The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[giggles]

I would like to see Apple use some of its much-vaunted "courage" and ingenuity to build a bottom-end Mini (or modular) that is more that just a token low-priced Mac. Any fool can build a sub-$1000 computer if they put crap components in it and make it a sealed box. Show us some of the old technical design chops, Apple, rather than fashion design.

You’re right, today any fool, Zotac Gigabyte Asrock Intel you name it, can build a “mac mini” kinda pc.

In 2005, not so much. (hope nobody tries to argue this with underpowered or noisy or under-I/O-ed or bad-software-ed stuff)

Maybe that’s why we don’t have a Mini anymore, and we’re back to the Mac as a complete package (you can’t even discard keyboard and mouse when ordering an iMac). Maybe the Mini run was the anomaly.

On the other hand, if one overthinks it a bit, the gap between haswell and kabylakerefresh (8th gen) could completely make sense for the mini:
- you finally get a quad core back, in the 15W thermal design
- you get full HEVC processing

You couldn’t get both with Broadwell, Skylake, KabyLake (no quad core within 15W for the base model). Useless stopgap generations for an utilitarian computer like the Mini. (and honestly even a 2010 Mini with an SSD is a super solid office machine for most people out there, a 2014 haswell even more so) Let’s not be skewed by the “geek” perspective.

So if a KBL-R Mini is out this June (I don’t think Minis can debut Intel 8th gen KBL-R before MBPs), there could still be some logic to the gap. Not every product is an iPhone.

If it isn’t, then I have little hope for a “classic mini” in the future.
[doublepost=1524148933][/doublepost]One unrelated thought: would Apple develop an SSD format just for the no-touchbar 13” MBP?

That would be a good sign of a KBL-R Mini with removable SSD coming.

Whereas the new MacPro will most certainly have the same ultra bandwidth system of the iMac Pro: not actual standalone SSDs but just removable bare flash boards that interface probably at pcie 8x speeds with an SSD controller on the motherboard. It would make no sense for the MacPro to be inferior in any way to the iMacPro. This fact (costly pcie 8x grade flash system) doesn’t support the “new Mini as a basic stackable module of the new MacPro” theory, to be honest.
[doublepost=1524149804][/doublepost]Another “achievement unlocked” that had to be waited for to build a really versatile successor to the Mini: only very recently with Intel Titan Ridge it became possible to have a single cable single tile 5k 60hz display connection with DP 1.4 over TB3. Any new Mini before 2018 wouldn’t have had that, just the usual multi tile stuff. Not to mention the mess on the HDMI + TVs side of things. There could be some logic in waiting.

 

[CWallace]

Maybe that’s why we don’t have a Mini anymore, and we’re back to the Mac as a complete package (you can’t even discard keyboard and mouse when ordering an iMac). Maybe the Mini run was the anomaly.

The Mini's purpose was as an inexpensive way to get into the macOS environment when desktops represented the majority of new PC purchases. Now, portables represent the majority of new PC purchases and what was the Mini's role has been handled by the MacBook Air for some time now.

 

[AZhappyjack]

The Mini's purpose was as an inexpensive way to get into the macOS environment when desktops represented the majority of new PC purchases. Now, portables represent the majority of new PC purchases and what was the Mini's role has been handled by the MacBook Air for some time now.

Perhaps, but that does not negate the need/usefulness of a lower priced desktop machine. Imagine the computing that could be done with an array of rack-mounted Mac Minis, pounding away at a computing problem. Likewise, it's doubtful that one would want a portable (read: laptop) as the media center computer... there are still valid uses for a small, headless desktop computer with sufficient specs and a "reasonable" price tag*.

*Apple tax included

 

[giggles]

Perhaps, but that does not negate the need/usefulness of a lower priced desktop machine. Imagine the computing that could be done with an array of rack-mounted Mac Minis, pounding away at a computing problem. Likewise, it's doubtful that one would want a portable (read: laptop) as the media center computer... there are still valid uses for a small, headless desktop computer with sufficient specs and a "reasonable" price tag*.

*Apple tax included

What makes business sense for Apple doesn’t always coincide with what makes sense for (some) users, unfortunately.

Honestly imagining a regular person walking in a store, buying a Mini, pairing it with some crappy plastic keyboard and mouse, figuring out the best video connection to their probably crappy monitor, etc. feels so last decade, if not the decade before. Almost damaging to the brand.

The Mini feels more like a well kept secret for connoisseurs. Shame if we don’t get at least one with official eGPU support..

 

[CWallace]

Honestly imagining a regular person walking in a store, buying a Mini, pairing it with some crappy plastic keyboard and mouse, figuring out the best video connection to their probably crappy monitor, etc. feels so last decade, if not the decade before. Almost damaging to the brand.

John Siracusa brought up the same in the most recent ATP.

The Mini feels more like a well kept secret for connoisseurs.

This. The Mini slots into a niche that is sufficient to move a thousand or two units a quarter and that is enough for it to stay alive in the product line.

Eventually lack of current-model components is going to require it to be updated or shelved, but if they do update it, I do not believe it's going to suddenly increase its sales 10x or 20x. It's still going to be in last place in terms of volume and still only going to move a few thousand units a quarter. So it will probably not be updated again for a half-decade.

 

[jasnw]

So it will probably not be updated again for a half-decade.

And I wouldn't mind it that much if the new Mini is (a) built with current technology parts and (b) DIY upgradeable. I'm using a 2011 iMac and a 2012 Mini that work just fine (with upgrades done as needed).

 

[calvz]

The Mini's purpose was as an inexpensive way to get into the macOS environment when desktops represented the majority of new PC purchases. Now, portables represent the majority of new PC purchases and what was the Mini's role has been handled by the MacBook Air for some time now.

But could we be going back in the other direction? For example, I use my iPad at home 99% of the time unless I'm doing work, in which case I'm using my 2011 MacBook Pro hooked up to a 27" monitor. I would absolutely buy a new mini if they came out with one for when I need to print or do work, and do everything else on my iPad. Tim Cook recently said he basically does the same thing for that matter.

 

[sublunar]

Not that it's going to be much use, but here's some Geekbench results which I recently looked up:

i5-3210M (2.5GHz dual core, 4 threads i5 in base model 2012 Mac Mini): 2763 single core, 5191 multi-core.
i5-3615QM (2.3GHz quad core, 8 threads i7 - the legendary 2012 Mac Mini): 3080 single core, 9896 multi-core.
i5-4288U (2.6GHz dual core, 4 threads, Iris Graphics 5100 - 2014 mid model Mini): 3120 single core, 5829 multi-core.
i5-8250U (1.6GHz quad core, 8 threads): 3755 single-core, 11154 multi-core.

According to Notebookcheck.net, the Intel UHD620 Graphics in the i5-8250U are more powerful than Iris Graphics 5100 from the 2014 Mini and the ancient graphics from the Intel HD4000 in the 2012 Mini. Apple might still not trust people to use the Mini to power a retina screen with acceptable performance but otherwise, there will only be an expectation that Apple will solder the RAM and seal in the storage to make life difficult for the hobbyists who will no doubt hate the lack of upgradability.

These stats suggest that the more modern Kaby Lake Refresh 8th Generation i5-8250U would be an upgrade over every other Mini CPU listed here. The only issues are perhaps real world figures for a limited TDP Mini on sustained workloads which a 'semi-pro' might use - such as FCPX export.

If Apple chose to offer 32Gb of DDR4-2400 RAM, PCIe SSD, and sorted out Thunderbolt 3 ports for attaching to eGPU (with any luck High Sierra 10.13.5 will solve eGPU export for FCPX) it could form the basis of a very modern compute box while limiting the ultimate exposure to cannibalisation of the future modular Mac Pro.

The i5-8259U 28w Iris Plus Graphics model for the MacBook Pro appears to be on a different socket to the 15w i5-8250U so we're in a conundrum where may once again have to choose between a family of CPUs assuming they only want to design one motherboard for the Mini. The Iris Plus Graphics models use FCBGA1528 socket, whereas the 15w models use FC-BGA1356. It appears that Apple may have to go across the board with a family of CPUs for a refresh. So unless they are intending to take the Mini back up market with Iris Plus across the board they'll have to settle for UHD620 across the board or add in a discrete GPU with the 30w remaining TDP budget.

There are other CPUs out there for considering in a Mac Mini Pro but they would entail designing a whole new product for something that might fetch limited sales unless they are in fact designing a Mini that replaces the 2013 Mac Pro with the modular Mac Pro expected to start at $4k and up.

 

[EightyTwenty]

On the other hand, maybe the new Mini is actually a subset of the new modular MacPro and Apple will leave us in awe at the 999$ base modular MacPro. Not completely in the Mini price territory but close enough.

I know I sound like a broken record, but a $999 starting price is not a Mac Mini; it’s an entirely different product geared towards a different group of users. Better to just buy a laptop at that price, or an iMac.

 

[CWallace]

But could we be going back in the other direction? I would absolutely buy a new mini if they came out with one for when I need to print or do work, and do everything else on my iPad.

I would, as well. I have been buying 5K iMacs, but if I could get a Mini with TB3, M.2 SSD and UHD 630 or Iris Pro 655 graphics I would be happy as I could then get a small Windows gaming PC and connect both to a large display, switching between them as necessary.

 

[sublunar]

I know I sound like a broken record, but a $999 starting price is not a Mac Mini; it’s an entirely different product geared towards a different group of users. Better to just buy a laptop at that price, or an iMac.

Depends on the specs. Shareholders would demand a $499 product I think.
[doublepost=1524179009][/doublepost]

I would, as well. I have been buying 5K iMacs, but if I could get a Mini with TB3 and UHD 630 or Iris Pro 655 graphics I would be happy as I could then get a small Windows gaming PC and connect both to a large display, switching between them as necessary.

The possibility of a bare bones Mini able to connect to eGPU and external storage through Thunderbolt 3 could be compelling for headless Mac users. Apple just need to get the base spec right. 8th Generation CPUs provide a quantum leap over the 4th generation CPUs in the 2014 Mini. If they could offer a Mac Mini Pro SKU fully loaded it would make it easier to purchase off the shelf too.

 

[jasnw]

Right now, today, I can buy a System76 Meercat system with an i3-7100U processor, 8GB memory, and a 256GB M.2 SSD for about $670. Not blindingly fast, not a gaming system, not a coin-mining system, but a pretty decent system that's DIY expandable. If I was OK with the ongoing hassle of running a Hackintosh something very like this would be on my short list to replace my Mini. So, System76 can manage to cobble together a reasonable little system for $670, but Big Bad Apple needs $999 to do this? At a minimum? If this is true, Apple should fire their entire computer hardware engineering staff. Even better, fire their fashion design staff and use the huge savings to hire some decent hardware wonks.

 

[CWallace]

The possibility of a bare bones Mini able to connect to eGPU and external storage through Thunderbolt 3 could be compelling for headless Mac users. Apple just need to get the base spec right. 8th Generation CPUs provide a quantum leap over the 4th generation CPUs in the 2014 Mini. If they could offer a Mac Mini Pro SKU fully loaded it would make it easier to purchase off the shelf too.

Speaking only for myself, the CPU doesn't really bother me since I don't really tax it (I only buy the i7 on my iMacs for the resale, otherwise I would go i5). What keeps me away from the Mini right now is the "slow" SATA SSDs and ancient iGPUs.

Fortunately, any 7th or 8th Generation CPU update will come with an iGPU update and I would expect Apple to move to M.2 SSDs for parts compatibility with the other Macs. And USB-C/TB3 will be a given, which opens up eGPU for those who want it.

 

[Count Blah]

The i5-8259U 28w Iris Plus Graphics model for the MacBook Pro appears to be on a different socket to the 15w i5-8250U so we're in a conundrum where may once again have to choose between a family of CPUs assuming they only want to design one motherboard for the Mini.

Don't get your hopes up. Apple has shown to be incapable of producing a mini with two different sockets. And the Apple faithful still back up that decision, which brought us the utterly disappointing 2014 Mac Mini.

 

[CWallace]

I would expect Apple to settle on FCLGA1151 which would give them:

i3-8100T 4/4
i5-8400T 4/8
i7-8700T 6/12

All are 35W (25W TDP-Down) with UHD 630 graphics. I expect the i5 would be the base with the i7 as the BTO option.

 

[Miat]

i7-8700T 6/12 with UHD 630 graphics.

Plus updated ports (including two TB3), 32 GB RAM (not a deal breaker, I can live with 16GB), and OS integrated eGPU capability (already done). Max the flexibility.

TAKE. MY. MONEY.

If Apple can deliver those specs, all is forgiven. More or less.

 

[Fishrrman]

giggles wrote:
"Honestly imagining a regular person walking in a store, buying a Mini, pairing it with some crappy plastic keyboard and mouse..."

EVERY Apple keyboard and mouse since the advent of USB has been "crappy" in my opinion. Odd-looking stuff that seems to be designed totally for "form" rather than "function". Remember the hockey puck mouse?
That's why I've been using 3rd-party keyboards and mice with Apple Macs for 25 years.

"...figuring out the best video connection to their probably crappy monitor, etc. feels so last decade..."

Just yesterday I spent the whole day at a [non-computer-savvy] friend's, helping him set up a gorgeous new 27" 5k iMac with a 256gb SSD. It turned out to be "more than a chore" (due to his methods of backing up, I had to do a "manual migration"). What a fight trying to get it upgraded to 10.3.4 -- got stuck in a "loop" and had to go to the recovery partition and re-install the OS.

In any case, my friend has sight in only one eye, and that one is aging on him. I don't care how sharp the retina display is, he couldn't see the menu bar or text (displayed in normal size). We had to go to the Displays pref pane, "lower the resolution" a bit to make everything larger. Then he was happy.

So much for an Apple "non-crappy" monitor. He had to "crappy it up" JUST TO SEE IT.

BTW, I'm using my 2012 Mini with a Viewsonic 27" 1080p display. Nothing fancy, but looks "good enough for me". No worse than the retina display on my 2015 MBPro (my eyes are gettin' older, too).

A lot of folks here are too young to remember, but way way back Apple had a PowerMac 7200 and PowerMac 7500. The 7200 was a relatively "stripped down" model, but Apple would sell you the 7500 motherboard which dropped right into the 7200 and upgraded it.

I'd like to see in the upcoming Mac Pro a "basic, stripped-down" model with lower-grade components, but on a motherboard that could be upgraded to the "full Pro" version.

I don't need the "high end stuff" (I'm old, retired, and I don't use the "professional" apps much, anyway). But I would prefer a "basic box" that would run the Mac OS without hacking using my own peripherals.

Gee, with all their billions, with all the talented designers and engineers I know they have working there, Apple ought to be able to whip up a design like this in a week or so.

They wouldn't have to devote too much in the way of R&D to get a solid design.
I'm sure they would earn a solid return on their investment, and more.

 

[Boyd01]

A lot of folks here are too young to remember, but way way back Apple had a PowerMac 7200 and PowerMac 7500.

I had a Power Macintosh 8100 back in 1994 (IIRC). Got a $10,000 grant to purchase a whole system for doing video/3d - had to make a lot of compromises to come in under $10,000 actually Anyway, that thing was built like a tank and very difficult to disasemble just to add memory or a disk. Today, the dream lives on with the 2014 Mini.

 

[LorenK]

Just wondering if there is any longer ongoing thread concerning unfulfilled Apple expectations than this one? Mac Pro got pretty long, but this is five years and still no new Mini. Glad they are such workhorses, as mine are still going strong. It does seem to me that Apple doesn't really care too much about the computer market, given how long this has gone without an update, while possible processors have continued to pass though the market and Apple continues to ignore them. What an oddly run business.

 

[Falhófnir]

Just wondering if there is any longer ongoing thread concerning unfulfilled Apple expectations than this one? Mac Pro got pretty long, but this is five years and still no new Mini. Glad they are such workhorses, as mine are still going strong. It does seem to me that Apple doesn't really care too much about the computer market, given how long this has gone without an update, while possible processors have continued to pass though the market and Apple continues to ignore them. What an oddly run business.

You have to look at it against the broader context that 80% of Mac sales are now laptop formfactor - of the 20% that are desktop, the vast majority will be iMac. The Mac mini’s traditional customer base are now probably largely buying a MacBook Air, or an iMac and the remaining few who do still buy the mini are evidently not enough to justify an update. I’m surprised they have been so indecisive about the formfactor, and my feelings were they would just let the former customers go to their new homes with the MB/ Air, iMac and perhaps a few at the upper end to the new Mac Pro. By the sounds of things there might actually be something in the works, but I’m not sure I’d count on their commitment to it long term...

 

[Cape Dave]

Just wondering if there is any longer ongoing thread concerning unfulfilled Apple expectations than this one? Mac Pro got pretty long, but this is five years and still no new Mini. Glad they are such workhorses, as mine are still going strong. It does seem to me that Apple doesn't really care too much about the computer market, given how long this has gone without an update, while possible processors have continued to pass though the market and Apple continues to ignore them. What an oddly run business.

So true. It is like they have lost their way.
[doublepost=1524242513][/doublepost]

You have to look at it against the broader context that 80% of Mac sales are now laptop formfactor - of the 20% that are desktop, the vast majority will be iMac. The Mac mini’s traditional customer base are now probably largely buying a MacBook Air, or an iMac and the remaining few who do still buy the mini are evidently not enough to justify an update. I’m surprised they have been so indecisive about the formfactor, and my feelings were they would just let the former customers go to their new homes with the MB/ Air, iMac and perhaps a few at the upper end to the new Mac Pro. By the sounds of things there might actually be something in the works, but I’m not sure I’d count on their commitment to it long term...

None of that crap matters. We just want a mini. End of story. We do not care about market share or anything like that. Just a new mini please. Sadly, for me, it is way too late. If Apple hates the mini so much, why the hell is it still on their shelves? At least be honest and say, we are heading in a different direction. 50% off till they are gone and then they are gone forever. Show some balls Apple.

 

[sublunar]

I would expect Apple to settle on FCLGA1151 which would give them:

i3-8100T 4/4
i5-8400T 4/8
i7-8700T 6/12

All are 35W (25W TDP-Down) with UHD 630 graphics. I expect the i5 would be the base with the i7 as the BTO option.

Apple have never used a T-series Intel CPU in a Mac and with their insistence on socketed BGA CPUs (such as laptop ones or B series Intel CPUs) I'll wager they never will. They've always got better economy of scale by taking MacBook Pro parts to build the Mini and there's no reason why they would change that plan. It's just a question of which parts they target and if the modular Mac Pro plays any kind of a part in the decision making.
[doublepost=1524247686][/doublepost]

i7-8700T 6/12 with UHD 630 graphics.

Plus updated ports (including two TB3), 32 GB RAM (not a deal breaker, I can live with 16GB), and OS integrated eGPU capability (already done). Max the flexibility.

TAKE. MY. MONEY.

If Apple can deliver those specs, all is forgiven. More or less.

See my thought about the T series Intel CPUs. If there's a case redesign in the offing the i5-8305g is a better bet - sacrifice 2 CPU cores for good graphics without the expense of an eGPU - but cooling 65w or 100w would mean a different case. On the other hand, such a device would be feasible if the modular Mac Pro was going to start at $4k. We'd never see it coming it Apple decided to do something using the existing 2013 Mac Pro case...

Without a case redesign a 28w Iris Plus Graphics CPU would be fine - a 2.3Ghz quad core CPU returns to the Mini after a 6 year break - i5-8259U. They could add DDR4-2400 RAM to this too, unlocking 32Gb RAM for Pro users...

 

[CWallace]

We do not care about market share or anything like that.

But Apple does. And that directly influences where they invest resources (money, time and people) in developing and maintaining product lines.

Because Apple does not break down sales by model, nobody knows how well the Mini has traditionally sold overall or in terms of specific configuration. All we know now is that it sells less than any other desktop and likely any other portable.

Are those sales so low now because of the lack of a 4-core option? Or did Apple not bother with a 4-core option for the 2014 update because 4-core Mini sales were low so the added cost of maintaining two separate system boards (since the 2-core and 4-core CPUs at the time used different sockets) was not recoverable? Nobody knows. We can only guess/assume.

The one possible bright spot is that the only real options for Apple when it comes to an 8th Generation CPU update are both 4 core / 8 thread models (see below).

If Apple hates the mini so much, why the hell is it still on their shelves? At least be honest and say, we are heading in a different direction. 50% off till they are gone and then they are gone forever.

If they "hated it" they would have done just that. Steve was never afraid to kill something if he didn't believe it served a purpose anymore, so if he was still around, the Mini might very well just be a memory (along with the iPad Mini, AirPort, Time Capsule, etc.). Tim, on the other hand, seems to be happy to keep selling something if sufficient people are buying it to recover the costs of continuing to offer it and make a nice profit, so these "zombie products" continue on.

Apple have never used a T-series Intel CPU in a Mac and with their insistence on socketed BGA CPUs (such as laptop ones or B series Intel CPUs) I'll wager they never will.

Fair enough. The only thing that drew me to the T-Series was they were 35W parts that can also operate at 25W in reduced performance mode so they would fit in the Mini's thermal envelope.

So I can agree with you that if Apple stays with a socketed CPU and wants to use an 8th Generation platform, then it will most-likely be a FCBGA1528 solution which would also likely mean the two options would be 4-core / 8-thread models: the i5-8259U and i7-8559U.

 

[sublunar]

But Apple does. And that directly influences where they invest resources (money, time and people) in developing and maintaining product lines.

Because Apple does not break down sales by model, nobody knows how well the Mini has traditionally sold overall or in terms of specific configuration. All we know now is that it sells less than any other desktop and likely any other portable.

Are those sales so low now because of the lack of a 4-core option? Or did Apple not bother with a 4-core option for the 2014 update because 4-core Mini sales were low so the added cost of maintaining two separate system boards (since the 2-core and 4-core CPUs at the time used different sockets) was not recoverable? Nobody knows. We can only guess/assume.

The one possible bright spot is that the only real options for Apple when it comes to an 8th Generation CPU update are both 4 core / 8 thread models.

The only thing that drew me to the T-Series was they were 35W parts that can also operate at 25W in reduced performance mode so they would fit in the Mini's thermal envelope.

So I can agree with you that if Apple stays with a socketed CPU and wants to use an 8th Generation platform, then it will most-likely be a FCBGA1528 solution which would also likely mean the two options would be 4-core / 8-thread models: the i5-8259U and i7-8559U.

I meant soldered CPU - like the RAM, not socketed (which is the exact opposite!) - this prevents hobbyists from DIY upgrades. The current shape Mac Mini was engineered for a 45w TDP (a relic from the 2012) and there's plenty of configurations to make use of it - T series CPUs would work without alteration but the size of the die might be problematic for the motherboard and case, plus B series and mobile CPUs are optimised for tighter cooling situations which is why the mobile CPUs are more ideal for the scenarios that Apple envisage.

Using only one motherboard design it was always going to fall towards the cheaper CPUs because you have to assume Apple have targets to fulfil.

Raw performance figures from geek bench (see elsewhere in this thread) now suggest that the i5-8250U is an upgrade on every other Mac Mini CPU there's ever been (including the iGPU) thanks to Apple not upgrading the Mini for several generations of Intel CPU.

The i5-8250U actually has a TDP-up mode at 25w which lets the CPU operate at a base frequency of 1.8GHz (up from 1.6GHz). Obviously the Iris Graphics parts would be more attractive and, if Apple have a plan to leave the Mini alone for a few more years after the next refresh they are better off adding in the best CPUs possible for the budget available.

There's no plan yet for the i5-8250U - it all depends on Apple's plans for the MacBook Air - there was a brief flurry of interest in a refreshed base model but that seems to have gone quiet.

What Apple can rely on is strong orders for the i5-8259U which would go into the MacBook Pro. Would they use it across all models for the next Mac Mini?

 

[Count Blah]

But Apple does. And that directly influences where they invest resources (money, time and people) in developing and maintaining product lines.

Because Apple does not break down sales by model, nobody knows how well the Mini has traditionally sold overall or in terms of specific configuration. All we know now is that it sells less than any other desktop and likely any other portable.

Apple cares about selling the most higher margin/expensive products possible. THAT is the reason they do not produce a quality Mac Mini product.

It doesn't get any simpler than that - they don't want to lose the sale of a SINGLE higher margin/expensive product.

Customer choice, be damned.