When is the new Mac mini Haswell coming out?

[deconstruct60]

Most businesses (and most countries) don't have Apple's cash.

Actually Apple's cash means they don't have to be in a frantic rush to get to new products. It is really little to do with developing new products. Just cash flow from operations (sales) can more than fund that. Apple's mountain of cash far more means they can call their own shots on timing , funding, etc outside of "Wall Street" , stockholders , and customers.

Apple open and frequently states that they're out to make the best products above all else.

But they aren't out to make all products. The question is whether they should be in the submarket or not. Again the cash mountain is indicative that they can make money at other things. Some of those may give a better return on investment.

The could/should make the mini a whole lot better.

Over an extended amount of time yes. "Best" isn't necessarily something that is revolutionary at every iteration. The mini has constraints on price zone , physical size , etc. The challenge is to make something a new "best" with those constraints with new tech.

Pragmatically though, the mini is also coupled to other Mac products to get scale on components. That is another constraint.

 

[corvus32]

I can't see them using the innards of the rMBP without also using soldered on memory and flash storage, otherwise what innards are we talking about - just the CPU? If they're eventually going to use all the innards, then they may as well make the Mini smaller in the process. If they're going to do that, then the MBA is a much better candidate - even more so with ULV Broadwell architecture.

If I was Apple, I would want to reverse declining Mac sales and get Xcode and the MAS into the hands of as many people as possible - especially kids. The best way to do that is to put OS X into something not much bigger than an Apple TV and priced $499 or less.

 

[barkmonster]

I hope not...the current design is still sexy as hell!

I agree. Once they update the basic CPU/Chipset with Haswell components, I'd like to see Thunderbolt 2 instead of Thunderbolt and HDMI upgraded to the 1.4 version so it supports higher resolution displays like the numerous IPS 27" and 29" monitors with a 2560x1440 or 2560x1080 resolution that are dropping in price all the time depending on quality/brand.

The CPU performance of quad i7 or Xeon CPUs float around the 10,000-14,000 range with Geekbench which may be artificial, but for people who just need enough GPU power to drive several displays, the internals of a Macbook Pro in a desktop form (which the Mac Mini has consistently been based on in the past) would make it an excellent system.

Given that no matter what Mac you buy, you need to house additional storage externally and only the graphics/video users benefit from the Firepro GPUs in the quad Mac Pro, a couple of current generation 2.6Ghz i7 Macminis using Logic Node and an Ethernet cable would be an absolute DAW powerhouse compared with the Mac Pro for host-based software synths/fx. If a newer version offered not just a bump in CPU power but Thunderbolt 2 and better monitor resolution support, it would be the most powerful Mac for the price in history!

 

[deconstruct60]

I can't see them using the innards of the rMBP without also using soldered on memory and flash storage, otherwise what innards are we talking about - just the CPU?

No. It would be the ports, the wifi/blue card and board connectivity layout. The whole board shape don't have to be the same. The laptops have batteries to accommodate in internal space. The Mini does not. The laptops have accommodate the screen keyboard so limited in how to ingest and get rid of air. The Mini does not. The laptops have internal webcams. The mini does not.

There is a big difference between reusing the same components and generally similar layout and just straight exact duplication.

The exact same board space Apple uses to solder RAM onto could be converted to so-DIMM space. It actually uses less 2D space than soldering. Orienting it around the Mini's centric fan placement is probably a bigger deal than mutating the board to take so-DIMM slots.

Moving the PCIe SSD connector again out of the way of the fan (and likely HDD) drive isn't a huge leap. Same stuff just laid out marginally different.

rMBP already has HDMI sockets , USB 3.0 sockets , SDXC card slot, and two TB sockets. Again it is largely layout adjustment to collect all of those onto one side ( instead of two with the laptop. ).

If they're eventually going to use all the innards, then they may as well make the Mini smaller in the process.

rMBP price for 1TB internal storage ===> ~ $600+
Mini's price for 1 TB internal storage ===> ~ $100

Fine, if want to blow out pricing, but part of the mini's requirements is deliver something more affordable.

If they're going to do that, then the MBA is a much better candidate - even more so with ULV Broadwell architecture.

Not really. The mini already competes in a market versus desktop processors and has a general mobile CPU handicap. To retreat even further backwards into ULV CPU land is penny wise and pound foolish. Sure could 100% reuse the MBA board ( slap ports on the side and flatten out the case even more]. But note the MBA can't even get to 16GB or RAM. It is stuck at max of 8GB because of crippling limitations on the 2D dimensions on the motherboard. So not only chuck more affordable, $/GB, storage solutions but kneecap the RAM capacity at the same time all the while completing with solutions that do neither and at lower price points.

If I was Apple, I would want to reverse declining Mac sales and get Xcode and the MAS into the hands of as many people as possible - especially kids. The best way to do that is to put OS X into something not much bigger than an Apple TV and priced $499 or less.

Going to SSD only storage and soldered RAM doesn't really get them there. The screen , webcam , keyboard, trackpad, and batteries of the MBA 13" is not more than half the costs.

Some of the lower (due to higher volume) components can come from the desktop too. 2.5" HDDs from the 21.5" iMac.

Instead of gimping capabilities of Macs to engage race-to-the-bottom pricing, Apple should be trying to put better value into the price points they already have.

The whole "make it smaller so it would be cheaper" clamor didn't work so well on the Mac Pro. The new one is smaller and costs more. Just taking a meat axe to the MBA doesn't really improve how well it works as a desktop offering.

"Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." - Steve Jobs

 

[mpantone]

The Mac mini doesn't really need a downsizing, and in fact, would probably suffer in terms of customer appeal.

• It plugs into the wall, ultra low TDP isn't an issue.
• It has a built-in power supply.
• A smaller enclosure would concentrate heat, which would likely require a faster fan (and consequently more noise).
• A smaller enclosure would necessitate the removal of peripheral ports.
• There are probably some cost savings associated with sharing the same parts as other Macs (namely memory sticks and flash memory storage modules).

The current (unrefreshed) Mac mini is basically a headless version of last year's MacBook Air with a faster CPU clock.

I'm still thinking that the next-gen entry-level Mac mini would be an i7-based Haswell machine with the same Intel HD Graphics 5000 as the high-end MBA (and not based of the low-end i5 MBA), the higher end Mac mini model being a four-core i7 Haswell with the faster Iris graphics (TDP is something like 47W, too high for an Air).

I could conceivably see the Mac mini getting some sort of design refresh like the AirPort Extreme, a taller/narrower enclosure rather than the mini-pizza box form factor which was largely tied to the now-eliminated optical drive. There is nothing requiring the Mac mini to be 6"x6" any more.

My guess is that Apple just continued using the 2010 Mac mini server industrial design (two hard drive bays, no optical drive) to maximize the design's life. Maybe they will ditch one SATA3 hard drive bay in favor of a PCIe flash module slot, with a second bay for an optional SATA3 drive (sort of like the current AirPort Extreme/Time Capsule design).

Anyhow, we can probably stop speculating on this until the latter half of January. Ain't gonna happen this year.

 

[corvus32]

No. It would be the ports, the wifi/blue card and board connectivity layout. The whole board shape don't have to be the same. The laptops have batteries to accommodate in internal space. The Mini does not. The laptops have accommodate the screen keyboard so limited in how to ingest and get rid of air. The Mini does not. The laptops have internal webcams. The mini does not.

There is a big difference between reusing the same components and generally similar layout and just straight exact duplication.

The exact same board space Apple uses to solder RAM onto could be converted to so-DIMM space. It actually uses less 2D space than soldering. Orienting it around the Mini's centric fan placement is probably a bigger deal than mutating the board to take so-DIMM slots.

Moving the PCIe SSD connector again out of the way of the fan (and likely HDD) drive isn't a huge leap. Same stuff just laid out marginally different.

rMBP already has HDMI sockets , USB 3.0 sockets , SDXC card slot, and two TB sockets. Again it is largely layout adjustment to collect all of those onto one side ( instead of two with the laptop. ).




rMBP price for 1TB internal storage ===> ~ $600+
Mini's price for 1 TB internal storage ===> ~ $100

Fine, if want to blow out pricing, but part of the mini's requirements is deliver something more affordable.




Not really. The mini already competes in a market versus desktop processors and has a general mobile CPU handicap. To retreat even further backwards into ULV CPU land is penny wise and pound foolish. Sure could 100% reuse the MBA board ( slap ports on the side and flatten out the case even more]. But note the MBA can't even get to 16GB or RAM. It is stuck at max of 8GB because of crippling limitations on the 2D dimensions on the motherboard. So not only chuck more affordable, $/GB, storage solutions but kneecap the RAM capacity at the same time all the while completing with solutions that do neither and at lower price points.



Going to SSD only storage and soldered RAM doesn't really get them there. The screen , webcam , keyboard, trackpad, and batteries of the MBA 13" is not more than half the costs.

Some of the lower (due to higher volume) components can come from the desktop too. 2.5" HDDs from the 21.5" iMac.

Instead of gimping capabilities of Macs to engage race-to-the-bottom pricing, Apple should be trying to put better value into the price points they already have.

The whole "make it smaller so it would be cheaper" clamor didn't work so well on the Mac Pro. The new one is smaller and costs more. Just taking a meat axe to the MBA doesn't really improve how well it works as a desktop offering.

"Design is not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." - Steve Jobs

Sooooo..... In other words, the only innards from the rMBP you're proposing is the CPU.

The Mini already has all the ports you mentioned, except a second TB port, and it also already uses so-DIMM slots, etc.

A minor speed bump isn't going to make people anymore interested in buying one than they have been, and (in case you haven't noticed) Mac desktop sales have been going down for the past year or two. It also doesn't add value for a lot of people either because for $800 anyone can buy or build a more powerful computer (with dedicated graphics) if that's what they need. Or spend a couple hundred less for a tablet or mini PC if that's what they need.

Using ULV processors isn't a race to the bottom. If you're going to design a modern Mini that's smaller, more efficient, and cost less without sacrificing value then it's where you end up.

 

[deconstruct60]

.... and in fact, would probably suffer in terms of customer appeal.

• It plugs into the wall, ultra low TDP isn't an issue.
  ...
• A smaller enclosure would concentrate heat, which would likely require a faster fan (and consequently more noise).

Those two are coupled. If crank down the TDP then the heat goes away.
It wouldn't be louder. It would be slower. Limited to 2 cores and relatively substantially underclocked in GPU.

• A smaller enclosure would necessitate the removal of peripheral ports.

Or using more sides for more function. Laptops use the sides for sockets and the back for blowing. The mini does both on one side.

The current (unrefreshed) Mac mini is basically a headless version of last year's MacBook Air with a faster CPU clock.

Actually not. MBP 13" (for entry) and MBP 15" ( or upper BTO 13" ) for others. That is one of the problems here with Apple having stalled (or stopped or possibly stopped and restarted once saw sales numbers of MBP 13 " continue to remain relatively high).

I'm still thinking that the next-gen entry-level Mac mini would be an i7-based Haswell machine with the same Intel HD Graphics 5000 (and not based of the low-end i5 MBA), the higher end model being a four-core i7 Haswell with the faster Iris graphics.

Both of which is would be what an updated MBP 13" (and MBP 15") would carry. Also what the rMBP 2013 models do carry.

I could conceivably see the Mac mini getting some sort of design refresh like the AirPort Extreme, a taller/narrower enclosure rather than the mini-pizza box form factor which was largely tied to the now-eliminated optical drive.

The optical drive has been removed from the Mini since 2011. It has been 2 years and two generations. The HDD is still a rectangular ship that still hard to beat when it comes to $/GB or just $/unit.

The whole chimney approach isn't going to work so well in home theater consoles, rack solutions (embed Mini in container) , or on many desktops were stacking solutions ( http://www.newertech.com/products/ministackmax.php )

There is nothing requiring the Mac mini to be 6"x6" any more.

Going vertical is just a balloon squeeze 'solution'. Could reduce length or width only to explode height. The overall volume is likely to be roughly the same if don't through functionality out the window.

Maybe they will ditch one SATA3 hard drive bay in favor of a PCIe flash module slot, with a second bay for an optional SATA3 drive (sort of like the current AirPort Extreme/Time Capsule design).

The Airport design "cheats" by only putting the fan on one side of the rectangle under the power supply. The mini's logic board isn't going to run that cool to require no fan unless they gut the performance.

Apple could reuse the Mac Pro's 6.6in diameter fan and they could do a 6.6 x 6.6 cylinder but really have just balloon squeezed the volume into a new dimension. Perhaps if Apple was moving from "headless" Mac laptop to "headless" iMac that might work. The question is whether the 21.5" iMac has the volume to keep the component cost prices in the same zone.

 

[deconstruct60]

Sooooo..... In other words, the only innards from the rMBP you're proposing is the CPU.

No.

The Mini already has all the ports you mentioned, except a second TB port, and it also already uses so-DIMM slots, etc.

The "already has all the ports" misses the point. The current Mini is derived from the MBP 13"/15" which have Ethernet , USB , FW , etc. so the Mini gets them too with relative ease. If the Mini shifted to using rMBP innards then it would match up on ports to while keeping some re-layout and minor adjustments minimal. Still could get the tweak to support two more USB sockets ( the chipsets on both support it). Likewise chipset in rMBP supports SATA even if Apple uses zero, so minor update of connecting to an HDD. But would likely loose Ethernet and FW since not in the same shared component pool anymore. ( chipset supports Ethernet so maybe if Apple buys into Intel's bundle solution, but FW is definitely all by its lonesome. )

Unless substantially change the Mac mini shape and thermal system the board layout needs to be tweak anyway from a somewhat narrow rectangular layout in the laptops (to make room for batteries and fans ) to a more squarish one (to make the more squarish Mini container).

A minor speed bump isn't going to make people anymore interested in buying one than they have been, and (in case you haven't noticed) Mac desktop sales have been going down for the past year or two.

Not.
First, most people tend to buy with multiple generations between what they have and what they are going to. The individual speed bump doesn't matter. It is the cumulative speed bump that moves most folks.

Second, not two years.

"... Oddly enough, sales of Mac desktops actually seemed to perform better over the quarter compared to portable sales (by trend, not by number of units sold):
Desktops

Unit sales up 16 percent ..."
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/25/lesser-known-facts-from-apples-earnings-statement/

That coupled with the botched iMac 2012 launch ( which basically the major driver of desktop Mac sales) means there is lots of noise in the last year's desktop numbers.

The shine has come off of both laptop and desktop numbers in latest quarters. There are macro factors involved. What processror Apple has dropped in the mini/iMac isn't the major driver.

It also doesn't add value for a lot of people either because for $800 anyone can buy or build a more powerful computer (with dedicated graphics) if that's what they need. Or spend a couple hundred less for a tablet or mini PC if that's what they need.

There always has been and will be a markets above and below the Mini.

Using ULV processors isn't a race to the bottom.

If selected primarily to chop stuff off the mini it is. "grab the lowest price mac laptop and start lopping off components to lower price" it is starting on a race to the bottom. It will always be cheaper to lop off another piece if that isn't some magically low price point too.

If you're going to design a modern Mini that's smaller, more efficient, and cost less without sacrificing value then it's where you end up.

The ULV processors aren't particularly more efficient they are simply just run slower. It is the same design run at a slower speed.

It may be more effective if selling speed most folks don't need or want. Efficient not hardly.

The mini has a different tech transition problem. The iMac didn't majorly take off until started to pick up desktop like processors. That made it more competitive in desktop market. Mini has same issue. As long as snagging laptop hand-me-downs it is going to have desktop competitive issues. They can offset that in the interium by snagging the top of the laptop lineup until they can transition up with newer Intel tech (or AMD tech is they get competitive again). Going to the bottom of the laptop line performance spectrum is far more likely to increase the problems.

Trying to shuffle that drop in competition by chopping the price is only a balloon squeeze into a different set of problems.

 

[mpantone]

Those two are coupled. If crank down the TDP then the heat goes away.
It wouldn't be louder. It would be slower. Limited to 2 cores and relatively substantially underclocked in GPU.

I will point out that there are other components in a computer that generate heat besides the CPU.

Or using more sides for more function. Laptops use the sides for sockets and the back for blowing. The mini does both on one side.

Computer manufacturers typically do not do this on their desktops; and I'm not just talking about Apple. A notebook typically has space around it because that's how users operate the device. As a mobile computer, people typically have it on a desk with free space around for their arms, etc., hence the ports on the sides are available since there isn't an access restriction.

Desktop computers are often placed in a location where access to the sides is not feasible and/or side-mounted ports are not desirable.

Actually not. MBP 13" (for entry) and MBP 15" ( or upper BTO 13" ) for others. That is one of the problems here with Apple having stalled (or stopped or possibly stopped and restarted once saw sales numbers of MBP 13 " continue to remain relatively high).

Actually, it is. Go look at the specs for a MacBook Air 2012 and the current Mac mini. They are almost completely identical except for CPU clock frequency (and of course, peripheral port availability).

The HDD is still a rectangular ship that still hard to beat when it comes to $/GB or just $/unit.

The whole chimney approach isn't going to work so well in home theater consoles, rack solutions (embed Mini in container) , or on many desktops were stacking solutions ( http://www.newertech.com/products/ministackmax.php )

Do you know anything about Apple's product design history?

When has Apple ever cared about standard form factors for their mainstream computers?

They are the kings of non-standard form factors. The last one that had anything to do with an industry standard was the Xserve.

"Luxo Jr." iMac? Heck, the next-generation Mac Pro isn't 19" rack mountable.

Heck, at one point, Apple bragged that one of their notebooks was the same dimension as a standard sheet of American paper (8.5x11"). But they let that go, created other notebooks in various form factors.

Apple doesn't care about making life easy for their systems integrators, co-lo hosting companies, or accessory manufacturers.

Third-party accessory manufacturers will come up with a way to deal with whatever changes Apple makes to the Mac mini design, just as they have dealt with all the other changes that Apple has made in all of their industrial design history.

As a matter of fact, a wise person would pretty much BET that Apple will eventually change radically change an existing product design.

Going vertical is just a balloon squeeze 'solution'. Could reduce length or width only to explode height. The overall volume is likely to be roughly the same if don't through functionality out the window.

Yes, and that's what they did with the AirPort Extreme.

The Airport design "cheats" by only putting the fan on one side of the rectangle under the power supply. The mini's logic board isn't going to run that cool to require no fan unless they gut the performance.

Funny, I bet the same stuff was said about the Mac Pro before the new design was unveiled.

How many fans does the latest MacBooks have? How big are they?

Apple could reuse the Mac Pro's 6.6in diameter fan and they could do a 6.6 x 6.6 cylinder but really have just balloon squeezed the volume into a new dimension. Perhaps if Apple was moving from "headless" Mac laptop to "headless" iMac that might work. The question is whether the 21.5" iMac has the volume to keep the component cost prices in the same zone.

Huh? Why would a Mini need a 6.6" fan? It doesn't have the same TDP as the Mac Pro? Heck, we're talking about something that might top out around 47-60W.

Again, that is the realm of i7 Haswell quad-core processors running around 2.4-3.0GHz.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm suspecting that the Mac mini is undergoing a radical industrial design change, which is why Apple didn't shove the latest version of Haswell in the mini-pizza box and call it a day.

In any case, all this speculation is just for laughs.

 

[hugodrax]

The problem with haswell is the decent chips all run 47w tdp vs 45 for ivy bridge.

So unless they redesign the case and cooling to support the new hotter chips. I would not expect to see anything good for this year.

 

[mpantone]

The difference between 45W and 47W is less than 5%. My guess is that there is some buffer built into the curet Mac mini case design in terms of cooling capacity. It would be unlikely that Apple designs a desktop PC that runs right on the edge of thermal dissipation for normal ambient operating temperatures.

I will reiterate that CPUs aren't the only heat generators. Mechanical designers at Apple (and others) take into account the entire heat generated by all the internal components, not just that of the CPU.

Let's say Apple switches from a two-bay 2.5" SATA design to one that uses a PCIe flash storage module for the primary drive, and a 2.5" HDD bay for the second drive.

Does this change the total thermal output of the unit?

 

[MacLC]

The Mac mini doesn't really need a downsizing, and in fact, would probably suffer in terms of customer appeal.

I personally wouldn't want it any smaller.

I'm still thinking that the next-gen entry-level Mac mini would be an i7-based Haswell machine with the same Intel HD Graphics 5000 as the high-end MBA (and not based of the low-end i5 MBA), the higher end Mac mini model being a four-core i7 Haswell with the faster Iris graphics (TDP is something like 47W, too high for an Air).

Intel HD 5000 generally go with 15W chips. HD 4600 is meant for 35W+ and are actually more powerful, so entry level Mac minis would likely get the 4600. Intel's numbering is really backward and confuses nearly everybody.

Before Haswell you had Sandy Bridge's HD3000, then Ivy Bridge's HD4000, so you'd assume all Haswell would be HD5000+ but no. Even more confusing is that one X200 chip is ultra-low end (HD 4200 for Y series chips) and the other X200 chip is ultra-high end (HD 5200 Iris Pro). When Intel names Broadwell chips they will need a new numbering system. Until then people will stay confused.

AMD and Nvidia number their chips more logically with the 1st number being the generation and the 2nd and 3rd numbers being the market (8X or 9X high end, 6X or 7X upper middle, 5X lower middle, under 5X low end)

 

[MacLC]

The problem with haswell is the decent chips all run 47w tdp vs 45 for ivy bridge.

So unless they redesign the case and cooling to support the new hotter chips. I would not expect to see anything good for this year.

Actually 2 desktop "T" series i7s are 35W and 45W. The embedded "TE" is also 45W. They're no more expensive than the Ivy Bridge line either. FWIW there was no 2ghz-3ghz 35W i7 Ivy Bridge.
The i3 and i5 "T"s are also 45 and under.

Haswell
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/75023

Ivy Bridge
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/65506

 

[Spink10]

Amazon just (2 days ago) discounted the two lower end Mini's and currently out of stock - hopefully this means refresh.

 

[blanka]

Amazon just (2 days ago) discounted the two lower end Mini's and currently out of stock - hopefully this means refresh.

Amazon is the biggest E-tailer in the world. They know how to play the stock figures/discount/advertising game. Wouldn't count them as a good measurement of what happens at Apple.

 

[hudson1]

....


Actually, it is. Go look at the specs for a MacBook Air 2012 and the current Mac mini. They are almost completely identical except for CPU clock frequency (and of course, peripheral port availability).

....

You're basically arguing the mini and MBA are not related.

 

[corvus32]

"... Oddly enough, sales of Mac desktops actually seemed to perform better over the quarter compared to portable sales (by trend, not by number of units sold):
Desktops

Unit sales up 16 percent ..."
http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/25/lesser-known-facts-from-apples-earnings-statement/

That was from an article dated Jan 2012, and you left out a sentence just before that which reads:

Though sales were up by 19 percent compared to a year earlier, compared to the previous quarter Mac sales actually declined by 6 percent.

Here are some more recent links:

Macs down, PCs up

U.S. Mac Sales Continue to Sag Ahead of October Updates

Mac sales slide for third straight quarter, fall 7%

Why are Mac sales plummeting? Apple gave up on innovating

At this point... plugging a rMBP CPU into every Mini, calling it a day, and expecting a different result is quite literally the definition of insanity. If they want to sell more Macs in more places, they need to separate the i5 Mini from the 45W quad core models by basing it similarly off the MBA (eg, Intel NUC D54250).

 

[Schnort]

The PC business is seasonal, so differential over previous year is more telling than previous quarter.

On the other hand, losing market share is never a good thing.

 

[corvus32]

The PC business is seasonal, so differential over previous year is more telling than previous quarter.

On the other hand, losing market share is never a good thing.

Apple Reports Q1 2013 Results

The Company sold 4.1 million Macs, compared to 5.2 million in the year-ago quarter.

Apple Reports Q2 2013 Results

The Company sold just under 4 million Macs, compared to 4 million in the year-ago quarter.

Apple Reports Q3 2013 Results

The Company sold 3.8 million Macs, compared to 4 million in the year-ago quarter.

Apple Reports Q4 2013 Results

The Company sold 4.6 million Macs, compared to 4.9 million in the year-ago quarter.

0-4

You can't keep doing what you been doing, and expect a different outcome.

 

[Schnort]

I agree. Apple needs to thank its lucky stars for the iPhone + iPad phenomenon.

Ignoring OSX, of course, and the styling and fit/function, for the same functionality Apple hardware is just way too expensive.

$2600 for a laptop with middling 3d graphics is just silly. The iMacs are stylish, but the cost/performance ratio just doesn't compare to the 'beige box + 24" monitor' that the bulk of the buying populace is going for.

Personally, the mac mini is just about the only product that is compelling on a price point with the equivalent in the non-Apple world. The Intel NUC and other small form factor PCs are just as expensive or more so than the low/mid end Mini. Even then I'm paying for the form factor because that's what I want. It's specs are pretty crappy compared to the equivalent ATX sized PC.

In a down economy, paying for the luxury of 'style' is one of the first things to go.

 

[Ice Dragon]

I have already started the countdown to next year whether a new mini will come out. I may get an Intel NUC and go back to Windows but we'll see. I would like to see a quiet update though.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

The problem with haswell is the decent chips all run 47w tdp vs 45 for ivy bridge.

So unless they redesign the case and cooling to support the new hotter chips. I would not expect to see anything good for this year.

Are you for real? 2 Watts! Give me a break!

Haswell does not only support better power management-Haswell has also integrated voltage regulators, which means the TDP is naturally a bit higher. However, the Haswell voltage regulators are probably the most efficient voltage regulators on the market and generate less heat, than external solutions.

 

[corvus32]

I have already started the countdown to next year whether a new mini will come out. I may get an Intel NUC and go back to Windows but we'll see. I would like to see a quiet update though.

I've decided to give them until sometime in January. After that, I plan on buying a NUC D54250 and dual booting LinuxMint and SteamOS. I can reuse the 16 gigs of RAM and SSD from my Mini and then eBay it, so the move would cost me nothing. I could pick up a used Mini at some point just for Xcode, but I doubt I would ever buy new again unless they can make one under $500.

$2600 for a laptop with middling 3d graphics is just silly. The iMacs are stylish, but the cost/performance ratio just doesn't compare to the 'beige box + 24" monitor' that the bulk of the buying populace is going for.

...

In a down economy, paying for the luxury of 'style' is one of the first things to go.

Other than a gaming rig in 2012, I haven't bought an expensive new computer (Mac or PC) for personal use since October 2009, and that was a $1499 iMac. That's partly because of the economy, but mostly because the CPUs in tablets and small low cost computers have gotten that good.

 

[svan71]

Disposable income

Apple Reports Q1 2013 Results




Apple Reports Q2 2013 Results




Apple Reports Q3 2013 Results




Apple Reports Q4 2013 Results




0-4

You can't keep doing what you been doing, and expect a different outcome.

I agree but does that go for the current administration? The economy sucks and people don't have the cash to upgrade...I'm surprised sales where this good.

 

[Schnort]

Yeah, unless you're gaming you don't need a new computer. The Mac Mini I have from 2007-ish vintage is good enough for any web browsing/light office work the average user might have.