New 2014 Mac Mini Has Soldered RAM, Not User Replaceable

[2499723]

Apple spends millions developing products. Why should it produce a product that helps third-party suppliers to make money selling parts that Apple can already supply?

It isn't Apple's job to put money in the pockets of companies such as Crucial. If you want a product with a certain spec, buy the right product in the first place. If you can't afford Apple's price, buy something you can afford. Apple isn't a charity. If you don't like the specs on offer, choose another device or another company.

Tim made it clear with one of the presentation graphics that Apple's lineup is Watch, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, iMac. The desktop market isn't critical to Apple. Tim wants to concentrate on mobile computing because that's the future for Apple and for IT.

People don't complain because they can't upgrade the internals in their TVs, cookers, PVRs, satellite boxes, toasters, etc. Why do people expect to upgrade their computers? They might have been able to upgrade older computers in the past, but we no longer live in the past.

I walked into the kitchen to look for some Kool-Aid, but it had already been drunk!

 

[prowlmedia]

Originally Posted by prowlmedia
If you do any work with it, you want the most efficient fastest possible, surely.
No. If you are sensible, you want the fastest you need, not what you want. New and shiny, or more than what you need, can bankrupt or cash strap you.

No. If you are sensible, you want the fastest you need, not what you want. New and shiny, or more than what you need, can bankrupt or cash strap you.

Sure... The fastest that works for you. A writer doesn't need a mac pro... but if they can access data faster that may help them...

A video editor can save hours of rendering time and just plain working time with the best machine available and as I said, if it's for business use, it's wasting time having a slow machine and it's completely tax deductible!

 

[MrGuder]

One wonders if Apple knew people were buying the previous Mac Mini and upgrading the ram themselves (saving 100's of dollars) so what better way to stop that then to solder it in permanently so the consumer buy's their more expensive ram.

Sure they have a right to make money but this is just ridiculous to take something away like this, I mean this is an entry level Mac, why change something like this other than for them to make more money and lock you in to their prices. It's also not like they changed the whole design, it looks basically the exact same shape.

 

[Tycho24]

For the fanboys defending the 1.4 GHz Mac Mini, you say that "it's good enough for the typical user" because "a typical user mostly just browses the web", "plays a few games", and "runs modest applications".

Well, that's what a typical user does. That covers nearly all students, all seniors, and many non professionals.

The problem here is that for the price of ONE low end Mac Mini, a typical user could buy THREE Chromeboxes and a Chromebox will fulfill a typical user's needs just as well as does the low end Mac Mini.

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-CHROMEBOX-M004U-ASUS-Desktop/dp/B00IT1WJZQ

And if that typical user needs a nice 21.5" IPS LED display, for a third LESS than the low end Mac Mini they can get an LG Chromebase with a keyboard and mouse in thrown in at no extra cost.

http://www.amazon.com/LG-ChromeBase-22CV241-W-22-Inch-Desktop/dp/B00JR625WO/

An OS that is essentially a web browser is NOT comparable to Yosemite.

 

[Dickie]

Oh well, in that case it was always supported, since Hyper threading was reintroduced with the "i" naming scheme and Nehelem.

If my memory serves me correctly though, the i5 tops out a a max of 4 cores (real and hyper threaded). So even if there was such a things as a quad-core i5 you'd still only be able to address 4 instead to the theoretical 8.
In my mind thats why the loss of the i7 is such a killer.

 

[JackANSI]

They aren't outrageous when compared to other makers. Additionally we need to factor in other things such as installation (it may only take you a couple minutes to upgrade your own RAM but think about how much time it takes when they have to take machines pumped out but the million in China and make changes to them before shipping), add in that they warranty it and support it also (something they don't need to do when you buy your own). On top of that you have to throw some profit for them.

Most consumers don't want to deal with upgrading things themselves. Look at cars. Most will pay the dealership to add any extras they want rather than doing it themselves. To most, it's worth the added expense to have someone else do it for them. For most, the thought of opening their computer and the risk they'll mess something up (even if it is as simple as snapping in a couple extra RAM chips) is more than they're willing to take on and they'll gladly pay to have it done for them. Why do you think we have countless car washes and oil change places?

Actually people do dealership upgrades or got for a higher model so they can get that rolled into their auto loan or the dealer uses a few thing to sweeten the deal instead of cutting the price (putting all-weather mats in that cost the dealer 60-70$ and putting them down as a line item at 250 is cheaper than giving the customer $250 off the retail price)... I used to install dealership options as my high school night job, so I know.

RAM is not so expensive that you need to roll it into the initial purpose. Apple is just ripping off their customers by charging $200-300 for 16GB of RAM. If the just put 16 GB in all minis for $75 more, no one would argue. Also many RAM makers warranty their wares too.

 

[prowlmedia]

For the fanboys defending the 1.4 GHz Mac Mini, you say that "it's good enough for the typical user" because "a typical user mostly just browses the web", "plays a few games", and "runs modest applications".

Well, that's what a typical user does. That covers nearly all students, all seniors, and many non professionals.

The problem here is that for the price of ONE low end Mac Mini, a typical user could buy THREE Chromeboxes and a Chromebox will fulfill a typical user's needs just as well as does the low end Mac Mini.

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-CHROMEBOX-M004U-ASUS-Desktop/dp/B00IT1WJZQ

And if that typical user needs a nice 21.5" IPS LED display, for a third LESS than the low end Mac Mini they can get an LG Chromebase with a keyboard and mouse in thrown in at no extra cost.

http://www.amazon.com/LG-ChromeBase-22CV241-W-22-Inch-Desktop/dp/B00JR625WO/

This is all true... but then you are into ONLY using the web apps available - at best they have mobile/tablet functionality. Which is fine but very limiting.

 

[Thermonuclear]

An OS that is essentially a web browser is NOT comparable to Yosemite.

That is not the point. (Also, not true; Chrome runs on Linux and it's possible to access Linux directly, or to dump Chrome altogether.)

The point is that for a typical user, a Chromebox does everything that the low end Mini can do at one third the price.

THAT is the point.

 

[steve333]

I have a Mid 2011 Mini, 2.5ghz, AMD Graphics but only 4Mb RAM.
Think I'll see much of a difference if I upgrade the RAM to 8Gb?
Crucial has an 8Mb kit for $86

 

[DFierce]

How disappointing.

 

[fa8362]

One wonders if Apple knew people were buying the previous Mac Mini and upgrading the ram themselves (saving 100's of dollars) so what better way to stop that then to solder it in permanently so the consumer buy's their more expensive ram.

One doesn't need to wonder. Of course they knew. Just like they knew people were doing it before they made it easy with the case redesign.

But desktop sales and computer sales overall are declining, so this is just another attempt to squeeze out as much profit as possible.

But I'm not falling for it.

 

[Thermonuclear]

This is all true... but then you are into ONLY using the web apps available - at best they have mobile/tablet functionality. Which is fine but very limiting.

Have you looked at what's available from Google's Chrome site? I have. The selection is huge and is growing all the time. And then there's that little thing about running nearly any Android application.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps

For anyone who says otherwise, I invite them to point out a specific deficiency among the Chrome application offerings while keeping in mind the needs of the typical user.

 

[mishendr]

it is an interesting puzzle Apple left me. I have three choices to replace my late 2009 Mini, which is still running Snow Leopard.

1) Upgrade to the new mini, which won't be as much of an upgrade as I intended even at the high end. The 8 GB and the fusion drive are as I intended, but the dual core is an issue given all the reports I've heard about Mavericks running poorly on dual core machines.

2) Sit tight until March, and see if Apple gets it's head out, and puts a quad-core Broadwell in. The Mini is often updated in March, so this isn't a hopeless gamble.

3) Throw in the towel and get a Dell. The Optiplex 9020 is small form factor will certainly work for what I need and comes with Windows 7. If you keep Information (non)Services away from it, Win 7 is actually pretty decent.

The high end optiplex has a quad core I5, a discrete video card, 8 GB, and optical drive (which I still use quite a lot) and many more USB ports. But it needs a hard drive upgrade out of the box. So net cost is about the same as the mini's high end.

Much of the hype about Yosemite concerns connecting to IOS devices, and since I don't own any, that selling point vanishes.

?? Mavericks running poorly on C2D?? Where did you get that non-info?? My late 2009 Mac mini is running Yosemite with 8GB VERY nicely, as did Mavericks. There is still power left, as a SSD/Fushion option is not yet installed.

If you opt for something non-Apple, build your own, and go Hackintosh. Easy, and fully upgradeble/customizable.

----------

Have you looked at what's available from Google's Chrome site? I have. The selection is huge and is growing all the time. And then there's that little thing about running nearly any Android application.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/apps

For anyone who says otherwise, I invite them to point out a specific deficiency among the Chrome application offerings while keeping in mind the needs of the typical user.

It's not Apple... #

 

[shabanga]

I have a big hunch that the RAM is in fact not soldered, but that the bottom access plate is now sealed in some way, either glued or proprietary screws.

As others have pointed out the language used on Apple's own website is very different from the models where the RAM is actually soldered on.

It will probably void the warranty to open the bottom access plate, thus making the entire machine "not user upgradable."

Soldered RAM is confirmed. A friend has GSX access and has gone through the service guide. You can open the bottom but the only easily accessible part is the PCIe flash storage. You can also replace the SATA HDD but it is a little harder to get to. I'm not sure if the machine supports a PCIe + SATA drive. It does support it physically but since you can't buy both together it would require parts that may not be available to average consumers yet. Any more questions?

 

[steve333]

Apple spends millions developing products. Why should it produce a product that helps third-party suppliers to make money selling parts that Apple can already supply?

It isn't Apple's job to put money in the pockets of companies such as Crucial. If you want a product with a certain spec, buy the right product in the first place. If you can't afford Apple's price, buy something you can afford. Apple isn't a charity. If you don't like the specs on offer, choose another device or another company.

Tim made it clear with one of the presentation graphics that Apple's lineup is Watch, iPhone, iPad, MacBook, iMac. The desktop market isn't critical to Apple. Tim wants to concentrate on mobile computing because that's the future for Apple and for IT.

People don't complain because they can't upgrade the internals in their TVs, cookers, PVRs, satellite boxes, toasters, etc. Why do people expect to upgrade their computers? They might have been able to upgrade older computers in the past, but we no longer live in the past.

Wow, Tim Cook buy you dinner or something?

Much of it does come from Apple which based on anonymous reporting that a large percentage of users allow their computers to send back to Apple, can see that most do NOT upgrade their RAM or hard drives. Data from other computer companies such as Dell and HP show the same. The typical buyer doesn't upgrade their machine. They buy it as they want it and leave things be.

General consumer are the largest group of buyers. These people use their computers for surfing the web, email, social media, iTunes, and maybe a little light word processing and that's about it. The people the Mac mini is targeted at.

Yes there are plenty of people upgrading their RAM and you see that on Amazon. But keep in mind that there are hundreds of millions of Macs out there. The reviews and buyers of that RAM make up only a very small percentage of the total ownership.

We need to remember that everyone on this site doesn't represent the typical Apple buyer. Typical buyers don't spend their time on forums discussing their computers/phones. They just use them and think nothing of it.

RAM can go bad. It would be a lot easier to fix if it were accessible and not soldered.
They already had a case with a removable bottom, Why spend the money to design an entirely new case other than to make people buy Apple RAM?
It's a move backwards and it's never a good thing to piss off your most reliable customers for no good reason.
Now that the OS looks like ass I really would love to tell Apple to take a flying leap. Unfortunately Windows keeps getting worse, not better

 

[jtara]

They solder in the RAM, so you are locked into buying expensive Apple RAM, instead of cheap after-market RAM.
Everybody knows RAM is RAM

Well, no, RAM is not RAM. There are multiple chip manufacturers and multiple SIMM manufacturers. And pluggable RAM has potential reliability issues.

In all fairness, soldered RAM and no user upgradability simplifies the design and lowers both design and production cost, while improving reliability. From a pure engineering perspective, it's a win, win, win.

Apple does not have to concern itself with user upgradability. It does not have to work with every RAM on the planet. They can have an internal list of approved vendors, and source chips from their limited list. If they find they have problems with a particular vendor, they can stop using that chip.

It will lower warranty and support cost, as they will not have to deal with customers who upgrade RAM themselves and then have problems. (Sure, Apple can be nasty and deny warranty claims. Even so, it still costs them money, even if they deny the claim.)

A sealed box with some tamper evidence again lowers warranty and support cost while improving reliability. (It won't improve reliability of an individual unit. But it will improve the "fleet average" that Apple is able to proudly report, because user's fingers will no longer be inside the box...)

You can argue about the price. I agree it is sky high. But the engineering and reliability advantage is clear.

Happy I have my 2012 i7 self-ungraded to 16GB.

 

[Toltepeceno]

Here's the solution: just buy it with the maximum amount of RAM. That way you would never have needed to upgrade anyway. Sure it will cost you a little bit more but it's not a big deal.

Same goes for the Retina MacBook Pro: you KNOW you will eventually need more RAM, so why not get the maximum straight away? You're paying a bit more than buying it from somewhere else, but again, it's not like it makes a huge difference in the price.

346.00 is a bit more? That IS a huge difference in the price.

 

[subsonix]

F
The problem here is that for the price of ONE

That's vastly less powerful, 16GB storage, 2GB RAM, no upgrade options. There's always been cheaper boxes available. If you are prepared to centralize all your data with Google and use what's basically a terminal, then that may be ok. That's post PC for ya, a mainframe and a terminal. /s

If you like to get a Mac and prefer that platform then it's not really an option though is it.

 

[wilycoder]

But you have to use windows and why on earth would you do that!

unlike many people here i am equally comfortable in windows, osx, and linux.

The surface 3 pro is nice. But windows 8.1 is really not very good.

i have no problems with windows 8.1. On a desktop/tower PC i hated metro. On a tablet I actually like it.

The Doubling up of apps is insane for the UI and Metro side - 2x words 2xInternet explorers etc... oh and guess what they have binned metro in 9 - well integrated it.

thats a valid issue. and its being fixed.

The normal UI side is unusable with a finger.

I use it just fine.

You have to use a pen ... it lags massively

Mine doesnt noticeably lag. Stylus lag is a pretty dumb metric for my use cases. I'm not an artist, I only take notes. There is no stylus lag for the ipad because there is no stylus! That's a huge missing feature, at least for me.

What's to laugh at the iPad

Its not a full computer. It doesnt have the ability to reboot into OSX mode. Theres no docking station. You cant build ipad apps on an ipad, it requires the purchase of a second device to do that. That makes the ipad a gimmicky tool for apple to sell me two devices.

very thin and light - very fast it seems.

I agree on that.

Lots of touch apps that work unlike windows or Android. And certainly more that are actually updated often / supported.

touch apps arent needed all that much when you've got the full monty version of the app at your disposal. the only touch apps i use are a web browser and some form of mail client. touch based gaming? thats an insult to gaming. have you ever thought about how big a step backwards the touch keyboard is over a real keyboard? im not refering to the surface keyboard, i just mean in general. multittouch actually sucks for a lot of things. for example a mouse cursor (and click) is pixel precise. why can't apple give us an optional mouse in iOS? apple makes too many design decisions for their users on their users behalf. just give us the option, let us choose.

The 5K screen is innovation. Will be a boon for video editing, photographers and artist. No one else has done it and windows support on 4k screens is woeful at best. Most apps have teeny tiny interfaces.

The screen is nice but it doesnt exist in a vacuum. Apple skipped on a proper GPU for 5k gaming. It might even lag outside of games too. they should have used the 980m from nvidia. This is one area they seriously cut corners.

The irony of your little rant is you bought a surface... with soldered ram and has an iFixit score of 1/10.

theres nothing ironic about that. the mac mini i purchased two weeks ago does not have soldered ram and thats what the thread is about. the ipad air has soldered ram so you dont have much of a point. tablets have soldered ram. non-portable desktop-like machines such as the mini should not have soldered ram.

theres nothing preventing apple from copying microsoft here, apple could very well make a tablet that has an arm chip and an intel chip and support a dual boot mode. apple is resting on their laurels way too much for my taste now.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

I walked into the kitchen to look for some Kool-Aid, but it had already been drunk!

It took me a few seconds to figure out your comment.

 

[DaveN]

For the fanboys defending the 1.4 GHz Mac Mini, you say that "it's good enough for the typical user" because "a typical user mostly just browses the web", "plays a few games", and "runs modest applications".

Well, that's what a typical user does. That covers nearly all students, all seniors, and many non professionals.

The problem here is that for the price of ONE low end Mac Mini, a typical user could buy THREE Chromeboxes and a Chromebox will fulfill a typical user's needs just as well as does the low end Mac Mini.

http://www.amazon.com/Asus-CHROMEBOX-M004U-ASUS-Desktop/dp/B00IT1WJZQ

And if that typical user needs a nice 21.5" IPS LED display, for a third LESS than the low end Mac Mini they can get an LG Chromebase with a keyboard and mouse in thrown in at no extra cost.

http://www.amazon.com/LG-ChromeBase-22CV241-W-22-Inch-Desktop/dp/B00JR625WO/

Really? A Celeron processor with 2 GB ram and 16 GB drive? Hardly a comparison. Using that argument, you can buy FOUR Raspberry PI B+'s for the price of ONE of your Chrome boxes and have the same functionality.

http://www.amazon.com/Raspberry-Pi-...qid=1413649251&sr=8-2&keywords=raspberry+pi+a

 

[saha-med]

The thought of going back to Windows in 4-5 years time when my mini becomes obsolete.... shivers

 

[Cole Slaw]

There's not much left of the Apple computer lineup that interests me anymore.
If I could justify spending the money (I can't), maybe the Mac Pro would be of interest.
I almost wish Apple would spin their computer and OS/X & software side off to some entity that has interest in those areas. The truth of the matter is, Apple is only truly interested in iPhone and iPad.
Short of that happening, I'd at least like to see Cook and Ives take a long walk off of a short pier.

 

[bigpics]

Unfortunately, the upgrade was disappointing to some Mac mini fans as Apple stopped offering a build-to-order quad-core processor upgrade and dual-drive storage options that exceed 1TB.

Storage first: TB 2 for those who want/need massive storage. And if they have to add a wire and another box to get enterprise class capabilities, sorry if it offends their Ivesian desktop aesthetics. But, whatever, clearly the use case of a fraction of MM buyers.

Quad-core/schmad-core...?? Despite all the carping, I doubt Apple dropped that quad option just to stick their thumb in "Mac Mini fans'" eyes. BTO options add business complexity, part stockpiling, assembly line considerations, etc.

So however many "fans" the quad option may have, I'm betting that the decision was driven by the relative dearth of actual "buyers" of quad core in the previous model. I.e., if the fans had been putting their money where their forum mouths are, we'd still have the option...

...The soldered RAM, OTOH (if it's truly soldered) is Apple doing its traditional take advantage of customers' loyalty gambit by padding their own pockets for a few bucks (since later, post-market RAM upgrades are something a notable percentage of buyers might actually do) knowing those committed to the OS have few options and none convenient.

And actually more than just a few bucks if people have to spring for max lifetime anticipated RAM needs at the point of purchase at Apple RAM prices....

 

[alexgowers]

Wow.. that sucks. Soldered RAM is cheaper to produce.. Apple saving a few dollars to inconvenience its customers who would like to max out RAM, and increasing its profits???

The Mac Mini was a very nice machine... before this upgrade..

99% of mac mini customers don't change anything. Making it more expensive for customers because a few cheapskates can't buy the pc they really want is madness! It saves money and is passed onto us, soldered ram is great and the article is so one sided it's designed to be link bait and you fell for it.

It's cheaper better and a great upgrade.