My original post was what I thought that Apple should do. You immediately accused me of lying about how much something like that would cost
I responded. Then you start throwing in stuff that didn't matter and other stuff that was *way* off topic. I then stupidly responded to that. Then you repeated meaningless stuff and added more things wildly off topic
You are one of those people who gets a thrill by deliberately picking a fight and then "winning!" by throwing up so much garbage that the other person just gives up
I'm too old and have to much work to do. Go away
This is the Mac Mini forum and this thread discusses the Mini that is almost certainly coming(tm). I have supported my arguments with links:
1) Pointing out that Intel discontinue desktop CPUs faster than their mobile ones which have small motherboards to fit into the small case." - Intel will tell Apple about their future plans in advance, Apple may use this information to decide what CPU to buy. They have already been stung by discontinued CPUs in the Xeons used in the Mac Pro 5,1.
2) Repeatedly pointing out that Apple have a budget and a scheduled return on investment which appears to be dictating the money spent on engineering the current Mini to hit their 'reduced' profit margin. They are NOT going to scrabble at the bottom of the barrel alongside clone and hack builders.
3) You say the HD630 is powerful enough - I point out that Apple never used it on its own (preferring more powerful Iris Graphics instead where there's no dGPU) and you can double check the Apple web site or Everymac to prove that too. The conclusion is Apple don't think non-Iris GPU is appropriate for anything other than the MacBook where there's no choice i the heat profile they planned for.
4) "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" - the HD615 graphics come in the 5w MacBook - not something I recall advocating for the Mini. If you are comparing like with like to have to look at the mobile CPUs Apple use in the current 13" MacBook Pro and they come with
Iris Plus Graphics 640 or
Iris Plus Graphics 650. Both GPUs have 64Mb eDRAM and rank significantly higher than UHD630 Graphics which is the Kaby Lake Refresh integrated GPU that succeeds the HD630. You might dismiss iris Graphics but I'm asking in return if you use a high density screen. 1440p or even 4k for instance.
5) You say you have a feeling that the Mac line is doomed - "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" - that's a bit final - where are your signs? According to the Q4 2017 results Mac computers earned $7.2Bn - iPads earned $4.8Bn. Would Apple trash something that made almost double what iPads made in revenue? And coincidentally what do coders create iOS apps with after your decision to terminate the Mac line?
I've been trying to predict what Apple would do with a refresh of the Mini based on existing machines similar to what's been used before. It's outside the scope of this forum but my reading of the Mac line for several years indicates annual updates for iMac and the laptops (except for the Broadwell debacle). We had the well publicised problems with the Mac Pro which either sold horribly poorly and/or had critical errors in GPU availability. This may have fed into the non-upgrade of the Mini which most people accept is a victim of poor sales - there's loads of other similar threads in this forum for that so we don't need to go into it here.
I'm afraid all you've done is moan about Apple not making a new Mini out of what I consider to be hack builder parts at close to hack prices. You may as well have said that Apple were going to cancel their entire Apple Mac line based on a 'feeling'... rather than present evidence of Apple nixing the Mac line after producing the iMac Pro
I'm not throwing the gauntlet down but if you seriously believe that there's a good reason why Apple can't put out a Mini to your specification for the price that you specify then I think you need to support your argument properly.
Or, as you said, put your feet up and get some work done.
Digression alert!
Here's another theory on why the Mac Mini has lasted so long in its existing form. Bear with me on this one.
In my opinion the iMac Pro is stunning value for money for the people who can afford it - and they aren't hobbyists on the whole. I won't bore you with the iMac forum threads where people have tried to price up Workstations to match it but can't. This is due to Apple keeping the same price for a product from day 1 until it's discontinued and usually keeping that price static even if it gets succeeded by next year's model.
There has long been evidence of this flat pricing effect from Apple even when the original 5k iMac was launched. A few years ago people tried to price up a similar PC with 5k screen and couldn't making the 27" iMac great value. The issue that people have is that Apple prices stay constant year round whereas PC prices for the same product continue to slide on a weekly basis. This can affect second hand values for PCs whereas I contend that Mac prices are comparatively higher in comparison in part thanks to the lack of discounting and rarity.
Today, it's probably possible to buy a 5k monitor cheaply and build a clone PC with monitor to match or better the static iMac price. You can't compare properly at the moment as the GPU prices are distorted thanks to virtual currency miners - don't look just be horrified at the current price of any powerful GPU - if you can get your hands on one at all.
So perhaps today you can buy a PC specced up similarly to the 5k iMac. In effect the profit margin on PCs recedes proportionally throughout the year whereas Apple make their money towards the end of a cycle. It's actually a decent suggestion to wait 3 or 4 months to let the Rev A models
I would say that the amount of profit that Apple generate on a particular model of iMac over the year is less in the first couple of months, before reaching a median point and then becoming effectively larger towards the end of a cycle until the cost of development is paid off.
What if the Mini is subject to the same constraints. Apple try and reduce the cost of development to pay back for the 2014 Mini which already had any supposed quad core version cancelled because it wasn't in the budget to use 2 different motherboards - the 2012 model used just one motherboard because Ivy Bridge quad and dual core CPUs used the same socket type.
Now, after 3 and a quarter years that payback period is looking a little long so its possible that the Broadwell debacle delayed things too.
At the moment I'd expect a suitable Intel CPU that can decode 4k HEVC and has Iris Graphics to become available later this year - a dual core and on previous patterns it could be an i5-8260U.
