Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

karsten said:
reading through this thread I still find it laughable that a spinner drive would even be considered when SSDs could be had for $20. yet knowing the apple under tim cook, I can totally see it happening. gotta wring every last penny out of the consumers after all.
Click to expand...

Let's be fair here - $20 SSDs are not what Apple use when they put SSD into modern Macs - they are PCIe 4x NAND similar in spec to Samsung 970Pro costing at least double what these budget SSDs cost.

That's not to say that Apple shouldn't be considering putting 2.5" format SATA SSDs into their more modest offerings. Yes there would have to be a price uplift but how could they explain the performance difference between the SSD offerings on MBP and desktop models with Fusion?

This is a big stopping point for marketing so I'd say Apple should offer user upgradable 2.5" fusion drives in future headless desktop offerings for easy user upgrades. And obviously user replaceable RAM. To keep average selling prices up Apple should spec these models with Fusion Drive and 16Gb of RAM - higher average selling price means higher profit.

And the users who wish to replace non functioning hard drives and RAM with their own can then do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jagooch
masterbaron said:
This is like a bad relationship ... you know it was good at one time - you know it could be good again but after that last episode you need "something" that says this person is serious and not just jerking you around. They've done this "thing" to you in the past and now you want some kind of assurance that they will seriously commit and not do "it" (gimping and abandoning you) again.

So I ask you ... if Apple raises the price banding across the desktops so that a 20K MacPro fits the lineage we will essentially be rewarding Apple with no indication they will commit to supporting the new Mini lineup or our conventional wisdom. While I believe I would jump at a new Mini I would also continue planning as before in the absence of the announcement. Where we're at feels desperate and not very smart - will you feel comfortable spending more in this environment and what's your logic?
Click to expand...
There’s approx zero crossover between the Mac mini and Mac Pro segments. No one who needs a Xeon workstation thinks the mini could possibly be an alternative. (Though I could see a $1,000 mini owner lusting after a $3-4,000 Mac Pro.)

HP has a Xeon workstation that starts at about $3k and is configurable north of $100k. That’s with $30+k in CPU, $45+k in RAM and 10+k in GPU. SSD storage isn’t cheap either.

This is NOT what Apple will bring in a Mac Pro update. But don’t be surprised if it’s configurable above 20k.

The existence of a new Mac Pro only serves to reinforce Apple’s commitment to Macs and MacOS, and that can only be a positive for those in the market for MBP, iMacs or Mac minis.

But if you can’t stop looking over your shoulder waiting for the next boulder to run you over or for Apple to drop a safe on your head, I strongly suggest you DO NOT BUY the next mini, even if it’s your dream machine.

Do yourself a favor and for the sake of your mental and physical health, cut your losses and make the move now to Windows or Linux. Because even with 5-7 or 10 years of life from your new mini, you won’t be able to enjoy a single second of it, out of fear it’ll be the last mini Apple ever makes. (And it may very well be, if no one buys them.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
I sold my mini’s and iMac and went with the Macbook Pro 2015, which does what I need. With the workstation need satisfied, there isn’t a use case for a Mac server as I run Linux KVM’s for running apps and a NAS that handles TM backups.

If the Mini was beefy it could server as a workstation with an Macbook Pro used for lightweight Mobile computing, but for me it would not be justified.

I would like there to be a product that takes the place of Mac mini and iMac . It would basically be as powerful as the the iMac but without the attached screen.

And no fusion drives! SSD or nothing. Fusion drives are why I got rid of my iMac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Partron22, Cape Dave and QuietGamer
karsten said:
reading through this thread I still find it laughable that a spinner drive would even be considered when SSDs could be had for $20. yet knowing the apple under tim cook, I can totally see it happening. gotta wring every last penny out of the consumers after all.
Click to expand...
Can a 1 TB SSD be had for $20.00?
 
Fishrrman said:
Some of us don't use "the cloud".
Click to expand...

After all ... it was supposed to be "Personal Computing" and somehow it got away from them that this was supposed to be a very personal and secure environment and since everybody from Equifax to Citi has been hacked the safest place on earth is with little ole me! Thank God for my NAS and file server.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan and Zdigital2015
Basic75 said:
Do you really mean that? Or do you mean "not everything needs to be on an SSD"?
Click to expand...
true .if compare storage price it more worthy to backup on spin . If you can afford go for ssd but still after 3 to 4 years prepare to buy again
 
alien3dx said:
true .if compare storage price it more worthy to backup on spin . If you can afford go for ssd but still after 3 to 4 years prepare to buy again
Click to expand...
Unless you write over 5 or so terabytes a day, SSDs do not need to be replaced that often. 99.999% of people will never need to replace an SSD due to wear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave
gusping said:
Unless you write over 5 or so terabytes a day, SSDs do not need to be replaced that often. 99.999% of people will never need to replace an SSD due to wear.
Click to expand...
mostly not but in reality people like ssd for fast cache not write . As fail safe we cannot assume even with spinner .
 
karsten said:
who needs 1TB when you have icloud
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, hdd isn’t fast enough, but iCloud is...

200GB ssd is $30.
You can get iCloud for that money for 10 months.
So, ssd will become cheaper in 2 years (including the backup).

2TB of hdd costs about $50 (including backup), which equals one year of iCloud...
 
Last edited:
toke lahti said:
Oh yeah, hdd isn’t fast enough, but iCloud is...

200GB ssd is $30.
You can get iCloud for that money for 10 months.
So, ssd will become cheaper in 2 years (including the backup).

2TB of hdd costs about $50 (including backup), which equals one year of iCloud...
Click to expand...
except when you forget the budget of icloud.. ouchho_O
 
sublunar said:
That's not to say that Apple shouldn't be considering putting 2.5" format SATA SSDs into their more modest offerings. Yes there would have to be a price uplift but how could they explain the performance difference between the SSD offerings on MBP and desktop models with Fusion?

This is a big stopping point for marketing so I'd say Apple should offer user upgradable 2.5" fusion drives in future headless desktop offerings for easy user upgrades. And obviously user replaceable RAM. To keep average selling prices up Apple should spec these models with Fusion Drive and 16Gb of RAM - higher average selling price means higher profit.

And the users who wish to replace non functioning hard drives and RAM with their own can then do so.
Click to expand...
Has apple ever used 2.5" sata ssd in any mac? Wasn't it blades from the beginning?

Apple could market updating/upgrading macs easily for being very "green" act.
But doing so, they would admit that their disposable strategy for all their products has been wrong for almost a decade.
I guess they don't have the courage for that.
And shareholders get more money from throwawayism, so why would they change?

Btw, they want to get rid of Fusion drives, hence the urge to have it working in APFS.
Again, they get more profits from selling large ssd's with their triple prices.
 
toke lahti said:
Has apple ever used 2.5" sata ssd in any mac? Wasn't it blades from the beginning?

Apple could market updating/upgrading macs easily for being very "green" act.
But doing so, they would admit that their disposable strategy for all their products has been wrong for almost a decade.
I guess they don't have the courage for that.
And shareholders get more money from throwawayism, so why would they change?

Btw, they want to get rid of Fusion drives, hence the urge to have it working in APFS.
Again, they get more profits from selling large ssd's with their triple prices.
Click to expand...

Yes, Apple used 2.5" SSDs before the NGFF was ever a gleam in a Standards body's eyes. Here is a brief, and probably incomplete history:
  • Apple used 2.5" SSDs beginning with the Mid 2010 iMacs (256GB only), but switched to blades with the Late 2012 models. Apple used 2.5" SSDs with some models of the MacBook Pro. I do not remember when they began offering them, but the last model to get them was the Mid 2012 15-inch and 13-inch (NON-Retina).
  • Apple used non-standard 1.8" drives in the original 2008-2009 MacBook Air before switching to SATA and later PCIe flash blades, starting with the 2010 MacBook Air.
  • Apple used 2.5" SSDs in the Mid 2011 and Late 2012 Mac minis.
  • Apple used 2.5" SSDs in the Mid 2010 and Mid 2012 Mac Pros.
Apple's prices on the SSDs are not cheap, but they are not using budget SSD in their computers, they are using top of the line or near top of the line Samsung NVMe NAND that would end up in the 970 EVO or Pro, not a Team Group or Silicon Power value SSD. If Apple ever decided to use 2.5" SSDs in their iMacs or Mac minis, you can bet it would probably not be a SATA 3 drive, (more like a U.2, but then what's the point), which is why I think they stick to spinning HDDs and Fusion drives until they can make the switch over to having a completely flash based lineup in the next 2-3 years.

That being said, I understand that it can be a bit frustrating as something on the level of a Samsung 860 EVO or Crucial MX500 has Read/Write performance that surpasses the performance of the SATA blade in the original Mid 2012 Retina MacBook Pro, which still has good performance at this point (~300MB Write/~320MBRead) and still works fine for a lot of people who are still using one (me included). With a Samsung 860 EVO-based drive in a 21.5" iMac, a Fusion drive would not be necessary, although the average user would still have to deal with less storage than they get with an HDD or a Fusion drive, which is why I think Apple sticks with those configurations on the low end of the price scale to provide value for those users. Hopefully, NAND prices will continue to fall and Apple's investment in Toshiba will bring prices down for BTO options or at least higher capacity at the same prices.
 
Moving off SSDs.... If we assume a Mac Mini update is coming, do we with it will be next week, in Oct/Nov or sometime next year?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ElectronGuru
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back