What if today is the day they release the new Mac Mini? Don't worry. We will welcome you back with open arms.
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.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
Just checking in and still LOL for your continued blind loyalty. 
We are in the twilight of the desktop era. Accept it. Can anyone even name an exciting new Mac application? No. The era is ending.
Excuse me, but people (like me for example) do work on desktop computers, not smart phones. The era is far from over.
A Mac with ARM processors would not surprise me, but I think it is likely to be branded separately as part of the line between iOS and macOS (which I think is largely a good idea). I think it more likely we will see a B1 powered Mac Mini. The B1 will include processors designed for higher thermal envelopes that computer form factors allow, although maybe with something more restricted at the bottom end to allow an iPhone-sized Mac Nano.
Just a thought occurs - I think iMac pricing could be affected by the ongoing price of GPU parts from AMD due to the Bitcoin mining fad which shows little sign of going away in the short term. There's a real possibility that Apple could be forced to hike prices this year unless they had hedged against the prices of GPUs like they do with Flash memory.
To mitigate this I'd expect Apple to immediately use Coffee Lake 6 core CPUs for the iMac but they might have to improve standard RAM or storage options to 16Gb or a bigger fusion drive so it becomes less easy to directly compare.
With a larger gap below the iMac there might be room for a beefier Mac Mini - or indeed, a budget to introduce Fusion drives - but this can't include a discrete GPU. Could we instead see a place for 28w Iris Graphics powered CPUs in the Mini?
The 15" MacBook Pro might have the Intel G series CPU which includes Radeon Graphics but will be entirely manufactured by Intel while other MacBooks will also have no reliance on discrete GPUs from AMD.
To mitigate this I'd expect Apple to immediately use Coffee Lake 6 core CPUs for the iMac but they might have to improve standard RAM or storage options to 16Gb or a bigger fusion drive so it becomes less easy to directly compare.
With a larger gap below the iMac there might be room for a beefier Mac Mini - or indeed, a budget to introduce Fusion drives - but this can't include a discrete GPU. Could we instead see a place for 28w Iris Graphics powered CPUs in the Mini?
The 15" MacBook Pro might have the Intel G series CPU which includes Radeon Graphics but will be entirely manufactured by Intel while other MacBooks will also have no reliance on discrete GPUs from AMD.
Since many on this forum seem to think that the next Mac Mini may contain an Apple ARM chip. Any thoughts on whether that next Mac Mini might also contain an Apple designed GPU?
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/apples-making-gpu-control-destiny/
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/apples-making-gpu-control-destiny/
Again with this supposed need for no overlap between headless Macs and iMacs. I don’t see that it’s a problem, particularly at the lower range of the iMac line. There is a consumer for the AIO appliance computer, AKA iMac, perhaps even a sealed/soldered version. Within that same price and performance range, there are different consumers who want a headless DIY-modifiable system. If Apple wants to control the display hardware used by headless consumers (as opposed to brainless consumers, mind you) they could always get back into the monitor business with a set of monitors that mesh nicely with the small headless systems. By not offering both headless and AIO covering the same performance space Apple is just annoying one of these consumer groups or the other. At present, they loves them the AIO crowd, so the headless gang gets no love at all.
Now, at the high-performance end, I think the iMac Pro is just stupid. I suspect that people are mostly buying them because the high-end alternative is the trash can Mac. Overlap in lines at the high end doesn’t make much sense, not as much as overlap at the low end. Now that they have the iMac Pro, I think it’s going to be hard for Apple to come up with a headless Mac Pro that doesn’t eat into sales of the iMac Pro. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think Apple will try to keep just enough headless options that those headless consumers stay with the brand but not enough to reduce the sales of AIO (including laptops) because they are much more profitable, which is why we are seeing long delays for the Mac Mini and Mac Pro.
I'm not entirely against AIOs, in fact I love my MBP and plan to buy an iMac soon, but it's still regrettable that it's this constant need to keep margins high that's frustrating users.
We’ve comes this far and waited this long, so what’s another few years to wait? Apple is testing our dedication and commitment to the platform so let’s show unwavering support to the cause. We can out wait Apple, folks! Let’s not let them beat us.
Rumor has it that the new mac mini will almost certainly sound better than the Home Pod.
[doublepost=1518632468][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1518632667][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1518632468][/doublepost]
June or October?
[doublepost=1518632667][/doublepost]
Apres moi le deluge.
Last edited:
Official name for posters in this thread confirmed.
Mac Mini 2022 leaving thinner tracks on wooden tables than Homepod does confirmed.
I love the Mac Mini, and have a natural disdain for AIO machines, but sometimes it seems as though the iMacs are better deals value wise. Even today, I still don't think you can find a nice 5K 27" display that is of the same quality as the iMac's for very cheap. It seems that if you deduct the price of the screen on the iMac, the iMac would be a lot cheaper than the Mac Mini.
I can't see how the Mac Mini isn't more profitable per unit, except maybe due to low sales volume - which is entirely their fault for abandoning the line for so long.
If I can get a Mac Mini with the specs of the top iMac for the price of an iMac minus the screen that would be a steal. I think the price would be much higher, though, in reality. And if it is much higher, how can it not be more profitable if the internals are similar cost?
I think by neutering the Mini, they have crippled its sales volume - which would increase time for return on investment for Apple, but like I said, I blame them entirely for being in that situation.
Last edited:
Completely agree, with the lack of update to the Mac Mini it's inevitable that you try and compare with other Macs in the range. As with the iMac Pro, if you need a 5k screen and can live with the other parts and the un-upgrability of the iMac the rest of the parts in the 27" are actually a decent deal. The 21.5" is a less good deal with no access at all to RAM and a screen that should only be $500 cheaper than the 27".
Here's two further thoughts on the Mini range that only work because the current 2014 Mini uses Haswell era parts.
The two upper range 28w SKUs are Haswell era CPUs with Iris Graphics 5100 which debuted a year earlier in the 2013 MacBook Pro 13" (4 year old)
The i5-8250U quad core i5 is a 15w part and has already been released and will be shipping in a matter of weeks in other PCs and comes with UHD 620 graphics which are not in use elsewhere in the Mac and unlikely to be used in my opinion given that the iMac 21.5" non retina uses a Kaby Lake Iris Graphics variant CPU.
According to Notebook Check the newer iGPU seems to overpower the older one in most benchmarks although sustained performance could be questionable. The improvement is a function of newer architecture and technology obviously and despite the quad core and big buzz I still don't think Apple would do this when they could instead use Iris Plus Graphics 640 variant with even more iGPU power with a possible 4k or 5k monitor coming up.
In other words, could Apple could claim good figures for using the i5-8250U on a future Mac Mini compared to a 2014 Mac Mini without compromising too much (apart from having to admit a 1.6GHz base clock frequency, important factor for marketing) and I feel that they'll still have one eye on system performance on retina screens but there's no current plan for releasing suitable CPUs for the MacBook Pro 13" as yet.
The big stopper would be Apple marketing pausing at the prospect of selling a 4 core 8 thread headless Mac with fairly weak GPU below a dual core version from the previous generation in the iMac. You'll notice that when the base 21.5" (last non retina) iMac was refreshed they avoided the basic Kaby Lake U series 15w CPU (the Macbook Air never got upgraded) and went for the Iris Graphics equipped CPU for the base model instead which still has just 2 cores (4 threads). It's this CPU that I expected to show up in the Mini which remains resolutely stuck in the old 2014 configuration.
Instead, I expect the iMac 21.5" will go retina across the board which means 6 core desktop Coffee Lake CPUs across the board next time out in my opinion - especially interesting in the 27" models too.
I use a desktop at work and two at home. I'm considering a third one for home.
But I'm old and weird. Desktops are definitely in their twilight:
Even if you count desktops and laptops together, its not much.
I hope that someday the iPhone can turn into a Mac Mini when you connect to a dock.
Most people never needed a desktop, but that was all there was.
Now they can do everything they want on their cellphones.
There are still many who need the functionality of desktops, just not as many as there were when it was the only choice available.
I expect we'll still have desktops in 20 years, but they'll be better targeted at the groups that need them.
I'm not sure Apple's iOSification announcement will make them a major desktop player com 2038.
If I have a desktop, it's not so I can play Angry Birds or Gem games.
They way I see it, AIO are more profitable per unit for two reasons.
First it allows them to sell us a bigger package. As you said the iMac are often a better value when you take into account the price of the 5k screen. A lot of people would never consider to buy a 5k screen along with their Mac Mini because they don't see the need, they'll just keep their monitor (which was the whole idea of the Mac Mini, to bring your own accessories) or buy a cheap 3rd party one. When you buy an AIO they sell us a more expensive product but we're fine with it because of the added value of the monitor.
Then, when we buy an AIO/laptop/phone/tablet, we're ready to spend more for the look and feel of the device because we'll see it all the time. Apple knows this and is able to price their product above the competition and still sell a ton of them. When you buy a headless computer you don't really care about it because it can be hidden away so they can't justify a much higher price than their competitor. Some even made fun of them for trying to do it with the latest Mac Pro.
But in the end I don't know the prices of the components and where they make their money.
I am 1) expecting it, 2) being excited about it and 3) being terrified by the idea. Because you just know it will not turn into a Mac of any sort, but a large iPad with large iOS (and on a 27" screen still five tiny icons in a row that you won't be able to reorder).
I would like to meet those people who manage to do ANY work done on a smartphone
I am aware that there is Word, Excel etc. for smartphones, but how exactly do people use Word on a 6" or smaller screen?
That bar graph that @ActionableMango posted is misleading. What does it represent? The number of people who use a phone for web browsing? People who use a phone for e-mail. Or does it just represent the number of devices that are sold? Without an explanation, it means nothing.
Those numbers do not mean anything.
Phone and tablet users only consume content.
Desktop and laptop users produce content.
That's like comparing sales of pick-up trucks to cars and proclaiming the death of construction sites because there's more cars sold than trucks.