Or Apple is preparing the Mac line-up for something to slide in between the new "disposable" 2014 Mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
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
Or Apple is preparing the Mac line-up for something to slide in between the new "disposable" 2014 Mac Mini and the Mac Pro.
He would've released this Mac Mini as is. He hated people tinkering with his creations.
You can add me to the list of people who are disappointed by the new Mini. The old Mini was superior in almost every way.
But that's being compared to pretty bad previous year data, so it doesn't mean business is booming. It means business doesn't suck as much as it did.
----------
Or not.
The current model is better than the dual core models from the previous generation apart from the non-upgradable RAM. For $100 more than the old one, you get 8GB RAM vs. 4GB and a faster CPU and GPU, and 500GB more storage. Granted, it's not much better, but Intel is late with CPUs. Arguably Apple should have just waited 6 more months and updated the Mac Mini with Broadwell, but who's to say they won't sometime next year?
I doubt it. This consumer oriented focus has worked really well for them. The "professional" space where the xmac would live has become a place where you have to move units in the numbers that only Dell can to make a decent profit.
I hate it just as much as I hate the fact that Apple no longer caters to my needs, but I can't deny the reality of it. The new mini is just another step in the direction of Apple becoming a purely consumer space company. But unlike other posters here, at least I recognize that this doesn't spell the end of the company (they will make money hand over foot). It merely spells the end of them being the supplier of MY tools. And I'm part of a tiny market for them.
It's back to the levels it was in 2012, which was a banner year for Mac. Let's face it. Apple will never be a mass PC maker. They don't want to be. There isn't much money in it.
----------
Apple does want to cater to enterprises, but with mobile devices. Let's face it. They tried to enter the enterprise market with Xserve, the Mac Mini Server, and earlier efforts before Steve Jobs. They couldn't do it then, and they aren't going to do it now with the Mac. But the BYOD era opens the door for iOS much wider than any opening Mac OS or OS X ever had.
I needed a laugh. Thanks. If I acquiesce to your argument, I can still blame Apple. There software is not "lean" or "mean". iTunes is a "bloated" resource hog that needs to go the way of "Old Yella".
That said, most software isn't the problem. We are doing more complex tasks with computers. We are doing these and other tasks simultaneously. However, the primary issue is fhe advent of the cloud. Cloud services and apps that depend on or utilizes the cloud are resource hogs. If you have 1TB of data in Dropbox that syncs to your Mac, you already know this. Restarting yor Mac can be a chore when Dropbox needs to index. Video games have come along way since Pac Man. There are worlds being rendered on our Macs. Regardless, this is about choice and future relevancy. Apple is purposely shortening the lives of its devices; it is doing this for profiit. This is counter to their legacy.
How so? What exactly is a "notebook in desktop clothing??" It has a thick unibody that can be opened up and tinkered with (less so, now.) It doesn't have a monitor, keyboard or trackpad built into it. It's easy to carry, sure, but it doesn't have an attached battery for mobile use. It's just a compact desktop computer.
The Mac Mini is not a MacBook and doesn't even come close to it. Apple didn't even change the size of the enclosure to warrant making the hardware smaller. There's no reason to solder the RAM other than to encourage buyers to upgrade their memory through Apple instead of third party.
It's obvious that the future sales numbers will determine the fate of this crippled/disposable Mac Mini.
Doubt it. Look at the iMac, it's still quite customizable. The new late-2014 model does not come with soldered RAM.
True. With iOS they are making inroads to parts of companies they have never served before.
I suppose that if I think about it more, what I see happening is not so much a consumer/profession divide so much as a content consumption/creation divide.
Simple content creation is still something they want to go after (office productivity, home videos, basic photography, etc.) This is the type of content creation that covers 80% of the market and this is where they want to be. Combined with content consumption (web pages, facebook, music, videos, books) they have a HUGE market.
If, however, you are in a more focused, higher end content creation space I see Apple abandoning this market. They have the Pro which is priced so high that only rock star producers can afford it. Then there is little else. The iMac is relatively capable as long as you don't push it too hard. But mostly it is a luxury Excel tool that can, in a pinch, do some higher end content creation.
But most engineering, graphics, sound, science, computing work is so specialized that it doesn't make bottom line sense for Apple to try to compete in that arena.
We'll see. Perhaps I am wrong (I sure hope so) but I can't look at the margins that Dell and HP and Lenovo are working with and seeing Apple entering that world. Users like myself just don't make up a large enough user base to make it worth Apple's while.
If you haven't worked out the Mac Mini is a desktop version of the Macbook Pro by now when every single release bar none is based on already available Macbook Pro specs, you're just turning a blind eye to facts just to argue with people for no good reason.
I agree about them going out of their way to deliberately gouge their customers with disposable soldered systems. There's no reason for the Mac Mini to suddenly lose any means of user expansion while removing the quad i7 system with a pitifully slow and ludicrously expensive 3Ghz dual-core option instead.
Based on 64 bit Multi-core Geekbench 3 results of the previous 2.5Ghz IvyBridge i5 Mac Mini VS the 2.6Ghz Haswell i5 Mac Mini (using 13" MacBook Pro results as an estimate), people happy with a dual core are getting a bargain for the additional £69 over the previous retail cost. 15% more CPU power, a faster GPU, a 1Tb up from 500Gb and 8Gb up from 4 in the 2012 model but for anyone buying them as a system for a few years use, no quad option and no user upgradability makes them over-priced under specified garbage once you go any higher up the Mac Mini range and if a dual-core i5 will never cut it for your uses, they now offer no headless Mac within a reasonable price range.
Last edited:
It's always used mobile processors (at least in the Intel era), 2.5" drives, and integrated graphics.
The Mini may be doomed because it will never have the sales numbers it had with the 2012.
The loss of quad core, soldered ram and replaceable HD has removed it mostly from the server market and taken the charm away from a lot of consumers.
That's not to say that most consumers want to tinker with their machines and most wouldn't anyway except pop the bottom and put ram in.
The machines now offer entry level Mac OS X at a cost that emerging markets can afford and if willing, upgrade to MBP components for a very expensive Mini.
There are many other Mini PC manufacturers that are willing to produce very powerful machines for reasonable prices except the consumer will have to pick between Windows or Linux with some hackable for OS X.
Apple would rather sell beautiful iMacs and Pros and hope for the little Mini box goes away.
Just my thoughts on the future.
The loss of quad core, soldered ram and replaceable HD has removed it mostly from the server market and taken the charm away from a lot of consumers.
That's not to say that most consumers want to tinker with their machines and most wouldn't anyway except pop the bottom and put ram in.
The machines now offer entry level Mac OS X at a cost that emerging markets can afford and if willing, upgrade to MBP components for a very expensive Mini.
There are many other Mini PC manufacturers that are willing to produce very powerful machines for reasonable prices except the consumer will have to pick between Windows or Linux with some hackable for OS X.
Apple would rather sell beautiful iMacs and Pros and hope for the little Mini box goes away.
Just my thoughts on the future.
A few thoughts: The soldered memory means that you can't easily replace it. However, I haven't ever replaced the memory since I got my Mac Mini almost 3 years ago. In terms of pricing, it would cost me $80 on newegg right now to get nice crucial memory (8 Gb, 1600 DDR3) for the mac, which Apple charges a $20 premium over. Yes, there was a time when ram was dirt cheap a year plus back, but those days are over. What Apple is asking isn't in any way unreasonable. As for the processor, the processor idles at 1.4 Ghz, but it turbos up to 2.7 Ghz. It's a fine processor and will make a fine machine for any who buy it. I still have the old spinner in my Mac Mini; while a fusion drive or SSD would indeed be faster, the 5400 RPM spinner works quite capably.Yes, it might be nice to have some "peace of mind" that I can futz with the system if i had to at some point, but I realistically wouldn't.
I think people are making this out to be something far bigger than it really is.[
/QUOTE]
They usually do.
I'm frankly sorry I waited out for this downgrade, I should have bought a 2012 when it was still hot - I might still get a refurb, but there's no way the 2014 is on my list now.
----------
Erm, the 2014 Mini's all have soldered RAM, just like all the 21.5-inch iMacs, we now need to pay upwards of $2k to get an iMac with 27-inch display just to be able to upgrade the RAM. The late-2014 iMac is a top-end machine that sits between current (last year's, really) models and the Mac Pro.
----------
Erm, the 2014 Mini's all have soldered RAM, just like all the 21.5-inch iMacs, we now need to pay upwards of $2k to get an iMac with 27-inch display just to be able to upgrade the RAM. The late-2014 iMac is a top-end machine that sits between current (last year's, really) models and the Mac Pro.
The Mac Mini would have been a replacement for my current Windows desktop, I have bought a second hand Power MAC g5 and have been real happy with it.
So when I first visited this website, and saw that the Mac Mini was most likely to get a update, I just waited to get one with the new specs.
Now I'm not so sure, what I really like about my Windows desktop is the upgrade ability, which was largely available with the 2012 Mini, but now, with the soldered RAM and charging 200 to get from 8 to 16GB of Ram, I not so sure anymore since I cant upgrade it myself.
So when I first visited this website, and saw that the Mac Mini was most likely to get a update, I just waited to get one with the new specs.
Now I'm not so sure, what I really like about my Windows desktop is the upgrade ability, which was largely available with the 2012 Mini, but now, with the soldered RAM and charging 200 to get from 8 to 16GB of Ram, I not so sure anymore since I cant upgrade it myself.
I'm the only one who don't really care about that soldered RAM?
I mean I'm an IT guy and I don't see myself rushing to buy more RAM in a year or two.
You guys are forgetting it's not like every year or so people add more memory to their computer.
For personal use it's more than okay to use 4Gb of RAM and for people like me 8Gb should be enough.
The lack of quad-core is just disappointing.
It will possible to run on a dual-core multiple VMs, coding and mess with graphic a little but it will be more fast and efficient on quad-core processor.
I mean I'm an IT guy and I don't see myself rushing to buy more RAM in a year or two.
You guys are forgetting it's not like every year or so people add more memory to their computer.
For personal use it's more than okay to use 4Gb of RAM and for people like me 8Gb should be enough.
The lack of quad-core is just disappointing.
It will possible to run on a dual-core multiple VMs, coding and mess with graphic a little but it will be more fast and efficient on quad-core processor.
I'm on the fence about the soldered RAM...
On the one hand, I've upgraded the memory in every computer I've ever owned, so this move to soldered memory annoys me.
On the other hand, I'll bet most consumers probably replace their computer before they upgrade their memory.
Apple (and other computer manufacturers) apply a lot of brainpower and market research when they make these moves. Sometimes they get it wrong but they usually get it right.
Anyway, this is not a place to gather consumer opinion data. I've been on this forum for ten years and new product releases are almost always greeted with whining and criticism all out of proportion to what the sales figures say.
On the one hand, I've upgraded the memory in every computer I've ever owned, so this move to soldered memory annoys me.
On the other hand, I'll bet most consumers probably replace their computer before they upgrade their memory.
Apple (and other computer manufacturers) apply a lot of brainpower and market research when they make these moves. Sometimes they get it wrong but they usually get it right.
Anyway, this is not a place to gather consumer opinion data. I've been on this forum for ten years and new product releases are almost always greeted with whining and criticism all out of proportion to what the sales figures say.
The Apple upgrade configs aren't grotesquely expensive for the purchaser, although it's a pretty obscene markup when you consider that Apple get to 'keep' the base memory.
If Apple guarantee to replace defective soldered memory at cost price for the lifetime of the computer, regardless of the computer's warranty, then I'd be more happy to buy into the soldered model.
