The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[PickUrPoison]

When did I suggest it needed discrete graphics to be a worthy successor to the 2012? The 2012 model didn’t have discrete graphics.

There are only 4 things that I feel are needed to make it a worthy successor. CPU from 15” as an option, user upgradeable RAM, Thunderbolt 3, and a price for all of that under $1000. That is it.

I understand how ridiculous it would be to include a 5400rpm hdd and I know the cost on SSDs has dropped dramatically over the years, but this is Apple and they still charge $200 to go from 128gb to 256gb, in any model where that is possible. Sell me a Mac Mini with a bs drive that I’m going to yank before the computer is even fired up for the first time. The day I ordered my 2012 2.6GHz quad core Mini, I also ordered two 256gb SSDs, which went into the Mini the day I got it, and set them up in a RAID 0 configuration.

I don’t care what the core count is. Whatever CPUs they can put in a 15” Pro, they can also put in a Mac Mini. In 2012 you could get the same CPU, that was in the $2799 15” MBP, in the Mac Mini for under $1000. They did it in 2012, they can and should do it again in 2018.

I really can’t imagine Apple offering a new mini platform in 2018 with hexacore CPUs but only HD graphics, but who knows.

I get that you’ve come up with your perfect mini, the one that would be the cheapest for you to buy and upgrade for your purposes. That’s great for you, but it doesn’t take into account that Apple needs to have a mini lineup with a decent average ASP for it to be a viable product line. That means a relatively inexpensive base price, with upgrades that won’t be cheap.

Apple’s a for-profit business, and you have to reconcile that with what you think Apple can/should bring in an update.

 

[Micky Do]

So what you're really saying is you don't want to learn something new, you don't like change and basically want today to be exactly like tomorrow. Wow, I'm retired and still have a zest for learning new things.

BTW - I have an aunt of 82 who learned the basics of Windows 10 in one afternoon. I think us 'oldies' have a different outlook on life.

Not what I said at all....... I learn new things all the time, but for me a computer is merely a tool to do stuff.

If you have a geeky interest in and zest for Windows 10 and learning about new computers, operating systems, apps and the like, cool. However your snide comments and put downs say less about the targets of your invective..... and more about the person that you are

That the new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming means that folks can to continue to do stuff without having to relearn how to use a computer.

 

[twalk]

Just thinking about it, what's the most scarce thing that Apple has? Design resource time. As a horizontally structured company, the Mini has to compete with the iPhones, iPads, watches, other Mac, and everything else for design time. So what's the design that would be the minimum amount of work.............?

The minimum amount of work would be to take the low-end 13" non-touchbar MBP motherboard and just slam it into a small case. That makes a SFF computer with literally only 2 usb-c/TB3 ports + a headphone jack. You could use it in a more "normal" way with a laptop power brick connecting to one of the usb-c's and the other usb-c hooked to a hub. The other way to use it would be to connect it to a monitor that connects and powers with usb-c (+ has usb ports on it)

This would be weird... but it would definitely tic a lot of the boxes that Apple likes... plus the "Courage!" thingy..

 

[PickUrPoison]

Just thinking about it, what's the most scarce thing that Apple has? Design resource time. As a horizontally structured company, the Mini has to compete with the iPhones, iPads, watches, other Mac, and everything else for design time. So what's the design that would be the minimum amount of work.............?

The minimum amount of work would be to take the low-end 13" non-touchbar MBP motherboard and just slam it into a small case. That makes a SFF computer with literally only 2 usb-c/TB3 ports + a headphone jack. You could use it in a more "normal" way with a laptop power brick connecting to one of the usb-c's and the other usb-c hooked to a hub. The other way to use it would be to connect it to a monitor that connects and powers with usb-c (+ has usb ports on it)

This would be weird... but it would definitely tic a lot of the boxes that Apple likes... plus the "Courage!" thingy..

They already do this. The current mini as well as the iMac 2K (the entry level model that’s $1,099) were leveraged from the 13” MBP. Basically the same internals in three different form factors. No reason it needs to be USB-C/TB3 only though, there’s plenty of real estate for ports.

The minimum amount of work and expense would be to modify the 2017 iMac 2K motherboard to use the new 8th generation 28W dual/quad core CPUs.

 

[twalk]

They already do this. The current mini as well as the iMac 2K (the entry level model that’s $1,099) were leveraged from the 13” MBP. Basically the same internals in three different form factors. No reason it needs to be USB-C/TB3 only though, there’s plenty of real estate for ports.

The minimum amount of work and expense would be to modify the 2017 iMac 2K motherboard to use the new 8th generation 28W dual/quad core CPUs.

Most people know that the Mini MB came from MBP's before. I think that you're missing the point (maybe deliberately). The point I'm making is that they could use the same board, unmodified. That's only a single, already existing, MB production line and extremely minimal design time (basically, just case design)

Honestly, that's only a couple of days of design time for the case, a couple weeks of case tooling, then the hardware's in production. It might take longer to decide on the paper inserts and shipping box

 

[PickUrPoison]

Most people know that the Mini MB came from MBP's before. I think that you're missing the point (maybe deliberately). The point I'm making is that they could use the same board, unmodified. That's only a single, already existing, MB production line and extremely minimal design time (basically, just case design)

Honestly, that's only a couple of days of design time for the case, a couple weeks of case tooling, then the hardware's in production. It might take longer to decide on the paper inserts and shipping box

Well apparently your point is reusing something existing, so why not use the 2017 iMac 2K motherboard?

You wouldn’t be stuck with only low end 15W CPUs and you could have all the ports the iMac 2K has. You’d also have socketed DDR4 RAM with a 32GB max.

 

[redheeler]

FYI, those are the 2018 prices. Apple computers are expensive, and they don’t tend to decrease in price with newer updates.

2014 prices in 2018 ≠ 2018 prices in 2018. As someone who wants good value-for-money (neither price gouging nor cheap junk), I'm surprised at the readiness of some people on here to quickly find any excuse to defend Apple's prices. Really something I'm tired of debating.

re: your proposed lineup, Apple wouldn’t sell enough of the top tier to make it viable to use two different motherboards. They do it for MBP lineup, but they sell 10+ million a year. To be practical, all 3 models would have to be 28W CPUs or all would have to have 45W CPUs.

They could engineer a separate logic board for the $1,099 mini, and my guess is there would be enough units sold to cover the cost of it. I would even consider getting one myself to take the role of my Mac Pro 5,1, as having the same kind of multi-core performance in such an efficient little Mac would be great.

But yes, it's a clash of wishful thinking and how much Apple actually values this product, with comparatively low sales figures when considering other products like the MBP.

 

[PickUrPoison]

2014 prices in 2018 ≠ 2018 prices in 2018. As someone who wants good value-for-money (neither price gouging nor cheap junk), I'm surprised at the readiness of some people on here to quickly find any excuse to defend Apple's prices. Really something I'm tired of debating.

They could engineer a separate logic board for the $1,099 mini, and my guess is there would be enough units sold to cover the cost of it. I would even consider getting one myself to take the role of my Mac Pro 5,1, as having the same kind of multi-core performance in such an efficient little Mac would be great.

But yes, it's a clash of wishful thinking and how much Apple actually values this product, with comparatively low sales figures when considering other products like the MBP.

I’m really not sure what your point about the price is. Its really not debatable. $849 is the current price for the 8GB/1TB fusion model today. In 2018. Same as 2014. If they had released new models in 2015, 2016 and 2017, that same config would likely have been $849. (It’s about $799 in 2014 dollars, so effectively there has been a slight price cut.)

You might think $849 is too high, that’s fine, but that’s what Apple charges. People always complain that iPads, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, iPhones, Apple watches, AirPods, HomePod, etc. are overpriced. It’s not a unique opinion. But price ≠ value, and just because something is expensive doesn’t mean it’s overpriced.

As I’ve said, I don’t expect Apple to cut prices with the refreshed models. If they thought the current price was too high, they could have reduced it anytime over the past few years. You’ll get a more powerful CPU, better graphics, a faster SSD, and Thunderbolt 3—but probably not a price cut.

It does get tiresome hearing some people continually complain about Apple having high prices. As I’ve said many times, Apple stuff is expensive and they’re going to make their margin.

 

[HalfNelson]

I really can’t imagine Apple offering a new mini platform in 2018 with hexacore CPUs but only HD graphics, but who knows.

I get that you’ve come up with your perfect mini, the one that would be the cheapest for you to buy and upgrade for your purposes. That’s great for you, but it doesn’t take into account that Apple needs to have a mini lineup with a decent average ASP for it to be a viable product line. That means a relatively inexpensive base price, with upgrades that won’t be cheap.

Apple’s a for-profit business, and you have to reconcile that with what you think Apple can/should bring in an update.

I sincerely don’t understand how you’re coming to your conclusions. Why do you insist I’m making up some mystically impossible configuration, when all I’m stating as a configuration, is exactly the same configuration that Apple offered 6 years ago. I’m guessing that you’re so fixated on the number of cores that Apple will not put in a Mac Mini, that in 2012 you were certain they wouldn’t have put a quad core in it.

Until late 2012, a Mac Mini had never had a quad core CPU, and the previous model was offered with an optional dedicated GPU. Apple put a 45W i7 CPU in that machine with integrated graphics only. It just so happened to have 4 cores (a first for the Mac Mini). 6 years later, you’re acting like I’m asking for a magic unicorn for wanting Apple to put a 45W i7 in the Mini again, that just so happens to have 6 cores (which would be another first for the Mini). All I’m trying to say is that Apple once put the 45W CPU, from their $2799 laptop, into a Mac Mini and sold it for under $1000. It was hands down the best and most popular Mac Mini they’ve ever made. I’m not saying that they will do it again, but I’m not seeing any logical arguments for why they can’t.

 

[Neodym]

I’m talking about the refresh. If you want a 256GB SSD as a minimum, that’s going to be more expensive than 128GB SSD or 500GB HDD minimum.

I think it's more about going pure SSD in general. And 128GB is the MVP in this case (with Apple themselves having 256GB drives in most of their products). Yes, a spinner is still less expensive, but Apple needs to literally buy back some of the trust and customer loyalty, which they have lost with their mind-boggling negligence of their desktop computer lineup in recent years.

I know people want a cheap mini, some even want a cheap mini-Pro, but Apple doesn’t do cheap. When (some would say if) the mini is updated, it’s not going to be PC-commodity cheap. But some will still be shocked. Look at all the complaining about the MBP pricing, and it didn’t even increase with this update.

True, there will always be dissatisfied people who like to complain in public. But part of the truth is also that Apple has the chuzpe to sell 4-5 year old hardware for the same price they did on release day, in some cases even at higher prices. Technology has advanced significantly since then and prices have gone down accordingly.

Now, Apple is not famous to adjust their prices over time, which has the nice side effect of keeping 2nd hand prices stable. But that only works while a company continues to bring updates to their products, so people feel it's worth to pay those stable (and often higher) prices.

We can discuss whether inflation rectifies a slight increase in end customer price or whether technological progress and the cost reduction posible (more than) outweigh that. I'm also for healthy margins for a company to ensure long-term survival. But I see absolutely no valid argument for a price spike as massive as you suggest even for the entry model.

Even Apple has to face competition! Most sane persons would not expect Apple to compete with the cheapskirts in the PC market (they couldn't, even if they wanted to!). But if the general price level outside of the Apple universe has seen a reduction overall, Apple can't keep or even raise their own prices and expect people to swallow that without complaints. Even more so, as some of the reasons to pay the Apple premium in the past have started to deteriorate.

As I said earlier: Apple has neglected an important part of their portfolio and gave their customers the impression of less to little appreciation. And now they will have to pay for that, in one form or the other.
[doublepost=1531727219][/doublepost]

But yes, it's a clash of wishful thinking and how much Apple actually values this product, with comparatively low sales figures when considering other products like the MBP.

Apple could easily take the motherboard design of a mobile machine and make some adjustments to put it into a desktop housing. They did so in the past and it isn't exactly rocket science.

That would help to distribute R&D cost and give benefits in purchasing power as well.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I sincerely don’t understand how you’re coming to your conclusions. Why do you insist I’m making up some mystically impossible configuration, when all I’m stating as a configuration, is exactly the same configuration that Apple offered 6 years ago. I’m guessing that you’re so fixated on the number of cores that Apple will not put in a Mac Mini, that in 2012 you were certain they wouldn’t have put a quad core in it.

Until late 2012, a Mac Mini had never had a quad core CPU, and the previous model was offered with an optional dedicated GPU. Apple put a 45W i7 CPU in that machine with integrated graphics only. It just so happened to have 4 cores (a first for the Mac Mini). 6 years later, you’re acting like I’m asking for a magic unicorn for wanting Apple to put a 45W i7 in the Mini again, that just so happens to have 6 cores (which would be another first for the Mini). All I’m trying to say is that Apple once put the 45W CPU, from their $2799 laptop, into a Mac Mini and sold it for under $1000. It was hands down the best and most popular Mac Mini they’ve ever made. I’m not saying that they will do it again, but I’m not seeing any logical arguments for why they can’t.

My point is that I don’t think Apple would refresh the mini with a graphics subsystem inferior to the 2014 model. Just because they offered HD-only graphics 6 years ago doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for the next refresh. MacOS is more graphics intensive than ever, let alone any applications sw a user might want to run. So I think if they use the 45W CPUs they’ll add a dGPU.

Not sure why you’re so fixated on wanting only HD graphics, but you obviously don’t need a very performant GPU for whatever your mini use case may be. But as I said, I can’t imagine Apple giving us a new mini platform with a 6-core processor but only HD graphics. That would be fine for the server segment Apple abandoned, but it’s not going to provide a very pleasing experience for the general user.

Looking at the performance of the new 13” quad core MBP, I think the dual/quad core 28W platform offers sufficiently powerful and balanced CPU and GPU performance for the market Apple is targeting with the mini. I expect that to be the new mini platform, not 45W/iGPU or 45W + dGPU.

 

[Neodym]

My point is that I don’t think Apple would refresh the mini with a graphics subsystem inferior to the 2014 model.

Why should a 2018 iGPU be inferior to a 2014 iGPU?

Just because they offered HD-only graphics 6 years ago doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for the next refresh. MacOS is more graphics intensive than ever, let alone any applications sw a user might want to run. So I think if they use the 45W CPUs they’ll add a dGPU.

Not sure why you’re so fixated on wanting only HD graphics, but you obviously don’t need a very performant GPU for whatever your mini use case may be.

Apple has been burned more than once using dGPU's in compact machines. Combined with the significantly increased power of modern iGPU's and the availability of eGPU solutions for gaming and demanding applications utilizing a dGPU, there is no need to implement a dGPU in a 2018 Mac mini (the answer may become trickier if the new mini would indeed act as heart of a modular MacPro - in that special case I could see the top tier mini being offered with a dGPU).

That would only drive up costs and increase the risk for failure (at least in the ever slimmer casings Apple is pursuing for many years now). An eGPU only needs software support from Apple and 3rd parties can do the hardware stuff, which is also usable on any machine supporting the required interface (TB3) and eGPU's on the software side, thus requiring only one hardware layout, instead of multiple machine-specific layouts.

I do see this as a general trend in the computer world: Outsourcing the GPU into a dedicated external housing for those that need (or want) them and the main unit being equipped with iGPU only, for various reasons (size, cost, noise etc.).

That transition will take years and sometimes the lines will stay blurry (e.g. with mobile devices targeting professional users, who may not want to lug around another device, bigger than the machine itself).

But over time it will become common and the main unit will only contain an iGPU for basic connectivity, with performant GPU solutions being located in dedicated enclosures and sometimes perhaps directly in a monitor as well.

Apple is infamous for adopting (not only) disruptive technology changes ahead of the curve, so they will do so as well with a potential new mini (even though they actually made that step with the mini already 6 years ago).

 

[Lankyman]

I too made the switch to Windows. I couldn't bear to live with Apple's update schedule and apparent abandonment of computers. But I hate, hate, hate hate Windows. I can't use the word hate enough here.

.

How can anyone 'hate' an OS, it's simply a means of running software to enable you to do the things you want to do. I find the differences between MacOS and Windows 10 to be negligible. It took the wife (who really doesn't enjoy change or techy things) about an hour to transition from MacOS to Windows. I really have to question what is going on with some of you when I read posts like the above.

Even our dog can readily use both.

 

[leo-tech]

How can anyone 'hate' an OS, it's simply a means of running software to enable you to do the things you want to do. I find the differences between MacOS and Windows 10 to be negligible.

When people express their dissatisfaction with, or negative feelings toward some OS, I guess it has something to do first and foremost with that OS's sh*tty questionable design philosophy, with the way its designers treat that OS users, expect or force them to act in certain ways, to accept and do certain things etc. Which IMHO is perfectly justified, they have every right to do so. You are correct that "OS is simply a means of running software to enable you to do the things you want to do" - but how exactly it goes about that, or in what way precisely it allows users to do so is also very important. For some users Windows is ok, while some other users simply cannot stand it. Interestingly enough, I have yet to encounter the opposite sentiment "I cannot stand macOS", for this or that particular reason.

I personally would not trust Windows to run on bare metal ever again, because it behaves pretty much like a nasty virus, eager to mess with everything it can touch (recently I tried to install Windows in a separate partition on my NUC, any semi-decent OS would keep itself restricted to that particular partition and leave other partitions alone, but hey "We are Borg Windows, resistance is futile!"). I can run Win10 in VM, if or when I need it (mostly of curiosity, as macOS and Linux pretty much cover my humble computational needs).

 

[redheeler]

Apple could easily take the motherboard design of a mobile machine and make some adjustments to put it into a desktop housing. They did so in the past and it isn't exactly rocket science.

That would help to distribute R&D cost and give benefits in purchasing power as well.

A logic board based on the existing 13" Touch Bar MacBook Pro for the 8,1 and 15" Touch Bar MacBook Pro for the 8,2, true. Would like to see slotted upgradable RAM rather than soldered RAM, and as @PickUrPoison pointed out the $1,099 iMac is based on a 13" MBP but with slotted DDR4 RAM, so it is possible.

Apple has been burned more than once using dGPU's in compact machines. Combined with the significantly increased power of modern iGPU's and the availability of eGPU solutions for gaming and demanding applications utilizing a dGPU, there is no need to implement a dGPU in a 2018 Mac mini (the answer may become trickier if the new mini would indeed act as heart of a modular MacPro - in that special case I could see the top tier mini being offered with a dGPU).

That would only drive up costs and increase the risk for failure (at least in the ever slimmer casings Apple is pursuing for many years now). An eGPU only needs software support from Apple and 3rd parties can do the hardware stuff, which is also usable on any machine supporting the required interface (TB3) and eGPU's on the software side, thus requiring only one hardware layout, instead of multiple machine-specific layouts.

I do see this as a general trend in the computer world: Outsourcing the GPU into a dedicated external housing for those that need (or want) them and the main unit being equipped with iGPU only, for various reasons (size, cost, noise etc.).

That transition will take years and sometimes the lines will stay blurry (e.g. with mobile devices targeting professional users, who may not want to lug around another device, bigger than the machine itself).

But over time it will become common and the main unit will only contain an iGPU for basic connectivity, with performant GPU solutions being located in dedicated enclosures and sometimes perhaps directly in a monitor as well.

Apple is infamous for adopting (not only) disruptive technology changes ahead of the curve, so they will do so as well with a potential new mini (even though they actually made that step with the mini already 6 years ago).

If Apple releases the $1,099 Mac mini 8,2 based on a 15" Touch Bar MacBook Pro, it will need a dedicated GPU for the same simple reason the base model 15" Touch Bar MacBook Pro needed a dedicated GPU.

That is, the 45 W chips have a weaker integrated GPU. In order to make the $1,099 model justifiable, the built-in graphics performance will need to be the same or better. And that can only be achieved by using a dedicated GPU.

Apple can't assume any customers who purchase a $1,099 mini will also purchase a separate external GPU that costs half again as much as the mini itself. The vast majority will not.

But a Mac mini 8,1 dual-core / quad-core based on the 13" Touch Bar MacBook Pro will come with Intel Iris Plus Graphics 655 only. And I think it's unlikely we'll ever see the $1,099 Mac mini 8,2 with hex-core.

 

[Sackofnickels]

When people express their dissatisfaction with, or negative feelings toward some OS, I guess it has something to do first and foremost with that OS's sh*tty questionable design philosophy, with the way its designers treat that OS users, expect or force them to act in certain ways, to accept and do certain things etc. Which IMHO is perfectly justified, they have every right to do so. You are correct that "OS is simply a means of running software to enable you to do the things you want to do" - but how exactly it goes about that, or in what way precisely it allows users to do so is also very important. For some users Windows is ok, while some other users simply cannot stand it. Interestingly enough, I have yet to encounter the opposite sentiment "I cannot stand macOS", for this or that particular reason.

I personally would not trust Windows to run on bare metal ever again, because it behaves pretty much like a nasty virus, eager to mess with everything it can touch (recently I tried to install Windows in a separate partition on my NUC, any semi-decent OS would keep itself restricted to that particular partition and leave other partitions alone, but hey "We are Borg Windows, resistance is futile!"). I can run Win10 in VM, if or when I need it (mostly of curiosity, as macOS and Linux pretty much cover my humble computational needs).

It's all subjective. I have heard people complain about both Windows and Apple OS's. What I find is the complaints coming from either side are usually because of some past experience, rather than having actual real world problems that prevented them from being productive or as you say covering their humble needs. Or worse from lack of knowledge or understanding of the OS they are complaining about. The complaints are nothing more than examples of tribalism.

 

[HalfNelson]

My point is that I don’t think Apple would refresh the mini with a graphics subsystem inferior to the 2014 model. Just because they offered HD-only graphics 6 years ago doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for the next refresh. MacOS is more graphics intensive than ever, let alone any applications sw a user might want to run. So I think if they use the 45W CPUs they’ll add a dGPU.

Not sure why you’re so fixated on wanting only HD graphics, but you obviously don’t need a very performant GPU for whatever your mini use case may be. But as I said, I can’t imagine Apple giving us a new mini platform with a 6-core processor but only HD graphics. That would be fine for the server segment Apple abandoned, but it’s not going to provide a very pleasing experience for the general user.

Looking at the performance of the new 13” quad core MBP, I think the dual/quad core 28W platform offers sufficiently powerful and balanced CPU and GPU performance for the market Apple is targeting with the mini. I expect that to be the new mini platform, not 45W/iGPU or 45W + dGPU.

I’m not fixated on wanting only HD graphics, I’m just not concerned with the graphics side because I think HD graphics in the 2018 chips will be plenty adequate for basic usage and with the addition of TB3, I’ll be able to boost the GPU externally to well beyond what any internal dedicated GPU could provide. If HD graphics keeps the cost down, then that is a plus, so long as it is strong enough to run basic day to day computing which I’m sure it is.

Higher spec Mac Minis were never really big with the “average” consumer and have always been favored by those using them in much more utilitarian roles. We used to have a plethora of business customers who would come in to purchase the quad core mini, regularly, but after the 2014 update they all disappeared.

Looking at the performance benchmarks of the i7 quad core 2018 MBP, I’ll definitely be dropping my cash day one if that is the highest CPU they offer in an upgrade, but I would love to see them get back to sub $1k 45W offerings.

 

[leo-tech]

The complaints are nothing more than examples of tribalism.

Not true, complaints can also be quite reasonable.

 

[0009827]

If Apple release a new Mac mini ever again, I will snap a string.

 

[sublunar]

You make a good point about 15W/28W CPUs and two different sockets. But the i3-8109U is available as a dual-core variant of the 8th generation 28W quads.

I do think the mini will be a single-motherboard lineup. But I can’t imagine 15W across the entire lineup, rather 28W dual/quad with GTe3, or 45W quad/hex with discrete graphics. Either way I think we get all the ports of the 2017 iMac 2K.

If Apple stays targeted on the home/switcher market, I think the 28W platform is much more likely than 45W+dGPU. But at this point, who really knows, except Apple? It’s fun to speculate though

Using the 28w platform raises the minimum price of the Mini - I suspect shareholders want a machine that hits the lower price point more than a machine that's capable of more at the top end. We'll not be seeing a 6 core Mini because of the product differentiation that Apple will want to use.

Ideally, Apple would have liked to use Iris Graphics with an eye on the 15w variants that Intel appear to be neglecting their experience with discrete GPUs in the 2011 model Mini may leave them reluctant to add one to a higher SKU, especially if the Mini is could languish another 4 years without update.

If Apple save some money by going with a single motherboard and CPU arrangement and a discrete GPU wasn't on the cards then perhaps the prospect of a quieter machine for longer in a case originally designed to dissipate heat from a 45w CPU would be of interest. In that case, higher SKUs would come with Fusion drive or SSD.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Using the 28w platform raises the minimum price of the Mini - I suspect shareholders want a machine that hits the lower price point more than a machine that's capable of more at the top end. We'll not be seeing a 6 core Mini because of the product differentiation that Apple will want to use.

Ideally, Apple would have liked to use Iris Graphics with an eye on the 15w variants that Intel appear to be neglecting their experience with discrete GPUs in the 2011 model Mini may leave them reluctant to add one to a higher SKU, especially if the Mini is could languish another 4 years without update.

If Apple save some money by going with a single motherboard and CPU arrangement and a discrete GPU wasn't on the cards then perhaps the prospect of a quieter machine for longer in a case originally designed to dissipate heat from a 45w CPU would be of interest. In that case, higher SKUs would come with Fusion drive or SSD.

The only dual-core 28W Coffee Lake part is interesting, because at 3.0GHz, it has a higher base frequency than all the quads (2.3/2.6/2.7GHz) and a decent turbo at 3.6. Though priced at $304, Apple could get a custom underclocked SKU, for instance a 2.2/3.6GHz, which could bring that price down. That would also have the benefit of avoiding the bad optics of the cheaper dual core having a higher base than any of the quads.

The 15W chips aren’t any cheaper; the I5-7360U used in the base 2017 nTB is also $304, and the 2014 base mini uses the 1.4GHz i5-4260U which was $315. Note that the prices I quoted are all Intel’s 10,000 qty tray price, but I have no idea what discounts kick in with a qty of millions; guessing maybe 30-50% lower.

 

[toke lahti]

I think it's more about going pure SSD in general. And 128GB is the MVP in this case (with Apple themselves having 256GB drives in most of their products). Yes, a spinner is still less expensive, but Apple needs to literally buy back some of the trust and customer loyalty, which they have lost with their mind-boggling negligence of their desktop computer lineup in recent years.

I can’t believe that Apple is stupid enough not to understand how perfect would fusion drive be with pure ssd.
In almost all usage of computers, there are files that are read many times per hour and affect how snappy the user experience is and there are files that are accessed few times a year. And those where read speed does not help at all.
These files need a different ssd for them.
Apple is stalling fusion drive in AFPS to get customers to forget what fusion drive is and then after few years, they bring “fusion ssd” as a new reason to buy a new mac...

 

[AZhappyjack]

I can’t believe that Apple is stupid enough not to understand how perfect would fusion drive be with pure ssd.
In almost all usage of computers, there are files that are read many times per hour and affect how snappy the user experience is and there are files that are accessed few times a year. And those where read speed does not help at all.
These files need a different ssd for them.
Apple is stalling fusion drive in AFPS to get customers to forget what fusion drive is and then after few years, they bring “fusion ssd” as a new reason to buy a new mac...

What?

You do know that the point of the Fusion drives is to pair a faster, smaller SSD with a larger, slower spinning drive, right? The intent is to speed up access of frequently used files, and speeding up the access to those files by storing them on the faster, SSD portion of the Fusion drive ... there is absolutely NO benefit to creating a Fusion drive with multiple SSDs, as the SSD is already the fastest access component in the Fusion drive... what would be the point? What kind of speed of access (the primary function of the Fusion drive, in the first place) improvements are to be gained by fusing together two SSDs?

 

[DesertSurfer]

It's nice t b

What?

You do know that the point of the Fusion drives is to pair a faster, smaller SSD with a larger, slower spinning drive, right? The intent is to speed up access of frequently used files, and speeding up the access to those files by storing them on the faster, SSD portion of the Fusion drive ... there is absolutely NO benefit to creating a Fusion drive with multiple SSDs, as the SSD is already the fastest access component in the Fusion drive... what would be the point? What kind of speed of access (the primary function of the Fusion drive, in the first place) improvements are to be gained by fusing together two SSDs?

I'm not sure it makes much sense, but I suppose you could put together a smaller faster SSD with a larger, slower (SATA) and cheaper SSD.

 

[AZhappyjack]

It's nice t b


I'm not sure it makes much sense, but I suppose you could put together a smaller faster SSD with a larger, slower (SATA) and cheaper SSD.

Possibly, but just because you can doesn't mean you should or that it brings any benefit.