Rant about the new Mac Mini.

[throAU]

The price structure turns a lot of people I know away from Mac. They have a specific minimum spec requirement in mind, and they just can’t justify paying the unreasonable upgrade prices Apple charges.

Yup, eventually they buy something like an iPhone and sometimes "get it". That there's more to the device than component specs. How they actually work with the provided OS for example...

PC hardware is a race to the bottom and that market is totally driven by $X for Y ghz or Z GB. Those are the only things (other than RGB) that the typical consumer understands without actually using the devices. Build a PC out of cheap components and it will be noisy, have crappy nagware drivers on a crappy nagware OS. It will work like the collection of trash it is, rather than some cohesive product.

Bluetooth broke for 2 months on my Windows 11 PC last year for example with a Windows update. Totally borked. Tried all sorts of things to fix it, magically fixed itself 2 months later with an update. In the meantime - no bluetooth.

You can spend more to get nicer parts with nicer drivers (still a crap nagware OS though) - but do that and all of a sudden the PC isn't so cheap.

 

[theluggage]

Bluetooth broke for 2 months on my Windows 11 PC last year for example with a Windows update.

Yeah, but it’s a rather sad state of affairs when Microsoft is Apple’s best salesperson. If I went back to PC hardware I’d probably use Linux, but that’s still not for everybody.

The Mini actually does really well on price/performance/noise vs. vaguely comparable Mini-PCs, which tend to cost the thick end of $1000 - until you factor in that those mostly come with 32GB/1TB, which doubles the price of the Mini… It’s natural that potential switchers from PC will want to match their current RAM and storage specs, and the amount Apple want for that must put off an awful lot of people.

Then, of course, Apple have nothing to compete with a regular, non-Mini PC desktop/tower which can sit hidden away under a desk, without the cooling issues of Intel/AMD Mini PCs - and are far more economical than Mini-look-alikes. I wouldn’t think about putting less than 32GB/1TB in one of those - it’s just not worth the few quid it would save.

 

[mode11]

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

They'd rather abuse (overcharge) their loyal customers? Loyal = won't go anywhere else.

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

So you're saying the competition is weak... Seems like you're answering your own question.

 

[mode11]

No, it should not start at 512GB. Many people are fine with 256GB.

The real problem is the cost of the upgrade. $200 for an additional 256GB is too expensive. Apple literally charged that same amount a decade ago in 2014 for 512GB.

This amounts to the same thing. It's never a disadvantage to have more storage, and the cost difference at bulk pricing is negligible. Ideally Apple would stop mucking about with such paltry amounts of storage and start at 512GB, but we all know why they don't.

 

[throAU]

the cost difference at bulk pricing is negligible

the cost difference for 2x instead of 1x NAND package is *checks calculator*... double the unit cost. not negligible.

 

[mode11]

double the unit cost. not negligible.

Kind of depends on the unit cost, no? If we're talking a few dollars on a $600 machine, it's negligible in % terms.

 

[henkie]

Speaking of hardware, you can't compare Apple's SSD to some of the cheaper brands. I would compare it to Samsung in terms of quality. Of course, with Apple, we also pay the "Apple tax."

Again, see some of my posts above: Samsung and Lexar SSDs outperform Apples SSDs and ask 120-130 euro for a 2TB drive.
So Apple’s tax is an outrageous 8-fold price bump. And not too long ago, SSDs in the m2 base MacBooks were pretty slow. Apple’s SSDs are nothing special.
And to illustrate how ridiculous the upgrade prices are: you can buy two base 256/16GB Mac Minis (so basically 2x16GB + 2x256GB) for the price of one 512/32GB Mac mini…

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Base doesn’t need to be 512gb, because increasingly more users are working from cloud-based protocols, particularly in the work environment. And even out of work, more casual users stream a lot of media and apps don’t require much space.

Again, don’t rephrase this as “You said everyone only needs 256gb, you’re wrong” - I’m talking about a good ratio of users.

 

[throAU]

Kind of depends on the unit cost, no? If we're talking a few dollars on a $600 machine, it's negligible in % terms.

Sure.. in percentage terms, for that single component. If it is a couple of dollars on a million machines, it's a couple of million dollars.

 

[throAU]

Base doesn’t need to be 512gb, because increasingly more users are working from cloud-based protocols, particularly in the work environment. And even out of work, more casual users stream a lot of media and apps don’t require much space.

Again, don’t rephrase this as “You said everyone only needs 256gb, you’re wrong” - I’m talking about a good ratio of users.

Yup, my partner uses about 100 GB on her MacBooks. Pretty funny because her last two hand me downs (from me) have had 1 TB.

 

[navaira]

Base doesn’t need to be 512gb, because increasingly more users are working from cloud-based protocols, particularly in the work environment. And even out of work, more casual users stream a lot of media and apps don’t require much space.

Again, don’t rephrase this as “You said everyone only needs 256gb, you’re wrong” - I’m talking about a good ratio of users.

The unfortunate thing is that in recent versions of macOS when the cloud files are downloaded, they can ONLY be downloaded to internal storage (at least Google Drive, Dropbox, and OneDrive). The one time when my Mac Mini turned out to be short on storage with its 256GB – I mostly use it as a media and Time Machine server – was when I tried to make a copy of everything on my Google Drive and I found out it gets downloaded first to the internal drive… and then, boom, I run out of space.

I think you all misunderstood Apple. Apple just want you to feel that the Mac mini is a bargain. They don’t want you to really take that bargain.

“Wow the Mac mini @ $599 is really a great bargain!!!”
(Ended up paying $2000)

Ha! I bought a M4 MBP 16/1TB for less than €2000 – as I planned – from Amazon Germany. It’s not shipped yet and I found the config I was actually hoping for, 24/1TB… it’s €2219… I almost started rationalising that 2219 isn’t THAT much more than 2000. Base models are bargains, and perhaps good for most people, but I am not most people and 1TB of internal storage is essential. At least I didn’t have to pay €2219 for 16 GB, so… thank you, Mr Cook, for your merciful generosity!

Apple also has a monopoly on Apple’s operating systems. I haven’t used Windows for five years. Partly because it was suck a clusterduck on my Yoga C930 I hackintoshed it. There’s nothing to hackintosh now. If you want macOS, get a Mac. If you can’t afford it, get a cheaper Mac or save until you’ve got enough.

(Just to clarify, no, I am NOT defending Apple’s pricing structure and I am NOT a fan of it.)

 

[mattopotamus]

No, it should not start at 512GB. Many people are fine with 256GB.

The real problem is the cost of the upgrade. $200 for an additional 256GB is too expensive. Apple literally charged that same amount a decade ago in 2014 for 512GB.

Ditto for RAM upgrades before 16GB became standard. Plenty people fine with 8GB. The upgrade should have been $80 or $100 at most.

This. The upgrade prices are ridiculous, but I am in the camp that currently uses 256gb with over 100gb of free space. I work with excel and word. Those documents hardly take up any space. Most people I personally know also get away with 256gb, the same as they do with their phones.

With the education pricing of $499, it is an absolute steal of a machine.

 

[mode11]

Sure.. in percentage terms, for that single component. If it is a couple of dollars on a million machines, it's a couple of million dollars.

Percentages aren't affected when you multiply both sides. Sure, it's $2m - from $599m+ of sales.

In any case, the main point is to drive people towards the juicy 512GB+ upgrades - they're essentially pure profit.

One way of looking at it is that Apple Silicon is impressive, but in large part because it always uses the smallest, most expensive process node and massive dies. That has to be paid for somehow. Apple's 'how' is to price the base model competitively, but with very tight specs. Then charge a fortune for any spec increase from there.

 

[ThailandToo]

You really think that u reliable Chinese junk no name NVmE is at the same quality as what Apple has engineered? 😂

Ram costs AAPL about $30 for 64GB. How much do they charge? NVME costs AAPL about $160 for an 8TB SSD. How much do they charge? These are Apple’s estimated bulk purchasing prices for each.

The problem is Tim’s strategy is to price gouge and has been for years. Steve cares more about customers than shareholders. Tim only cares about shareholders and himself. He has proven this repeatedly.

I would love to see the monopolies of giant tech companies torn apart. Apple is far more guilty than Google - yet people defend Tim and Apple like they’re their gods. Interoperability will be the future. For now, we get suck getting suckered by big companies of which Apple is the worst. Google makes money off your data. Apple makes money charging exorbitant pricing for simple upgrades. When we get back to devices that are good for the environment, which Tim says he cares about, we will be able to regulate standards like the EU has done with USBC. Standards are a good thing for consumers so there’s no reason for people to defend Apple unless they’re shareholders.

 

[dmr727]

We have threads like this every time Apple releases a piece of hardware, like somehow this time will be different.

 

[ninecows]

External storage.

Did I convince you yet?

I have an even better idea. Apple should lower base storage capacity even more (but keep the price tag).

It should only have enough storage for MacOS and a few extra apps. 64 GB will do. If you need anything more you can use iCloud or external storage.

I think it would be really great for my AAPL 😉

More seriously: I agree with the OP. Storage should follow standards and be user upgradable. If the SSD craps out, it’s a new computer. If you run out of storage you need an ugly external drive. Only Apple benefits from it now.

 

[CharlesShaw]

We have threads like this every time Apple releases a piece of hardware, like somehow this time will be different.

Good thing everyone can vent their technology frustrations here instead of at the holiday dinner table.

 

[mode11]

Ram costs AAPL about $30 for 64GB. How much do they charge? NVME costs AAPL about $160 for an 8TB SSD. How much do they charge? These are Apple’s estimated bulk purchasing prices for each.

The problem is Tim’s strategy is to price gouge and has been for years. Steve cares more about customers than shareholders. Tim only cares about shareholders and himself. He has proven this repeatedly.

I would love to see the monopolies of giant tech companies torn apart. Apple is far more guilty than Google - yet people defend Tim and Apple like they’re their gods. Interoperability will be the future. For now, we get suck getting suckered by big companies of which Apple is the worst. Google makes money off your data. Apple makes money charging exorbitant pricing for simple upgrades. When we get back to devices that are good for the environment, which Tim says he cares about, we will be able to regulate standards like the EU has done with USBC. Standards are a good thing for consumers so there’s no reason for people to defend Apple unless they’re shareholders.

No one's forcing you to buy a Mac. The PC market exists, and delivers exactly what you're asking for. And the difference between Windows and macOS these days is really not that dramatic (at least in the EU - the US versions seem to have TikTok and other nonsense bundled). The telemetry stuff can be disabled by toggling everything off in the Privacy & Security settings (or just use a tool like O&O ShutUp10++ on default settings).

Hardware goes in cycles. When Macs used PPC, they got off to a good start but were swiftly overtaken by x86. Then Apple moved to Intel and (most) Mac users rejoiced. PPC ended up slow and power inefficient; the jump to Core 2 was like the jump to Apple Silicon today (perhaps even more so). x86 is currently lagging AS in terms of ST CPU performance (and certainly energy efficiency), but leads in GPU performance, and PC RAM / storage costs are obviously miles lower. Personally, I find Apple's laptops more compelling than their desktops.

 

[SpotOnT]

Yup, eventually they buy something like an iPhone and sometimes "get it". That there's more to the device than component specs. How they actually work with the provided OS for example...

PC hardware is a race to the bottom and that market is totally driven by $X for Y ghz or Z GB. Those are the only things (other than RGB) that the typical consumer understands without actually using the devices. Build a PC out of cheap components and it will be noisy, have crappy nagware drivers on a crappy nagware OS. It will work like the collection of trash it is, rather than some cohesive product.

Bluetooth broke for 2 months on my Windows 11 PC last year for example with a Windows update. Totally borked. Tried all sorts of things to fix it, magically fixed itself 2 months later with an update. In the meantime - no bluetooth.

You can spend more to get nicer parts with nicer drivers (still a crap nagware OS though) - but do that and all of a sudden the PC isn't so cheap.

Ya, I am not complaining about Mac prices - I am commenting on SSD and RAM upgrade costs specifically. I even started my comment by stating that I have no comment on Apple’s base pricing.

The problem is purely with their RAM and SSD costs. According to Forbes, Apple pays about $3 for that $200 RAM upgrade. It is a similar story on their SSD upgrades.

Any idea that you are paying $200 for 8GB of RAM or 512GB of SSD in order to get quality hardware is misguided at best.

 

[tenthousandthings]

No, it should not start at 512GB. Many people are fine with 256GB.

The real problem is the cost of the upgrade. $200 for an additional 256GB is too expensive. Apple literally charged that same amount a decade ago in 2014 for 512GB.

Ditto for RAM upgrades before 16GB became standard. Plenty people fine with 8GB. The upgrade should have been $80 or $100 at most.

It’s really just that initial upgrade tier. It leaves an opening for comparison shoppers that doesn’t need to be there. If the in-stock, in-store Mini lineup were $599, $699, and $899, with upgrade increments beyond that priced the same as they are now, it would go a long way toward muting the effect of comparison-based attacks on Apple’s brand.

But there’s the rub. Apple is a designer brand. People pay for that distinction. “Designed by Apple in California.” I think the $100 “Apple tax” on those two initial in-stock, in-store upgrade tiers is there for a reason, and it’s not going to change. I think it is folly, that making the Mini, Air, and iMac lines $100 more affordable across the board (apart from the base) would be a good thing, and wouldn’t hurt the brand. But I also know making every consumer Mac (again, apart from the base) $100 cheaper comes straight out of Apple’s profits. Would they make up for it in volume? We don’t know that. My guess is the answer to that is no, and it may not be close.

 

[wlossw]

if only the ps5 pro could run macos. would it be the perfect mac desktop?

 

[dz5b609]

As long as Apple's metrics (and other research) shows that for the fast majority of people 256GB is enough Apple will not go higher. It's just a numbers game.

The real problem is the upgrade costs.

 

[klasma]

How they actually work with the provided OS for example...

The “provided” OS is why I don’t buy Macs, though. Nice hardware, but the software and the lock-in is not for me.

 

[Timpetus]

Upgrade costs are indeed far above market, which is why on the secondary market or when they go on sale a few months after launch you can get upgraded models for very little extra cost. I'll let other people pay for Apple's profit margins and get the machine I want a few months later, just like I did with my M1 Max 14" MBP. I got a 64GB/2TB model for what the 16GB/1TB M1 Pro model cost when B&H had a sale a few months after. If I'd bought the same machine at launch, it would have been $1700 more than what I paid.

 

[redheeler]

Even the 512GB will need external storage. So yes you convinced me of adding external storage but I still went for the 512GB… It’s the typical upselling tactics to make a very appealing entry price but you will need to have compromise using it so that it’s easy to upsell us to pay $200 more. Better view it as a $799 product to feel better

If I could get 32 GB + 256 GB for the same price as 16 GB + 512 GB I'd choose the first option. 256 GB is enough for just the system with other data going to the external SSD. Meanwhile my memory pressure is going into the orange all the time on 16 GB and there's nothing whatsoever that can be done about it.