Rant about the new Mac Mini.

[theluggage]

I guess I see the point about the "dollar price", but look what that would be when you consider inflation!

That was kinda my point - the "dollar price" of a half-decent computer has been stable for decades, despite inflation, despite the power of computers increasing by orders of magnitude, meaning the "real terms" price has plummeted.

Going all the way back to the Apple ][ may be stretching the point a bit, but even if you look at the early 90s, when personal computers were more mainstream, $500-$1500 would get you a reasonable (by the standards of the day) personal computer. As I posted, the Mac Mini dollar price has been fairly stable since 2005, the base iMac since 1998, yet the inflation (& increase in computing power) over that period has been pretty significant.

The point is, people have a reasonable expectation that a new model computer is going to be all-round better and faster that the old model, without a price increase... and that has been true of Macs over the years except... while every other aspect of Mac specs has been constantly improving, their SSD and RAM sizes been stuck in the slow lane c.f. the rest of the industry for the last 10 years or so.

The bigger question that (some) people are wrestling with here is: are Macs worth the price premium? Obviously, this is up to the individual to decide.

Sure, the base M4 is a unique Apple product that is hard to compare like-for-like with anything from Intel or AMD, so who's to say that $599 isn't a reasonable starting price for the Mini... and the value that Apple puts on the M4 Pro upgrade itself (eliminating SD and RAM) seems to be $400 - a lot of cash, but would still be hard to argue with...

...except the problem with the current pricing structure is that the only difference between the "good ($599)", "better ($799)" and "best ($999)" M4 Minis is now that the "better" has 256GB more SSD and the "best" has 8GB more RAM.
From the customers point of view, that really makes it obvious that all you're getting for your extra money is 256GB of PCIe 4-grade flash for the first $200 and 8GB of LPDDR5x for the second $200 - vastly over "market price".

Apple's problem with Apple Silicon seems to be that they don't really have an "entry level" M4 chip to put in lower-end models - where, before, they had i3, i5, i7, i9 - sometimes - with various different clock speeds and other distinction to build a "ladder" of prices (so far, I don't even see any "binned" versions of the M4) they're now totally reliant on RAM and SSD sizes to distinguish the M4 models - using easily price-compared commodity tech, and making them totally dependent on convincing people that their RAM and SSD contain magic fairy dust.

Another way of looking at it is that the M4 is a bit too powerful for its own good - if they didn't knobble the base model by making the SSD too small for anybody using multiple "pro" apps or running VMs, then who would pay more than $600?

Although its easy to see Apple's motivation, the result is something that looks very bad from a consumer's POV, and is a major off-putter for "switchers" who are naturally going to expect to match their current RAM/SSD configs.

 

[mode11]

Honestly I don't mind if people switch to Windows and Apple charges me premium prices.

One reason I love MacOS is I don't have to install a bunch of anti-virus software and part of the reason for that isn't because they can't get viruses, though there are more protections in place, its because they are a small percent of the overall market share so it doesn't make sense to write viruses that target 15% of the desktop market when you can write them for 70% of the market.

Apple probably doesn't agree with me on this. lol.

I saw a video by a credible tech YouTuber a year or so ago that reckoned you might as well stick to Gatekeeper / Defender, as they are as good as any of the free AV software these days - and won't try to upsell you. The reason to use paid AV is for the management features rather than the virus detection, i.e. if you're a business sysadmin.

In any case, the weak link for malware will generally be the user - clicking on things they shouldn't, installing pirate software, being phished etc.

 

[mode11]

they're now totally reliant on RAM and SSD sizes to distinguish the M4 models - using easily price-compared commodity tech, and making them totally dependent on convincing people that their RAM and SSD contain magic fairy dust.

Another way of looking at it is that the M4 is a bit too powerful for its own good - if they didn't knobble the base model by making the SSD too small for anybody using multiple "pro" apps or running VMs, then who would pay more than $600?

Good points. Personally, I'd just look at the price of the spec I'd want, and consider it on its own merits vs the competition. Apple are clearly not basing pricing on the spec's BOM. But it's completely understandable that many take a different view.

I agree it's a tricky problem for Apple's marketing, as like you say, they're only left with scorchingly expensive RAM / storage bumps to differentiate the models, which isn't a good look. So even if e.g. the $799 mini is objectively still fairly good value, it's hard for the buyer not to feel like they got ripped off.

 

[theluggage]

Linux market share (per Steam Hardware survey, which i dont find it accurate) states that the Desktop market share is around 2%.

O/T, but of course, "Linux" technically refers to the Linux kernel, as used by Android and Chrome OS (plus, 60 million Raspberry Pis can't be wrong) - so while Linux hasn't taken off on the "traditional" desktop market, that market has had a huge bite taken out of it by mobile and thin-client tech (which you won't see if you look at the % share of a decimated market).

Not to mention things like WebOS on smart TVs - and a zillion linux-based embedded systems in routers, fridges... Back in the 00s, WinTel were pursuing media centre PCs, Windows CE/Mobile, embedded Windows... and would probably have got to Windows/Intel TVs and Windows/Intel fridges eventually if Linux and ARM hadn't eaten their lunch...

So - although I'm not sure it's relevant to the Mac Mini debate - I think the impact of Linux (and ARM) has been far more drastic than "desktop market share" would suggest.

Granted, I do believe that Ubuntu (and its derivatives like Mint) and perhaps Fedora are really stable and useful, but they still lack native versions of Adobe, MS and many other programs, which means, they cant be usefull for many.

That may be changing gradually as more and more "essential" apps shift to web-based delivery - which they're under pressure to do in order to support the rise of mobile and thin-client. MS and Intel's failure to get a foothold on mobile computing is really a long-term death sentence for them - it's just that they got so established that it's going to be a decades-long death... but I think we've already passed "peak Windows" and "peak MS Office".

I think a big part of the issue for traditional Linux distros is that the model is really best tuned to open source - which means that the individual developers can leave patching, building, packaging and distributing their product for a zillion different distros up to "the community".

 

[neomorpheus]

O/T, but of course, "Linux" technically refers to the Linux kernel, as used by Android and Chrome OS (plus, 60 million Raspberry Pis can't be wrong) - so while Linux hasn't taken off on the "traditional" desktop market, that market has had a huge bite taken out of it by mobile and thin-client tech (which you won't see if you look at the % share of a decimated market).

Not to mention things like WebOS on smart TVs - and a zillion linux-based embedded systems in routers, fridges... Back in the 00s, WinTel were pursuing media centre PCs, Windows CE/Mobile, embedded Windows... and would probably have got to Windows/Intel TVs and Windows/Intel fridges eventually if Linux and ARM hadn't eaten their lunch...

So - although I'm not sure it's relevant to the Mac Mini debate - I think the impact of Linux (and ARM) has been far more drastic than "desktop market share" would suggest.


That may be changing gradually as more and more "essential" apps shift to web-based delivery - which they're under pressure to do in order to support the rise of mobile and thin-client. MS and Intel's failure to get a foothold on mobile computing is really a long-term death sentence for them - it's just that they got so established that it's going to be a decades-long death... but I think we've already passed "peak Windows" and "peak MS Office".

I think a big part of the issue for traditional Linux distros is that the model is really best tuned to open source - which means that the individual developers can leave patching, building, packaging and distributing their product for a zillion different distros up to "the community".

Many good points that to be honest, besides being obvious, they also fall into the "argue for the sake of arguing".

About the desktop usage, proper programs coming to it, etc, until the corporate world has more desktop Linux deployments, instead of just their servers, it wont mean much.

Again, just arguing for the sake of it.

But yes, this is off topic.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Good points. Personally, I'd just look at the price of the spec I'd want, and consider it on its own merits vs the competition. Apple are clearly not basing pricing on the spec's BOM. But it's completely understandable that many take a different view.

I agree it's a tricky problem for Apple's marketing, as like you say, they're only left with scorchingly expensive RAM / storage bumps to differentiate the models, which isn't a good look. So even if e.g. the $799 mini is objectively still fairly good value, it's hard for the buyer not to feel like they got ripped off.

Except that then you factor in the software and it seems like a pretty good deal. That $799 Mac Mini doesn't need a $79 a year office subscription just to have basic office functionality. Also there is the privacy angle. No CSAM, etc.,

That is definitely worth something more.

 

[mode11]

Except that then you factor in the software and it seems like a pretty good deal. That $799 Mac Mini doesn't need a $79 a year office subscription just to have basic office functionality. Also there is the privacy angle. No CSAM, etc.,

That is definitely worth something more.

You get all that with the $599 model too. The point is the only difference for the extra $200 is the 256GB of SSD, which by market standards is terrible value. This makes an otherwise pretty good value computer look like a rip-off - even to Mac users. It’s just bad optics.

Also, you can’t just arbitrarily discount the need for MS Office. You either need it or you don’t. If you need to work with Word / Excel / PowerPoint files, you’re buying it whether you’re a Mac or PC user (or it’s supplied by your job). Good luck turning up with a Keynote presentation on a memory stick.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

They just upped the base RAM spec from 8GB to 16GB across the range - despite all of the usual suspects rolling out the same arguments we've seen here as to why 8GB was enough for some weird target market that were somehow prepared to pay premium prices for bargain-bucket specs.

They brought back HDMI, Magsafe, SD and physical function keys on the MacBook Pro.

They kept USB-A on desktop Macs for 7 years after they went all-USB-C on the laptops.

Now you can't directly attribute that directly to "a bunch of people whining" on any particular forum, but it's clear that Apple don't totally ignore customer opinions. Would these things - quite major U-turns for Apple - have happened if everybody had just been good little consumers and accepted what the great and wonderful Apple had, in its wisdom, offered them?

Sure, Apple does see customers’ opinions, and does take note of them. I'll concede that, and I'm certainly glad they brought MagSafe back! There is a difference though. Discussing shortcomings and marvelling at obscene upgrade costs is one thing, but so many people here don't want to have a discussion, just whinge, and yell at everyone who has a different opinion!

 

[theluggage]

That $799 Mac Mini doesn't need a $79 a year office subscription just to have basic office functionality.

There are free office/productivity options (from Libreoffice to Google Docs) for every platform. As @mode11 says, some of us need MS Office because it’s the only practical way to exchange non-trivial documents with the world at large - or simply because you already know how to use it. Office wouldn’t be my first choice, otherwise - although I’d probably still want something cross-platform.

 

[theluggage]

Discussing shortcomings and marvelling at obscene upgrade costs is one thing, but so many people here don't want to have a discussion, just whinge, and yell at everyone who has a different opinion!

What’s mainly happening in these threads, though, is one group of people really are “Discussing shortcomings and marvelling at obscene upgrade costs” while another group of people are yelling at them to stop whinging.

 

[Bungaree.Chubbins]

What’s mainly happening in these threads, though, is one group of people really are “Discussing shortcomings and marvelling at obscene upgrade costs” while another group of people are yelling at them to stop whinging.

I guess we've got differing perspectives on this.

 

[HooCares]

For $499 (really, who in the US at least is paying more than $499 for the base model...) the mini verges on toy territory. I am not going to freak out over the 256gb base storage despite the fact I want more than that.

Of course Apple would love to see you spend $200 to upgrade to 512gb or $400 to 1tb, but I think they really want you signing up for 2tb of iCloud storage via Apple One. Which I have and use and everything is fine because I am immersed in the Apple ecosystem between multiple family iPhones, iPads, and Macs. And if your workflow dictates that iCloud storage won't substitute for fast internal storage, and 256gb won't do it, then either pony up for more internal space or use a fast external drive.

 

[nexx27]

The way i see it:

Base Mac Mini should start with 512gb.

RAM and storage upgrades should be at a maximum, 100 per bump, not the current.

Mac Mini M4 Pro base mode needs a 300 bucks price cut.

I dont understand why Apple doesn’t try to really go for market share and instead it’s complacent in abusing their loyal customers.

Windows is horrible in its current state, Linux Desktop looks like it will never happen.

The current crop of mini pcs might not have a faster cpu, but they have more cores plus way better gpus, with user upgradable ram and storage.

Hell, apple showed us their true colors by going out of their way in making sure that the Mini doesnt have industry standard storage connectors JUST so we cant avoid their insulting prices.

But many of us will never complain, will instead attack the one that does dare call out their bs and will continue buying Macs and defending poor apple and their lack of consideration for our loyalty.

Personally, i will reluctantly buy a base mini, simply because I need to have a Mac in my homelab, but not happy that i cannot buy (in good conscience) the system that i want.

A shame, I feel like the current Mini Pro is paying a nice homage to the legendary SE/30.

Quite simple, we need to strenghten “public opinion” to push and stop accepting abusing policies.

But it takes time… just count how many on this thread will defend or justify apple abusing policies..

 

[phoenix-mac-user]

What’s mainly happening in these threads, though, is one group of people really are “Discussing shortcomings and marvelling at obscene upgrade costs” while another group of people are yelling at them to stop whinging.

The thing is, this is what Apple does with everything. You could apply this discussion to almost every device they've made. Someone on here was saying "the base iPhone has 256GB now so why doesn't the Mac Mini have more than a phone!?', and no, it doesn't. The base iPhone still has 128. The base iPhone Pro line has 256.

Its fine to be upset, I don't think a single person would be sad if they increased specs and I am sure in a few years they will, but this is what they do and what they've always done and will always do, and it is built into the cost of choosing to use any Apple product.

We could talk about the 2019 Mac Pro that cost $13K had 256 storage in the base model.
Or $500 wheels for that Mac Pro (they're now $700 lol).
The iPad 7 that in 2019 had 32Gb of storage.
The iPad Mini 4 that had 16GB of storage in 2015.
The mac Mini 2018 base 128 GB storage
The entire 2014 Mac Mini Line. I bought my wife a base 2014 when it came out and she screamed for 3 months about how slow and horrible it was and I was like "no way would Apple do that" and I used it for 2 days and had to install an SSD. Was fine after that but they shipped with an HDD that made them almost unusable.

These are just a few I picked out based on my memory and random searches. And despite several of these directly impacting me, I still choose to use Apple products and pay a premium for them and and a lot of people are obviously with me on that considering it's the biggest company in the world.

And if anything they are a trendsetter in this department. I remember people screaming early about the iPhone not including SD storage so you could expand storage without paying for it and now almost every single Phone maker has moved to the same model.

 

[UnifiedMelody]

Use external storage. Keep the 256GB base internal for programs only. That's my strategy if I were to use a Mac Mini, leave the storage plugged in at the back. I have a 4TB Samsung T9, which was 500AUD [not the cheapest but hey its way better than when I paid 300$ for 512GB NVMe [960 Pro] in 2018 yikes.]

 

[ericwn]

So you’re buying a machine where a lot of effort was put into the design and ensuring a minimalistic, clean desk experience. And you then add some random looking external disk, dangling from it.

Mind you- we’re not asking for +12 TB storage like in a NAS. Just a reasonably priced TB or two or the option to upgrade it yourself.

I really hate that I now have an extra disc dangling from my iMac. The speed is slower, it can get unplugged by mistake, it takes up a port and it’s ugly.

I’ll put it right next to my backup disk that is there anyway. It being a desktop computer it’s pretty easy to tuck away some peripherals out of my sight.

 

[CharlesShaw]

Quite simple, we need to strenghten “public opinion” to push and stop accepting abusing policies.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that the public opinion you have in mind is one that would actually be strengthened.

 

[blufrog]

We could argue whether Apple being the most cash-rich company on the planet is a good thing or not all day long, but it didn't get there because it produced junk.

Never, from any manufacturer, have I bought an electronic device THAT IS STILL WORKING TODAY, 15 years after I bought it. Sure, the software is out of date, but who cares. IT STILL WORKS.

I can't say that about any other electronic device I have owned.

I build my own top-end gaming PCs, and they have a life of about 5 years. The PC I'm typing on now has already had 2 PSUs, a GPU change, and a memory upgrade in the 8 years I owned it.

Contrast that with my Apple computers (see signature) and I have only just bought a Mini 10 years after buying my other two Macs because of the fact I use my machines for work, and the older machines just don't cut it anymore.

My 5K never had the display dust issues that many of that era suffered, and I use it frequently. My rMBP 13 is still on the original battery.

Yes... Macs command a price premium, but you can't sit there and say they don't offer quality.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Quite simple, we need to strenghten “public opinion” to push and stop accepting abusing policies.

But it takes time… just count how many on this thread will defend or justify apple abusing policies..

Again, there is a difference between defending Apple and simply acknowledging that there is enough value in the Apple ecosystem and Mac OS that I choose to accept the extra cost.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

Use external storage. Keep the 256GB base internal for programs only. That's my strategy if I were to use a Mac Mini, leave the storage plugged in at the back. I have a 4TB Samsung T9, which was 500AUD [not the cheapest but hey its way better than when I paid 300$ for 512GB NVMe [960 Pro] in 2018 yikes.]

This is tempting me more and more. I already have a 500GB external drive right now LOL. I would get an absolute steal on the base model. No argument there.

 

[mode11]

The PC I'm typing on now has already had 2 PSUs, a GPU change, and a memory upgrade in the 8 years I owned it.

So you had a blown PSU (indeed unfortunate), but chose to upgrade the GPU and increase the RAM? How is that a minus in terms of longevity?

 

[phoenix-mac-user]

We could argue whether Apple being the most cash-rich company on the planet is a good thing or not all day long, but it didn't get there because it produced junk.

Never, from any manufacturer, have I bought an electronic device THAT IS STILL WORKING TODAY, 15 years after I bought it. Sure, the software is out of date, but who cares. IT STILL WORKS.

I can't say that about any other electronic device I have owned.

I build my own top-end gaming PCs, and they have a life of about 5 years. The PC I'm typing on now has already had 2 PSUs, a GPU change, and a memory upgrade in the 8 years I owned it.

Contrast that with my Apple computers (see signature) and I have only just bought a Mini 10 years after buying my other two Macs because of the fact I use my machines for work, and the older machines just don't cut it anymore.

My 5K never had the display dust issues that many of that era suffered, and I use it frequently. My rMBP 13 is still on the original battery.

Yes... Macs command a price premium, but you can't sit there and say they don't offer quality.

They also maintain their resale value better than anything else because of this. Purchased a M3 Macbook Air last week and offset the cost by trading in my 16" M1Pro and I got $775 for it. I bought that computer 18 months ago from the same retailer for 1100 on open box clearance. Then thought "hey maybe I can trade in my son's Asus gaming laptop that's 3 years old that he doesn't use anymore". I paid $1200 for it at the time and they offered me $95. Could trade in my wifes base M1 Mini thats a year older and get more than that.

 

[blufrog]

So you had a blown PSU (indeed unfortunate), but chose to upgrade the GPU and increase the RAM? How is that a minus in terms of longevity?

The point is, the PC needed upgrading because the hardware wasn't good enough anymore.

Compare that to the Mac that didn't need any upgrades for a longer period of time, relatively.

It's not bad that I upgraded the PC. Just pointing out that it is shorter-lived.

To put it into perspective, just the GPU cost $2100. The whole PC if I was to build one new, would cost me $4500.

In 8 years, I have spent $6000 on this PC. In the same time frame, I spent $4500 on Macs (and got TWO computers for that money complete with displays, keyboards, and trackpads).

 

[mode11]

The point is, the PC needed upgrading because the hardware wasn't good enough anymore.

Compare that to the Mac that didn't need any upgrades for a longer period of time, relatively.

It's not bad that I upgraded the PC. Just pointing out that it is shorter-lived.

To put it into perspective, just the GPU cost $2100. The whole PC if I was to build one new, would cost me $4500.

In 8 years, I have spent $6000 on this PC. In the same time frame, I spent $4500 on Macs (and got TWO computers for that money complete with displays, keyboards, and trackpads).

So you’re comparing a 10 year old mini with a PC that has a $2k GPU? How is this a meaningful comparison? A basic 10 year old PC could also do whatever you’re using the mini for.

 

[eltoslightfoot]

So you’re comparing a 10 year old mini with a PC that has a $2k GPU? How is this a meaningful comparison? A basic 10 year old PC could also do whatever you’re using the mini for.

Have we already forgotten what Intel was before the M1s arrived? A basic 10 year old PC could do whatever they are using the mini for. But it also might just suck too much to do much of anything.

My parents stupidly buy a Wally World laptop for $400 and then complain about how slow it is. And then buy another one the next year. None of those could do what an M1 does. Nor could they do what a gaming PC does.

This is getting a little silly.