This Mini PC pricing blows my mind

[Analog Kid]

Exactly, I'm not obligated to pay more to the shareholders. But if they back a product that provides superior value relative to their investment then they should get a return. The directionality here is important.

You aren't obligated to buy things you don't want, that's correct. If a company builds a product worth more to you than the cost of making it then they deserve a profit, that's correct.

Something about your statement of directionality dependence makes it feel like you've left something unstated that you think would be somehow controversial...

For an appliance yes for a computer no. I don't care at all what microprocessor is in my dryer (if anything the less the better). Even if we were talking about web browsing devices (chromebooks, iPads, etc), I'd say sure whatever gets me a given level of browsing performance is good.

For a computer, I am not buying something to do "the job". I am buying a device to run a wide variety of software I know about along with the option to run software not yet written. Or even in the case of a single task, if I know "the job" requires 25 GB of working memory then I know I need at least a 32GB system. A system with 8GB of RAM just isn't going to handle it efficiently if at all. No matter how brilliant Apple's engineers are.

It's still a matter of performance and reliability in doing the job you need it to do however you define the job. The individual specs simply don't matter, what matters is the aggregate.

And then there's the unknown future needs. Apple Intelligence is a clear example of even Apple's engineers not foreseeing the additional hardware requirements to keep up with the market.

You'll have to spell that out for me. What I've seen is Apple Intelligence being a clear example of how attempting to future proof is futile. I haven't seen any features tied to RAM requirements-- they're all spec'd by processor generation.

The mistake people make in trying to "future proof" their machines is thinking that the future will depend on technology choices available in the past. AI doesn't rely on RAM alone, it uses RAM, the neural engines, the GPUs and who know what else inside those chips. Buying a ton of RAM you can't use because you don't have another component is foolish.

Again, for someone who needs 32GB of RAM and 1 TB of storage, you're not buying something for $100 less than a Mac Mini. You're buying something that < 1/4th the comparable configured Apple device.

Of course if you don't actually need 32GB and/or 1 TB storage then it goes to waste. But then it's not really a useful discussion to compare things that aren't what people need anyway.

That seems to be the discussion people are trying to start though-- I haven't see a single use case in this thread that requires that kind of RAM. I'm sure someone can imagine one, but I don't see anyone actually doing one-- let alone being able to position it as having broad market demand. These forums have convinced people they need specs they simply don't and they obsess about it forever rather than focusing on what tool does the job.

And I'm absolutely not saying a Mac Mini is the right tool for all jobs, I'm simply saying I don't find anything about this machine to be "mind blowing" and that it's terribly misguided to use this Amazon listing as a launching point for a discussion on Apple prices.

 

[txmike418]

You aren't obligated to buy things you don't want, that's correct. If a company builds a product worth more to you than the cost of making it then they deserve a profit, that's correct.

Something about your statement of directionality dependence makes it feel like you've left something unstated that you think would be somehow controversial...



It's still a matter of performance and reliability in doing the job you need it to do however you define the job. The individual specs simply don't matter, what matters is the aggregate.



You'll have to spell that out for me. What I've seen is Apple Intelligence being a clear example of how attempting to future proof is futile. I haven't seen any features tied to RAM requirements-- they're all spec'd by processor generation.

The mistake people make in trying to "future proof" their machines is thinking that the future will depend on technology choices available in the past. AI doesn't rely on RAM alone, it uses RAM, the neural engines, the GPUs and who know what else inside those chips. Buying a ton of RAM you can't use because you don't have another component is foolish.



That seems to be the discussion people are trying to start though-- I haven't see a single use case in this thread that requires that kind of RAM. I'm sure someone can imagine one, but I don't see anyone actually doing one-- let alone being able to position it as having broad market demand. These forums have convinced people they need specs they simply don't and they obsess about it forever rather than focusing on what tool does the job.

And I'm absolutely not saying a Mac Mini is the right tool for all jobs, I'm simply saying I don't find anything about this machine to be "mind blowing" and that it's terribly misguided to use this Amazon listing as a launching point for a discussion on Apple prices.

One single use case for extra ram is running virtual machines either with hyper-v or VMware. The more ram, the more VM’s you can run simultaneously

 

[Analog Kid]

One single use case for extra ram is running virtual machines either with hyper-v or VMware. The more ram, the more VM’s you can run simultaneously

Thank you, that illustrates my point nicely.

 

[bzgnyc2]

You aren't obligated to buy things you don't want, that's correct. If a company builds a product worth more to you than the cost of making it then they deserve a profit, that's correct.

Something about your statement of directionality dependence makes it feel like you've left something unstated that you think would be somehow controversial...

Not controversial -- just thought it would be redundent to continue on this point. Which is that prices are not a function of returning profits to shareholders. Shareholders get a return when their investment creates value in the market.

It's still a matter of performance and reliability in doing the job you need it to do however you define the job. The individual specs simply don't matter, what matters is the aggregate.

If the spec didn't matter in the computer market then why does Apple make it a configurable potion on every computer from the MacBook Air up? In the iPad market, yes buyers are insulated from the amount of RAM but the expectations in the computer market are different.

You'll have to spell that out for me. What I've seen is Apple Intelligence being a clear example of how attempting to future proof is futile. I haven't seen any features tied to RAM requirements-- they're all spec'd by processor generation.

The distinguishing feature of computers that can run Apple Intelligence (AI) is 8GB. The iPhone 15 with 6GB of RAM can't run AI. The iPhone 15 Pro with 8GB can run AI. The iPhone 16 with 8GB of RAM can run AI. The M1 -- with a NPU similar in performance to the A14 but 8GB of RAM -- can run AI.

All iPhone 16 Models Equipped With 8GB of RAM for Apple Intelligence

Apple never publicly advertises the amount of RAM included in iPhones, but MacRumors has confirmed that all four iPhone 16 models are equipped with...

www.macrumors.com

The mistake people make in trying to "future proof" their machines is thinking that the future will depend on technology choices available in the past. AI doesn't rely on RAM alone, it uses RAM, the neural engines, the GPUs and who know what else inside those chips. Buying a ton of RAM you can't use because you don't have another component is foolish.

Agree it's not RAM alone but RAM tends to be the least fungible spec. The performance impact of having too little tends to be significant (almost by definition even if virtual memory and the like blur the boundaries). However, having a little too much historically adds very little to the overall price.

In general rounding up rather than shrink-to-fit sizing provides the extra headroom to add features over time. This is a distingusihing feature of a computer over an appliance. The appliance just has to do what it was designed to do at the time of purchase. The expectation for a computer is the ability to do new things we haven't thought of.

That seems to be the discussion people are trying to start though-- I haven't see a single use case in this thread that requires that kind of RAM. I'm sure someone can imagine one, but I don't see anyone actually doing one-- let alone being able to position it as having broad market demand.

There are other threads where people discuss what software they run and how much RAM it requires (or doesn't). But given than Apple sells the Mac Mini up to 32GB of RAM (at a considerable upgrade price), the Studio comes with 32GB standard, and the Mac Pro with 64GB of RAM, it seems Apple recognizes there are people out there that need computers with more than 8 or 16GB.

Agree for web browsing and basic office/productivity work, 8 or 16GB should be fine and that is what a lot of people do (I'm guessing most). However a lot of people have far more advanced needs than that as well.

Then for people who have these greater requirements, the price of Apple devices ramps up very quickly which feels odd to many given that the market prices for these specs in particular are relatively low.

These forums have convinced people they need specs they simply don't and they obsess about it forever rather than focusing on what tool does the job.

And I'm absolutely not saying a Mac Mini is the right tool for all jobs, I'm simply saying I don't find anything about this machine to be "mind blowing" and that it's terribly misguided to use this Amazon listing as a launching point for a discussion on Apple prices.

If the argument is that most people should be fine with 8 or 16GB I agree. And even though I have a 16GB laptop (max at the time for my Air), even that is more than I should need for I use it for. Putting aside previous platforms, I really do the same tasks and use the same software on it that worked well under 8 GB not that many years ago. There's those who argue life is too short to go after every last drop of performance and then there's watching 10x slower performance or increased RAM usage just become the norm...

Regardless there are people whose requirements are greater than 8 or 16GB for their work. There Apple's upgrade pricing on entry-level machines for that spec don't match market. The overall value of the package may still be there but people just don't like it.

Just like people have generally hated airlines for charging different prices for the same seat or seemingly large multiple for small upgrades.

 

[Analog Kid]

Which is that prices are not a function of returning profits to shareholders.

Sure they are-- it's supply and demand. Shareholders won't supply a product that doesn't return sufficient profit.

For a transaction to clear, the price must be set to return sufficient value to the customer and sufficient profit to the company. Different companies and customers, of course, have different definitions of sufficient.

If the spec didn't matter in the computer market then why does Apple make it a configurable potion on every computer

In part, because different configurations provide different aggregate performance for certain jobs, and in part because some people just think more is better regardless and are willing to pay a premium to have a configuration above average.

But we're not comparing different Macs that are equivalent in every way but RAM, we're talking about a completely different mini PC with a totally different architecture, OS, software, etc. The only possible comparison is among aggregate performance and reliability for the job to be done. You can't say "this one has 32GB of RAM so it's better, full stop, than that one with 8GB."

The distinguishing feature of computers that can run Apple Intelligence (AI) is 8GB.

The distinguishing feature is the CPU they use. I don't see a single instance here where a customer missed out on Apple Intelligence because they chose not to upgrade their RAM.

I fully expect this to be true in the future as well. It's much easier for customers to understand. I can't think of a single time Apple has differentiated compatibility based on RAM.

RAM tends to be the least fungible spec.

Not sure how you'd support that. RAM is the very definition of fungible. You either have supported hardware accelerators and instruction sets or you don’t…

There are other threads where people discuss what software they run and how much RAM it requires

I think you’re trying to turn this into a general discussion of RAM. That’s not the topic here.

If the argument is that most people should be fine with 8 or 16GB I agree.

That’s not the argument. The argument is that the price of this Beelink unit just isn’t that mind blowing— it’s only marginally cheaper than an M2 Mac Mini and the Mini is a far more capable machine overall for the uses people have described using this box for.

 

[platinumaqua]

Will you look at that, so courageous of them to also include UAB-A ports for the price!

 

[bzgnyc2]

But we're not comparing different Macs that are equivalent in every way but RAM, we're talking about a completely different mini PC with a totally different architecture, OS, software, etc. The only possible comparison is among aggregate performance and reliability for the job to be done. You can't say "this one has 32GB of RAM so it's better, full stop, than that one with 8GB."

No not full stop. Again as a computer we're running a variety of software. That software typically has memory needs independent of the architecture and OS. Not 100% independent but in my experience most home grown and non-productivity applications have a certain working set requirement that doesn't vary significantly by OS or platform.

Again excepting browsers and iLife like applications as we already agree most of those should run fine within 8GB (or should be fixed to run within 8GB...).

View attachment 2442601

The distinguishing feature is the CPU they use. I don't see a single instance here where a customer missed out on Apple Intelligence because they chose not to upgrade their RAM.

Now go look at the memory included with each of those processors. Every processor listed there has 8GB or more. On the other hand, the A14 processor had the same NPU as the M1 but it was not supported. The A16 processor used in the iPhone 15 is both a newer ARM generation and has a faster NPU than the M1 but it is not supported. It only has 6GB of RAM.

I fully expect this to be true in the future as well. It's much easier for customers to understand. I can't think of a single time Apple has differentiated compatibility based on RAM.

Now that Apple is putting memory on the CPU package, its easier to associate memory size with processor but references to minimum RAM is common in software's hardware requirement. It's been common to list the minimum required memory for OS and other software for more than a few decades.

Not sure how you'd support that. RAM is the very definition of fungible. You either have supported hardware accelerators and instruction sets or you don’t…

Similarly, you either have the RAM you need to run the software with the given data or you don't.

On the other hand, most software is set to run on the base processor and uses special instructions to accelerate beyond that. Outside of FP versus non-FP, which has been a non issue for 25+ years, and to a lesser extent some of the AV encoding/decoding instructions, the differences aren't as dramatic as enough or too little RAM (assuming RAM needs are real and not just more and more cache). Yes no GPU versus a modern GPU is huge for some programs but within a few generations of computer processors of the current era, the effects usually not dramatic.

I think you’re trying to turn this into a general discussion of RAM. That’s not the topic here.

That seemed like where you wanted to go? The topic here was, "here's an example of a computer like the Mac mini that costs a fraction of a Mac mini with comparable hardware specs". One can debate the need for the specs but the specs used are ubitiquous in the computer industry and are primary dimensions of configurability within each model of Mac.

That’s not the argument. The argument is that the price of this Beelink unit just isn’t that mind blowing— it’s only marginally cheaper than an M2 Mac Mini and the Mini is a far more capable machine overall for the uses people have described using this box for.

Yes if you don't need 32 GB of RAM. Agree not everyone needs 32 GB of RAM. Agree the software most people use shouldn't need 32 GB of RAM.

Mac Mini M2 was a fine machine especially at the low-end. Apple's economic price discrimination around RAM and SSD upgrade pricing frustrated a lot of people. Even if it's common in many markets, people don't like it.

 

[Analog Kid]

The topic here was, "here's an example of a computer like the Mac mini that costs a fraction of a Mac mini with comparable hardware specs".

This is getting repetitive and now largely obsolete.

Definitely not comparable hardware specs with the M2 Mini but the difference is even more significant as of today:

$429 Beelink SER5

$599 M4 Mac Mini is built around this chip (not sure if this is benchmarking the Mini or the iMac):

Mac Mini has it beat on peripherals, connectivity, build quality and support.

Yes if you don't need 32 GB of RAM.

I haven't see a single use case in this thread that requires that kind of RAM. I'm sure someone can imagine one, but I don't see anyone actually doing one-- let alone being able to position it as having broad market demand.

You'd be hard pressed to find a common use case where half the speed and twice the RAM would win the race.

 

[Starfia]

But hey, Apple is now richest in the world and for many of us, that's seemingly all that matters.

Exactly. I don't even want the computer; I effectively just want to donate to them. I don't know why they don't just have a Patreon account.

 

[agregson]

I have M2 mini and M4 on order. I adore macOS and Windows simply does not come anywhere close. I am happy to pay a premium for that. However given build quality and even previous mini pricing I am not really sure it is a premium when comparing like for like in terms of processor performance, memory, SSD and so on.

I have several Windows mini PC - handy to have on hand for firmware updates, programming software for radios and some microcontrollers and things where I don't want to risk damaging a Mac - even though I use USB isolators. Most recent is a MinisForum N100. Picked ups for £149 in recent Amazon offer. Decent spec:


MinisForum UN100P Mini PC, Intel 12th Gen Alder Lake- N100,16 GB DDR4 RAM 512 GB PCIe SSD, Mini Desktop PC 4K Triple Display, 4xUSB Ports, 1xUSB-C with 15W PD, 2.5G RJ45 LAN, Windows 11 Pro.

It is a super machine and really surprised me. Processor benchmark is around 33% of M1 but power on general use is a mere 6W. External 12V replaceable PSU is handy and supplied is decent. I was not overly concerned about licenses as I have never had an issue with the other Minisforum (dual LAN version for router/ProxMox) and Beelink Ryzen. Windows 11 Pro activated perfectly (nothing to do) and checks out as genuine. SSD is Crucial. Not a flyer but at 1600MB/s can't really complain - about par with M2/256 mini.

Runs dual UHD displays perfectly with no apparent issues. Any combination of HDMI/USB-C works fine. Also runs triple display with my USB-C portable monitor. I normally just use it with the portable monitor as it makes a very simple computer and delivers required 15W to power the display. Logitech Bluetooth keyboard and mouse complete the package. The complete package cost £280.

As for backup - Windows handles an external USB rather well. Backup to OneDrive and storage in OneDrive works well. Subscription for Office 365 1TB is decent value and has benefit of working on macOS also - apps and storage. A nice backup to Apple and can even sync one or more folders between iCould and OneDrive as mini is 24x7.

It is certainly not a Mac mini and Windows is so far behind macOS. However for the price it is decent and easily upgradable - SSD and memory are socketed. If anyone wanted a cheap computer it is worth having. Also (for me) easier and cheaper than adding 256GB storage and VM installs cluttering macOS. I would recommend it to anyone.