Any interest in a Mac Mini Pro?

[gregorsamsa]

there may be no business excuse in your mind, but as a long time wanter of a product like you are describing it is merely a pipe dream. If not mental or just a lot of teasing of ones self it just is not going to happen.

I believe Jobs and Gates decided to leave certain areas alone. Ie Apple does not sell graphics and games. windows does not push for t-bolt or firewire.

Since it has worked why mess with success. you won't see windows pcs with inaccessible ram and hdds as the norm . Windows allowing an external drive boot with ease not that common. Doing this forces many people to have 2 computers for work.

I agree, though I see where the OP's coming from. However, IMO, if such a Mac was going to be available, Apple would have surely offered it before laptop sales overtook desktop, ie. well over 5 years ago.

To the OP: yes, Apple could still offer such a Mini Pro. Most probably it'd sell well. But look at their activity in recent years: Macs that continue getting thinner, smaller. Increasing focus on mobile devices. Neglect of their Mac Pro range, et al.

There's nothing to indicate that they'd place a new desktop Mac in between their iMac & Mini lines at this stage. They'll also not want to risk cannibalizing iMac sales. Best bet is a smaller Mac Pro in the coming weeks, but I'd expect a starting price similar to now, about $2,500. Too much for my needs.

 

[animatedude]

i would buy it...especially with the inevitable release of the thin Thunderbolt Display.....However, Apple will not release a Mac Mini Pro because of two reasons, i think:

1) the Mac mini market space is a low end market in the eyes of Apple.Therefore, releasing a Mac Mini Pro will not make sense to them.

2) it will effect the sales of iMacs.


but a Mac Mini Pro will be very popular among many of us i guess....i wonder if the Mac Mini Server is a huge seller or not....i doubt it.

i say discontinue the Mac Mini Server and bring in the Mac Mini Pro with an all SSD and 16 GB RAM!

 

[VideoBeagle]

a 3rd drive bay doesn't thrill me, but I'd LOVE a mini with separate graphics card. If such existed, I'd hit the Apple Store today and give them cash. but such is not the world we live in.

 

[CausticPuppy]

They should keep the Mac Mini.


The Mac Mini Pro should be called.... and I know this is crazy..... Macintosh.

 

[philipma1957]

a 3rd drive bay doesn't thrill me, but I'd LOVE a mini with separate graphics card. If such existed, I'd hit the Apple Store today and give them cash. but such is not the world we live in.

this will happen t-bolt next gen will be 2x the speed of this one. so 2014 or 2015 add on gpu for the mini.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6889/intel-confirms-falcon-ridge-production-in-2013-ramp-in-2014

maybe in a case like this


http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...16B64C68D7AD5D94421B2A6759975CDD7&FORM=IQFRBA

i can see this item in under 2 years.

 

[QWERTYMac7]

a 3rd drive bay doesn't thrill me, but I'd LOVE a mini with separate graphics card. If such existed, I'd hit the Apple Store today and give them cash. but such is not the world we live in.

2011 2.7 GHz Intel 2.7 with AMD Radeon HD 6630M graphics card - just $699.00 (I have the 2.5 GHz version and can run three monitors):

http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0M95LL/A/refurbished-mac-mini-27ghz-dual-core-intel-core-i7-

Your future awaits!

 

[VideoBeagle]

2011 2.7 GHz Intel 2.7 with AMD Radeon HD 6630M graphics card - just $699.00 (I have the 2.5 GHz version and can run three monitors):

http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0M95LL/A/refurbished-mac-mini-27ghz-dual-core-intel-core-i7-

Your future awaits!

nifty...but the quad core i7 seems to me to be a bit more future proof (longer).

 

[thekev]

this will happen t-bolt next gen will be 2x the speed of this one. so 2014 or 2015 add on gpu for the mini.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6889/intel-confirms-falcon-ridge-production-in-2013-ramp-in-2014

maybe in a case like this


http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...16B64C68D7AD5D94421B2A6759975CDD7&FORM=IQFRBA

i can see this item in under 2 years.

I don't think Apple will design such a thing. You're reliant on third parties for that kind of thing. It requires more than bandwidth. It requires hot pluggable Mac drivers. It wouldn't be cheap either. The most likely scenario I can think of would be if one of the vendors was going to make an after market mac pro card. They could make a mac pro version and a thunderbolt version of the same thing, but I don't think you would see anything under $500.

 

[QWERTYMac7]

... I'd LOVE a mini with separate graphics card. If such existed , I'd hit the Apple Store today and give them cash. but such is not the world we live in.

2011 2.7 GHz Intel 2.7 with AMD Radeon HD 6630M graphics card - just $699.00

http://store.apple.com/us/product/G0M95LL/A/refurbished-mac-mini-27ghz-dual-core-intel-core-i7-

nifty...but the quad core i7 seems to me to be a bit more future proof (longer).

Sheesh! What a Knucklehead

 

[old-wiz]

I don't think Apple will design such a thing. You're reliant on third parties for that kind of thing. It requires more than bandwidth. It requires hot pluggable Mac drivers. It wouldn't be cheap either. The most likely scenario I can think of would be if one of the vendors was going to make an after market mac pro card. They could make a mac pro version and a thunderbolt version of the same thing, but I don't think you would see anything under $500.

And it would lead to back and forth arguments between Apple and the 3rd party vendors about who is responsible for crashes.

 

[thekev]

And it would lead to back and forth arguments between Apple and the 3rd party vendors about who is responsible for crashes.

That could happen even if Apple produced it directly, although it would be less likely. If it's aimed at gaming, it would be developed by a third party. People who game frequently on their Macs are likely to use bootcamp, so it would need Windows support as well to maximize its audience. If they're just playing older games with Mac versions, they aren't likely to spend hundreds of dollars on an eGPU. The thing would need to pass thunderbolt certification, meaning they would need hot pluggable drivers for Windows and OSX. They would need to be able to feed back into the built in screen as well as connect to an external display. I don't see it happening in the near future. Things could change to increase the practicality of one, so I wouldn't say it will never happen, even if I doubt Apple would develop such a thing directly.

 

[Tanax]

I really don't get why people say it would affect iMac sales. It wouldn't affect iMac sales in any different way than it would affect the Mac Pro sales.

iMac = All in one
Mac Mini = Not all in one

Therefore, people who want all in one's will get the iMac, even if the Mac Mini came with a dedicated graphics card. If anything, providing Mac Mini "Pro" would boost their sales since there are people, like me, who don't want the computer integrated with the display.

Doing this may (will) increase their Mac Mini sales (while still not decreasing iMac sales that much at all).

 

[paulrbeers]

Doing this may (will) increase their Mac Mini sales (while still not decreasing iMac sales that much at all).

Yeah, I think you might be justifying this to yourself because this is what you want.

1. The Desktop market is a dying market. More people are moving to laptops since they are more than powerful enough.
2. Because of #1, the market for desktops equals X units per year and is diminishing.
3. If the iMac equals 75% of X and the Mini equals 25% of X, and suddenly you "upgrade the Mini" to the Mini Pro, then the only device it can cannibalize is the iMac. In the end X remains the same, and now iMac is 50% of X and Mini Pro is 50% and Apple makes less money because the Mini Pro isn't as expensive as the average iMac sold.

You aren't going to convince people to drop their laptops and go back to a desktop which is the only way you can keep iMac sales where they are (in quantity) and increase the sales of the "Mini Pro". This is a mobile world my friend. The desktop is dying. When was the last time you heard about some "amazing" new desktop? Even laptops are having to get smaller and lighter to keep relevant. People want to use their computers on the couch and not in their office.

 

[utekineir]

People want to use their computers on the couch and not in their office.

This to a t.

My mini sees more use via screen sharing via laptop from the couch than it sees a person sitting at it. The mini is set up with the dual screens (one vertical one horizontal) scanner, etc. But really, i'd rather be anywhere else in the house or outside of it than the office if possible.

It is a fantastically under appreciated box. But part of a dying segment.

In my situation the power consumption is a bigger factor than the gfx performance. Most of the time it just functions flawlessly as a media server. Maybe next generation will have dedicated gfx again?

 

[Tanax]

Yeah, I think you might be justifying this to yourself because this is what you want.

1. The Desktop market is a dying market. More people are moving to laptops since they are more than powerful enough.
2. Because of #1, the market for desktops equals X units per year and is diminishing.
3. If the iMac equals 75% of X and the Mini equals 25% of X, and suddenly you "upgrade the Mini" to the Mini Pro, then the only device it can cannibalize is the iMac. In the end X remains the same, and now iMac is 50% of X and Mini Pro is 50% and Apple makes less money because the Mini Pro isn't as expensive as the average iMac sold.

You aren't going to convince people to drop their laptops and go back to a desktop which is the only way you can keep iMac sales where they are (in quantity) and increase the sales of the "Mini Pro". This is a mobile world my friend. The desktop is dying. When was the last time you heard about some "amazing" new desktop? Even laptops are having to get smaller and lighter to keep relevant. People want to use their computers on the couch and not in their office.

I would think that Apple would have more of a profit-margin with the Mini Pro.
Today, the i7 quad core base costs $799. Add to that, for instance, the GTX 680MX and you're up to $1100~ or more. And that's just for the GPU. I think a Mini Pro could easily go for around $1300-1400. Plus the display which is $999 so $2300-2400. That's more than an iMac. And even if the Mini Pro + TB Display would end up being less than an iMac, the iMac would still have its selling point being that it's an all in one and no clutter, "it just works".

Take into account also Y = the people who won't buy an iMac because they want a separate computer and display. So X could actually increase if they release a Mini Pro since X would then be X + Y.

Also, that last statement you said is just weird. When you're in the office, working, you do not sit in a couch. Desktop computers will be relevant for quite some time.

 

[utekineir]

I would think that Apple would have more of a profit-margin with the Mini Pro.
Today, the i7 quad core base costs $799. Add to that, for instance, the GTX 680MX and you're up to $1100~ or more. And that's just for the GPU. I think a Mini Pro could easily go for around $1300-1400. Plus the display which is $999 so $2300-2400.

High res display,
dedicated mobile gfx current for time of release
i7 quad
medium- large sized ssd
more ram than consumer models
compact pacakage
$2300+


Reads like the 15" rmbp to me.

 

[Tanax]

High res display,
dedicated mobile gfx current for time of release
i7 quad
medium- large sized ssd
more ram than consumer models
compact pacakage
$2300+


Reads like the 15" rmbp to me.

The point of a Mini Pro would be to NOT have a display included. And a rMBP without a display wouldn't really be a rMBP - so no.

 

[theluggage]

Because nobody at Apple has pursued the idea.

Lets wait and see what this wonderful new Pro product coming out in 2013 is before jumping to that conclusion.

However - lets see:

CPU - seriously, I'm sure that there are some specialist users that need workstation-class CPUs and zillions of cores, but who really needs a slightly faster 'consumer' CPU? For most people, upgrading the RAM and switching to SSD will have a far more impressive effect than an extra core or another 0.1 GHz.

Ports - 2 x Thunderbolt (at the expense of FW 800) seems like a near cert for the next Mini revision. 3 x Thunderbolt (at the expense of the HDMI - you can use a small, cheap adapter) sounds sensible but is it technically/economically feasible with the current TB controller chip?

RAM - the current 16GB max isn't bad, and anybody with any nous will get the minimum and upgrade it with third party RAM (...and the current or next update it may turn out to support 32GB when 16GB SODIMMs arrive).

HD - already offers 1TB + SSD, or 2x1TB; 2TB 2.5" drives and bigger SSDs will presumably be out Real Soon Now (what I *would* like to see is officially user-upgradeable SSD). If you want more than that then external storage via USB3 or TB gives you more flexibility, with higher-caacity, faster spin 3.5" drives, RAID, and/or larger SSDs that you can easily upgrade as the price-per-GB drops.

Graphics: Intel graphics is the weak point of the Mini. However, even a "fat" mini is probably still going to be limited to mobile graphics, which won't satisfy graphics pros and hardcore gamers who want to plug in a full-sized card. Maybe, as thunderbolt evolves, external full-size graphics cards will become practical.

I think its fairly clear that Apple's roadmap is based on sealed, small-form-factor PCs that rely on Thunderbolt for serious expansion, so I'm sure that the Mini will play some part in Apple's future 'pro' strategy.

However, there comes a point when more and more formerly 'Pro' work can be done by consumer hardware, and where the main reason a few users still need a Mac pro is its ability to take multiple full-size PCIe cards, full-size, easily swappable hard drives and obscene numbers of full-size DIMMs, rather than it being 20% 'more powerful' that a Mini.

 

[utekineir]

The point of a Mini Pro would be to NOT have a display included. And a rMBP without a display wouldn't really be a rMBP - so no.

The trend in the apple lineup as a whole has been toward consolidation.

Look at the lines.

Mac pro has been dead in the water the last couple years waiting for an upgrade.

17" mbp eliminated, plastic macbooks eliminated. Retina as a separate model is almost sure to be eliminated once the manufacturing is cheaper and the early adopters have been squeezed for a premium.

Ipod classic left in limbo for how long now?

As much as I would like a mini with a pcie slot, the reality is there are allready products in the lineup that come close enough to providing the same functionality and incorporating that pcie slot would eliminate much of what makes the mini its own distinct product.

Using recent history as a reference the chances of apple complicating its product structure with more overlap and models is pretty slim, unless of course the new mac pro (if it happens) ends up being a smaller tower.

 

[Giuly]

How many people would be interested in a Mac Mini Pro like this:

Summary:

A Mac Mini with more ram, a better processor, a super high end video card and a 3rd hard drive bay.

Form Factor:

Very similar to the Mac Mini with identical length and width but 11mm taller to accommodate a better cooler, high end laptop video card, and 3rd laptop hard drive.

Specs Summary: The base processor (3840QM i7) would be what is normally the highest-end processor for laptops. The base processor performs 30% better, than the base 27" iMac processor (3470 i5) and only 5% worse than the iMac upgraded processor (3770S). If you Factor in a TB display you'd be only $200 above the price of an iMac with the upgraded processor with the base processor and $450 above an iMac with a processor upgrade with the Mac Mini Pro with an upgraded processor. The 3TB fusion drive, 768GB flash and 32GB RAM upgrade would each be $100 below the iMac pricing so the base price is higher but the upgrades can be cheaper.

Specs:

Base Price: $1399

Ports:

(1 more port than 27" iMac due to lack of screen)

3x Thunderbolt

4x USB 3.0

1x headphone, SDXC, Gigabit

Processor:

Base: 3840QM

Upgrade: 3940XM $350

Memory:

Base: 8GB

Mid: 16GB $200

High: 32GB $500

Graphics:

Base: GTX 675MX 1GB GDDR5
Upgrade: GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5 $150

Storage:

Base: 1TB

High Capacity: 3TB (2 x 1.5TB) $150

More Speed: 1TB Fusion (1TB + 128gb SSD) $250

More Capacity and Speed: 3TB Fusion (2x 1.5TB + 256gb SSD) $300

Max Speed: 768GB Flash $800


So would anyone else want this?

The point is this: You need a screen to go along with it. Being a pro, you want a 27". The Thunderbolt Display is $999, which totals $2300. You can get an iMac with the even more horsepower for $2100.

But you want a cheaper Dell screen.

Not going to happen, also that totals just $100 less than the iMac, and you don't benefit from IGZO/4K Retina/3D or whatever when you upgrade your Mac, but remain stuck with an old display.

I'd suggest to bump the top-of-the-line iMac to a Hexa-Core CPU and beefed up graphics to cover the entry-level Mac Pro, and come up with something completely new for the dual-processor Mac, although it might be the fact that research suggested that the Mac Pro has become so powerful that nobody can actually utilize that thing to its full potential.

Looks like the 'professional workstation' has shrunken down to the size of an iMac and was merged with general computing devices after 25 years to me.

 

[paulrbeers]

I would think that Apple would have more of a profit-margin with the Mini Pro.
Today, the i7 quad core base costs $799. Add to that, for instance, the GTX 680MX and you're up to $1100~ or more. And that's just for the GPU. I think a Mini Pro could easily go for around $1300-1400. Plus the display which is $999 so $2300-2400. That's more than an iMac. And even if the Mini Pro + TB Display would end up being less than an iMac, the iMac would still have its selling point being that it's an all in one and no clutter, "it just works".

What you are missing, is that many who buy this WOULD NOT buy an Apple display. Look how few people own Apple Displays who own Minis and Mac Pros. Heck I own both and I don't own an Apple display.

Also, that last statement you said is just weird. When you're in the office, working, you do not sit in a couch. Desktop computers will be relevant for quite some time.

No. The point is that most people want to be on their couch with a laptop and not sitting in their home office tied to the desktop.

But even further, even office environments are going to all laptops. All salaried people at my company (we have 40,000 employees) have laptops and docking stations. So we use our laptops as desktops when we are in the office.

As for your point about Desktop's not being dead....
Here's a nice article about the industry from people who pay more attention to this stuff than I do (and includes links to other websites of experts): http://gizmodo.com/5301401/so-long-desktop-pc-you-suck

Basically, yep the desktop is dying. Sure there will always be a need for workstations, but as time progresses this part of the PC universe will get smaller and smaller.

There are some pretty graphs at this link: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/06/flight_of_the_desktops.html

I'll summarize the above: 2008 the Desktop was 45% of the overall market. By 2015 it is expected to be 18%. But hey, I guess all experts could be wrong.....

 

[Radiating]

The desktop is far from being dead, even with docking stations. The nearest laptop to have the kind of specs of a mid range iMac or this Mac Mini Pro costs nearly $4,000.

You say yourself that workstations aren't going away, why can't a workstation have a nice form factor. In fact so many people preffer smaller form factor work stations that Micro ITX PCs with super high specs are the newest trend in desktops.

 

[Toltepeceno]

I would definitely be interested.

 

[Acorn]

Apple has done some amazing things fitting such good graphics in such a thin imac. there has to be better gpu options that they can offer for a mac mini pro. They have always cheesed out on the graphics for the mini. either by making it 256 mb or using something weak. I know they can do better.

 

[Lesser Evets]

I am not sure what the point of the OP's specs are. It's just a kind of mini that isn't far above a current mini, as far as I'm concerned.

What Apple NEEDS to do if it does a "pro" version of the Mac Mini is.... dual processors.

If Apple can make a dual-i7 processor Pro-Mini computer, I'd be in there. Doesn't need 3 drive bays: I can use the interfaces for that. Doesn't need more than what is currently there + 2 processors + more memory space. It would be an awesome machine. The graphics processor isn't quite so important, but a removable card might be preferable to upgrade in future.

The TB/USB3 allows for expandability with outside housings, so PCI slots aren't needed inside the machine. Removable video processor isn't completely necessary if the price is low enough. It doesn't need more drive space than the current models. The ports on the current are enough, as well.

Since a current MacPro with dual processors is circa $3500, a mini version like I wrote would be nice at $1500. I'd rather spend less for a lower-end dual processor Mac than buy a current single processor model or the current MacPros. A current Mac would be expected to last me 6-8 years, a mini for less than half that would be good for 3-4 years. Perfect comparable investment. I'd actually prefer a cheaper, similar, computer I can replace every 3-4 years.