The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[satchmo]

Nah, apple will mac the 2016 mac mini really thin because that's obviously a good idea. The Mac Mini will never get a quad core as long as the lowest specced Mac Pro has one because a Mac Mini with a quad core Skylake would be faster than the Mac pro lowest spec cpu.

The Mac Mini should really just be a headless Imac without the gpu. Instead it's a headless macbook air.

I'd love to see a quad core Mac Mini too, but that paired with a third party 4K monitor might just kill iMac sales.

I guess the Mac Mini still fills a niche market for those who want a capable desktop on a budget. Starting at $500 is not cheap, but still less than a MacBook or MBA.

 

[jpietrzak8]

I'd love to see a quad core Mac Mini too, but that paired with a third party 4K monitor might just kill iMac sales.

Alright then, let me posit the question: why must iMac sales be maintained artificially high, to the detriment of every other type of product? You can attempt to push people who don't really want an iMac into purchasing an iMac; but if there is a product that consumers prefer over an iMac, and Apple refuses to sell that product, that leaves an opening for other companies to come in and take those consumers away.

I understand that Apple prefers to limit itself to market segments with maximum profits. Eventually, though, Apple's product line is going to become so extremely specialized, with devices that only truly fit the hardware needs of a small percentage of people, that there's going to be no reason to buy an Apple computer at all. A Windows (or other) PC will do exactly what you need, at a lower price, and not force you to buy all sorts of hardware that you don't need...

Apple's specialization will provide profits in the short term, but I don't see it maintaining market share in the long term. Maybe killing iMac sales could be healthy for Apple, allowing it to come out with the next big thing in desktop computing...

 

[Miat]

I'd love to see a quad core Mac Mini too, but that paired with a third party 4K monitor might just kill iMac sales.

The question for Apple is does it need to compete with other manufacturers in this segment of the market (headless quad-core desktop boxes). Or can they afford to abandon it, and leave a hole in their desktop range (between the dual-core Minis, and the quad iMacs and Mac Pro)?

If they can afford to abandon it, they almost certainly will.

Maybe killing iMac sales could be healthy for Apple, allowing it to come out with the next big thing in desktop computing...

Interesting thought.

 

[satchmo]

Alright then, let me posit the question: why must iMac sales be maintained artificially high, to the detriment of every other type of product? You can attempt to push people who don't really want an iMac into purchasing an iMac; but if there is a product that consumers prefer over an iMac, and Apple refuses to sell that product, that leaves an opening for other companies to come in and take those consumers away.

I understand that Apple prefers to limit itself to market segments with maximum profits. Eventually, though, Apple's product line is going to become so extremely specialized, with devices that only truly fit the hardware needs of a small percentage of people, that there's going to be no reason to buy an Apple computer at all. A Windows (or other) PC will do exactly what you need, at a lower price, and not force you to buy all sorts of hardware that you don't need...

Apple's specialization will provide profits in the short term, but I don't see it maintaining market share in the long term. Maybe killing iMac sales could be healthy for Apple, allowing it to come out with the next big thing in desktop computing...

Well if you believe Tim Cook, the next big thing is already here. TheiPad Pro is the future of computing. Not just mobile, but computing! Now I'm sure, some of what he spews is just marketing hype to revive the iPad line.

That said, I don't believe Apple will ever kill the iMac. Well at least the idea of an all-in-one. It's too iconic, too baked into their philosophy of simple plug and play. Apple believes they know better and that surely your needs fall into one of our 3 product lines. Heck, even many PC manufacturers have followed this approach.
And with numbers showing PC sales continuing to plummet, I'm not sure Apple is too concerned about any competitive openings.

Things won't change. And to some degree, I agree that too much customization is wrong. You can never be all things to everyone. Striking a fine balance of what most users need and adding a few build to order options. I just wish those options included a quad-core processor in a Mac Mini, even if it costs a little more.

 

[jpietrzak8]

That said, I don't believe Apple will ever kill the iMac. Well at least the idea of an all-in-one. It's too iconic, too baked into their philosophy of simple plug and play.

This is the danger of a long-established company, a danger that Steve Jobs was always good at avoiding -- once you believe you've got the product that everyone wants, once you start believing that it will be the product that everyone will want forever into the future, you stop innovating. (Thinner and thinner iMacs? That's innovation?)

You can already see areas of the desktop computing market where Apple is just not present -- like, say, VR! A boutique computing niche with very, very expensive hardware seems just the kind of thing Apple would be perfect for, yet they are nowhere to be found.

Certainly, Apple is all over the portable computing market, and the desktop market looks to be fading for now. But honestly, in situations where you're going to be spending a lot of time on deep interactions with a computing device, a portable computer is never going to be able to compete with a machine designed for stationary use...

 

[treekram]

One popular view on why there is no 2014 Mini quad is that Apple is trying to protect the iMac. But I don't think that makes sense considering that they introduced the 1.4 GHz 2014 model.

On the quad side, you can get a 21.5" 4K Retina iMac with a 3.3 Ghz quad for $1699. If they sold a Mini for $999 with 2.6Ghz quad with a lesser iGPU and say charging $100 or $200 for an upgrade to better iGPU, then I think the iMac would be able to effectively protect it's turf. You also can't get 5K, even with Skylake, which the 27" iMacs have.

But the low-end iMac, a 1.6Ghz computer for $1099, has nothing special to offer vs. the low-end Mini at $599 (with the 8GB RAM option). So for $500, you're get .2GHz extra speed and a non-Retina 1920x1080 monitor when there are a lot of cheap 1920x1080 monitors you can pair up with the Mini. Add $100 to the Mini and you get a Mini that'll be quite a bit faster (2.6Ghz) than the base iMac. To me, the case for the Mini vs. iMac is much more compelling at the low end and than it is at the high-end.

Perhaps Apple thought that they could force people into the iMac by not offering a quad. But I don't see how they could have thought this given the monitor options they offer in the iMac. I mean there's a lot of people who just don't want the 4K 21.5" Retina or aren't willing to spend the money for the 5K Retina. If they thought they could get people to buy the high-end iMacs by not offering the Mini quad, they certainly know now, given the healthy used 2012 Mini quad market, that they were mistaken. Instead of enriching themselves, Apple has enriched the owners and the middlemen who have sold the 2012 quad Mini's.

 

[dogslobber]

Maybe killing iMac sales could be healthy for Apple, allowing it to come out with the next big thing in desktop computing...

But who really wants that mess of wires? Plugging a laptop or iMac is is as simple as hooking the power up to the socket, which most non-techie people can do. When it comes to DVI/HDMI/VGA cables and adapters then most people switch off. I think Mini buyers are more technical. My opinion

 

[Micky Do]

Wouldn't be too bad: 8GB RAM + 256 GB SSD as standard - at least, people couldn't complain about a crippled entry-level system anymore ;-)

Dunno why people complain about "a crippled entry-level system". No one has to buy the base model, and I'm not seeing a lot of complaints from folks who did…… just a lot of snide comments from those who wouldn't.

My first (the original) and my current Mini were both base models, and adequate for my humble needs.

 

[0x100]

One popular view on why there is no 2014 Mini quad is that Apple is trying to protect the iMac. But I don't think that makes sense considering that they introduced the 1.4 GHz 2014 model.

On the quad side, you can get a 21.5" 4K Retina iMac with a 3.3 Ghz quad for $1699. If they sold a Mini for $999 with 2.6Ghz quad with a lesser iGPU and say charging $100 or $200 for an upgrade to better iGPU, then I think the iMac would be able to effectively protect it's turf. You also can't get 5K, even with Skylake, which the 27" iMacs have.

But the low-end iMac, a 1.6Ghz computer for $1099, has nothing special to offer vs. the low-end Mini at $599 (with the 8GB RAM option). So for $500, you're get .2GHz extra speed and a non-Retina 1920x1080 monitor when there are a lot of cheap 1920x1080 monitors you can pair up with the Mini. Add $100 to the Mini and you get a Mini that'll be quite a bit faster (2.6Ghz) than the base iMac. To me, the case for the Mini vs. iMac is much more compelling at the low end and than it is at the high-end.

Perhaps Apple thought that they could force people into the iMac by not offering a quad. But I don't see how they could have thought this given the monitor options they offer in the iMac. I mean there's a lot of people who just don't want the 4K 21.5" Retina or aren't willing to spend the money for the 5K Retina. If they thought they could get people to buy the high-end iMacs by not offering the Mini quad, they certainly know now, given the healthy used 2012 Mini quad market, that they were mistaken. Instead of enriching themselves, Apple has enriched the owners and the middlemen who have sold the 2012 quad Mini's.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the iMac-book AirMac.

 

[DanCorleone]

I am just waiting for a Mac Mini 2012 server to pop up near me. Those things are beast.

Just learned of this vendor, and found this:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Apple/12235CXX4GB/

 

[jpietrzak8]

Just learned of this vendor, and found this:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Apple/12235CXX4GB/

Ah, Other World Computing is one of my favorite Apple sources. And yeah, they do seem to have 2012 Quad-core i7s available with some frequency. They've gone through three or four of them in the last couple of weeks...

 

[Santabean2000]

Dunno why people complain about "a crippled entry-level system". No one has to buy the base model, and I'm not seeing a lot of complaints from folks who did…… just a lot of snide comments from those who wouldn't.

My first (the original) and my current Mini were both base models, and adequate for my humble needs.

Ferrari doesn't sell seriously gimped sports cars... If you buy a Ferrari you expect a certain base level of performance.

Apple is doing themselves a real disservice by selling an inferior experience; Apple used to be all about user experience. In the short term, cheap(er - but still relatively premium priced) offerings might make money, but will backfire in the longer term.

You don't market and price yourself in the premium space and then roll out rubbish. It's poor form. And unnecessary.

You're right, a lot of people who buy the base models won't be posting here; they're not the enthusiasts. Doesn't mean they're impressed with their new Mac - or that they'll bother spending more on getting another one.

 

[dogslobber]

Ferrari doesn't sell seriously gimped sports cars... If you buy a Ferrari you expect a certain base level of performance.

Apple is doing themselves a real disservice by selling an inferior experience; Apple used to be all about user experience. In the short term, cheap(er - but still relatively premium priced) offerings might make money, but will backfire in the longer term.

You don't market and price yourself in the premium space and then roll out rubbish. It's poor form. And unnecessary.

You're right, a lot of people who buy the base models won't be posting here; they're not the enthusiasts. Doesn't mean they're impressed with their new Mac - or that they'll bother spending more on getting another one.

If you consider an Apple TV sized form factor then there's no way you're getting a 2.5" spinner in there. If that is the direction then they can only use SSDs. A Win-Win?

 

[Santabean2000]

If you consider an Apple TV sized form factor then there's no way you're getting a 2.5" spinner in there. If that is the direction then they can only use SSDs. A Win-Win?

As long as they don't gimp it with a meagre 128GB of storage. Come on , lift your game!!

256GB SSD + 8GB RAM minimum!!! Option for dual SSDs i7 quads and iris graphics.

 

[jpietrzak8]

If you consider an Apple TV sized form factor then there's no way you're getting a 2.5" spinner in there. If that is the direction then they can only use SSDs. A Win-Win?

Hmm. The size of the ATV is honestly too small even for most standard SSD form-factors. Heat'll be a significant problem, too, for most CPUs; and you wouldn't want to stick a big fan inside a tiny case like that, and waste even more space. In fact, I'd guess the current contents are probably near optimal for the current case dimensions. So:

Slap the name "Mini" on top of the existing ATV, and call it a win-win!

 

[dogslobber]

As long as they don't gimp it with a meagre 128GB of storage. Come on , lift your game!!

256GB SSD + 8GB RAM minimum!!! Option for dual SSDs i7 quads and iris graphics.

256GB as standard. I had a good guffaw at that quip :-D

Considering the MBA and MBP base models offer 128GB I'd say there's next to no chance of 256GB as the cheapest option.

 

[Lankyman]

Things won't change. And to some degree, I agree that too much customization is wrong. You can never be all things to everyone. Striking a fine balance of what most users need and adding a few build to order options. I just wish those options included a quad-core processor in a Mac Mini, even if it costs a little more.

Intel and others are showing the way in small form factor with the NUC etc. These are really nice machines, plus fully customisable. Let's face it Windows 10 is pretty darned good so ditching OS X isn't the wrench it might once have been. Apple are never going to produce anything like this and I'm sure many of you realise this - if we're being honest with ourselves.

 

[Crosscreek]

Intel and others are showing the way in small form factor with the NUC etc. These are really nice machines, plus fully customisable. Let's face it Windows 10 is pretty darned good so ditching OS X isn't the wrench it might once have been. Apple are never going to produce anything like this and I'm sure many of you realise this - if we're being honest with ourselves.

I'm giving Apple till the end of the years to see how they deal with the desktop lineup and especially the Mini. I agree with you on Windows 10 and the anniversary update coming this summer will improve on it that much more. Also their vision on what the customers want in the future with their insider program has paid off for them in stability and usefulness.

I'm 50-50 right now on which way I will go December and if the Mini remains as is I will switch back to a PC without hesitation.

 

[sparkie1984]

I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering building myself a pc.

That said if Apple released a more up to date Mac mini I would *probably* buy one just for ease and to stay in the Mac Eco system

 

[Totally]

I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering building myself a pc.

That said if Apple released a more up to date Mac mini I would *probably* buy one just for ease and to stay in the Mac Eco system

OMG I was literally just typing that.

I'm thinking that if nothing desktop related is announced before the middle of summer, then at some point I'm gonna stop waiting for a new mini and build my own dare I say windows desktop.

They are getting ridiculous with their ignorance of their desktop lines. Just because a computer has a fancy cylindrical body doesn't mean that 2.5 years later it should still be priced as it was when it just came out. It's 3 year old technology now. And the base mac mini shouldn't cost $499 still either.

I could go build one hell of a windows desktop for roughly the same price as the middle tier 2 year old mac mini.

 

[dogslobber]

I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering building myself a pc.

That said if Apple released a more up to date Mac mini I would *probably* buy one just for ease and to stay in the Mac Eco system

I don't think building a PC is worth the hassle anymore [unless you're into computer games]. I built one when the Sandybridge cpus came out but tore it down and sold the parts on ebay after about a year. I guess I'm not interested in that aspect of computing nowadays. I prefer a nice form factor which is small and quiet. I spent more time looking for noise reduced fans but eventually ran the thing without the cover on to reduce the need for a noisy fan.

Each to their own, I s'pose

 

[DesertSurfer]

I'm at the point where I'm seriously considering building myself a pc.

That said if Apple released a more up to date Mac mini I would *probably* buy one just for ease and to stay in the Mac Eco system

Right now, Apple doesn't offer a computer I would buy. After adding RAM and SSD to my 2011 13" MacBookPro, I plan to use it until one of us dies. If the MacBook goes first, I'll have a decision to make. I hope by that time there is an appealing Apple product. If not, I do have a gaming PC that I tinker with. It could become my only machine. It is running Windows 10, which I use as sparingly as possible. I could go back to Windows only as I did for many years, but I don't want to go that way.

But, I hear that the new mac mini is almost certainly coming. Maybe it will be good. I hope so. If it is, I will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[satchmo]

Intel and others are showing the way in small form factor with the NUC etc. These are really nice machines, plus fully customisable. Let's face it Windows 10 is pretty darned good so ditching OS X isn't the wrench it might once have been. Apple are never going to produce anything like this and I'm sure many of you realise this - if we're being honest with ourselves.

Yeah, I know it's highly unlikely Apple will ever go down that path of customization.

Like I said, I'm not asking for a lot. Just a few processor options...that's all. Which is kind of where Apple is right now...it's just that quad option that's missing.

Others have chimed in about building their own, but it's a whole lot of headaches and in most cases, the end result is the box looks like crap. As far as Intel NUC's, they're nice but not that cheap either. But at least they look somewhat aesthetically pleasing. I suppose you can maybe get the best of both, by installing Mac OS X on an Intel NUC...which that in itself is not easy.

 

[Serban]

Thanks to intel skylake, thunderbolt 3 usb-c, only ssd they can really make a mac mini with quad core a very portable desktop mac

 

[Totally]

I don't think building a PC is worth the hassle anymore [unless you're into computer games]. I built one when the Sandybridge cpus came out but tore it down and sold the parts on ebay after about a year. I guess I'm not interested in that aspect of computing nowadays. I prefer a nice form factor which is small and quiet. I spent more time looking for noise reduced fans but eventually ran the thing without the cover on to reduce the need for a noisy fan.

Each to their own, I s'pose

Well my reasoning to build is

1. I can choose any form factor/case/internals - for someone that wants a computer with power between a mini and pro ideally - what else can I do...
2. can build a super fast desktop for fairly cheap.