Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
Apple (and Microsoft and others) face a shifting consumption model and the iPad, iPhone and delay in Mac updates might be Apple trying to adjust.
- Consumers and many businesses are shifting away from individual workstations and back to older models of terminal and remote computing/storage (the cloud).
- Chromebooks are a more like the terminals of the 1970s that login into remote server to access content.
- iPads are moving in that direction: Use your tablet to log in to the cloud to work on materials/access content.
- iPads and Apple are suffering from one major hinderance: Mac OS and iPads were designed in a time when the computer was how content was gathered, stored and distributed to devices. They were built with the local content host being the main hub of a digital lifestyle.
- iTunes, AirPlay, Home Sharing, AirDrop and many other features were built with the local content host (your Mac) sending that content to your devices.
- Google, for as much as I dislike many of their stuff, was built around accessing remote content and not storing content locally. This is where functions like GoogleMusic have an advantage over iTunes/Apple Music/Etc: it is device agnostic. I can login Chrome on any computer and whether my iPhone is with me or not, I can access my audio files.
- For my home, I prefer Apple products. However, Chromebooks are a preferred tool by my employers for a variety of reasons including initial cost, IT cost, and they are “good enough.” (though definitely not great). This means that even Windows is starting to take a beating in terms of number of devices at work.
- The hold up on updating Macs might be influenced by the following factors:
- Mac OS X is more mature than iOS and needs fewer, smaller updates.
- Intel is running into manufacturing delays
- CISC chips are near the end of their advancement. Moore’s law is approaching the end of physical limits and quantum improvements have to be made to make more signifficant gains.
- The nature of computing is shifting and making lots of hardware updates might not be financially worth it. It might be better to make a few major adjustments and wait and see how computing continues to evolve. The big threat is no longer Microsoft. It is now Google.
- Macs and Mac OS X are not even a quarter of Apple’s Business. The monumental success of Apple’s iPhone has undercut the very source of Apple’s resurgence in the the late 90’s: computers
- Simplify the product line. Go back to the days of 4 or 5 computers. Consumer level: Mac Mini, Macbook. Mid-Level: iMac. Pro Level: MacPro and MacBook Pro.
- Consider dropping the Computer line entirely. Change MacOS to a Windows like distribution model. Specify that it will work on any Intel CPU, any AMD or Nvidia GPU and sell it for $50-$150, and go back to ~$30 upgrades for major system changes. Market based on security, stability and privacy. People will buy it
iTunes works with a local music library without an internet connection, just like an iPad/iPhone's local music library.
iTunes is due a refresh, and from what was said on The Talk Show, Apple's aware what improvements need to be made. They're working on it. Apple moved away from the digital hub concept (what, MacWorld SF 2001's old idea?) a while back.
They can do, but also do iCloud.
Yes you can use cloud sync, but also do offline too - have a local copy of your files, so you can work even without connection.
Isn't iCloud device agnostic? Mac, iPad, iPhone, through the website? And they're doing Android apps too.
AirPlay isn't just to Mac - can be to your Apple TV, to your TV etc.
AirDrop can do iPhone to iPhone/iPad, not just iPhone/iPad to Mac.
Paths to have Mac resurge:
- Refresh Mac lineups
iTunes is due a refresh, and from what was said on The Talk Show, Apple's aware what improvements need to be made. They're working on it. Apple moved away from the digital hub concept (what, MacWorld SF 2001's old idea?) a while back.
They can do, but also do iCloud.
Yes you can use cloud sync, but also do offline too - have a local copy of your files, so you can work even without connection.
Isn't iCloud device agnostic? Mac, iPad, iPhone, through the website? And they're doing Android apps too.
AirPlay isn't just to Mac - can be to your Apple TV, to your TV etc.
AirDrop can do iPhone to iPhone/iPad, not just iPhone/iPad to Mac.
Paths to have Mac resurge:
- Refresh Mac lineups
I would love this scenario but it probably will never happen because Apple is a device manufacturer and not a software business like Microsoft.
Hmm. Apple, at least under the reign of Steve Jobs, was not a company built upon a stable basket of products that improved year after year. Instead, Steve always looked for a breakthrough product that created a new market (or revolutionized an existing one). The iPod totally changed mp3 players, the iPhone created a whole new way to use smartphones, and the iPad created (or recreated?) the tablet market (welcome back, PDAs!).
Steve could get away with this because (a) he had a very clear understanding of what kind of products he wanted, and (b) he had a very firm grasp on the levers of power at Apple. In short, he could force through R&D on iffy-sounding products (and, I'm sure, there've been plenty of flops that have never seen the light of day). Sadly, most other tech companies these days lack this sort of leadership. (And now that Jobs is gone, who knows if Apple can continue this sort of effort...
Actually, the computer line has already been pretty thoroughly simplified. There are very few options to the Mini right now; there are essentially only two types of iMac; and one Mac Pro with a couple of processor/RAM options. And now multiple years go by between design changes for any of these devices. The laptop collection is a little more interesting, but here too, Apple is letting some designs slowly die (e.g., non-retina Macbook Pro).
The question, I think, is whether Apple wants to continue doing the Steve Jobs type of thing, or transition to a more stable, conventional, and less risky approach. Going for big breakout hits that create entirely new markets are what has earned Apple the big bucks over the years; it has left everyone else playing catch-up. But coming up with entirely new ideas is not easy. Concepts like the Watch are interesting, but will pretty obviously never be as popular as the iPhone.
If Apple can't continue to create new iPhone-like products (and I don't think they can), they'll have to go back to their existing strengths to maintain revenue. And I think their biggest untapped strength is OS X. Apple has gone to unbelievable lengths to make complex operating systems easy to use, and it's fairly clear that the OS is the main reason why people buy Macs. There's no reason they couldn't just put a little more effort into their Mac lineup and grab much of the rest of the PC market share. (They've certainly ignored major sectors of the desktop market in the last decade or two, ceding those customers to Microsoft...)
Last edited:
That push towards IOS and their own inhouse chip design seems to be the direction they want to go. Apple pays a lot of attention to their laptops as far as Macs go but very much less to desktop computers. They probably see most of their Mac sales are laptops and with good reason because they make the best laptop in the industry. The desktops are mediocre at best with appliance builds and very expensive BTO.
Apple will continue with their desktop builds but a PC is much more affordable with easy upgrades for those that want more options and Windows 10 has become a very stable OS but still somewhat cumbersome and not as good of security as Macs.
I have my doubts about my next desktop purchase because I don't see Apple doing much for them except refreshes and these always seem months or years behind PCs.
I get what you are saying, but there's a big difference between corporate IT infrastructure and home/mobile personal use. I pay a lot for 5 gig per month of mobile data. In the space of a month I may access hundreds of gigs of content, usually the same few thousand songs and 10's of thousands of pictures over and over. Trying to stream this over a very limited very expensive data link makes zero sense when I could easily and cheaply store 99.9% of what I'm going to access locally and use my data connection only for the other 0.1%.
I am sorry, I should clarify. I meant that with Google's music system, I can get my music streamed at any computer regardless of OS, as long as there is a web browser and internet access. I recognize what you are saying about iCloud being devise agnostic, but I was referring to the music/movie side of the iTunes platform.
If iCloud were to incorporate a web-based iTunes player for music and video, then it would really become incredible.
[doublepost=1459263918][/doublepost]
I agree with you, but I was reflecting on the changing nature of computing. I would much rather have my content local and accessible and not worry about data plans, stability of connection, etc. However, I live in an area where the major cable-companies provide public WiFi for customers (I am not one of their customers though). I also work in an environment with secure WiFi where only approved devices can connect. And it as much as it pains me that those devices are Chromebooks and select Windows machines [in which the local user is blocked from installing/removing software]; Google's Music service works under that condition without me eating my data or preselecting the content to store on my device.
Last edited:
It would be nice to see Apple get back to designing cutting edge computers that have the latest tech on them, similar to their attitude when Jobs returned to Apple in the late 90's and released the iMac. iPad sales will continue to slide, and I don't think the new iPad Pro models are going to fix that. The reality is that consumers generally view iPads the same way they do their computer; updating every year or two, or even every 3 or 4, is unnecessary. Additionally, we may very well have reached "peak iPhone" where the market is saturated, and new cutting-edge features just aren't that cutting edge anymore. Hence the recent release of the iPhone SE, which for many people will work just fine and again will probably only encourage longer upgrade cycles.
So maybe Apple will be encouraged to start putting more resources into R&D of their computers again. Their computer lineup is the only lineup that continues to grow, albeit at a slow but steady pace. From Apple's perspective, there's a lot of market share left for them to win, and I think they could do it if they'd work a little harder at producing products that will entice people to buy.
In general, it'd be nice to see retina/4K/5K screens across the board. For that matter, drop the "Retina" branding term (we all get it now) so that consumers can simply assume that any Apple display they are looking at is so good you can't even see individual pixels.
Second, return to the practice of making obvious distinctions between the consumer- and pro- grades. At a minimum, "Pro" should entail powerful, discrete graphics and excellent connectivity. Being that USB-C is poised to take over, I see no reason why MacBook Pros couldn't have at least 3 or 4 of these ports. Consumer machines like the mini and MacBook, on the other hand only need 2 at most, and they can be connected/docked to updated...
...Thunderbolt displays! For crying out loud, Apple! I'd like to see a return to a 16:10 ratio screen, but that's probably reaching. Still a 5K 27" display is a no brainer. I understand that Apple is probably waiting for DP 1.3 or 1.4, so hopefully we'll see this glaring eyesore solved shortly. It would also be nice to see them release a little brother 4K display, say 23" or 24".
Third, offer good value for the price. When Apple started releasing machines with Intel chips a decade ago, their computers were actually a good value in that comparably equipped Windows machines at that time were about the same price, or actually more. Lately though all the PCs out there have overtaken Apple in the value department. Apple has gotten away with it because of OS X and the halo effect of the iPhone, but how much better could they do if they were to push the envelope on features instead of being slow to market like they are at the moment?
I do hope Apple keeps the Mini around. It was my first Apple computer in 2005, and while I probably won't buy one in the near future, I think it serves an excellent role as the Apple computer gateway for many people out there. A Mini Pro (i.e., the fabled X Mac) would be cool, but I'm not holding my breath.
Ack! Exactly the opposite! The advantage to having a MacBook Pro (or any laptop for that matter) is the ability to get up and go when you want to. This is what makes a dock so useful; rather than unplugging and replugging a whole pile of cords every time you leave or come back to your desk, just detach or attach the dock instead. The Mini is just the opposite: it's a true desktop machine, designed to sit in one place for months (or years) at a time. As such, it's much nicer to be able to connect all your peripherals directly to the device, rather than have a snarl of docks or hubs or what-have-you that you need to set up and maintain...
I would like to see the new Mac Mini, almost certainly coming, made in Austin alongside the new Mac Pro (almost perhaps coming some day). Apple can make plenty of $$$ selling amazing new Minis along with the amazing new Thunderbolt display.
Likewise, I don't see any reason why a hub made for the mini that sits exactly under it, can't serve the exact same purpose, with all the same wires terminating into the hub instead of the back of the mini, with one USB-C cable connecting the hub to the mini. That's hardly a "snarl" of what-have-you. Plus, it gives the desktop user the opportunity to configure the mini ports exactly the way they want it, rather than getting stuck with a bunch of ports they don't use. It cuts the cost on Apple's end, and makes it more customizable for the customer.
But a Pro user also wants the flexibility of a lot of ports for maximum performance when connected to peripherals. Assuming they're using the computer to do some heavy lifting, they might prefer direct connections to multiple devices instead of bottlenecking all of them through a hub. Can you imagine the outcry if Apple reduced the Pro to only two USB-C ports?
Hmm. I've been seeing a lot of this train of thought on this forum lately -- "A Mini doesn't need all those ports, you can use a dock for that." "With the new Thunderbolt standard, a Mini doesn't need a decent graphics card, you can get an eGPU." And with Apple now soldering down RAM, and locking internal drives down with security screws, the Mini is turning more and more into a little device that contains OS X, but when you need to get something serious done, it will need to offload more and more of what used to be a part of conventional PCs onto external devices.
And so, I've been making this suggestion: forget about making a Mini as a desktop PC with a single I/O port. If you're going to need an external box that contains your ports, your graphics card, your HD/SSDs that are now too hard to get into the machine, and who knows what else, well then heck! Let's just make an external box for the Mini that contains all that plus a CPU and RAM: in short, an actual PC! Make the Mini just a little hardware dongle that you connect to the PC that allows you to run OS X, and everybody will be happy.
Hmm. I've been seeing a lot of this train of thought on this forum lately -- "A Mini doesn't need all those ports, you can use a dock for that." "With the new Thunderbolt standard, a Mini doesn't need a decent graphics card, you can get an eGPU." And with Apple now soldering down RAM, and locking internal drives down with security screws, the Mini is turning more and more into a little device that contains OS X, but when you need to get something serious done, it will need to offload more and more of what used to be a part of conventional PCs onto external devices.
And so, I've been making this suggestion: forget about making a Mini as a desktop PC with a single I/O port. If you're going to need an external box that contains your ports, your graphics card, your HD/SSDs that are now too hard to get into the machine, and who knows what else, well then heck! Let's just make an external box for the Mini that contains all that plus a CPU and RAM: in short, an actual PC! Make the Mini just a little hardware dongle that you connect to the PC that allows you to run OS X, and everybody will be happy.
A+
Thank You
lol
...and if it is made here, Apple can tout the security side: no compromised BIOS like Lenovo last year.
But it's almost there already. Apple is making Thunderbolt compliant with USB-C. So soon, there won't be anymore Thunderbolt 1/2 ports, and we know what happens when USB-C comes along -- no more magsafe because USB-C does it all. And if everything's moving to USB-C, then why do you need USB 3 ports? So what does that leave? 3.5mm headphone jack, which Apple is rumored to be dropping from the iPhone, and if that happens, it will likely be replaced with a Lightning connector anyway on all of Apple's products. HDMI? Maybe that will stay for professional presentations, but then Apple is pushing Airplay wireless streaming. And that leaves an SD card slot -- but once again, Apple is promoting AirDrop, and other wireless transfer methods. But as far as pure data is concerned, there's only 4 ports -- two proprietary Apple ports, and two USB 3 ports.
So really, what is stopping Apple from removing all but a few USB-C ports? Customer outcry? I'm already screaming over the loss of an Ethernet port which I use in the corporate environment to connect to my secure network behind the firewall every day, and perform fast data transfers to and from the server, yet MBPs keep rolling off the assembly line without them.
So I don't really see the mini any differently. If Apple can make a mini with 3 or 4 USB-C ports, then it will be far more cost effective than producing the current model with its array of legacy ports without necessarily resulting in a bottleneck.
Hmm. I've been seeing a lot of this train of thought on this forum lately -- "A Mini doesn't need all those ports, you can use a dock for that." "With the new Thunderbolt standard, a Mini doesn't need a decent graphics card, you can get an eGPU." And with Apple now soldering down RAM, and locking internal drives down with security screws, the Mini is turning more and more into a little device that contains OS X, but when you need to get something serious done, it will need to offload more and more of what used to be a part of conventional PCs onto external devices.
And so, I've been making this suggestion: forget about making a Mini as a desktop PC with a single I/O port. If you're going to need an external box that contains your ports, your graphics card, your HD/SSDs that are now too hard to get into the machine, and who knows what else, well then heck! Let's just make an external box for the Mini that contains all that plus a CPU and RAM: in short, an actual PC! Make the Mini just a little hardware dongle that you connect to the PC that allows you to run OS X, and everybody will be happy.
I absolutely agree with this observation, and what it implies. It seems some posters, from what I've been reading, are perfectly content with a very minimal set of connections, processor power, or memory, or access to hard drives, or ability to customize because the majority of users will only need to use the minimal configuration (or some variation of this theme). What you wind up with is a generic, dull, and boring machine that won't entice anyone to switch from any other OS (Windows, Linux, or Chromebook even!), and won't inspire current customers to want to "upgrade" either, yet will still sell for premium boutique prices for a basic appliance.
They should call this model the "Mac Mini +", meaning everything you may want or need can be added on as a "+" to the base machine.... Apple upgrades at premium prices for memory, storage, graphics, processor power, etc, third party upgrades for USB-C hubs and lightning connectors, and thunderbolt (a pretty big flop in my opinion...never developed much since introduction) peripherals that are very expensive...all for big "base price +" expense. This will make the mini more expensive than any iMac, Macbook Pro, etc. and probably kill the Mini off completely. It will just jack up the cost without providing much benefit that should have been there already, built-in.
Yes, some of you will applaud this type of machine as inspired genius from Apple design that meets 97% of every users need because we have the cloud, or because nobody really needs more than 4 GB of memory, or fast and ample disk storage (or variations of something like that) and therefore provides the ideal gateway for a novice user to the full Apple experience. But the reality is, how many of us were moved or inspired by the introduction of the 2014 Mini, with the slow dual core processors, lack of separate upgraded graphics support, security screws to discourage any user interventions, loss of additional SATA slots to add another drive (if you can break past the security screws) and soldered on memory which cannot be upgraded. Even Phil Schiller at the introduction kind of introduced it as an afterthought without mentioning any of the new models "enhancements". At least, and I do mean least, it did have a full compliment of connection ports. Needless to say, I think it's easy to tell I did not buy one!
I would like to see a return to some semblance of the 2012 Mini, with ability to grow with changing needs, where the user had the capability to make improvements when they felt like it was necessary, and where the connection ports are there already to make connections to the rest of the peripheral world. I do not like the USB-C single shared access port where you have to buy additional peripherals to get beyond basic uses, like on the new Macbook. USB-C is still kind of limited in 3rd party adoption, like Thunderbolt still is, so how about some legacy ports until this is the dominant connectivity platform, so we can use what we have already instead of having to buy replacements for everything we use now. I would like a Mini that improves upon the previous model and inspires the user, not punish and shackle them.
Last edited:
Probably the 1st time since 2009 that I'm more interested in what Microsoft is doing than what Apple is doing (I didn't even watch Apple's latest keynote): http://www.engadget.com/2016/03/31/microsoft-build-2016-keynote-highlights/
Last edited:
Speak for yourself. Microsoft is irrelevant as far as I am concerned.
I reckon….. have used Windows 10 a little at work. It's OK, but OS X, Pages, Numbers, Safari and iPhoto still seem more straight forward to use for my humble needs.
There are some websites that seem to work better with other browsers tough; I also use Opera and Firefox.
iTunes is a bit of a mess, yet seems to be default for audio on almost all computers….. I have been using Clementine recently.
10 pages added and some 33,000 views (now over 946,000) since 29 February. Interest is running high again. The new Mac Mini has gotta be almost certainly be coming, sooner or later.
I have Windows 10 on my gaming computer. For everything else, there's OS X on the good old 2011 MacBookPro (ethernet port, built in CD drive, 12g of RAM and 256g SSD) connected to a 27" 1440p Asus monitor. I want to see a Mini that tempts me to get a new Mac, but I'm not sure that's ever going to happen. One or two USB C ports? No thanks.