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
Microsoft getting lean and mean. Apple getting fat and bloated. The seesaw seesaws.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Mac business is a small slice of the Apple pie and they are spending R&D accordingly to the revenue it brings in. I get that the Apple hardware ecosystem should be valued as a halo over which the rest of the range benefits but sometimes it must seem to people like Apple's seemingly stagnating Mac plans become a self-fulfilling prophecy, less R&D spending begetting fewer sales as they assume more and more people are willing migrators to iPad.
At least Phil Schiller can hark on about how much of a leap in performance the next iteration of Mac hardware is (having skipped at least one generation of Intel product on the way).
If Apple think iPad Pro is going to get the job done for a lot of PC folks looking to change, then perhaps Apple could divert the limited Mac Mini R&D budget upmarket into something like the Intel Skull Canyon that's gained so much press lately? Or what about this for some innovation? And if Apple believe they can get away with a 45w quad core cpu and perhaps a 50w AMD 470x could they just go for a bigger Mac Pro styled case to help dissipate the heat better? As with STRIX GPUs Apple could still install fans that can actually come to a complete standstill when not under stress.
I've had a look at that thread in the article. It's sad but unsurprising. Enterprise customers need a road map and certainty, which is against the Apple way of unveiling stuff under total secrecy to increase the wow factor. There's also the issue of expandability too, or at least the ability to swap out failed parts like RAM or SSD. If we don't like Apple's way of specifying machines I guess they don't want us to be customers.
At least with the iPhone there's a record of roughly annual updates that people can predict with certainty since they switched to October updates. If Apple were to skip an update now like they have done with the Mini or even in part the iPad Air 2 line between last October and the launch of the iPad Pro 9.7" there'd be serious share price hammering ramifications. They seem to have gotten away with the transition from iPad Mini 2 to iPad Mini 3 (additional of a touch home button?).
Rather than paying cash for the software, I would like to think that Apple believe that people buying new machines at least every 2-3 years pays for the fact that the OS software is 'free' and their 'Pro' software is comparatively cheap one-time purchases compared to the Adobes of this world.
I also recall that Apple does seem to have problems with their Pro apps, with the FCP X team being called in to help out with Aperture in the early days when it was struggling (I can't find a link for now). It just showed how small a team for each project that Apple was prepared to run - a tight ship - but then they went and artificially gave themselves annual WWDC deadlines for new versions of the OS rather than releasing it when it was in a ready state. Yes, they need the new versions to support hardware releases but as a result, the first point zero release of most recent Mac OS X iterations have been best avoided due to bugs.
It's almost been two years since Aperture's demise was announced, and Apple don't seem to mind that lots of those power users have been forcibly migrated onto Adobe Lightroom and may never come back to use Photos. It seems they didn't even want to expend resources keeping Aperture compatible with the latest OS X releases.
Bearing in mind that some of these expelled users will now have a multi-platform license of Lightroom CC (and Photoshop CC) it's very tempting for them to start looking at the Windows platform when they potentially have cross platform software that they can migrate over so I don't blame the folks on the Mac Pro forum for making their declarations.
Imagine the value for money in a Dell or HP workstation that someone could have bought in early 2014 compared to 2 years later in 2016 if they had waited. Apple haven't changed the price on the Mac Pro since launch, not even a spec bump, and there's no indication that a successive model with better value for money is coming out any any point although speculators can look at Intel price lists and make guesses. Guess Apple didn't want to have a big support department looking after loads of SKUs for hardware that changed too often.
A lot of these migrating folks are the very video professionals that Apple wanted to court. Never mind the fact that the Mac Pro is a 'heavily optimised video editing machine', but the value proposition of the machine recedes month by month and will take a massive blow if Apple dawdle when Windows workstations start using USB-C/Thunderbolt 3.
The Photos software might be 'free' with the latest versions of Mac OS X but can are users prepared to wait the years that it will take for Photos to regain enough Aperture features to call itself a worthy successor to Aperture?
The big example is that set by the change from FCP to FCP X (and latterly Logic Pro 9 to X). I get that the codebase was dated and Apple needed to make a Quantum leap from 32-bit Carbon to 64 bit Cocoa but they didn't seem to make any effort to smooth the transition and slashing the price of all the apps was little comfort to professionals who will have felt like the rug was pulled out from under their feet when Apple handed out the bad news.
If you look in the FCP forums you might still find folks complaining years later that FCPX is still not back to where FCP 7 was before the axe was swung (despite X being a fraction of the price of 7). And you can bet that a lot of professionals have abandoned the platform for Avid or Premiere Pro instead of waiting for Apple to get their act together.
I remember reading about members of the FCPX team being seconded to help develop Aperture when it's original programming team (for want of a better phrase) dropped the ball on the app on an earlier version (version 1). Then came the rumours of the Aperture team being cut to two people in one office.
Updates became rarer, newer features stopped being added and there was crucially no road map going ahead apart from the surprise announcements that Apple would make from time to time. This is no way for professionals to plan ahead and the axing of one of the cornerstones of the Apple pro apps has clearly made some professionals vote with their feet when they consider what might happen if they rely too heavily on Logic Pro X or Final Cut Pro X.
There's still no road map for the software, let alone the machines that professionals would hope to run the software on so anyone investing thousands in the hardware could be let down at any point without warning. I see folks migrating to Premiere Pro on the basis that they don't know if FCP X will be given any love soon. They'll carry on using Apple hardware while it suits them but they keep seeing the value for money upfront in Windows workstations on an annual basis.
Well thought out post and what is disappointing is that Apple has abandoned the pro market which was at one time a cornerstone in the business.
Apple really has abandoned the Mac business for IOS and I get it brings in the most revenue for the company but good old Macs built Apple and they should be improved and upgraded each year to secure customer loyalty.It's more or less trickle down effect of not supporting Pro software and machines to less consumer software and machine improvements.
Hp and Dell are still leaders in workstations with reasonable prices and off the self upgrade components that Apple at all costs try to avoid so they can control the price of the product.
The Apple decision makers are a breed unto themselves that just don't seem to get it anymore.
Apple needs at least two tracks. One for the IOS secret wow factor stuff and one for real computers that do real work that need regular upgrades. On the latter, they could actually have a freaking ROAD MAP!
Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'We Want to Change the World Through Our Products'
That quote alone proves a new Mini is almost upon us.
That quote alone proves a new Mini is almost upon us.
Good stuff, tokyodan. In almost certainly solid evidence we trust; 'tis the foundation of this thread.
Last edited:
That thing is ****ing mad. Crikey!!!!
Apple, you used to be king of the mini pc but something happened to you along the way.
Hello, new SteamOS box.
The funny thing is that even as all of us so called Apple 'fanboys' are getting fed up with Apple, Apple in its arrogance doesn't even seem to give a flying ****. They are completely deluded into thinking that they are absolutely 100% right in thinking that they know what is best and will not give an inch.
The US refurb stored is crammed full of Minis today. More credence that the Mini is gonna be updated? FWIW, they're all 2014 Minis so I'm beginning to think 2012 refurbs are gone forever.
Let's break a break from the pessimism for a second and concentrate on the a CPU that might just surprise us later this year - the Intel i5-6350HQ. Launched in the first quarter of this year it's a 45w CPU with 4 genuine cores but no hyper threading running at a reasonable 2.3GHz but crucially comes with the Iris Pro 580 Graphics that people are raving about in the i7-6770HQ powered Intel Skull Canyon NUC.
The i5-6350HQ, crucially, is compatible with the same socket that the upmarket i7s destined for the Macbook Pro 15" will probably be having while costing about as much as the 28w Iris Graphics i5 parts that would go into the 13" Macbook Pro that forms the basis of the 2014 Mac Mini (which, as the saying goes, is almost certainly going to be refreshed this year).
The 15" Macbook Pro could actually have a new entry level model with that i5 CPU if Apple so wished but more interestingly that allows them to target a bit more profit with the Mac Mini by basing a 2016 model on the Retina Macbook Pro 15". Apple could shave $300 off the base price of the 15" rMBP with this CPU if they dropped the starting RAM down to 8Gb.
In effect, if Apple are going to stick with one motherboard/socket design for budgetary reasons and want to make a bit of a splash with the new Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port and don't mind using the Alpine Ridge chip they could do the following:
Base/Mid range Model i5-6350HQ 2.3Ghz Quad Core with no hyper threading - starting with 8Gb RAM, 256Gb Flash at $999 or £799 with configuration options for more storage and RAM.
I'm trying not to think about a base model with hard drive, yes it would hit a price point to keep the shareholders happy I guess...
Mid/Better Model i7-6770HQ 2.6GHz Quad Core with hyper threading - Starting with 8Gb RAM, 256Gb Flash from $1399 or £1079 with more configuration options for storage and RAM.
While they could cut costs by just throwing it all into the existing case (while designing a better cooling solution to replace the redundant drive bays) could they instead leverage the looks of a smaller Mac Pro with the giant heat sink in the middle for a truly quiet living room computer with perhaps better 802.11ac wifi reception.
The 'new Mini' range, thanks to the introduction of that cheaper quad core mobile processor, will allow Apple to offer a hard drive based machine to hit a low price point while allowing them to ramp up option costs to get people spending more. A new form factor would be preferred with the introduction of USB-C if they have to include hard drives in the case as well due to having to cool 45w CPUs as well.
Bear in mind this year's early 2016 Macbook Air got a speed bump consisting of a RAM doubling it's not looking too clever for those models going into the future and I think we might see the demise of the budget propping designs with 1.6Ghz U series 15w i5 in both the Mac Mini and the iMac 21.5" by the end of October.
There's a long standing speculation over a streamlining of the current Macbook Pro line-up using 14" and 16" even higher density retina screens as soon as USB-C arrives on the scene with Skylake/Kaby Lake. This would suggest that Apple will need to go to the more powerful 28w Iris Graphics parts to maintain decent performance on such high density retina screens.
If Apple think they need to go with Skylake+Alpine Ridge to get USB-C this year rather than Kaby Lake early next year they could trigger many changes after WWDC.
And here's another thought - with the arrival on Intel's price lists of the i5-6585R desktop cpu, a quad core i5 running at 2.8Ghz with Iris Pro 850 but no hyper threading (alongside an i7-6785R at 3.3Ghz that does have hyper threading), Apple can definitely upgrade the 21.5" 4k Retina iMac but sadly I can't see them offering the same CPU in a Mini cylinder unless they go with price parity with the iMac and go flash only from a $1099 starting price point.
A Cylindrical Mac Mini that starts at $999 with 2.8Ghz desktop class i5 quad core, Iris Pro 850 Graphics, 8Gb self-upgradable RAM and 256Gb Mac Pro style Flash?
If they offer a hard drive mounting point inside the cylinder to allow a cheaper starting price involving fusion it might even interest people who prefer internal storage too.
The i5-6350HQ, crucially, is compatible with the same socket that the upmarket i7s destined for the Macbook Pro 15" will probably be having while costing about as much as the 28w Iris Graphics i5 parts that would go into the 13" Macbook Pro that forms the basis of the 2014 Mac Mini (which, as the saying goes, is almost certainly going to be refreshed this year).
The 15" Macbook Pro could actually have a new entry level model with that i5 CPU if Apple so wished but more interestingly that allows them to target a bit more profit with the Mac Mini by basing a 2016 model on the Retina Macbook Pro 15". Apple could shave $300 off the base price of the 15" rMBP with this CPU if they dropped the starting RAM down to 8Gb.
In effect, if Apple are going to stick with one motherboard/socket design for budgetary reasons and want to make a bit of a splash with the new Thunderbolt 3/USB-C port and don't mind using the Alpine Ridge chip they could do the following:
Base/Mid range Model i5-6350HQ 2.3Ghz Quad Core with no hyper threading - starting with 8Gb RAM, 256Gb Flash at $999 or £799 with configuration options for more storage and RAM.
I'm trying not to think about a base model with hard drive, yes it would hit a price point to keep the shareholders happy I guess...
Mid/Better Model i7-6770HQ 2.6GHz Quad Core with hyper threading - Starting with 8Gb RAM, 256Gb Flash from $1399 or £1079 with more configuration options for storage and RAM.
While they could cut costs by just throwing it all into the existing case (while designing a better cooling solution to replace the redundant drive bays) could they instead leverage the looks of a smaller Mac Pro with the giant heat sink in the middle for a truly quiet living room computer with perhaps better 802.11ac wifi reception.
The 'new Mini' range, thanks to the introduction of that cheaper quad core mobile processor, will allow Apple to offer a hard drive based machine to hit a low price point while allowing them to ramp up option costs to get people spending more. A new form factor would be preferred with the introduction of USB-C if they have to include hard drives in the case as well due to having to cool 45w CPUs as well.
Bear in mind this year's early 2016 Macbook Air got a speed bump consisting of a RAM doubling it's not looking too clever for those models going into the future and I think we might see the demise of the budget propping designs with 1.6Ghz U series 15w i5 in both the Mac Mini and the iMac 21.5" by the end of October.
There's a long standing speculation over a streamlining of the current Macbook Pro line-up using 14" and 16" even higher density retina screens as soon as USB-C arrives on the scene with Skylake/Kaby Lake. This would suggest that Apple will need to go to the more powerful 28w Iris Graphics parts to maintain decent performance on such high density retina screens.
If Apple think they need to go with Skylake+Alpine Ridge to get USB-C this year rather than Kaby Lake early next year they could trigger many changes after WWDC.
And here's another thought - with the arrival on Intel's price lists of the i5-6585R desktop cpu, a quad core i5 running at 2.8Ghz with Iris Pro 850 but no hyper threading (alongside an i7-6785R at 3.3Ghz that does have hyper threading), Apple can definitely upgrade the 21.5" 4k Retina iMac but sadly I can't see them offering the same CPU in a Mini cylinder unless they go with price parity with the iMac and go flash only from a $1099 starting price point.
A Cylindrical Mac Mini that starts at $999 with 2.8Ghz desktop class i5 quad core, Iris Pro 850 Graphics, 8Gb self-upgradable RAM and 256Gb Mac Pro style Flash?
If they offer a hard drive mounting point inside the cylinder to allow a cheaper starting price involving fusion it might even interest people who prefer internal storage too.
About 10 more 2014 Minis were dumped to the 'refurb' store again this morning here in Japan. This is very unusual.
It certainly does look like they are preparing a release due to the huge amount of refurbs that keep hitting the market.
The bigger problem for me is it's hard to get excited because of the 2014 mini release was so disappointing I honestly can't keep my hopes up. I had waited a year and a half for the 2014 release, to which my reply was a week later it released I built my first hackintosh.
At least for me this next release cycle is Apple's last chance. If they crap all over their user base with antiquated hardware and decisions like soldered ram then that's pretty much it. It's a testimony to how far users will go to stay on the platform because they love it, but I can only stretch so far before it just isn't realistic any more. What irritates me most is that Apple has the capability of delivering what we want, they just choose not to.
The bigger problem for me is it's hard to get excited because of the 2014 mini release was so disappointing I honestly can't keep my hopes up. I had waited a year and a half for the 2014 release, to which my reply was a week later it released I built my first hackintosh.
At least for me this next release cycle is Apple's last chance. If they crap all over their user base with antiquated hardware and decisions like soldered ram then that's pretty much it. It's a testimony to how far users will go to stay on the platform because they love it, but I can only stretch so far before it just isn't realistic any more. What irritates me most is that Apple has the capability of delivering what we want, they just choose not to.
I can see them announcing a new Mac mini at WWDC, but only if it's a redesign.
All the other macs (besides the MacBook Air) have received a redesign since 2012, but the Mac mini has gotten no love
The last iMac redesign was a step backwards, making a desktop computer thinner where space is no issue and thereby limiting it to weaker components.All the other macs (besides the MacBook Air) have received a redesign since 2012, but the Mac mini has gotten no love
Wow, sounds dramatic, but……
A bunch of geeks disappointed that there was no quad core model 2014 Mac Mini, and not being able to add more RAM, does not really represent the Mac Mini user base. Other models in the line up come with specs to suit a range of requirements, and can be ordered with custom upgrades to suit different needs or desires. They came with various hardware upgrades to improve connectivity, and a modest improvement in performance over previous generation equivalents.
The Mac Mini has never been about cutting edge technology. Even the 2005 original was revolutionary only in its form, not its hardware. Subsequent models have generally evolved to suit the average Joe or Jill who wants to use OS X, rather than catering to the needs of power users or the desires of the average budget conscious geek.
The new Mac Mini is almost certainly coming; it may even come in June, or later in 2016. It will almost certainly be evolutionary, with a modest upgrade in hardware and performance.
^Erm sorry, a bunch of geeks? More like a bunch of long-time mac mini users. Buying a dual core in 2014, was already buying an outdated computer. Sure there is a large user base that is fine with these specs, but you underestimate the amount of users that does buy mac mini because they want a up to date desktop computer without a screen automatically included (and of course the mac pro is to expensive). I am sure we are fine with a new mid-range desktop, but there is not one right now.
Next to that, have you looked at the base model of the 2014 mac mini? The user group you are talking about often buys base models, and that base model is not a good advertisement, the specs are horrible for this age.
Next to that, have you looked at the base model of the 2014 mac mini? The user group you are talking about often buys base models, and that base model is not a good advertisement, the specs are horrible for this age.
As a geek myself, I will admit that I love the idea of using Unix on my desktop. I maintained a set of hybrid Linux / Windows machines for years, until OS X came around and provided the possibility of running both mainstream Unix and mainstream commercial apps on a single platform. And the Mini was sufficient for most of what I ran, and allowed me to continue to use my favorite monitors, keyboards, and trackballs.
But yeah, I've reached the point where I want more, and Apple is providing less. I knew I was giving up flexibility when I chose the Mini, but my CPU needs are not great, nor my GPU needs. However, at a minimum, I need to be able to run both the operating system and an application at the same time. As resource requirements for OS X have grown and grown, I've needed to increase the RAM on my Minis to accomplish this feat. Before 2014, this was a trivial operation; after 2014, this is now an impossibility.
I've already gone ahead and started piecing together some new Linux boxes. I mostly do Qt coding today, so running their IDE is not a problem. However, I've been pleasantly surprised that most of my Steam software works on my Linux machine as well (better even, as I threw in a cheap-o GT 730 graphics card, which is of course light-years ahead of anything Apple provides).
I think there's really no need for geeks to stick with Apple any more. As Linux gains further acceptance in the commercial world, the need for an alternative like OS X will continue to diminish...
But yeah, I've reached the point where I want more, and Apple is providing less. I knew I was giving up flexibility when I chose the Mini, but my CPU needs are not great, nor my GPU needs. However, at a minimum, I need to be able to run both the operating system and an application at the same time.
As resource requirements for OS X have grown and grown, I've needed to increase the RAM on my Minis to accomplish this feat. Before 2014, this was a trivial operation; after 2014, this is now an impossibility.I've already gone ahead and started piecing together some new Linux boxes. I mostly do Qt coding today, so running their IDE is not a problem. However, I've been pleasantly surprised that most of my Steam software works on my Linux machine as well (better even, as I threw in a cheap-o GT 730 graphics card, which is of course light-years ahead of anything Apple provides).
I think there's really no need for geeks to stick with Apple any more. As Linux gains further acceptance in the commercial world, the need for an alternative like OS X will continue to diminish...
The way it looks I will be moving back to a PC platform this fall also if the Mini remains a sealed, soldered computer. I have an iPad Air 2 and an iPhone that I see as the future of Apple with IOS becoming their main platform as Mac OS which is stagnant right now will slowly die out in the future favor of the Mobile platform.
I will continue on the X86 platforms for main computer needs as both Linux and Windows are adding new functionality and new visions for the future that require more processing power than Mobile can provide right now.
Apple really isn't interested in computers anymore and is moving on into new things.
I will continue on the X86 platforms for main computer needs as both Linux and Windows are adding new functionality and new visions for the future that require more processing power than Mobile can provide right now.
Apple really isn't interested in computers anymore and is moving on into new things.
Having been a Mac Mini user since I bought the original Mac Mini in 2005 (base model) I think I qualify as a fairly long term user.
I am an average Joe who just wants to do stuff, for work as a teacher, and for personal use. I don't care how up to date my computer is, as long as it does what I want it to do. The 2009 Mac Mini I have now (base model with an extra 4 GB RAM and Mountain Lion) continues to be fine for my simple needs in a household with no other iDevices. I reckon it should do so for another couple or three years, then I'll almost certainly replace it with a new Mac Mini.
A mate who does a bit more demanding stuff is well pleased with the current Mac Pro he stumped up for a couple of years ago. He also has a couple of Minis (one of them a 2014) a 2008 MacBook Pro and the odd other iDevice in the household.
Yes, I have looked at the base model 2014 Mini that some are so fond of slagging off. It idles along at 1.4 GHz, but can boost to nearly double that for a bit should it be required. It outperforms the base 2012 model, and it is cheaper. Folks who have one have posted here, in this very thread, saying that they have found it adequate for their needs.
Last edited:
By a bunch of geeks you really mean people that run the personal lives, businesses and home theaters off of Mac Minis.
How did you come to the conclusion that the 2014 Minis were somehow an improvement? Not only did we lose performance or at best break even, the ability to upgrade something as simple as the ram was removed. It takes a considerable stretch of the imagination to see that as a modest improvement.
As a company when you release new hardware and the response from your customers is a scramble to purchase the last generation of your hardware, you should realize you screwed up.
No one here is arguing that the Mini should be cutting edge. Most people are however arguing that the Mini should bring enough value to the table to make it appealing to continue to buy. It's not asking too much for a quad core model a full generation AFTER a quad core model was available. It's not too much to ask for RAM options. It's not too much to ask for basic discrete graphics options from a company that can deliver discrete graphics options in similar products.
Those are not demands from whiny confused power user geeks. It's simply asking Apple to put equivalent effort into a product line that is priced accordingly and capable. It's not dramatic (or even personal). It's just basic business.
That's a telling way to finish your post - it shows you have a narrow definition of a computer.