were forced to use the same form factor for various technical reasons.
My own person speculation is that most of the implementation package would have been prepared for a new smaller form factor, such as soldered ram, no dual drive option, but maybe the thermal envelope of the processors didn't allow the preferred enclosure design, so they had to stick with what they had for now?
It seems a very weird update for this enclosure. It seems like it would have been cheaper to keep everything the same except for the connectivity and processor bumps like was done with the MBA's this summer.
You didn't read the whole thread nor did you read the entire post linked from the article. As has been pointed out several times now, towards the bottom of the macminicolo post it says ..
It would be nice had he said how he confirmed it, which he didn't, but it's a much stronger statement than the one at the top of the post which you quoted.
If you will do 'heavy' Photoshop usage(photoshoping is not a true word, does it?), you will NEED way more then 16GB. Just check Bearfeats for Photoshop users and see how much the performance drops after you run out of memory. I do a LOT of graphics(i have a graphics business, and i have fortune 500 clients if you need to ask) and i can BARELY manage to do it with 32GB. So i don't now how 'heavy' you workflow is, but sure not at a pro level. So quit this 'i can do it with 8GB, so you sure don't need it'. Because it's YOUR usage scenario, doesn't mean others can't have a different, more resource consuming. And i don't now how 'many VM's' are you running with your 8Gb AND 'heavy' Photoshop, since the OS alone requires a minimum of 4GB just to function.
And speaking of mini, you could have a decent machine for smaller Photoshop/Illustrator projects and at a decent price. But to pay Apple 200$ for 8GB of RAM????? What is this, 1990 prices on RAM? In EU that $200 becomes 200EU, about freaking 300$, for 8GB of RAM!!!!! Have all at Apple gone mad??? It looks like Apple did not upgraded because quad core was much more popular than they think it will be. So they try now to force users into buying higher end iMacs or nMP. Same as with 21,5" iMAc, no user upgradable RAM. This is a very-very bad business model.....
Get use to it becasue future hardware will require soldered in RAM no matter who makes the hardware. Intel is even looking into RAM built right into the processor module on future Xeon Phi's.
Apple is just preparing people for the future here. Beyond that this is a mobile platform that doesn't support vast amounts of RAM.
In any event I need to find some pic of this machine on the net.
I know, that's why I would like to know how he confirmed it. He obviously doesn't have on in his possession.
I mean if he is basing it off a conversation from an Apple sales rep at least say so. That he isn't is really irritating.
Plus I think we've all experience the fallability of Apple sales reps in our respective Mac histories. I've been told conflicting information from them in the past only to have discovered later that neither rep I spoke to had given me correct information.
I just want to have some solid, proper confirmation.
My 2010 Core2Duo Mac mini Server only has lasted as long as it has because I was able to cheaply upgrade to an SSD and quadruple the RAM during its life. It is almost time to replace it now.
That 5K iMac is looking better and better as this issue slowly gets closer to being true.
And yes, I did read the whole article, and went to check all of his Twitter conversations on the issue.
This Mac Mini downgrade is sad. I really loved the Mac Mini line. I bought several during the years (I have 2 at home at the moment + 4 at the office - 3 servers - along with imacs and macbook airs/pros). It was a versatile, small form factor, practical device and a viable server option. Now the server option is killed, and the remaining models are meh-meh also. This is clearly a step in the wrong direction.
I really loved the Mac Mini line. I bought several during the years (I have 2 at home at the moment + 4 at the office - 3 servers - along with imacs and macbook airs/pros). It was a versatile, small form factor, practical device and a viable server option. Now the server option is killed, and the remaining models are meh-meh also. This is clearly a step in the wrong direction.