The Future of the Mac Mini (2015)

[Dark Void]

Its all about what the investors and board wants! If the majority of the investors have investments or business with the factors or product items that fullfill the mac mini then the investors will push the CEO to continue to sell the mac mini.
This was an example

Of course they're going to do what is best for business and what will sell well, and I personally think the Mac mini has a well deserved place in the Mac lineup due to it being a more traditional desktop at a fair price point.

Most folks are not geeks with an inclination to tinker. We (as I am among them) want something that just works. Apple are more interested in satisfying most folks than pandering to geeks.

This is a good point, and an unfortunately reality. I have noticed this most in the notebook lines where the thinner, lighter, adapter requiring wireless agenda is seemingly full fledged at the moment. Not knocking it or anything, but there is nothing tinkerable about a completely soldered computer. Screws and removable hardware is my style.

 

[SpacemanSpiffed]

In my opinion, The 2014 1.4Ghz Model was about making sure there was low-cost entry point for the line, suitable for enough people, like my parents, who don't really need much more, and not about deliberatly downgrading the Mini line.

As for the soldered RAM - I just talked about it another thread. The LPDDR3 memory cuts a watt or two off the system's power consumption, and driving down power consumption, at idle and under load, is one of Apple's ongoing goals. But from what I understand (and I might be wrong) it doesn't lend itself to removable modules due to technical reasons, and as a result there are no LPDDR3 DIMMs anywhere on the planet. And it was the power saving that drove the decision to switch, not a desire to screw over Mini Buyers (of which I'll bet only a small percentage actually upgrade the RAM). I'd rather RAM remain upgradable, but I can understand the tradeoff made.

As a veteran software developer, I've get the occasional bit of insider information: I knew about (and got to test) the Iris Pro 5200 GPU having 128mb of eDRAM nearly a year before it was public. The few people I know at Apple are so very careful not to discuss what's not announced, but they've implied, without specifics, that Apple's current generation of computers were impacted by Intel's schedule and production problems with 14nm/Broadwell.

I chose to take that to mean that what Apple's done with the 2014 Mac Minis was not about downgrading it's potential, but making the best of what was actually available CPU wise. I feel we saw that before with the 2010 models, which stayed with the Core 2 Duo longer than expected, then jumped to Sandy Bridge (and dedicated GPUs). My hope, and I'm sure that of everyone else is also, is that the next rev of the Mini includes Broadwell Quad-Core Mobile CPUs (with their Iris PRO 6200 GPUs) or their Skylake counterparts. The Broadwell Quad-Core Iris Pro parts are rated at 47 watts TDP at max turbo, which should work in the existing Mac Mini's thermal design. (The Haswell parts, when they finally came out, were 47 watt Nominal / 55 Watt max turbo)

I know this last bit is a lot of wishful thinking and projection on my part, but I don't see any technical obstacles for it happening. And if it does happen (Quad Core + Iris Pro options), I think we all would feel acknowledged and rejoice, right after placing orders for the new Quad-Core Minis.

(Edit: Had wrong RAM Type Name)

 

[Dark Void]

In my opinion, The 2014 1.4Ghz Model was about making sure there was low-cost entry point for the line, suitable for enough people, like my parents, who don't really need much more, and not about deliberatly downgrading the Mini line.

I agree with this, but it's also easy to have the thought that it is essentially smoke and mirrors to create a better starting price, and if you actually want a more adequate system you're going to be paying more than what you were at the starting price of the 2012 models for a similar machine at an identical clock speed.

As for the soldered RAM - I just talked about it another thread. The LPDDR3 memory cuts a watt or two off the system's power consumption, and driving down power consumption, at idle and under load, is one of Apple's ongoing goals. But from what I understand (and I might be wrong) it doesn't lend itself to removable modules due to technical reasons, and as a result there are no LPDDR3 DIMMs anywhere on the planet. And it was the power saving that drove the decision to switch, not a desire to screw over Mini Buyers (of which I'll bet only a small percentage actually upgrade the RAM). I'd rather RAM remain upgradable, but I can understand the tradeoff made.

I never really considered this, but that seems sort of negligible. It's a good point but I like to believe that it's the devious intention of cornering upgrades through BTO configuring.

I really never thought of it from a power consumption point of view though so you definitely bring up an interesting point. Thanks for doing so.

 

[SpacemanSpiffed]

In my opinion, The 2014 1.4Ghz Model was about making sure there was low-cost entry point for the line, suitable for enough people, like my parents, who don't really need much more, and not about deliberatly downgrading the Mini line.

I agree with this, but it's also easy to have the thought that it is essentially smoke and mirrors to create a better starting price, and if you actually want a more adequate system you're going to be paying more than what you were at the starting price of the 2012 models for a similar machine at an identical clock speed.

I don't think it's two separate things. Yes, they wanted to have a lower price model to attract more people, and yes they quickly get you upsold into a higher spec model. SO yeah, it's the one base model car on the lot advertized for an insane low price. For some people though, I think the base model *is* good enough. But those people usually aren't the ones posting here.

Re: Change to LPDDR3 Ram

I never really considered this, but that seems sort of negligible. It's a good point but I like to believe that it's the devious intention of cornering upgrades through BTO configuring.

I really never thought of it from a power consumption point of view though so you definitely bring up an interesting point. Thanks for doing so.

Well, a quick look at the specs shows that Power Consumption between the 2012 and 2014 models was cut over half in sleep mode (by ~0.85 watts) and almost by half at idle (~5 watts). About a third to half of that at idle is due to the RAM, so that's significant enough to notice if I am a hardware designer at Apple not even considering that their notebooks (where every minute of battery life counts) already made the switch. I'm pretty sure they feel the percentage of Mini Ram upgrades is small enough that deviousness never came into it. At my workplace, a fortune 50 company, they have a ton of minis and rMBPs where I'm at, and they never upgrade then themselves, they always just order to spec. I think enthusiasts like us, though vocal, are not their #1 market. As for the quad core though, we have them everywhere at work - iOS Dev machines, Server machines, CI machines, etc, and I do know corporate IT wishes they still had them.

 

[Dark Void]

For some people though, I think the base model *is* good enough.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I agree with you. I also just feel that it is easy to think that there is another motive in play here - as I mentioned I would have to jump to $699 to get a 2.6 GHz i5 as opposed $599 for a very similar 2.5 GHz i5 in 2012. It seems to me, that the current midrange model should have just been a spec bump with an updated CPU and the 8 GB standard at the same price point, but I suppose more variety (seemingly) is the route that they went. I don't think the entry minis in 2014 are useless by any means - probably for some, if not most people but especially with all of those student discounts and such flying around recently they were being had for $350 or so which sounds great.

Well, a quick look at the specs shows that Power Consumption between the 2012 and 2014 models was cut over half in sleep mode (by ~0.85 watts) and almost by half at idle (~5 watts). About a third to half of that at idle is due to the RAM, so that's significant enough to notice if I am a hardware designer at Apple not even considering that their notebooks (where every minute of battery life counts) already made the switch. I'm pretty sure they feel the percentage of Mini Ram upgrades is small enough that deviousness never came into it. At my workplace, a fortune 50 company, they have a ton of minis and rMBPs where I'm at, and they never upgrade then themselves, they always just order to spec. I think enthusiasts like us, though vocal, are not their #1 market. As for the quad core though, we have them everywhere at work - iOS Dev machines, Server machines, CI machines, etc, and I do know corporate IT wishes they still had them.

Again, never considered this but you make a great point. I suppose it makes sense on a large scale or in the long term for the average user, but with the RAM aside my main gripe is the loss of the quad-core CPUs. That alone is going to be my deciding factor in the future as to whether or not to seek new desktop options.

 

[newellj]

Oh, don't get me wrong - I agree with you. I also just feel that it is easy to think that there is another motive in play here - as I mentioned I would have to jump to $699 to get a 2.6 GHz i5 as opposed $599 for a very similar 2.5 GHz i5 in 2012. It seems to me, that the current midrange model should have just been a spec bump with an updated CPU and the 8 GB standard at the same price point, but I suppose more variety (seemingly) is the route that they went. I don't think the entry minis in 2014 are useless by any means - probably for some, if not most people but especially with all of those student discounts and such flying around recently they were being had for $350 or so which sounds great.



Again, never considered this but you make a great point. I suppose it makes sense on a large scale or in the long term for the average user, but with the RAM aside my main gripe is the loss of the quad-core CPUs. That alone is going to be my deciding factor in the future as to whether or not to seek new desktop options.

It's been a while, but my recollection is that Intel didn't make a 4-core U CPU, so Apple didn't really have a choice. I fear that the quad core Minis may have been a short-lived anomaly.

 

[ixxx69]

It's been a while, but my recollection is that Intel didn't make a 4-core U CPU, so Apple didn't really have a choice.

This fallacy gets repeated over and over around hear. They didn't use the "U" part for the 2012 ivy bridge mini... they used the "QM" part for the 4 cores (same socket as the "M")... BTW, both the "M" and "QM/MQ" were also used in the 2012 MBP's. Intel did update those to Haswell. For better or worse, it was Apple's choice to ditch the M/MQ part for the "U".

Three things happened between Ivy Bridge and Haswell:

1. The socket/BGA packaging (soldered) changed for Haswell - though this happened for all Haswell CPUs, but it meant a board refresh for the Mini regardless.

2. Apple wanted to move to BGA packaging (non-socketed) for their Haswell laptops, and it made sense to Apple to move the Mini along to those as well. However the Mini's could have used the HQ parts (4 core / BGA packaging) that the 15" MBP's migrated to, instead of the U part used in the MBA.

3. Apple decided to feature the mini as a super energy-efficient computer that sips power like a desktop MBA. The Haswell HQ (quad) parts are ~37-47W TDP while the U parts are ~15W TDP

So Apple could have updated the Mini to the 4 core Haswell CPUs still being used in the 15" MBP (and which Broadwell versions already exist and Skylake version will be released).

It did make practical sense for Apple to ditch the socketed part since the Mini would be the only computer in their lineup using a socketed mobile part. And they probably wouldn't have a choice for long anyway - Intel appears to be phasing out socketed mobile parts as mobile devices shrink in size. So far, there are no socketed Broadwell mobile parts, and AFAIK, there won't be socketed Skylake mobile parts either. That's the only thing you can "blame" Intel for.

We can argue all day long about whether Apple's decision was good or bad, or endlessly speculate on the future of the product, but it's Apple's choice not to have a 4 core Mini.

 

[Dark Void]

It's been a while, but my recollection is that Intel didn't make a 4-core U CPU, so Apple didn't really have a choice. I fear that the quad core Minis may have been a short-lived anomaly.

This fallacy gets repeated over and over around hear. They didn't use the "U" part for the 2012 ivy bridge mini... they used the "QM" part for the 4 cores (same socket as the "M")... BTW, both the "M" and "QM/MQ" were also used in the 2012 MBP's. Intel did update those to Haswell. For better or worse, it was Apple's choice to ditch the M/MQ part for the "U".

Three things happened between Ivy Bridge and Haswell:

1. The socket/BGA packaging (soldered) changed for Haswell - though this happened for all Haswell CPUs, but it meant a board refresh for the Mini regardless.

2. Apple wanted to move to BGA packaging (non-socketed) for their Haswell laptops, and it made sense to Apple to move the Mini along to those as well. However the Mini's could have used the HQ parts (4 core / BGA packaging) that the 15" MBP's migrated to, instead of the U part used in the MBA.

3. Apple decided to feature the mini as a super energy-efficient computer that sips power like a desktop MBA. The Haswell HQ (quad) parts are ~37-47W TDP while the U parts are ~15W TDP

So Apple could have updated the Mini to the 4 core Haswell CPUs still being used in the 15" MBP (and which Broadwell versions already exist and Skylake version will be released).

It did make practical sense for Apple to ditch the socketed part since the Mini would be the only computer in their lineup using a socketed mobile part. And they probably wouldn't have a choice for long anyway - Intel appears to be phasing out socketed mobile parts as mobile devices shrink in size. So far, there are no socketed Broadwell mobile parts, and AFAIK, there won't be socketed Skylake mobile parts either. That's the only thing you can "blame" Intel for.

We can argue all day long about whether Apple's decision was good or bad, or endlessly speculate on the future of the product, but it's Apple's choice not to have a 4 core Mini.

I was going to give a short response of, "since they used them in 15'' MBP they could of used them in the Mac mini" but very well said.

 

[G4er?]

Nope. The resources will go toward the Apple TV, Apple Car, and Apple Washer-Drier combo.

More spinners in Apple products?

 

[Partron22]

We can argue all day long about whether Apple's decision was good or bad, or endlessly speculate on the future of the product, but it's Apple's choice not to have a 4 core Mini.

As it was their strategic choice not to bring iBooks to Mac for 3 years, or Siri even yet.
Doesn't mean they wont change their mind as the market shifts again.
We're down to watches as the latest and greatest; scraping close to the bottom of the innovation barrel.
A decrease in the pace of real innovation is likely to bring back corporate concern for producing value added Macs; quad core minis.

 

[Crosscreek]

As it was their strategic choice not to bring iBooks to Mac for 3 years, or Siri even yet.
Doesn't mean they wont change their mind as the market shifts again.
We're down to watches as the latest and greatest; scraping close to the bottom of the innovation barrel.
A decrease in the pace of real innovation is likely to bring back corporate concern for producing value added Macs; quad core minis.

Lot of stuff in the bottom of the barrel for Apple.

Apple TV
Apple IoT
Apple VR
Apple Car Play
Apple Car
Apple Bank

And I'm sure many more.

I can only say that I hope a quad core Mac Min is in the future although not innovative and not a big profit generator.

I think the opposite direction for the Mini...... as a comparatively inexpensive entry level Mac.

If I were Apple and thinking maximizing profits I would build a nano core M Mini with 2 options for processors such as the Mac Book and if you wanted more power you would be forced to an iMac or MacBook Pro.

I look forward to what Skylark will do to the Apple product lineup an still holding out hope as you.

 

[Dark Void]

I'll just say this much - I don't understand how a quad-core CPU can only be offered at the very least in a $3000 machine if you want a traditional desktop computer. iMac is different - I am not going to purchase an all-in-one if I have my own peripherals already. Limiting traditional desktops to dual-core unless you want to spend at least a few thousand dollars is ridiculous in my perception.

What does having the three current Mac Minis even offer? It's a complete stretch. A dual-core ... a dual-core ... and wait, a negligibly faster dual-core!

Soldering the RAM - fine. Expected. I'll pay the Apple premiums there. But I have to pay for a prosumer $3000 (fugly) desktop if I want a traditional desktop that has anything better than a dual-core processor? Where is the middle of the line? iMac? It doesn't make sense to me as that's a completely different type and class of a computer.

The current line-up may be great for some, especially with that new lower price point model if it handles your needs, but man if this didn't create a HUGE gap in terms of what is offered.

 

[Padaung]

I'll just say this much - I don't understand how a quad-core CPU can only be offered at the very least in a $3000 machine if you want a traditional desktop computer. iMac is different - I am not going to purchase an all-in-one if I have my own peripherals already. Limiting traditional desktops to dual-core unless you want to spend at least a few thousand dollars is ridiculous in my perception.

What does having the three current Mac Minis even offer? It's a complete stretch. A dual-core ... a dual-core ... and wait, a negligibly faster dual-core!

Soldering the RAM - fine. Expected. I'll pay the Apple premiums there. But I have to pay for a prosumer $3000 (fugly) desktop if I want a traditional desktop that has anything better than a dual-core processor? Where is the middle of the line? iMac? It doesn't make sense to me as that's a completely different type and class of a computer.

The current line-up may be great for some, especially with that new lower price point model if it handles your needs, but man if this didn't create a HUGE gap in terms of what is offered.

I agree with this. I think the Apple line up of products is becoming unwieldy again (think back to the product lineup in the mid 1990's), with some products taking the lion's share of time and resources leaving a number of other products not really meeting a lot of people's needs (e.g. quad core at a sensible price and/or without a permanent screen attached).


Macbook (1 machine) - I think this will be the laptop of the future but right now it feels ill-conceived in terms of price and USB port numbers and type.
Macbook Air (4 variants of 2 machines) - just make them retina and a lot of people will be happy.
Macbook Pro (6 variants of 3 machines) - solid machines, but a dedicated GPU in lower model tiers would be welcome I'm sure.

iMac (5 variants of 3 machines) - quad core and dedicated GPU come at a price.
Mac Pro (2 variants of 2 machines) - neither updated in ages.
Mac Mini (3 variants of 1 machine) - many of which don't really meet many people's wishes.

iPhone (4 models in different sizes, capacity and colour)
iPad (4 models in different sizes, capacity and colour)
Apple Watch (3 finish options, each in two sizes, lots of wrist strap options)

None of the computers allow for touch input (I know, opinions of this vary). No true 2-in-1 devices (I think the next models of the Surface & Surface Pro with Windows 10 installed will be amazing). I'd need to see what Apple do with the rumoured iPad Pro and its version of iOS to pass judgement on it.

Also, is it about time all computers shipped with a bare minimum of an SSD, with an upgrade to the SSD/HDD combo?

Tesco supermarkets in the UK announced today that after many years of expanding their product range they are now reducing choice. Sounds counter intuitive? As humans, I think too much choice can be a bad thing...


Anyway, that was a little rant. Me? I love my Mac Mini and I'd love to see the future Mini lineup range from like an Intel NUC type machine (the latest ones are amazing: powerful, tiny, quiet, efficient and the power supply is the size of a phone charger now - great for office tasks, playing music and video, and browsing: i.e. the tasks a great many people only do) up to a Brix Pro type machine with quad core, sophisticated gpu and room for 2 disc drives (and quiet, unlike the Brix Pro). Small, medium and large machines rather than the current lineup of three machines which are for the most part the same.

 

[Yurieff]

I was in the market for an updated Mac Mini for a while, ordered the mid-range model but cancelled my order afterwards. Using a HDD would just break my heart and psyche. How I wished the then-announced line would've been:

Entry-level option:
Intel® Core™ i5-4260U (15W)
4GB DDR3 1600 Memory (Soldered)
128GB PCIe SSD
Intel® HD Graphics 5000

This is your basic option for web surfing, media consuption or even a HTPC / Media Centre, given that you have a NAS or hook up an additional storage (will mention that later). Call it 'the world's most energy efficient desktop' (I believe SSDs have three times less power consumption than traditional HDD, IIRC)

Mid-range option:
Intel® Core™ i5-4308U (28W)
8GB DDR3 1600 Memory (Soldered)
256GB PCIe SSD
Intel® Iris™ Graphics 5100

This is your preferred option for those who occasionally do some Photoshop / Lightroom; write music in Ableton; developers, looking for a budget computer; or simply people with more demanding hobbies.
Compared to the entry option, You get roughly 35% performance increase in CPU, 25% in GPU, twice the RAM, twice the storage.
Note that there are only four processors with the Iris 5100 graphics, so we're stuck with an 'U'-class processor.

Flagship option:
Intel® Core™ I7-4770HQ (47W)
16GB/32GB DDR3 1600 Memory (Soldered)
256GB/512GB/1TB PCIe SSD
1TB/2TB 7200RPM HDD
Intel® Iris™ Pro Graphics 5200
GeForce GT 750M (50W)

(we are discussing a 2014 product, so no AMD R9 370X)
CTO Options
This is your Mac Mini on steroids. There are people who need a beast performance, want a MAC, but don't want an iMac or don't need a workstation-grade computer. Believe me, Apple, those people exist.
Compared to the mid-range option, You get roughly twice the performance in CPU, up to twice the performance in GPU, up to four times the RAM, up to four times the storage and optional additional 2TB of slow storage for your libraries and whatever.

Additional:
- Better cooling system with a huge-ass fan, which will operate in much lower RPM for the entry-level and mid-range option, but will be able to cool 4770HQ+750M under huge loads.
- Add a 2.5" slot for adding a SATA SSD or HDD later. You would be able to purchase a cheap 1TB HDD for ~$50-$60 and use it for storage. This is a desktop computer after all.
- Maaaaaaybe add a single SODIMM slot for RAM upgrades.

Actually there's nothing more I could think of.. This would be my dream Mac Mini (just update the CPU and GPU to newer ones and voila!)

 

[Dark Void]

As it was their strategic choice not to bring iBooks to Mac for 3 years, or Siri even yet.
Doesn't mean they wont change their mind as the market shifts again.
We're down to watches as the latest and greatest; scraping close to the bottom of the innovation barrel.
A decrease in the pace of real innovation is likely to bring back corporate concern for producing value added Macs; quad core minis.

Hopefully you're correct, as I would like to see this.

I agree with this. I think the Apple line up of products is becoming unwieldy again (think back to the product lineup in the mid 1990's)

That's when I was born lol, but I'll take your word for it!

Anyway, that was a little rant. Me? I love my Mac Mini and I'd love to see the future Mini lineup range from like an Intel NUC type machine (the latest ones are amazing: powerful, tiny, quiet, efficient and the power supply is the size of a phone charger now - great for office tasks, playing music and video, and browsing: i.e. the tasks a great many people only do) up to a Brix Pro type machine with quad core, sophisticated gpu and room for 2 disc drives (and quiet, unlike the Brix Pro). Small, medium and large machines rather than the current lineup of three machines which are for the most part the same.

I just definitely hope that traditional desktops aren't bottlenecked all the way through to a $3000 prosumer option being your only choice for anything above a dual-core system. Thanks for sharing your hopes and opinions. It's interesting that you bring up different sizes as a choice, that is something that I had not considered.

I was in the market for an updated Mac Mini for a while, ordered the mid-range model but cancelled my order afterwards. Using a HDD would just break my heart and psyche. How I wished the then-announced line would've been:

Entry-level option:
Intel® Core™ i5-4260U (15W)
4GB DDR3 1600 Memory (Soldered)
128GB PCIe SSD
Intel® HD Graphics 5000

This is your basic option for web surfing, media consuption or even a HTPC / Media Centre, given that you have a NAS or hook up an additional storage (will mention that later). Call it 'the world's most energy efficient desktop' (I believe SSDs have three times less power consumption than traditional HDD, IIRC)

Mid-range option:
Intel® Core™ i5-4308U (28W)
8GB DDR3 1600 Memory (Soldered)
256GB PCIe SSD
Intel® Iris™ Graphics 5100

This is your preferred option for those who occasionally do some Photoshop / Lightroom; write music in Ableton; developers, looking for a budget computer; or simply people with more demanding hobbies.
Compared to the entry option, You get roughly 35% performance increase in CPU, 25% in GPU, twice the RAM, twice the storage.
Note that there are only four processors with the Iris 5100 graphics, so we're stuck with an 'U'-class processor.

Flagship option:
Intel® Core™ I7-4770HQ (47W)
16GB/32GB DDR3 1600 Memory (Soldered)
256GB/512GB/1TB PCIe SSD
1TB/2TB 7200RPM HDD
Intel® Iris™ Pro Graphics 5200
GeForce GT 750M (50W)

(we are discussing a 2014 product, so no AMD R9 370X)
CTO Options
This is your Mac Mini on steroids. There are people who need a beast performance, want a MAC, but don't want an iMac or don't need a workstation-grade computer. Believe me, Apple, those people exist.
Compared to the mid-range option, You get roughly twice the performance in CPU, up to twice the performance in GPU, up to four times the RAM, up to four times the storage and optional additional 2TB of slow storage for your libraries and whatever.

Additional:
- Better cooling system with a huge-ass fan, which will operate in much lower RPM for the entry-level and mid-range option, but will be able to cool 4770HQ+750M under huge loads.
- Add a 2.5" slot for adding a SATA SSD or HDD later. You would be able to purchase a cheap 1TB HDD for ~$50-$60 and use it for storage. This is a desktop computer after all.
- Maaaaaaybe add a single SODIMM slot for RAM upgrades.

Actually there's nothing more I could think of.. This would be my dream Mac Mini (just update the CPU and GPU to newer ones and voila!)

I have to say, I'm really enjoying the look of that third option you've thought up. I don't need anything too powerful in terms of GPU, but I'd like to have it at least come with a mid-range dedicated card as an option. I think the integrated chips are good for what a good amount of people need a GPU for, but for any sort of graphic intensive tasks it would obviously be ideal to have at least a somewhat formidable midrange dedicated chip.

I agree there is a market for it, but just how big is that market is the question. I'm exactly as you describe - desiring a capable consumer grade traditional desktop. I just find it silly in terms of the CPU, with the next option essentially being the entry level Mac Pro. I could never justify the purchase of a Mac Pro, but when my faithful i5 mini with its integrated GPU can no longer handle what it needs to, I want more options for the mini to exist in the future. Something fair, something that makes sense - not 3 stale, nearly identical options that is nothing more than a complete stretch in my opinion.

What I am going on about may not seem logical to some with the presence of an iMac, but traditional desktops are much more versatile than all-in-one computers. Half of the usage of Mac minis (servers, HTPCs, etc) wouldn't exist if it weren't for it being a traditional desktop in my opinion.

 

[passivecool]

I concur with what others have already predicted: a new Mac mini is at least a year away. After pushing USB Type-C with the new MacBook, Apple will push USB Type-C on the next iPhones, iPads, and other notebooks before updating the desktops. Apple might refresh the iMac sooner, but the Mac mini and Mac Pro will need to wait for USB Type-C displays, keyboards, etc.

Sales of desktops pale in comparison to sales of notebooks, but the entry-level Mac mini is nice for driving recurring revenue from services like iCloud and now Apple Music.

 

[Dark Void]

I concur with what others have already predicted: a new Mac mini is at least a year away. After pushing USB Type-C with the new MacBook, Apple will push USB Type-C on the next iPhones, iPads, and other notebooks before updating the desktops. Apple might refresh the iMac sooner, but the Mac mini and Mac Pro will need to wait for USB Type-C displays, keyboards, etc.

Sales of desktops pale in comparison to sales of notebooks, but the entry-level Mac mini is nice for driving recurring revenue from services like iCloud and now Apple Music.

I would say so too - mid to late 2016 is my opinion. I'm not too sure if I care about USB-C yet honestly, is this something that you hope to be on the mini sooner rather than later?

I can see a lot of users getting use out of entry level minis as a dedicated Apple Music device, along with streaming other content as well. HTPCs has always existed as the minis gig but now with Apple Music maybe it will open more people up to the idea of having something dedicated for such.

 

[passivecool]

I would say so too - mid to late 2016 is my opinion. I'm not too sure if I care about USB-C yet honestly, is this something that you hope to be on the mini sooner rather than later?

I'm just speculating how the new MacBook fits into Apple's plans for the rest of the lineup. For the next iPhones and iPads:

• Lightning/USB Type-A (the status quo) would be safest, but the new MacBook would need an adapter.
• USB Type-C/USB Type-A would retain compatibility with USB Type-A devices (e.g. most computers, currently) but break compatibility with Lightning accessories (e.g. docks). Again, the new MacBook would need an adapter.
• USB Type-C/USB Type-C would break compatibility with both USB Type-A devices and Lightning accessories. This would be ambitious for 2015.

Short-term, Apple might refresh CPU/RAM/storage on its notebooks and desktops, but I assume USB Type-C would be a prerequisite for any major hardware update.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I still hope for the return of a quad core with great integrated graphics. Maybe later this year a sky lake mini.

 

[Dark Void]

I'm just speculating how the new MacBook fits into Apple's plans for the rest of the lineup. For the next iPhones and iPads:

• Lightning/USB Type-A (the status quo) would be safest, but the new MacBook would need an adapter.
• USB Type-C/USB Type-A would retain compatibility with USB Type-A devices (e.g. most computers, currently) but break compatibility with Lightning accessories (e.g. docks). Again, the new MacBook would need an adapter.
• USB Type-C/USB Type-C would break compatibility with both USB Type-A devices and Lightning accessories. This would be ambitious for 2015.

Short-term, Apple might refresh CPU/RAM/storage on its notebooks and desktops, but I assume USB Type-C would be a prerequisite for any major hardware update.

Understandable. It's coming at one point or another anyway.

I still hope for the return of a quad core with great integrated graphics. Maybe later this year a sky lake mini.

I doubt later this year, but I don't care when it comes out as long as they restore quad-core options!

 

[phrehdd]

I suppose that no matter what Apple puts out there, someone will buy. Does this mean everyone will be happy? In short - NO.

To keep this short - I prefer the ability to upgrade RAM and drive. Soldering everything to the board is not (in my opinion) a plus where failure points are concerned (as another has commented). It makes the system have two points of failure and only one part replaceable (the power supply). If your RAM flakes or drive, they wont unsolder those items but replace the entire motherboard and that is far more expensive. There is no advantage for the end user. As well, if you don't like to tinker, as it were, then simply don't. - Go buy another Mini or whatever.

Offering the 1.4 was honestly pathetic. Grandparents are used as an excuse for this lackluster offering and remember, maybe Granny wants to add her recipe maker program and Gramps wants to add some sort of home building app (perhaps a baby CADD of sorts) and of course the grandkids want to come over and play a simple game. It starts adding up and we find we have a truly anemic excuse of a computer with NO chance to "fix" to meet the needs. Simply said, what you buy up front is the limitation itself and most non-tech types wont realize this upon purchase. So that 1.4 with minimal RAM turns into as stated, nothing more than a way over priced web browser.

As for the RAM and drive - well its pretty obvious that if I bought a Mini with 4 gigs of RAM and later wanted to add perhaps Lightroom and Photoshop, I am screwed and forced to consider buying yet again another computer. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that 8-16 gigs of RAM is more in order and a faster drive to keep some software "happy."

Bottom line - I wont buy another Mini when even my old 2.0 quad server outperforms the top model being offered (and that Mini is 3 years old) unless Apple makes a decent quad and makes the RAM upgradable. I don't care for the Apple Tax on RAM as it is just damn greedy.

 

[Dark Void]

I suppose that no matter what Apple puts out there, someone will buy. Does this mean everyone will be happy? In short - NO.

Of course. It's impossible to please everyone.

To keep this short - I prefer the ability to upgrade RAM and drive. Soldering everything to the board is not (in my opinion) a plus where failure points are concerned (as another has commented). It makes the system have two points of failure and only one part replaceable (the power supply). If your RAM flakes or drive, they wont unsolder those items but replace the entire motherboard and that is far more expensive. There is no advantage for the end user. As well, if you don't like to tinker, as it were, then simply don't. - Go buy another Mini or whatever.

I agree here. I feel like it is more worthwhile to be able to replace singular parts instead of scraping the logic board every time something goes wrong internally.

Offering the 1.4 was honestly pathetic. Grandparents are used as an excuse for this lackluster offering and remember, maybe Granny wants to add her recipe maker program and Gramps wants to add some sort of home building app (perhaps a baby CADD of sorts) and of course the grandkids want to come over and play a simple game. It starts adding up and we find we have a truly anemic excuse of a computer with NO chance to "fix" to meet the needs. Simply said, what you buy up front is the limitation itself and most non-tech types wont realize this upon purchase. So that 1.4 with minimal RAM turns into as stated, nothing more than a way over priced web browser.

I think that 1.4 GHz i5 is certainly weak but deserves a bit more credit than what you are giving it. I feel that model is on par with what a good amount of people do on the computer. The system as a whole can definitely be considered weak though. I don't look as far as weak or adequate when looking at the lineup though - all I can think of is redundancy, mostly between the second and third model. The first model can exist at its price point and make a nice everyday computing driver, file server or HTPC - and the second offering is okay for a midrange, but the third option makes no sense and should allow for much more intensively over the second one in my opinion.

As for the RAM and drive - well its pretty obvious that if I bought a Mini with 4 gigs of RAM and later wanted to add perhaps Lightroom and Photoshop, I am screwed and forced to consider buying yet again another computer. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that 8-16 gigs of RAM is more in order and a faster drive to keep some software "happy."

Not disputing what you're saying here, but the option is fair for those that aren't likely to have their usage patterns change. For someone that prefers, or wants to experience OS X and their tasks include everyday computing and some light work, I think the entry model is an adequate offering.

Bottom line - I wont buy another Mini when even my old 2.0 quad server outperforms the top model being offered (and that Mini is 3 years old) unless Apple makes a decent quad and makes the RAM upgradable. I don't care for the Apple Tax on RAM as it is just damn greedy.

Upgradeable RAM is unwanted but not a huge blow in my opinion. It sucks, and it is definitely one of my main gripes but it can be dealt with. The lack of quad options just limits the machine as a whole though. It's disappointing.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Actually pleasing a lot more people with the Mac mini would be easy if Apple adds a quad core option. Could be bto. Could be priced a way that makes sense to Apple also from a margin perspective compared to the iMac.

And a early update is not to much to ask for.

 

[applelover4u]

Of course they're going to do what is best for business and what will sell well, and I personally think the Mac mini has a well deserved place in the Mac lineup due to it being a more traditional desktop at a fair price point.

Guess you didn't read my post fully. They do not do decisions based off what will sell well all the time even in reality the items to sell. It leaves a lot of us confused such as, why didn't apple make the screen bigger or add nfc or this or that. but as i stated some of the board members may have personal relations with say "western digital" and WD needs to dump there old dinosaur hard drives out to raise stock

 

[newellj]

I may be missing something on the Intel web site but as far as I can tell the lowest TDP offered for quad core processors is 47W. The current max TDP on the 2014 Minis is 28W. The 2012 2.3gHz i7 quad was 45W but I don't see Apple going back to higher TDPs on the Mini...I would love to be wrong on that. I also don't see the trend to everything soldered to the board reversing...again, would love to be wrong, but there is nothing at all going on at Apple to encourage that hope.