You act like Apple has no overhead such as the soldering equipment used to solder the ram to the boards. Yes it has everything to do with reliability. Apple builds and designs their software to fit their hardware. They don't design their OS to be compatible with other manufactures of ram and components. That doesn't mean it won't work, but it is not guaranteed to be optimal. You have no clue what you are talking about. I'm exercising my free speech to tell you that you are WRONG. Besides they can make as much profit off of what ever they want. It's their business. As long as people continue to buy them your squeaky little voice will be dampened by the inflow of profits. BTW unless you have some inside documents from Apple it's all speculation.
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
You act like Apple has no overhead such as the soldering equipment used to solder the ram to the boards. Yes it has everything to do with reliability. Apple builds and designs their software to fit their hardware. They don't design their OS to be compatible with other manufactures of ram and components. That doesn't mean it won't work, but it is not guaranteed to be optimal. You have no clue what you are talking about. I'm exercising my free speech to tell you that you are WRONG. Besides they can make as much profit off of what ever they want. It's their business. As long as people continue to buy them your squeaky little voice will be dampened by the inflow of profits. BTW unless you have some inside documents from Apple it's all speculation.
Strange the mini stepped back a bit. $499 new price isn't so great when machines aren't what they were previously.
The original mini case design was better. I do have a 2011 quad server, it's an awkward shape. I like the original form factor much better.
The original mini case design was better. I do have a 2011 quad server, it's an awkward shape. I like the original form factor much better.
Sure they do. It's a pretty frequent topic - MR will notice a new OS, iOS or Safari version visits coming from apple.com IP addresses and write an article on it.
Other than that, agreed with everything you wrote.
I'll take that as a compliment, coming from someone who can't see when he's being duped. Apple's profit desires aren't relevant to me.
Apple Retail stores also have IP addresses starting with 17.X.X.X, mostly star-struck Specialists/Genii. Trust me, I was one. The guys in Cupertino, certainly those who make the decisions, don't read too deeply.
If you really want the best bang for your buck a mac mini is far from it. You need to go custom built PC in that price range. You can get way better raw performance from a PC.
----------
Sounds to me the light situation is wrong for the working environment.
I am in complete agreement with this statement, all this nonsense about soldered RAM and non-user replaceable battery/hard drives is the biggest load of crap ever. In the laptop arena, Apple uses the sham of 'thinness' to justify it, how does it apply to the Mini? Is it more mini than previously? Even if it were, is there a market for a pocket pc?
It is nothing more than the shameless rape of a loyal customer base. I only started purchasing Apple computers about 5 years ago and I love my MBP and my kids love theirs too but I am getting the feeling I got onboard too late in the game. Their corporate strategy now seems to be to squeeze every dime possible out of a fairly limited computer customer base by making these components not replaceable by the end user and charging crazy upgrade amounts.
"Star-struck" specialists and others in the retail stores would not have access to developmental builds.
Protip: saying "trust me" is a red flag for many, which typically translates to "I'm not to be trusted."
Well ... forget about the large response on Macrumors. Appleinsider, that place where weeks ago people were trying to open their iphones to see if it had any Samsung components so they could return it, is pretty angry about this decision too.
Exactly but people wanted Apple to apologize and also weren't happy with the way they apologize for giving something to them for FREE!?!
Maybe Apple gets too many Support calls from crappy 3rd party RAM and this is the only way to prevent problems that are associated with crappy 3rd party RAM. I know that buying 3rd party RAM is a crap shoot because there is a strong likelihood that the memory will become flaky after about 1 year and I know, for a fact, that there was a lot of problems with earlier 3rd party RAM not being compatible. Crucial had a lot of problems in the past with their MacMini memory and they would ship incompatible memory to people and it would take them a while to get their act together, but MOST consumers would call Apple Tech Support when they have any problems and then Apple's Tech Support has to help the customer troubleshoot the problem and instruct the customer to re-install Apple memory, and 99% of the time, that fixes the problem.
How do I know? I've had that problem myself, I've had friends with that problem and I've worked for Apple Corporate resellers (some of the largest) since the mid-80's and 3rd party RAM problems was a common issue. Apple just uses more reliable memory and it's tested to pass VERY stringent test, whereas a lot of 3rd party memory is hit or miss and much of it is what Apple discards, so you might be buying the crap that Apple wouldn't stick their name on. This has and will always be an issue with computers. I know it costs more, but there are reasons why.
In the component world, chip dumping is common, they usually start dumping chips sometime right after they release a new spec RAM chip.
If you have ever bought RAM before, it's common to see a different number of chips on the module even though they are the same amount of RAM. Apple has been getting (most of the time) RAM module where there are less chips on each module than what other 3rd party companies ship. Why would Apple spec out a RAM module with less chips? Simple, they don't require as much power to drive them. Crucial, at one point, was shipping RAM modules for laptops where they actually stacked the chips on top and then soldered to the RAM board. These were really bad RAM modules that had nothing but problems when installed. Either they didn't work or they became flaky shortly after they were installed. The reason was that they sucked up a lot of power, became hotter and thus had more failure. Crucial was selling tons of these things to people with Apple Powerbooks as they were cheaper, but having more problems doesn't make them cheaper in the long run because of the user's downtime and amount of time it takes to get them replaced doesn't work out to be cheaper, it works out to be more of an expensive hassle.
I always recommend using Apple RAM, pay the extra amount and get AppleCare and you'll be happier more often. Troubleshooting any problem is easier and you'll probably have less RAM related issues.
You're not being serious, are you? Please tell me you're not being serious.
I am so glad I didn't wait for this mini!
Soldered RAM and severly reduced multi-core performance? After waiting more than two years for an upgraded mini, this news could only be worse if the mini had been eliminated from the mac lineup. My ill advised decision to purchase of a Quad core late 2012 model at the end of 2013 now seems brilliant in retrospect.
Apple, you completely missed the boat on this one! It is so sad that you didn't place a higher value on all the loyal mac mini fans that have been waiting patiently to upgrade.
Soldered RAM and severly reduced multi-core performance? After waiting more than two years for an upgraded mini, this news could only be worse if the mini had been eliminated from the mac lineup. My ill advised decision to purchase of a Quad core late 2012 model at the end of 2013 now seems brilliant in retrospect.
Apple, you completely missed the boat on this one! It is so sad that you didn't place a higher value on all the loyal mac mini fans that have been waiting patiently to upgrade.
Considering AI's usual rabid fanbase, that was a lot more tame than I was expecting. It was just one or two guys.
Looks like apple is trying to standardize the consumer product internals. Imac/Mini/Macbook Air etc...
I think apple sees the Mini as an "entry" level and is priced and spec'd accordingly.
Now this means a minor downgrade(7%) for the low-end mac Mini's (along with a 16% price decrease) and it also means that there really ISN'T a "high" end Mini anymore.
I think apple sees the Mini as an "entry" level and is priced and spec'd accordingly.
Now this means a minor downgrade(7%) for the low-end mac Mini's (along with a 16% price decrease) and it also means that there really ISN'T a "high" end Mini anymore.
And Apple set up this conflict between the Mini and the Mac Pro by ripping out most of what set the Mac Pro apart from the mini such as the capacity for up to 4 internal hard drives, internal PCIe slots, etc. etc.. They essentially downgraded many features of the Mac Pro for the new Mac Pro and raised the price on it.
Until then, the Mac Mini couldn't compete with the Mac Pro, even though the Mac Pro was also badly neglected, way overdue for an update, and overpriced. Once they made it so the Mac Pro depended on Thunderbolt for most of the peripherals that professionals needed, we realized that the Mini offered a reasonable alternative, especially if the quad core was a sufficient processor.
Or the xMac?
The thing here is that even if you need 4GB now, 8GB next year and 12 GB for the rest of computer's life, you need to buy 16GB from Apple now with double the normal price.
Certainly, they can offer 'Apple' RAM (you know they don't manufacture RAM, right? There's something like 3 companies that actually manufacture RAM) and if folks, like you, feel more comfortable paying $300 for that 'Apple' RAM, you can certainly do so. However if people like me (and many others) would rather pay $80 for equivalent RAM (like Crucial RAM, which is running in 2 of my 3 MBPs and iMac flawlessly) we should have that option also.
If this really is the problem, Apple could still have designed their own memory modules and put only the ICs they want on them.
The two main problems right now are that you cannot upgrade the RAM after purchase (via Apple or not) and that Apple is charging nearly twice as much for RAM upgrades compared to 3rd party RAM.
If I could buy a 8GB Mac mini today and upgrade the RAM in two or three years, even if it had to be a custom, Apple-only RAM module, then at least I could upgrade it.
Exactly. I don't see why some people find that so hard to understand. There's nothing less green than having to dispose of a computer because it doesn't have enough RAM even though all the other components are still running fine.