Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Wrecked.
[doublepost=1533198267][/doublepost]I bought the 2014 Mac Mini with an "upgraded" CPU and 8 GB of RAM for 550 the other day and I sent it back after two days.

Spinning HDDs are pure torture. I didn't realise how terrible they were because I've been using SSDs for a couple of years now. But it's just ridiculous.
Precisely what I have been trying to tell people for about two years :) Glad to have you on the side of the light :)
 
the only real application for a Mini with a spinner is maybe an iTunes server that stays on all the time.

Yeah, my base 2014 Mini is just fine for an iTunes server, and additional RAM or a faster disk would be mostly wasted. It probably re-boots three or four times a year and the HD never spins down. There is hardly any software on that machine that wasn't pre-installed and the internal drive is almost empty. My media library is on a 4tb USB 3.0 external drive.

Of course I woudn't mind a base Mini with a 128gb SSD and 8gb if the price was the same. :)
 
Are Apple high prices getting you down? Try this:
 

Attachments

  • realpos.png
    realpos.png
    33.2 KB · Views: 313
Wrecked.
[doublepost=1533198267][/doublepost]I bought the 2014 Mac Mini with an "upgraded" CPU and 8 GB of RAM for 550 the other day and I sent it back after two days.

Spinning HDDs are pure torture. I didn't realise how terrible they were because I've been using SSDs for a couple of years now. But it's just ridiculous.

You’re just a SSD elitist snob!

(To paraphrase some other people or person here)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave
Have you tried tying knots in a string? It's a great way to compute, and if you tie two cans on the ends, it's a very effective communication device.
Whoa! That sounds like a very futuristic way of computing and communicating! I am going to boot up my Mac mini spinner and go online and look that up. Sooooo... I'll see you in about a week because it takes roughly six days to boot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira
Choose what you feel is cost effective and appropriate for your situation..... But why absolutely dictate what is appropriate for others?

Thankfully the choice remains in the iMac and Mac Mini range, and HDD will almost certainly remain available in the lower order models for a couple more generations at least of the Mac Mini that is almost certainly coming...... albeit offensive to the up-market pretensions of some for the humblest option in the Mac line-up

I have a foot in both camps.... SSD suits my portable needs (Air), but I'll be sticking with HDD for my desktop (Mini) for the time being.
Fusion drive is an HDD. It's also an SSD.

So what exactly is wrong with Apple offering better performance and value-for-money on the low-end by adding a small-capacity SSD to make a Fusion drive, and keeping the price the same (or $50-100 higher, but I would expect other improvements like 8 GB upgradable RAM as well to justify a price increase)?
 
If it's not viable for Apple to sell an entry level Mac mini for 499$USD then they wouldn't have it listed on their website.

Apple also does not offer an SSD option for the entry-level Mac mini, putting an artificial cost barrier for users who want an SSD. This situation is similar to only putting powerful GPUs with powerful CPUs in iMacs. Some users might need a powerful CPU only but are forced to buy a useless GPU with their iMac.

I don't care one bit about Apple's expenses, the number of employees, etc. We know from numbers published by Apple that Macs only make roughly 10~12% of their profits, and the Mac mini is probably 10% or less of that number. Apple could sell the entry level Mac mini at cost and it would barely be a rounding error on their balance sheets. But it would also mean more Mac users and more people paying for Apple services (music, cloud storage, switch some of them from Android to iPhone, etc). But for that to happen, they have to be happy with the low-end Mac mini.

As for trying to push potential buyers to higher priced models, surely you realize that it only works on a small percentage of buyers. Being the entry-level model means it's targeting people with less buying power and for them it's either the entry-level Mac mini or a PC. You can't upsell to people who can't afford it.



You just came up with an impossible target cost of 200$USD for the parts of the 500$USD Mac mini when we don't know how much Apple currently pays for the parts.

We do not know the costs of industry standard parts when purchasing at Apple's level. For example, while I was able to find three 128GB SSDs for around 40~60$CAD, we have no idea how much Apple would pay for the same part since they order a few million parts per year. But my search did show that even at retail prices, for a single unit, 128GB SSDs are cheaper than 500GB HDDs. The only thing that changes for Apple is that they would make even more profit for each Mac mini sold instead of only making more profits for the other two models.

There's also components with a completely unknown cost, such as the motherboard, power supply and case since they're all custom-made for Apple. And given the age of the parts used in the Mac mini motherboard, their current cost should be nowhere near the cost in 2014.
I said it isn’t viable for Apple to sell a $499 entry level 8GB/256GB SSD mini. The $499 entry level you cite is 4GB/500GB HDD. You’ve made my point.

You say you don’t care about Apple’s costs, Apple should cut their $899 8GB/256GB SSD to $499, but that’s naive. You might as well say cut the Air from $999 to $599, or the entry level iMac from $1,099 to $699. You can’t just wish away overhead, selling costs, R&D etc.

My saying component costs shouldn’t exceed 40% of selling cost isn’t a made up number. The iPhone 8 sells for $699, BOM cost is $247. The iPhone 8 Plus sells for $799, BOM cost is 288. The iPhone X sells for $999, BOM cost is $377. Those products have component cost below the 40% I suggested for the mini.

Apple isn’t a charity, it’s in business to make money. You can’t just throw away the cost structure because you want a cheaper mini. That’s not how business operates.
 
Last edited:
Fusion drive is an HDD. It's also an SSD.

So what exactly is wrong with Apple offering better performance and value-for-money on the low-end by adding a small-capacity SSD to make a Fusion drive, and keeping the price the same (or $50-100 higher, but I would expect other improvements like 8 GB upgradable RAM as well to justify a price increase)?
Emphasis on the word SMALL. The original fusion drive was fine, the new micro SSD version that Apple cheaped out on - not so much.
[doublepost=1533382260][/doublepost]
My saying component costs shouldn’t exceed 40% of selling cost isn’t a made up number. The iPhone 8 sells for $699, BOM cost is $247. The iPhone 8 Plus sells for $799, BOM cost is 288. The iPhone X sells for $999, BOM cost is $377. Those products have component cost below the 40% I suggested for the mini.
Could you please share your Apple internal BOM cost price sheet? Especially those related to the current and upcoming Mac Mini.

Thank you in advance
 
Last edited:
Emphasis on the word SMALL. The original fusion drive was fine, the new micro SSD version that Apple cheaped out on - not so much.
Still a lot better than no SSD at all, and good enough for the base model at $549. For the $799 tier, I would expect a 128 GB SSD.

It's also time for Apple to switch to 7200 RPM HDDs. I don't see any reason for Apple to continue shipping these Macs with 5400 RPM HDDs, other than maybe saving $10 in part cost per unit.
 
7200 RPM HDD for a Fusion drive, definitely not for an HDD-only system!
That's better! I can just SEE Phil Schiller on stage – "Can't innovate my ass, but we replaced 5400 rpm drives with 7200 rpm!" *graphic appears behind on screen* "Immediate 33% speed increase, and that's before we tell you about our new Core 2 Duo processors!"
 
That's better! I can just SEE Phil Schiller on stage – "Can't innovate my ass, but we replaced 5400 rpm drives with 7200 rpm!" *graphic appears behind on screen* "Immediate 33% speed increase, and that's before we tell you about our new Core 2 Duo processors!"
Perhaps the time of the retina spinner has come. 10,800 RPM? Just don't get any critical body parts too close to it.
 
Still a lot better than no SSD at all, and good enough for the base model at $549. For the $799 tier, I would expect a 128 GB SSD.

It's also time for Apple to switch to 7200 RPM HDDs. I don't see any reason for Apple to continue shipping these Macs with 5400 RPM HDDs, other than maybe saving $10 in part cost per unit.
A slightly faster dinosaur? Nope. Plus, too much damn heat.
[doublepost=1533410094][/doublepost]
That's better! I can just SEE Phil Schiller on stage – "Can't innovate my ass, but we replaced 5400 rpm drives with 7200 rpm!" *graphic appears behind on screen* "Immediate 33% speed increase, and that's before we tell you about our new Core 2 Duo processors!"
H Y S T E R I C A L !!!!!!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yvan256 and navaira
Fusion drive is an HDD. It's also an SSD.

So what exactly is wrong with Apple offering better performance and value-for-money on the low-end by adding a small-capacity SSD to make a Fusion drive, and keeping the price the same (or $50-100 higher, but I would expect other improvements like 8 GB upgradable RAM as well to justify a price increase)?
The base model of the Mac Mini is can be custom ordered with Fusion Drive and 8GB of RAM, should that be your desire, albeit at a cost of $849, an increase of $350 over the base price of $499. OK more than your suggested $50 to 100.... C'est la vie.
 
The base model of the Mac Mini is can be custom ordered with Fusion Drive and 8GB of RAM, should that be your desire, albeit at a cost of $849, an increase of $350 over the base price of $499. OK more than your suggested $50 to 100.... C'est la vie.

I have to say that a lot of the wish lists that include unrealistic prices are very much not going to happen by Apple's standards. They need to maintain their margin even if they accept less than average from the Mini as a line.

The best we can hope for is a decent spec that attracts people to the Mini be it professionals or hobbyists and it's the well known lack of official expandability and quad cores that has been a big bugbear for the 'professionals' who buy the Mini.

We already know to avoid base models - they are there purely to justify the deal that the mid and top SKUs represent.

Quad core looks almost certain to return to the Mini thanks to Intel's CPU choice at this point. We might have to accept that user upgradability is gone unless the modular Mac Pro will allow the level of upgradability that the 2012 Mini offered.

It remains to be seen if Apple want to offer a 2018 Mini at this point.
 
We already know to avoid base models - they are there purely to justify the deal that the mid and top SKUs represent.
I wouldn't agree that an average person always knows to avoid the base models, or should know to avoid the base models. If you're someone who doesn't care about or obsess over specifications, and you simply need a low-cost computer to accomplish everyday tasks, the base model Macs should always be adequate.

For example, my 2012 Mac mini is the base model dual-core, and it works just fine as a HTPC for 1080p video playback. (It could obviously benefit immensely from an SSD, and I wouldn't be able to comfortably use it for everyday tasks without one.)
 
I have to say that a lot of the wish lists that include unrealistic prices are very much not going to happen by Apple's standards. They need to maintain their margin even if they accept less than average from the Mini as a line.

The best we can hope for is a decent spec that attracts people to the Mini be it professionals or hobbyists and it's the well known lack of official expandability and quad cores that has been a big bugbear for the 'professionals' who buy the Mini.

We already know to avoid base models - they are there purely to justify the deal that the mid and top SKUs represent.

Quad core looks almost certain to return to the Mini thanks to Intel's CPU choice at this point. We might have to accept that user upgradability is gone unless the modular Mac Pro will allow the level of upgradability that the 2012 Mini offered.

It remains to be seen if Apple want to offer a 2018 Mini at this point.
Both my Mac Minis and the MacBook Air I recently acquired are base models, and have been adequate for my modest requirements.

As for when I replace the 2009 Mac Mini I am using now, probably in the next couple or three years, let's see what is suited to my needs in the line-up of the new Mac Mini, which is almost certainly coming.

Of the current line-up, given that I am doing more photography now (some of which is used in the local press) the mid range model with 1 TB HDD and the 8 GB RAM would probably complement the Air and best fit my needs..... And is priced about the same as what I paid for my 2 previous base model Mac Minis @ 24,000 baht. The base model with 500 GB HDD and 4 GB RAM is 25% cheaper @ 18,000 baht.

Bear in mind that for my 2005 Mac Mini, licensing Office for Mac was a few thousand baht extra (I forget just how much) and for the 2009 Mac Mini, iWork was an extra 5,000 baht for the CD. Now iWork is already installed, at no extra cost, and more than adequate for my needs.

Yes, there are those who claim the snappy performance of a SSD or Fusion Drive is essential....... irrelevant for my usage of a desktop, which is on mostly 24/7, and I am not constantly opening and closing different apps and files. A decent amount of cost effective storage is of greater priority in a desktop from my point of view.

I am neither a pro nor a hobbiest as far as computers are concerned..... Just an average Joe who just wants to do stuff without too much hassle.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.