The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>
Not paying anywhere close to $1500 for a desktop without a screen in this day and age. Horrid value proposition for the average Mac user. The percentage of people who would actually benefit from such a costly machine over, say, a more affordable and portable Macbook Pro, is infinitely small.

Anything over $800 for base-level and we are no longer in Mac Mini territory. We are talking a completely different product line aimed at a completely different type of consumer.

I don’t see pricing changing much at all from the current configs. I think a $599 base model with 8 GB will be the low end with a 500 GB or 1TB conventional drive. $799 will get you a 256 GB SSD.

$499 is a magic price point, but the Intel mobile CPUs are quite expensive, and there’s precious little margin available in a $499 machine.

Try to price out a $499 box, it’s brutal.

 

[jasnw]

So why ‘pay the Apple tax’ if I’m unhappy with Apple’s behaviors and product lines? I do keep coming back to this question, and the answer is NOT because I love macOS. It always comes back to which OS minimizes pain and maximizes productivity. With Windows, you still have to deal with AV issues and all the Microsoft baggage and bloat. With Linux, I can’t run things I want to run without a lot of hassle, both up front (installation, getting it working) and on-going (constantly dealing with updates and changes by seemingly fickle Linux devs). I very much dislike where macOS appears to be going, but it still is not bad enough to push me back to running two OSs to do what I want, which is where I was when I jumped over to OS X back in 2006 (Linux for serious work, Windows for GUI apps).

I guess what curdles my grits and keeps me on this thread is that Apple could make things so much better for a segment of their user base that they should care more about without a whole lot of effort on their part. The fact that they don’t makes me want to scream “how can you be so stupid?!?!?!?” on a daily basis. I know, it’s not all about me. However, as a wise old soldier once said “you’re not paranoid if they are really out to get you.” I think we all, on this thread, sometimes feel this way.

 

[Cape Dave]

I guess what curdles my grits and keeps me on this thread is that Apple could make things so much better for a segment of their user base that they should care more about without a whole lot of effort on their part. The fact that they don’t makes me want to scream “how can you be so stupid?!?!?!?” on a daily basis. I know, it’s not all about me. However, as a wise old soldier once said “you’re not paranoid if they are really out to get you.” I think we all, on this thread, sometimes feel this way.

Well spoken, sir. Some of the wisest words on this thread. Especially that last part LOL

 

[PickUrPoison]

It is way more complicated than that. As many have said hundreds of pages ago, each one of US HERE is more than likely responsible for RECOMMENDING Mac mini or another Apple product to 10 or 20 or more other customers. And the fact that we like the Mini should be enough for Apple to do what is really a minuscule update each and every year to make us happy. End of story.

They lost me long ago. I stay here simply because I enjoy the people and the fact that this may be the longest and longest running thread about anything on the entire Interwebs. To get me back they would have to come up with something so awesome. But really, that is not gonna happen. See my sig. Sure, it is a little bigger than a mini, but it is 100% quieter (and the mini was darn quiet) and like 8 times faster. Oh yeah, upgradeable too.

As much recommending as the folks here may have done before the 2014 refresh, the mini never sold much at all. Most buyers prefer a laptop or iMac, it really is just that simple.

But the mini occupies a niche that isn’t easily replaced with a laptop or an iMac. Despite being doomed to low sales, it seems Apple cares enough about those who love the mini that they will have an announcement (sometime) about a future mini lineup.

Unfortunately too late for you, but most who like Macs—and are willing to pay a premium for them—don’t see a Windows box as a viable option. (For those who are more technical, it is.) So there will always be some who’ll continue to (want to) buy the mini, but I can’t imagine it will ever amount to anything more than 2-3% of Mac sales overall.

 

[Cape Dave]

As much recommending as the folks here may have done before the 2014 refresh, the mini never sold much at all. Most buyers prefer a laptop or iMac, it really is just that simple.

But the mini occupies a niche that isn’t easily replaced with a laptop or an iMac. Despite being doomed to low sales, it seems Apple cares enough about those who love the mini that they will have an announcement (sometime) about a future mini lineup.

Unfortunately too late for you, but most who like Macs—and are willing to pay a premium for them—don’t see a Windows box as a viable option. (For those who are more technical, it is.) So there will always be some who’ll continue to (want to) buy the mini, but I can’t imagine it will ever amount to anything more than 2-3% of Mac sales overall.

Companies like mac mini colo have made a nice business out of the mini. The "low percentage number" is misleading and actually more important than the number would normally indicate. Hence, this thread

I can see a preference for Mac by some people, that is what makes life interesting. But I am conversely seeing a very high number of folks here on this thread that readily admit that Windows 10 is the better OS at this time. I believe this to be true. So, that, coupled with the fact that the hardware is substantially faster and cheaper and well, the tea leaves speak for themselves

 

[sublunar]

Like it or not, the 2014 mini is built on the 13” MBP platform. That means 28W processors. Anemic sales of the Server SKUs doomed the quad core mini; the Mac Pro Server SKU had already been dumped in 2013. Apple re-targeted the mini to the lower-end requirements of home consumers.

Due to slips in Intel’s roadmap, 28W quad cores weren’t available last year, and they’re still not available. Rumor has it they’ll be released in the April-June quarter. So Apple could release a quad core mini, just like they may release a quad core 13” MBP. But that may or may not be why the mini hasn’t been updated in three years.

Not sure which higher-margin product you think a quad core mini, or any mini for that matter, would cannibalize. 80% of sales are laptops, and the mini isn’t a substitute. Apple sets prices to maintain their gross margin, and they do/would price any mini accordingly.

I’m also not sure why you would classify mini users as Apple’s most loyal customers. It was targeted at switchers, who more likely would be new customers.

A 28w part fitting into the dual core slotted motherboard is one thing but Apple are aiming directly at Iris Graphics parts for the CPUs for the Mini. They avoided the vanilla HD630 parts even down to the 15w MacBook Pro without touch bar using Iris Graphics 640 instead of the more basic HD620 graphics solution.

Apple presumably only went with the Intel HD615 graphics for the 5w Macbook because there was no option for Iris Graphics and there won't be going forward. The zombie MBA doesn't count as it's technically still a 2015 product as far as I am concerned.

There's no confirmation of an Iris Graphics powered quad core Intel part fitting into the 28w TDP bracket at all and I have my doubts over the size of the market for one. Apple might be interested but it's Intel's call and high power graphics with 4 CPU cores means each core will be relatively slow compared to the performance of 2 fast cores with hyper threading for most common or garden apps.

That's not an ideal use case scenario for people using these machines as light use daily drivers.

The Mini has a reduced margin for Apple to make it more attractive for customers - they've admitted as much several times in the past. The fact that it's not being updated suggests the sales figures aren't stellar enough for them to do annual updates like the might do for the laptops. I think they expect switchers to hit up laptops or iPads more than a cheap desktop at this moment in time. That's no excuse for them to leave it as a zombie product for over 3 years in my opinion.

I recall at the time of the 2014 model's release that some high profile Mac Mini users had their say about the Mini based on what they had heard from Apple. As you can see from that blog post - better GPU performance and single core performance were prioritised.

If Mac Mini Colo/Macstadium had any kind of input to Apple they might suggest a new Mini comes out with the same form factor so it can be put into their racks easily.

They'd also probably appreciate fast PCIe SSD performance for server IO as well as the speed bump from the latest processor but if they were to go with 15w CPUs across the board there's then room in that case (which is capable of 45w TDP) for a discrete GPU for a range topper making a potential 2018 Mini more than capable of driving a 5k display if needs be.

 

[twalk]

I don’t see pricing changing much at all from the current configs. I think a $599 base model with 8 GB will be the low end with a 500 GB or 1TB conventional drive. $799 will get you a 256 GB SSD.

$499 is a magic price point, but the Intel mobile CPUs are quite expensive, and there’s precious little margin available in a $499 machine.

Try to price out a $499 box, it’s brutal.

It's only brutal if you're a stuck-up about parts, like Apple is. Honestly, the Mini is a low-end desktop computer. It doesn't need (and shouldn't have) 'U' series mobile parts and custom board design. That's just insanity

Intel 'T' series processors are CHEAP, FAST, and have a TPD of only 35W. If you get past the hang-up of starting with an i5, a Pentium G4560T barely slower than the current fastest 2014 Mini at a list price of only $64.

After that, Apple would just need to farm out for a mini-STX board, design a nice aluminum case (for looks / more thermal dissipation -> lower/minimal fan noise) and then, done

With OEM part prices, Apple could make the base $500 one for < $200. With limiting sales to only their stores / website, they could probably clear nearly $300 per sale. While that's not in the profit amount of a Macbook Pro, it is at the profit amount of an iPhone sale and is at a huge profit margin

 

[Crosscreek]

It makes me laugh out loud that some Apple fan boys cannot stand the thought that people with other than Apple hardware and other than macOS enjoy a better value with their choices.

I check back on this thread every once in a while just for laughs.

 

[oneMadRssn]

It makes me laugh out loud that some Apple fan boys cannot stand the thought that people with other than Apple hardware and other than macOS enjoy a better value with their choices.

I check back on this thread every once in a while just for laughs.

Cheaper does not equal better value. Penny wise, pound foolish.

 

[Crosscreek]

Cheaper does not equal better value. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Nothing cheap about my hack rig that been running 24/7 for the past 3 years.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Nothing cheap about my hack rig that been running 24/7 for the past 3 years.

3 years? That's nothing, your computer is still a mere youngin. There are folks on this forum that have had their Mac Minis running stable, reliable, no major issues, and 24/7 for close to a decade. Some well over a decade.

 

[sublunar]

It's only brutal if you're a stuck-up about parts, like Apple is. Honestly, the Mini is a low-end desktop computer. It doesn't need (and shouldn't have) 'U' series mobile parts and custom board design. That's just insanity

Intel 'T' series processors are CHEAP, FAST, and have a TPD of only 35W. If you get past the hang-up of starting with an i5, a Pentium G4560T barely slower than the current fastest 2014 Mini at a list price of only $64.

After that, Apple would just need to farm out for a mini-STX board, design a nice aluminum case (for looks / more thermal dissipation -> lower/minimal fan noise) and then, done

With OEM part prices, Apple could make the base $500 one for < $200. With limiting sales to only their stores / website, they could probably clear nearly $300 per sale. While that's not in the profit amount of a Macbook Pro, it is at the profit amount of an iPhone sale and is at a huge profit margin

T series parts don't generally include decent integrated graphics which is what Apple have been going after for some years now and it'll be even more important with new Apple branded displays around the corner. Apple currently use 65w parts for the 21.5" iMac (plus a GPU) and then up to 95w parts for the 27" iMac. For economy of scale it would be very interesting to see Apple effectively make a headless 21.5" iMac but they never have.

The new Intel Core G series GPUs are 45w quad core mobile CPUs (4 cores/8 threads) with AMD VEGA built in. They look like Apple driven Intel designs destined for future 15" MacBook Pros. They'd be great for a smaller desktop Mac but again highly unlikely.

I don't believe the profit margin you posit for that Pentium G4560T is accurate in the first place (where is the calculation for macOS?) but it's also not worth Apple's while to develop an almost forgotten line of desktop computers - the user group here might be vocal but it's not large like the laptop people. They'll get big discounts on the same CPUs used in the MacBook Pros.

Cutting back to the chase, I believe Apple will be borrowing from an existing parts bin to make the next Mini if applicable. If they follow the existing pattern you just have to keep looking at the MacBook Pro line for clues but it's up to them if refreshing the mini is worth it or if they just lower the base price of the modular Mac Pro to draw out more people into the $2k money for one.

 

[Crosscreek]

3 years? That's nothing, your computer is still a mere youngin. There are folks on this forum that have had their Mac Minis running stable, reliable, no major issues, and 24/7 for close to a decade. Some well over a decade.

Lol and I am extremely happy for them. But I prefer a little more up to date hardware that I can change my self even as whim.
I do enjoy my iPad pro and iPhone tho,

 

[jeyf]

new mini
no way am i buying the 1st revision apple hardware.

 

[PickUrPoison]

It's only brutal if you're a stuck-up about parts, like Apple is. Honestly, the Mini is a low-end desktop computer. It doesn't need (and shouldn't have) 'U' series mobile parts and custom board design. That's just insanity

Intel 'T' series processors are CHEAP, FAST, and have a TPD of only 35W. If you get past the hang-up of starting with an i5, a Pentium G4560T barely slower than the current fastest 2014 Mini at a list price of only $64.

After that, Apple would just need to farm out for a mini-STX board, design a nice aluminum case (for looks / more thermal dissipation -> lower/minimal fan noise) and then, done

With OEM part prices, Apple could make the base $500 one for < $200. With limiting sales to only their stores / website, they could probably clear nearly $300 per sale. While that's not in the profit amount of a Macbook Pro, it is at the profit amount of an iPhone sale and is at a huge profit margin

Where to start. First of all, you’ve underestimated the cost of that system. The chipset for the motherboard alone is $30-40. If you’re going to claim $200, price it out. But it’s a moot point because that processor is a dead end.

If you want to give Apple system building advice, you’ve got to think about the entire lineup. What if I want decent graphics performance? USB 3.1? Thunderbolt 3? A faster CPU than 4 years ago?

The mini you envision Apple making is nothing I’d be interested in buying in 2018.

 

[twalk]

T series parts don't generally include decent integrated graphics which is what Apple have been going after for some years now and it'll be even more important with new Apple branded displays around the corner. Apple currently use 65w parts for the 21.5" iMac (plus a GPU) and then up to 95w parts for the 27" iMac. For economy of scale it would be very interesting to see Apple effectively make a headless 21.5" iMac but they never have.

The new Intel Core G series GPUs are 45w quad core mobile CPUs (4 cores/8 threads) with AMD VEGA built in. They look like Apple driven Intel designs destined for future 15" MacBook Pros. They'd be great for a smaller desktop Mac but again highly unlikely.

I don't believe the profit margin you posit for that Pentium G4560T is accurate in the first place (where is the calculation for macOS?) but it's also not worth Apple's while to develop an almost forgotten line of desktop computers - the user group here might be vocal but it's not large like the laptop people. They'll get big discounts on the same CPUs used in the MacBook Pros.

Cutting back to the chase, I believe Apple will be borrowing from an existing parts bin to make the next Mini if applicable. If they follow the existing pattern you just have to keep looking at the MacBook Pro line for clues but it's up to them if refreshing the mini is worth it or if they just lower the base price of the modular Mac Pro to draw out more people into the $2k money for one.

1) Even the Kaby Lake HD610 graphics in the low-end S/T series processors can do 3 monitors at 4K @ 60Hz. The rest of the entire Kaby lineup is HD630, which really just adds some extra speed (which doesn't matter much)
2) If you want to complain about game support -> MacRumors Chorus: "The Mini has never been a game playing machine"
3) If you want to complain about video/image editing support -> MacRumors Chorus: "The Mini has never been a business graphics workhorse machine"
4) The 'T' series is socket compatible with the 65W/95W 'S' series chips used in the iMacs. The only difference is slower speed and lower TPD

5) Pricing on the VegaM G-series multi-chip modules isn't easy to get, but it's certainly over $500 for the MCM alone. That would likely put the new "base" Mini price in the $1200 range...

6) That calculation is pretty accurate. If you know where to look, you can build out a mini-STX system for around $275 at retail prices. Apple isn't paying anything close to retail prices; they often pay less than standard OEM prices
7) It shouldn't need to be said, but Apple owns MacOS. Spreading the development cost over the systems produced leads to a likely cost of less that $1 per machine...
8) I've said it before, Apple is in a "Post PC" mentality. Killing off low margin products in the Mac line and milking as much as they can for the rest is the right strategy if you believe in a Post PC world

9) It would be more expensive (insane/stupid) for them to do that, but I can see them doing it. Why? Pride. The knowledge that their customers will pay more. Control. Differentiation. etc, etc
[doublepost=1516829409][/doublepost]

Where to start. First of all, you’ve underestimated the cost of that system. The chipset for the motherboard alone is $30-40. If you’re going to claim $200, price it out. But it’s a moot point because that processor is a dead end.

If you want to give Apple system building advice, you’ve got to think about the entire lineup. What if I want decent graphics performance? USB 3.1? Thunderbolt 3? A faster CPU than 4 years ago?

The mini you envision Apple making is nothing I’d be interested in buying in 2018.

Where to start...

1) Price it out? You're kidding, right? Apple does NOT pay retail part prices. Most of the time, Apple pays less than OEM prices
2) You can build that out for <$300 at retail. At OEM/below OEM prices, yeah, it's <$200
3) Why is that processor a dead end? Really. Why is it a dead end? Ok, move to the Coffee Lake versions when they come out

4) You're seriously going to slam me for not taking a holistic view of the entire Mac lineup when there's a good chance we won't even get another Mini? Really?
5) The Mini has NEVER had much for graphics performance. Apple has always wanted you to "spend up" if you wanted that
6) Coffee / Kaby Lake supports up to 3 monitors at 4K @ 60Hz, usb-c, h265 support, ddr4, TB3, etc, etc

So... At the $500 "base" POS Mini setup, running a Coffee Lake Pentium, nearly as fast speed wise as the *fastest* 2014 Mini, with the above features, doesn't do it for you. (Note that the current fastest 2014 Mini lists at $1199 before other upgrades...)

Ok... Let's bump it up with Apple's typical price gouging...

Add +$200 for a $700 cost. Swap the processor with the i3 'T' series. Probably faster graphics. At 4 real cores, it would be the fastest Mini ever

Doesn't do it for you?

Add +$300 more for a $1000 cost. Swap the processor with an i5 'T' series. 6 real cores. Over 75% faster than any other current Mini

Still doesn't do it for you? While I doubt that Apple would put it out...

Add +$300 more for a $1300 cost. Swap the processor with an i7 'T' series. 6 cores, 12 hyperthreads. Raw compute power wise, that's more than the current highest-end iMac (not Pro and less per core)

All of those Coffee Lake 'T' series processors will have a 35W TPD, so you can just swap them in and out

 

[sublunar]

1) Even the Kaby Lake HD610 graphics in the low-end S/T series processors can do 3 monitors at 4K @ 60Hz. The rest of the entire Kaby lineup is HD630, which really just adds some extra speed (which doesn't matter much)
2) If you want to complain about game support -> MacRumors Chorus: "The Mini has never been a game playing machine"
3) If you want to complain about video/image editing support -> MacRumors Chorus: "The Mini has never been a business graphics workhorse machine"
4) The 'T' series is socket compatible with the 65W/95W 'S' series chips used in the iMacs. The only difference is slower speed and lower TPD

5) Pricing on the VegaM G-series multi-chip modules isn't easy to get, but it's certainly over $500 for the MCM alone. That would likely put the new "base" Mini price in the $1200 range...

6) That calculation is pretty accurate. If you know where to look, you can build out a mini-STX system for around $275 at retail prices. Apple isn't paying anything close to retail prices; they often pay less than standard OEM prices
7) It shouldn't need to be said, but Apple owns MacOS. Spreading the development cost over the systems produced leads to a likely cost of less that $1 per machine...
8) I've said it before, Apple is in a "Post PC" mentality. Killing off low margin products in the Mac line and milking as much as they can for the rest is the right strategy if you believe in a Post PC world

9) It would be more expensive (insane/stupid) for them to do that, but I can see them doing it. Why? Pride. The knowledge that their customers will pay more. Control. Differentiation. etc, etc

1-4) Apple set a lower limit on graphics performance for usability, more so with the Core Graphics effects in the OS. This is why they asked for and got Iris Graphics off Intel. Apple have always gone for mobile CPUs over low power T series CPUs. T-series desktop CPUS appear to be deprecated faster by Intel and they can be socketed. And I've already linked to a old line from Apple engineers that say they are going for GPU compute and single core performance (as well as energy efficiency for the Mini). Mobile CPUs are generally soldered on to a (smaller) motherboard so our conspiracy theorists can say that it helps Apple make the Mini more of a sealed unit/appliance.

5) A 'base' Mini is never going to come with a quad core CPU - they'll call that a Pro first. At 'mini' prices it'll be a dual core CPU and one which Apple can get at scale - hence the 15w CPU I have suggested before and it'll come with Iris Graphics because Apple want to concentrate on GPU compute performance too - it outpaces the 2-3% increase with successive generations of Intel CPUs.

6) Apple won't be rooting around on sites like Newegg or even more exotic ones for parts - and how much does it cost to build your PC? And warrant? Apple make premium products with a premium mark-up partly because they are the only official game in town for macOS. This is the grave error that PC builders make when trying to compare a PC build with a Mac - along with not factoring in the price of Windows 10 (and we know why in most cases). Your average PC builder who has a chip on their shoulder about Apple is trying to say that their Honda rice rocket can go way faster 0-60 than a BMW M3 for a fraction of the price. I don't even need to go into laborious length to point out the flaws in that argument but I'll leave you with the point that Apple do use better materials to start with and supposedly not cheap tat for their hardware even though they can't always test it - I'm looking at the Mac Pro 2013. The valid quote here is from a VW chief from many years ago who said that they charge 1000 euros more for a Golf because they spend 300 euros more on higher class materials in the interior. You're dismissing the price of design and engineering.

7) Fantastical pricing there. I know people will say that the bugs emerging in recent editions of macOS suggest it's worth $1 per machine but there's a lot of work gone into macOS and it would be disingenuous to suggest it's worth less than $100 per unit machine. Just because Apple say the OS is free it doesn't mean costs you 0 when you buy a Mac.

8) If they are killing off low margin products then why can we still buy a Mini today? It's the only machine in the lineup that Apple have openly admitted they accept less of a margin on. I'd rather not discuss the Mini at all if Apple didn't plan a decent future for it - I'd prefer it not to be a choice and leave me to consider an iMac or portable instead. The post PC world is there for the desktop PC users that are migrating towards phones, tablets and iMacs. There's precious few that would buy a Mini and the sales figures at Apple probably reflect that.

9) In terms of product differentiation this is why Apple don't use the desktop CPUs from the iMacs in an all-new Mini. They are cheaper to buy than the mobile CPUs but more power hungry which would mean a bigger redesigned case. The minute you can buy a headless iMac why would cheapskates buy the a proper iMac? And if Apple start supporting Pentium CPUs it only helps the Hack makers. There's a 64-bit app horizon coming up in a future macOS - could that be a point where Apple consider making life complicated for hack makers by consolidating Macs on CPUs like Xeon E or mobile for the future?


What happens in late spring?

One other point that emerged on 9to5mac tonight - pointing out a repositioning of macOS server coming - they are deprecating a lot of server features and openly suggesting alternatives. I had heard that the server app was about to become easier to buy (as users at the moment have to repurchase it every year). I didn't realise it was going to be because the soul was about to be ripped out of what was left.

The key point for me is this update is coming in SPRING and not in October when the next macOS presumably launches. On the one hand it's good that there's no artificial deadline to hit. On the other hand it's another nail in the server coffin for Apple and a sign that any headless Mac will be seen as a workstation rather than a server - hence the GPU and single core performance aim.

Could we be seeing the modular Mac Pro appearing at that time? And will we know the fate of the Mini at the same time?

 

[austin571]

I just wish we would know if and when it would come out. Having problems and want to know if I should wait or go to another... No reason to get the all in one - I have the Thunderbolt display.

 

[PickUrPoison]

A 28w part fitting into the dual core slotted motherboard is one thing but Apple are aiming directly at Iris Graphics parts for the CPUs for the Mini. They avoided the vanilla HD630 parts even down to the 15w MacBook Pro without touch bar using Iris Graphics 640 instead of the more basic HD620 graphics solution.

Apple presumably only went with the Intel HD615 graphics for the 5w Macbook because there was no option for Iris Graphics and there won't be going forward. The zombie MBA doesn't count as it's technically still a 2015 product as far as I am concerned.

There's no confirmation of an Iris Graphics powered quad core Intel part fitting into the 28w TDP bracket at all and I have my doubts over the size of the market for one. Apple might be interested but it's Intel's call and high power graphics with 4 CPU cores means each core will be relatively slow compared to the performance of 2 fast cores with hyper threading for most common or garden apps.

That's not an ideal use case scenario for people using these machines as light use daily drivers.

The Mini has a reduced margin for Apple to make it more attractive for customers - they've admitted as much several times in the past. The fact that it's not being updated suggests the sales figures aren't stellar enough for them to do annual updates like the might do for the laptops. I think they expect switchers to hit up laptops or iPads more than a cheap desktop at this moment in time. That's no excuse for them to leave it as a zombie product for over 3 years in my opinion.

I recall at the time of the 2014 model's release that some high profile Mac Mini users had their say about the Mini based on what they had heard from Apple. As you can see from that blog post - better GPU performance and single core performance were prioritised.

If Mac Mini Colo/Macstadium had any kind of input to Apple they might suggest a new Mini comes out with the same form factor so it can be put into their racks easily.

They'd also probably appreciate fast PCIe SSD performance for server IO as well as the speed bump from the latest processor but if they were to go with 15w CPUs across the board there's then room in that case (which is capable of 45w TDP) for a discrete GPU for a range topper making a potential 2018 Mini more than capable of driving a 5k display if needs be.

I don’t disagree with most of what you say, except for 15W CPUs across the board. Just so one top of the range model can squeeze a dGPU into the 45W thermals? For 90% of the product line you’d be throwing away TDP needlessly.

re: 28W quad cores with GT3e graphics, yes there’s nothing but a few rumors, and not even good ones at that. Apple would be the largest customer for 28W CPUs with high end iGPUs. It’s very possible there’s simply not enough demand for Intel. While the 15” will get hexa-cores, the 13” may be stuck at dual core, unless Apple is willing to forgo GT3e. The colo’s would no doubt appreciate a quad core mini option, even with GT2 graphics.

 

[sublunar]

I don’t disagree with most of what you say, except for 15W CPUs across the board. Just so one top of the range model can squeeze a dGPU into the 45W thermals? For 90% of the product line you’d be throwing away TDP needlessly.

re: 28W quad cores with GT3e graphics, yes there’s nothing but a few rumors, and not even good ones at that. Apple would be the largest customer for 28W CPUs with high end iGPUs. It’s very possible there’s simply not enough demand for Intel. While the 15” will get hexa-cores, the 13” may be stuck at dual core, unless Apple is willing to forgo GT3e. The colo’s would no doubt appreciate a quad core mini option, even with GT2 graphics.

The current case only cools 1 15w and 2 28w CPU SKUs at the moment. Apple could easily just put a dGPU into 2 of 3 SKUs leaving the lowest end model hitting a poverty spec $499 starter.

I think there's still a market for Iris Graphics ultrabooks from similar PC makers (HP Spectre, Microsoft Surface). With Iris Graphics on the roadmap for the foreseeable future I can't see Apple changing on this.

It's just the more powerful 15" models have done away with Iris Pro because dGPU is what PC makers want and Intel are just following demand there. Apple have instead got Intel to integrate AMD Vega into a special part for that so they can make the thinnest laptop they can.

 

[twalk]

1-4) Apple set a lower limit on graphics performance for usability, more so with the Core Graphics effects in the OS. This is why they asked for and got Iris Graphics off Intel. Apple have always gone for mobile CPUs over low power T series CPUs. T-series desktop CPUS appear to be deprecated faster by Intel and they can be socketed. And I've already linked to a old line from Apple engineers that say they are going for GPU compute and single core performance (as well as energy efficiency for the Mini). Mobile CPUs are generally soldered on to a (smaller) motherboard so our conspiracy theorists can say that it helps Apple make the Mini more of a sealed unit/appliance.

Good thing then that HD630 graphics is more powerful than the HD615 graphics in the current Macbook... and a lot more powerful than the HD4000 graphics on the latest Mini

"T-series desktop CPUS appear to be deprecated faster" What does that even mean? T series parts are basically just S series parts that can't run at the higher clock. If for some reason the T series parts were to run out, then you'd just use S series parts and clock them lower

And from the Apple engineers, that's an *old* line. Things change. However that's ignoring the biggest reason they went mobile. The biggest shortage at Apple is design resources. They never have enough at high enough quality. So if they could share a board design, that saved design resources. Back 6-7 years ago, that was huge for the Mini, because there really wasn't much for options. Now? Now there are plenty of top level options

5) A 'base' Mini is never going to come with a quad core CPU - they'll call that a Pro first. At 'mini' prices it'll be a dual core CPU and one which Apple can get at scale - hence the 15w CPU I have suggested before and it'll come with Iris Graphics because Apple want to concentrate on GPU compute performance too - it outpaces the 2-3% increase with successive generations of Intel CPUs.

With Coffee Lake, everything will start moving to quad core or better. When Windows PCs are shipping quad and hex core systems for <$500, dual core on the desktop just doesn't really cut it anymore, especially a pathetically slow mobile dual core

HD630 is standard graphics right now. Iris Pro is basically dead now and Iris is just kept around for the low-end Macbook Pro

6) Apple won't be rooting around on sites like Newegg or even more exotic ones for parts - and how much does it cost to build your PC? And warrant? Apple make premium products with a premium mark-up partly because they are the only official game in town for macOS. This is the grave error that PC builders make when trying to compare a PC build with a Mac - along with not factoring in the price of Windows 10 (and we know why in most cases). Your average PC builder who has a chip on their shoulder about Apple is trying to say that their Honda rice rocket can go way faster 0-60 than a BMW M3 for a fraction of the price. I don't even need to go into laborious length to point out the flaws in that argument but I'll leave you with the point that Apple do use better materials to start with and supposedly not cheap tat for their hardware even though they can't always test it - I'm looking at the Mac Pro 2013. The valid quote here is from a VW chief from many years ago who said that they charge 1000 euros more for a Golf because they spend 300 euros more on higher class materials in the interior. You're dismissing the price of design and engineering.

This above is a mess of an argument

First, I'm a Principal Engineer with degrees in both Electrical Eng. and Computer Science. I lead small teams to design and build new products. While I don't know every detail in this area, I've got a better background than most to know what I'm talking about

Second, do you know what's premium and what's not with the Mac designs? Or are you just blowing smoke here?

7) Fantastical pricing there. I know people will say that the bugs emerging in recent editions of macOS suggest it's worth $1 per machine but there's a lot of work gone into macOS and it would be disingenuous to suggest it's worth less than $100 per unit machine. Just because Apple say the OS is free it doesn't mean costs you 0 when you buy a Mac.

Here you're confusing cost of production with the theoretical value of the product to the customer

8) If they are killing off low margin products then why can we still buy a Mini today? It's the only machine in the lineup that Apple have openly admitted they accept less of a margin on. I'd rather not discuss the Mini at all if Apple didn't plan a decent future for it - I'd prefer it not to be a choice and leave me to consider an iMac or portable instead. The post PC world is there for the desktop PC users that are migrating towards phones, tablets and iMacs. There's precious few that would buy a Mini and the sales figures at Apple probably reflect that.

3.5 years+ without an upgrade. Also, just over a year ago they had the big new production gap in the entire product lineup. That's flat out neglect that's now being fixed for some products. That neglect was no accident, it was done deliberately

Based on what I see, it would not surprise me at all if Apple started a serious forced run-down to elimination of the entire Mac lineup starting 3 years from now and ending 5-6 years from now. The signs are all there

9) In terms of product differentiation this is why Apple don't use the desktop CPUs from the iMacs in an all-new Mini. They are cheaper to buy than the mobile CPUs but more power hungry which would mean a bigger redesigned case. The minute you can buy a headless iMac why would cheapskates buy the a proper iMac? And if Apple start supporting Pentium CPUs it only helps the Hack makers. There's a 64-bit app horizon coming up in a future macOS - could that be a point where Apple consider making life complicated for hack makers by consolidating Macs on CPUs like Xeon E or mobile for the future?

T series TPD = 35W. That's nothing. The current Mini case can handle that just fine. A long overdue Mini case design would handle it even better

Hack builders can already use i3 parts, which are only $30-$60 more expensive than a Pentium. Not a problem at all. The other cpus likely won't be a problem either

Yes, part of the gimping of Minis is to protect iMac sales.......... In which desktop sales are now <20% of Mac sales, so Apple just doesn't care as much anymore

 

[Sam Luis Obispo]

3.5 years+ without an upgrade. Also, just over a year ago they had the big new production gap in the entire product lineup. That's flat out neglect that's now being fixed for some products. That neglect was no accident, it was done deliberately

Based on what I see, it would not surprise me at all if Apple started a serious forced run-down to elimination of the entire Mac lineup starting 3 years from now and ending 5-6 years from now. The signs are all there

I hope you are unduly pessimistic. Would putting out an iMac Pro in late2017/early 2018 and a Mac Pro(allegedly) be consistent with your timetable of the whole mac lineup being axed by ~2024?

 

[twalk]

I hope you are unduly pessimistic. Would putting out an iMac Pro in late2017/early 2018 and a Mac Pro(allegedly) be consistent with your timetable of the whole mac lineup being axed by ~2024?

I also hope that I'm way pessimistic... but if Apple can add capabilities to the iPhone / iPad Pro such that it can really replace a Mac... then I'd say the odds would be good for it to happen. In 5 years, Apple can definitely add those capabilities

That said, I think that Apple has already been burnt once with "Post PC" thinking and trying to force things, so I think that they'll let the market decide the issue more in the future. It's also probably more likely they'd "Mac Mini" the lineup with continued sales but no upgrades for several years than straight out killing the Mac

I'd personally expect the next Mac Pro design to be the last. The market isn't really there right now to justify it (it's a pride thing) and they've also got the iMac Pro. I'd expect 2 updates to the iMac Pro, maybe a 3rd. That's just my guesses

 

[DesertSurfer]

The new mac mini is almost certainly coming.

 

[opeter]

I really do not understand fully this threatening of the next line. Some are always going to want separate CPU and monitor and some are always going to want the neater cleaner look of the all in one. That is just life.

Yes, but that all doesn't matter, if Apple wont update (internally) the Mac mini yearly. Just bump the CPU every year once, the SSD every 2 years, bump up to standard 8 GB RAM.

That they are still selling a 600 EUR Mac mini computer with 4 GB RAM in 2018 February (yeah, we are almost there) is... well, humiliating.