Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Second, no way thee Bloomberg articile says "mission accomplished" at all.

I never said anything about the Bloomberg article. Read what I actually wrote. I was responding to a post by martyimac, who claimed "They may even call it the mini pro and the "MacPro" will cease to exist." Do you agree with that, and think that Apple will drop the Mac Pro and tell pro users that the new Mini is all they need?

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rtainly-coming.1681773/page-545#post-26371501
 
I pretty much agree with your assessment. The one kicker, and one which no one really has a good grasp on, is just what exactly the few odd comments about a "modular" Mac mean in terms of the future of the desktop line.

Apple made no real comments about the "desktop line" as a holistic thing. The modularity comment was aimed directly at the Mac Pro.

"...As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. ..... We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do. ..."
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/

Sweeping modularity across whole desktop line up..... completely not there at all. The display being "by definition" an aspect of the Mac Pro's modularity is also relatively clear. If Apple detaches the monitor then the resulting system is modular. Could it be "more modular" by extending that to internals. Maybe ( they are not clear on that. Neither ruling it out or adding it). However, it is clear that the will have accomplished the definition if the monitor is. [ The objective in that meeting was not to talk at length about the details of the new Mac Pro. ]

Lots of folks too that passage and morphed it into the Mac Pro has to look almost exactly like the 2010 model. That is not what they explicitly said at all. Other folks have morphed that passage into something like "Apple says that modularity is a Pro feature" ( implying "more Pro" means "more modular" ). Again, they didn't say that at all. Monitor would likely work with the vast majority of the rest of the Mac line up (if not all of it by 2019-2020 if the Macbook picks up Thunderbolt. ). Docking a MBA to a monitor doesn't make it "Pro" in Apple's definition of Pro.


Will there be a headless line that ranges seamlessly (and thinly!) between a Mini end and a Pro end in some progressive fashion?

No. Later same talk.

"... I think, as you talk about the pro user, the fact that our user base is split over notebooks, all-in-one desktops and modular desktops is important. We aren’t making one machine for pros. We’re making three different designs for pros. We’re going to continue to. ..."

MBP, iMac Pro (which was "upcoming" at that point of this talk ) , and Mac Pro. Three. To reinforce earlier in the talk
"... First, we’ve been talking to Mac Pro users – and the rest of the pro users: iMac users, MacBook Pro users. ..."

and

"...
Notebooks are by far and away our most popular systems used by pros.

Second on the list is iMacs — used by pros, ....

Third on the list is Mac Pro. Now, Mac Pro is actually a small percentage of our CPUs — just a single digit percent. However, we don’t look at it that way. "

Three. Are there folks who a "pros" who use the Macbook , MBA , and Mac Mini? yes. However, it is a smaller share of the folks who buy those products. What Apple is probably talking about with a "more focus on Pro" with the mini is tweaking that percentage upwards. Probably still will be dominated by the non-Pros overall, but higher end "Best" standard configuration and BTO options will be "Pro" targeted. The result will be an higher average selling price for the product.

Higher average selling price would mean the volume would not need to rise up to swamp the iMac, but still could boost the overall ecosystem.


Will the Mini be outside the modular line?

If modular by definition is no monitor how could the Mac Mini be outside the modular line up? It has no monitor so therefore it is in the modular line up.


Again I think a large amount of this "confusion" is driven by folks presuming that "higher internal modularity" == "Pro". That is not how Apple defines those terms. "Pro" largely means folks who use the Mac to make a living. So a Photographer who is getting paid to do a shoot who carries along a MBA to do field backups and quick inspection of photos is a "Pro" user. They don't absolutely require a Mac with the word "Pro" printed on it to be a Pro. Likewise, a MacBook Pro doesn't have to have high internal modularity to be a "Pro" model. Modularlty and "Pro"-ness are two different dimensions.


A roadmap for the raggedy-assed masses would be very nice.

Apple's corporate policy about not talking about future products in detail has an implicit constraint to work well. Apple has to do something on a reliable and reasonable schedule. The policy is a 'talk' by 'doing' rule. The approach of going into 'Rip van Winkle" mode for 3-5 years at time and then pop up to disappear again is inherently in conflict with the "don't talk about new product" rule.

I think Apple's has been trying to adjust to users buying classic PCs form factors at a slower rate. ( one keynote Schiller snapped on Windows users having much longer initial user life spans but Apple has to be feeling the same trend rising. For lots of folks, computers are "fast enough" for their workloads and the workloads have plateaued in performance demands. ) . So they went to a do less with less model where just cast some Mac models adrift for years at a time and put more resources on other efforts. That has not worked well overall ( the negative effects are now starting to present. For a while it was "Emperor's New Clothes' at Apple where some must have thought it was working. )

The other problem is these targeted leaks get blow way out of proposition even with they do try to set future expectations. This "pro focus" on Mac Mini wasn't trying to signal the coming of the xMac mini tower. What Apple started selling "Mac Mini Server" it was still primarily a "Mac Mini". ( Perhaps Mini gets incrementally taller to incrementally expand the thermal envelope, but it isn't going to turn into a system focused on easy access to most of the internal parts. ). Folks on the outside injecting what they want to hear into the minimal stuff that Apple does say; in part that just reinforces the "say nothing" rule.
 
Last edited:
Here’s some people, still trying to explain to you that using SSD vs HDD has nothing whatever to do with component cost, but everything to do with average selling price:

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/26376504/

And I keep saying that Apple are destroying their own image by using slow HDDs in Macs but I keep getting replies that only talks about profits and tiers instead of thinking about what the users actually end up with.

If my first Mac had been the entry-level 2014 Mac mini (4GB RAM, 5400 RPM), I would have hated it for being an expensive and extremely slow computer and I would have told everyone I know to stay away from Apple because they don't care about their users. We have decades-old Mac users in these very forums who agree with that statement.

Besides, the precious tiers would still be preserved even if all Macs had SSDs:
  • Entry-level model with 128GB SSD*
  • Mid-range model with 256GB SSD
  • High-end model with 512GB SSD
* a lot of people seem to think 128GB is not enough. Well, good for Apple because either people would pick the mid-range model or use BTO to increase to 256GB, or pay for a bigger iCloud storage capacity. It's win-win-win for Apple whatever people choose. External drives are possible, but it breaks the clean "mini" look of the computer and makes the system more of a hassle to carry around.
 
Last edited:
No not at all ... it's my version of $40,000 is far too much money to give to a company with no roadmap - no lineage - who may limit the functionality or discontinue the product far before it's time.


A lot of people lease cars these days.
I admit, I'm not one of them. I really like to own (where it makes sense).

It will be interesting to see what kind of leasing-deals Apple is going to offer (on an "iCar").
It wouldn't surprise me if an iCar is in Model S territory, price-wise. Or more precisely, if Model S territory was the middle-ground and it went all the way down to Model 3 - and all the way up to Maybach on the high-end.

OTOH, the leasing-bubble might have popped until then and we'll have to see how they "make it affordable".
 
And I keep saying that Apple are destroying their own image by using slow HDDs in Macs but I keep getting replies that only talks about profits and tiers instead of thinking about what the users actually end up with.

For folks on a highly fixed budget what they'll end up with is either an affordable Mac Mini or an affordable Windows desktop. If the budge is smaller than the entry Mac Mini price it will just be a Windows solution. "beggars can't be choosey" rule of thumb. If the budget is super tight, the ability to nitpick about what you get is not a viable option.


If my first Mac had been the entry-level 2014 Mac mini (4GB RAM, 5400 RPM), I would have hated it for being an expensive and extremely slow computer

The 4GB entry point on the 2014 is really primarily driven because that limit was set in 2014. In 2018, it is likely that the lower limit will be 8 GB. The MBA starts at 8GB now ( has been speed bumped after 2014 so is not stuck in some time bubble. ).

Avoid system paging does wonders to increase performance even with a HDD.

That there is a vast difference between 5400 and 7200 HDDs is a bit of the princess and the pea. Either one of those two hits any random like access to the drive and the difference relative to a SSD is negligible. Those had more weight when there were no other options. Gobs of folks get work done with MBP 2010-2012 era systems with 5400 drives in them just fine. Far from being in the unable range.

The flaw is that the there is only a binary leap. Either it has to be a singular HDD or a singular SSD (at about double the price). Apple could start with Fusion as the floor. But shrinking the SSD down to every smaller capacity to fit limited budgets gets to a threshold point at some point. At some point so small to be affordable the value as a cache accelerator is higher than as a pure, singular primary drive. Boot times will be "good enough" performance. Often used apps will be "good enough" in start up. A couple limited apps with often used data will probably be "good enough" too.


The other value compare issue is that when look over in Windows space at $300-500 desktops few, if any, of those standard configurations are SSD only. So it works in Windows but it couldn't possibly work on the Mac side as a value proposition. That's probably not true.


and I would have told everyone I know to stay away from Apple because they don't care about their users. We have decades-old Mac users in these very forums who agree with that statement.

decades old Mac users. Anyone who had to deal with original Mac floppy shuffle to get work done shouldn't be complaining about the 2018 HDD drive speeds. LOL.

Besides, the precious tiers would still be preserved even if all Macs had SSDs:
  • Entry-level model with 128GB SSD*
  • Mid-range model with 256GB SSD
  • High-end model with 512GB SSD
* a lot of people seem to think 128GB is not enough.

The MBA gets away wit 128GB but this is a mini. The screen , keyboard , camera, etc. are all stripped off. Treated as an extremely expensive Chromebook then 128GB isn't working so hot in the market. ( Apple is getting creamed. ). Getting by through shoveling everything into the cloud is an odd value proposition for a desktop.

When your iCould Photostream runs out of the space the classic default is that much larger desktop is the storage location. About iCloud Photo Library and My PhotoStream Folks on a limited budget are going to find My Photostream far better value proposition than Photo Library. Keeping the photos on the local HDD is more affordable. Smaller pics on your iOS devices means don't need higher cost options on those too. If have a Mac Mini (with 1TB of local store ) and a entry iPhone it is far more affordable than pushing all your high res picts/video/ kitchen sink into the cloud. Can even back up the Phone onto the Mac Mini.


yes, if folks chose to use iCloud as primary point of storage Apple makes more money. The question is whether it is better for the end users if Apple forces folks into that option. In general, Apple doesn't. The default setting push folks that way but there is a switch to flip on all the Apple devices to turn that off if you don't want it.

Apple would like to get rid of the HDD on every system possible. But the $/GB isn't there yet for every mac user's budget. Fusion could easily be used as a "transition" tool for these gap years. ( In about 2 years or so SSD only will be more viable option for Apple at the price points they are at now. )
 
Those are going for $28 nowadays, retail.
Maybe start the lineup at 256 instead.

Apple's SSDs are super fast PCIe ones, not the cheap SATA stuff that you see in TLC NAND products.

I wouldn't be against using cheaper SATA SSD in place of traditional HDD but the costs are key.
 
Apple's SSDs are super fast PCIe ones, not the cheap SATA stuff that you see in TLC NAND products.

I wouldn't be against using cheaper SATA SSD in place of traditional HDD but the costs are key.

I think if they could price the SSD upgrades fairly that would be good. The Apple SSDs are amazing but they are made by Samsung and Apple double the price a PC user would pay when you select the Apple BTO upgrades.
 
With the Bloomberg article just coming out, I think it highly plausible that this new mini will be the ONLY desktop computer that  will bring out. The headline hints at that saying it's aimed at the pro user and will be more expensive. Would not surprise me if the base model comes out at $1000 and will go up from there.
They may even call it the mini pro and the "MacPro" will cease to exist.

That's thoroughly unlikely given that Apple have been putting major breadcrumbs out about the modular Mac Pro and how it comes out in 2019. They're never going convince anyone by making a major U-turn and releasing a less powerful months before the earliest possible 2019 deadline and making that the 'Modular Mac Pro'.

If anything it puts me in the mind that the real modular Mac Pro - being probably Xeon W powered like the iMac Pro - will weigh in at a price in the range of the iMac Pro (perhaps even higher) and well north of the current 2013 nMP. In other words, I expect the Mini coming out now will not impinge on the modular Mac Pro at whatever price range it operates in.

'Going more Pro' for the Mini tells me that Apple may be loosening the shackles on the $499 lowest SKU price point given how capable that iPads are now - this is especially important given that the the minimum RAM across every Mac SKU for a while now has been 8Gb. Somehow I don't think Apple will swallow this if every Mini SKU will come with at least 8Gb RAM. Higher average selling price helps the share price too and I wouldn't be surprised to see a ready supply of 2014 Mac Minis on clearance and in the refurb store to satisfy people on that budget.

Given that the Bloomberg article specifically mentions "app developers, those running home media centers, and server farm managers" I would have said a refreshed Mini will take aim at those who don't necessarily rate powerful graphics as important. If a basic 2018 Mini comes with integrated graphics but offers eGPU access via Thunderbolt 3 I think it has to satisfy power users on a certain budget.

If Apple have decided to concentrate their refresh around the upper 2 SKUs then we could happily expect the quad core 28w i5-8259U and i5-8269U as the CPUs with more modern expansion options for storage. You could also suggest an i5-8250u with discrete graphics on higher SKUs but that's a fairly un-Apple like tactic these days.


I think if they could price the SSD upgrades fairly that would be good. The Apple SSDs are amazing but they are made by Samsung and Apple double the price a PC user would pay when you select the Apple BTO upgrades.

For modern Apple SSDs you have to be looking at Samsung 970Pro PCIe for NAND storage.That's not cheap - most people here will be looking at second or third tier TLC NAND made by no-name brands - still worthy of looking at over HDD but a price difference still exists for the truly high performing SSDs.

To give an example - 1Tb of 970Pro M2 SSD costs twice as much as 860EVO SATA SSD which is itself better performing than budget brands.
 
I never took any noticee of the Mac Minis when they last came out but I regarded them as entry level spec machines for people who were on a budget but wanted a Mac.

With the rumoured new models is it possible they could have iMac-like specs?
 
I never took any noticee of the Mac Minis when they last came out but I regarded them as entry level spec machines for people who were on a budget but wanted a Mac.

With the rumoured new models is it possible they could have iMac-like specs?

I'd be stunned if they had desktop Intel CPUs, most likely they'll weigh in with less CPU power but the potential for adding powerful GPUs if they use Thunderbolt 3 ports.
 
I would have said a refreshed Mini will take aim at those who don't necessarily rate powerful graphics as important.
That would be people like me. :)

Non-gaming 4K @ 60Hz is all the graphics power I am after. Preferably for two screens, but one 4K and one 2K will do. Current iGPUs can comfortably handle that.

Add TB3 for eGPU, and there is no need for the Mini to have a dGPU. I will be very surprised if it happens, for the current form of the Mini.

Apple could go for two Mini forms: the current for 28w quad + iGPU, and a slightly taller form for 45w hex + dGPU.

Simply raising the roof is about as easy and minimal a change as possible for the Mini form, and would substantially bump the thermal envelope.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tedson
Oh dear, I don't know why this is persisting....
Apple used the term modular because at the time, they didn't know what direction they would go in terms of upgradeability and they didn't want to be misleading.
The 2018 Mac mini is not the same product nor does it use the same chassis as the Mac Pro.

Now lets keep the discussion on the new mini.
 
Oh dear, I don't know why this is persisting....
Apple used the term modular because at the time, they didn't know what direction they would go in terms of upgradeability and they didn't want to be misleading.
The 2018 Mac mini is not the same product nor does it use the same chassis as the Mac Pro.

Now lets keep the discussion on the new mini.

Well - God has spoken (no disrespect)!

Excuse me - permit me to explain:

Unless you've been extremely busy leaking info from Apple in the clouds and didn't have time to notice us down here - there are some very competent folks in this forum who quite obviously understand the Mac infrastructure and it's elements enough to know the Mini and MacPro have never shared the same chassis and the only reason we explore all possibilities is because your God does not see fit to build faith and lead by example.

Your God has no Bible.

When considering the masterful execution of the headless desktop product-line it becomes clear Apple is quite capable of being "disruptive" - we are then most prepared for that disruption should it occur.

If you have something factual to add - bring it!

... and please share with us how you came to behold the future of the headless Mac and did you see the thermal envelope on the event horizon - it was glorious.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Martyimac
@Appleaker - if you're going to play the "Omarosa" card in the Apple kingdom your choice for a handle casts more doubt than validity.

A neophyte can conjure that Apple will reluctantly make the Mini taller and then reluctantly follow-on with a MacPro that is ... well .... "modular" in that it has 3-performance tiers and you may be able to stick on some useful peripherals.

That's very dull - certainly not revolutionary and somewhat expected should anything happen at all.

Certainly after the "failed" MacPro and in the wake of an impotent Mini some of us here think Apple owes us "revolutionary" and in that context I believe Apple is desperate ... desperate times ... desperate measures!

When Apple doesn't have something "revolutionary" they seem to resort to "disruption" - in that context I can imagine anything!

When a design team prides itself on "thinking out of the box" making something that looks like a box is a problem apparently.
 
Last edited:
Well - God has spoken (no disrespect)!

Excuse me - permit me to explain:

Unless you've been extremely busy leaking info from Apple in the clouds and didn't have time to notice us down here - there are some very competent folks in this forum who quite obviously understand the Mac infrastructure and it's elements enough to know the Mini and MacPro have never shared the same chassis and the only reason we explore all possibilities is because your God does not see fit to build faith and lead by example.

Your God has no Bible.

When considering the masterful execution of the headless it becomes clear Apple is capable of anything that's "disruptive" - we are then most prepared for that disruption should it occur.

If you have something factual to add - bring it!

... and please share with us how you came to behold the future of the headless Mac and did you see the thermal envelope on the event horizon - it was glorious.
No, I've been in this thread quite a bit and talked about the 2018 mini prior to the Ming-Chi Kuo report.
The analogy hasn't really helped anything but if you are trying to say there are people in this thread that don't believe a Mac system that is both the mini and Pro will happen, then I don't see your point. I never said everyone in this thread is talking about that, nor did I say that the people who talked about it also thought it would happen.
All I said is that to those that are expecting it, that I can confirm with 100% certainty that it's not the case based on the information I have. I say this because it's still being discussed as a possibility since there are Mac Pro and mini users that have interpreted the word modular' along with the term 'Pro-focused Mac mini' as meaning we could be 1 system. If you don't believe me, that's fine.
 
Last edited:
No, I've been in this thread quite a bit and talked about the 2018 mini prior to the Ming-Chi Kuo report.
The analogy hasn't really helped anything but if you are trying to say there are people in this thread that don't believe a Mac system that is both the mini and Pro will happen, then I don't see your point. I never said everyone in this thread is talking about that, nor did I say that the people who talked about it also thought it would happen.
All I said is that to those that are expecting it, that I can confirm with 100% certainty that it's not the case based on the information I have. I say this because it's still being discussed as a portability since there are Mac Pro and mini users that have interpreted the word modular' along with the term 'Pro-focused Mac mini' as meaning we could be 1 system. If you don't believe me, that's fine.
I have info too, from sources I can't reveal and I stick by my hypothesis that the mini COULD become the "pro" machine. :D And I think you meant possibility, not portability?
 
@Appleaker - if you're going to play the "Omarosa" card in the Apple kingdom your choice for a handle casts more doubt than validity.

A neophyte can conjure that Apple will reluctantly make the Mini taller and then reluctantly follow-on with a MacPro that is ... well .... "modular" in that it has 3-performance tiers and you may be able to stick on some useful peripherals.

That's very dull - certainly not revolutionary and somewhat expected should anything happen at all.

Certainly after the "failed" MacPro and in the wake of an impotent Mini some of us here think Apple owes us revolutionary and in that context I believe Apple is desperate ... desperate times ... desperate measures!

When your design team prides itself on "thinking out of the box" making something that looks like a box is a problem apparently.
I am not asking you to believe me in what I am saying, and certainly not based on my handle. Maybe based on the fact that I talked about the 2018 mini prior to the Ming-Chi Kuo report, but if you don't believe me after that, it honestly doesn't matter to me because you will see for yourself in a matter of weeks.

I am not saying the Mac mini and Pro combined system is bad, it seems like an idea that many people have had and it would be unique and innovative. All I am saying is that it's not what we'll see.

I don't know why you are calling it 'my design team', but anyway... the problems have been caused by not making a box, but at the same time it doesn't mean their solution has to be a box.
 
I have info too, from sources I can't reveal and I stick by my hypothesis that the mini COULD become the "pro" machine. :D And I think you meant possibility, not portability?
Thanks, now corrected. Well, in the future they could have that approach (although I'm skeptical that it would be anytime soon), but we won't be seeing that this year. In terms of being "the pro machine", I think that it will be a "pro machine", especially with the core count and native eGPU support, but it isn't the Mac Pro. They are separate things.
[doublepost=1535126870][/doublepost]
Let's stop the madness - You don't know ... I don't know - we get that.

All this talk "almost certainly" is driven from lack of information not certainty and that's all I'm saying
I do know in this case. Based on my information, I can say with certainty that they are not the same thing. But there are things that I can't say for certain, like what the highest SSD storage option would be. My guess would be 2TB but it could be 4.
 
I have info too, from sources I can't reveal and I stick by my hypothesis that the mini COULD become the "pro" machine. :D
So you’re honestly suggesting that although Apple have told people explicitly, on several occasions, that there is a new Mac Pro coming in 2019, that actually that was a lie or a mistake?!?
 
Joking apart, here's a Mac Mini article by Ashraf Eassa at fool.com with his take on the Mac Mini Saga (tm). I'm linking the article right here for comment. There's actually no new insight there - only his take on the recent Bloomberg article on the matter which has been heavily debated here. My earlier point was that going more 'pro' with the Mac Mini - including more expensive memory and storage options as well as decent CPU could attract a higher selling price.

Ashraf compares top SKU Haswell i7 options and uses the Coffee Lake 28w i7 part as his presumed top SKU for 2018.

My added point here is that Apple have to do enough with the Mini to make it attractive enough to buy for prosumers/professionals despite our misgivings over the perceived flaws - for the 2014 model the major beef was lack of expandability for hobbyists who may want to buy a base model and upgrade it later compounded with the loss of the quad core model. Outdated Thunderbolt 2 is also an argument against.

The final argument against the 2014 is the continuing lack of update year on year leaving us with what is now a comparative dinosaur in compute terms - one that professionals with some modicum of knowledge on specs wouldn't touch. For me, the lack of road map kills the Mini for serious professionals - at least with an annual update like Apple do with the iMacs and MacBook Pros any delay recently has been down to Intel delays with the CPU which - without Apple overtly admitting it - can be independently presumed by a bit of tech journalism.

Without that assumed roadmap the Mini is vulnerable to Apple abruptly discontinuing it because the product has reached the end of its lifespan - they've already dispensed with the Airport routers for example.

Perhaps what the Bloomberg report is trying to say is that the era of the cheap Mac Mini as the introductory device for Windows switchers is over but Apple are deciding to evolve it into a product for the "app developers, home media centres, and server farm managers" rather than quietly killing it.

Where previously the existence of the Mac Pro up to 2013 might have been threatened by a more expensive Mini - this report for me suggests the 2019 Mac Pro won't be in danger from an more capable Mini. It'll be pricier and many more times powerful in my opinion.

If the new CPUs bring back the quad core model one major pillar of argument against the 2014 Mac Mini goes away. Any new quad core cheap MacBook Air or non touch bar MacBook Pro will also probably start to outperform the venerable Mini to the point where someone will have to say that 2018 model laptops would outperform the Mini pound for pound simply due to the greater number of cores and modern CPU architecture.

Even the average consumer will start to see that 4 cores, 8 threads on every other Mac product will make the 2014 Mini look a total waste of money regardless of the HDD or RAM options once benchmarks start to come in.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.