Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Cookie18

macrumors 6502a
Sep 11, 2014
584
684
France
You're right from Apple's point of view. Although you have to wonder the amount of time Apple spent in intentionally engineering the new mini for the RAM to be that convoluted to access (oh and let's add a "RAM shield" on top of that...). It's like somebody in Apple engineering was just bitter.

Nonetheless, my personal view is that RAM and the storage drive from a desktop computer have to be user accessible. I can excuse the need to solder everything on a laptop (although I remember how Apple pride themselves how they made the drive and RAM user accessible on older Macbooks/powerbooks), but it's not an excuse on a desktop where space is not a premium.

I completely agree, being able to upgrade the RAM and SSD on my 4K iMac is excellent. Although I really want an Apple Silicon Mini, if they go in the direction we think and make everything locked down ala a MacBook then I think I will be replacing my Mini with a 27” 2020 iMac. I don’t really want something that I can’t tinker with myself. I’m optimistic that RAM will be accessible on the next Mini, if nothing else because I think it probably won’t be redesigned. SSD access would be nice but for me personally it isn’t something I require. I don’t need a lot of storage space, I have two Windows PCs with a combined 20+ TB of storage for that haha.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yebubbleman

Yebubbleman

macrumors 603
May 20, 2010
6,024
2,616
Los Angeles, CA
You're right from Apple's point of view. Although you have to wonder the amount of time Apple spent in intentionally engineering the new mini for the RAM to be that convoluted to access (oh and let's add a "RAM shield" on top of that...). It's like somebody in Apple engineering was just bitter.

Nonetheless, my personal view is that RAM and the storage drive from a desktop computer have to be user accessible. I can excuse the need to solder everything on a laptop (although I remember how Apple pride themselves how they made the drive and RAM user accessible on older Macbooks/powerbooks), but it's not an excuse on a desktop where space is not a premium.

I don't think anyone here will contest that all of these things should be accessible and replaceable on a desktop. Certainly, I won't. I've never been a fan of the ways in which the T2 practically mandates non-removable storage in the name of "security". Hell, I'm still not 100% okay with it on Apple's laptops either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookie18

Boil

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2018
3,477
3,173
Stargate Command
A Mac mini and any display makes an iMac. Sure you have camera and potential speaker integration issues.
No, "a Mac mini and any display makes an" ultra small form factor desktop computer sitting adjacent to its tethered monitor...

An Apple display (with FaceTime / FaceID camera, microphone(s), & stereo speakers) has the multimedia end covered; add in the ability to seamlessly integrate a Mac mini to the back of the unit (probably thru the use of some form of the Smart Connector?), that makes it an Apple iMac (de/re)constructed...
 

albebaubles

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2010
641
553
Sierra in view
Soldered RAM and storage will be expected. Unfortunate, but expected. Apple already made it extra hard for users to access the current mini's RAM.
Imo what we will see is a Mac mini in the form factor close to an Apple TV, with just some USB-C ports and maybe an ethernet port (for the niche market using the mini as a server).

It won't, and will never be, the desktop Mac everyone is looking for.
It'll have normal ports.
 

albebaubles

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2010
641
553
Sierra in view
No, "a Mac mini and any display makes an" ultra small form factor desktop computer sitting adjacent to its tethered monitor...

An Apple display (with FaceTime / FaceID camera, microphone(s), & stereo speakers) has the multimedia end covered; add in the ability to seamlessly integrate a Mac mini to the back of the unit (probably thru the use of some form of the Smart Connector?), that makes it an Apple iMac (de/re)constructed...
OK, you're missing the point. What you want is an iMac. This just makes zero sense. A single usb connection can handle all of that, why make a special plug-in connector?
 

Boil

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2018
3,477
3,173
Stargate Command
OK, you're missing the point. What you want is an iMac. This just makes zero sense. A single usb connection can handle all of that, why make a special plug-in connector?

Not missing the point. Trying to return to the Two by Two Product Matrix from yesteryear, when Steve Jobs came back & "turned Apple around"...

and it is Apple, a Mac mini hanging off a connector on the back of an Apple monitor, with a USB cable connecting the two will not do. Not when they can have use of the existing Smart Connector & SEAMLESSLY integrate Mac mini & Apple Display...!

Give me a Mac Mini, the choice of display, proper HiFi speakers and amplifier for sound and a good quality webcam over an iMac any day ?

I could see then want for better speakers 7 amp & such, but then you are getting into a more elaborate desktop setup. The iMac (or my faux iMac solution) gives you an integrated, more compact setup...!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookie18

Jorbanead

macrumors 65816
Aug 31, 2018
1,209
1,438
Well I certainly wouldn't mind if you could just use your outdated iMac as a monitor, but it seems Apple has put a stop to that. Having to buy a new monitor every time you need a new computer is bad for your economy, it's bad for the environment and it's annoying. I plan to continue using my 23" Cinema HDs with my next computer, which I think will be an AS Mac mini.

Its because their display is so high resolution and intel chips don't actually support 4-5K monitors, so they had to build a custom timing controller which made it so target display mode doesn't work anymore. Its Intel's fault.


I want to see Apple return to "making" their own displays, and then have it set up so one could slot a Mac mini into the back of an Apple Display; iMac without the negatives...?

Like others have said, that is an iMac.
You're right from Apple's point of view. Although you have to wonder the amount of time Apple spent in intentionally engineering the new mini for the RAM to be that convoluted to access (oh and let's add a "RAM shield" on top of that...). It's like somebody in Apple engineering was just bitter.

The RAM shield was actually necessary. It's a safeguarded letting it operate at high frequencies without generating electromagnetic interference.

But they made it ultra difficult for a lay user to access it. I mean there's no reason, whatever engineering excuses Apple had, to engineer the current mini for user to basically disassemble the whole machine just to access the RAM (knowing the previous gens 2012 and older have the RAM extremely easy for users to access). It's like giving the finger to those user feedback.

The reason the RAM was moved was to accommodate a much larger fan (which allowed them to use desktop-class chips inside).

Yes maybe there was a better design to make the RAM easier to access, but I honestly don't think this was all part of some plan to make it hard to access. I think the way the RAM is setup is simply just because of the larger fan, and because the RAM operates at such a high frequency inside a small enclosure, they had to put a cage inside otherwise it would generating electromagnetic interference. Was Apple conveniently okay with it being harder to upgrade? Probably, but they also didn't even have to bring back socketed RAM in the first place.
[automerge]1597418825[/automerge]
Not missing the point. Trying to return to the Two by Two Product Matrix from yesteryear, when Steve Jobs came back & "turned Apple around"...

They're never going back to the 2x2. Apple is too big for that. Maybe a 2x3 product lineup, but they have too many established Mac brands. I see a pro and non-pro version of a 1) Notebook 2) All-in-One and 3) Headless Desktop.
 

iAssimilated

Contributor
Apr 29, 2018
1,286
6,419
the PNW
I'm pretty excited about an Apple Silicon Mac mini, but I wonder how long we'll have to wait. Apple seems to treat the Mini with mild indifference.

I actually feel that AS will give the mini new life (and with it faster release cycles) because all Apple has to do is drop in their custom A14X chip in the existing mini, update to TB4, and call it a day. Case in point, the developer kit was a mini. They don't have to redesign it (considering their server market wants to same form factor) and the updated cooling in the 2018 model should be more than enough to handle a beefed up iPad processor.

I could be wrong though, since they did re-release the 2018 model with upgraded storage and label it as "New".
 

Cookie18

macrumors 6502a
Sep 11, 2014
584
684
France
I'm pretty excited about an Apple Silicon Mac mini, but I wonder how long we'll have to wait. Apple seems to treat the Mini with mild indifference.

It’s primed to be released this year.

Look at the Mac line-up right now. The Mac Mini, the 21.5” iMac and the 13” MacBook Pro are all on 8th gen Intel chips. They're the only devices left on 8th gen Intel chips. The iMac and Macbook Pro have also seen their higher end variants get updates while they have ben stuck with very minor SSD refreshes.

Apple needs to come out swinging with their first ARM Macs so it stands to reason that they would replace these three devices first. That way they can boast about their 50%, 60% or maybe 70% improvements over the struggling Intel competition. We know that it isn't really true because they're comparing against old chips, maybe it's more like 30% better in reality but that doesn't matter.

Rumours are pretty consistent about a new 24" iMac redesign with Apple Silicon this year. The current Mac Mini and the current iMac both use the same Intel chips right now so throwing the new iMac Apple Silicon chip into the Mac Mini at the same time makes sense.

Apple also needs to come in hard and fast with several options for users to get the ball rolling on the transition. The best way to do that is with a mixture of desktops and laptops all coming at once.

I'm certain we will see a 13" MacBook Pro replacement, a 21.5" iMac replacement and a Mac Mini replacement this year.
 

Cookie18

macrumors 6502a
Sep 11, 2014
584
684
France
I actually feel that AS will give the mini new life (and with it faster release cycles) because all Apple has to do is drop in their custom A14X chip in the existing mini, update to TB4, and call it a day. Case in point, the developer kit was a mini. They don't have to redesign it (considering their server market wants to same form factor) and the updated cooling in the 2018 model should be more than enough to handle a beefed up iPad processor.

I could be wrong though, since they did re-release the 2018 model with upgraded storage and label it as "New".

This is all the more reason why it is likely to be updated first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coolkiwi

Jorbanead

macrumors 65816
Aug 31, 2018
1,209
1,438
Apple also needs to come in hard and fast with several options for users to get the ball rolling on the transition. The best way to do that is with a mixture of desktops and laptops all coming at once.

Exactly. I think you're spot on and make a really good point about the mini. I had of course pegged a MacBook and iMac replacement this year, but I forgot that the 21.5in iMac uses the same cpu's as the mini. I agree though, the 24" iMac and the low-end MacBook Pro would be great ways to get the ball rolling. They're still low enough on the Mac totem poll to not give away all their secrets, but they're still plenty powerful for most average users to get onboard. Here's how I see it rolling out:

Q4 2020: MacBook, 24" iMac redesign
Q1-Q2 2021: 13" MacBook Pro and Mac mini
Q2-Q3 2021: 30" iMac and 16" MacBook Pro
Q3-Q4 2021: iMac Pro and Mac Pro
 
Last edited:

Boil

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2018
3,477
3,173
Stargate Command
Apple will most likely drop a 14" MacBook, a 24" iMac, & a Mac mini all together; all sharing the same SoC, possibly the same logic board as well...

Three entry level products for maximum initial market saturation...? The interesting thing will be to see what the price points are...!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coolkiwi

Cookie18

macrumors 6502a
Sep 11, 2014
584
684
France
Exactly. I think you're spot on and make a really good point about the mini. I had of course pegged a MacBook and iMac replacement this year, but I forgot that the 21.5in iMac uses the same cpu's as the mini. I agree though, the 24" iMac and the low-end MacBook Pro would be great ways to get the ball rolling. They're still low enough on the Mac totem poll to not give away all their secrets, but they're still plenty powerful for most average users to get onboard.

Fall Mac Event: 13" MacBook Pro, Mac mini, 24" iMac redesign
Apple will most likely drop a 14" MacBook, a 24" iMac, & a Mac mini all together; all sharing the same SoC, possibly the same logic board as well...

Three entry level products for maximum initial market saturation...? The interesting thing will be to see what the price points are...!

It will be very interesting to see how these entry levels compare to their Intel counterparts too.
 

Kostask

macrumors regular
Jul 4, 2020
230
104
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
None of the Macs using 8th Gen Intel CPUs have long to live, as the 8th Gen CPUs are going out of production at Intel. While both Intel and Apple may have some inventory for a short period of time, its not like they are sitting on 10s of Millions of CPUs. The Mac Pro will soon be in that situation as well. I expect that the availability of those CPUs will have some bearing on the introduction of the AS Macs in those form factors using 8th gen Intel CPUs. While they may not be in the first batch of AS Macs, they definitely will be in the second batch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cookie18

the8thark

macrumors 601
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
OK, you're missing the point. What you want is an iMac. This just makes zero sense. A single usb connection can handle all of that, why make a special plug-in connector?
If the people want their deconstructed iMac, it's not up to us to growl at them saying "just buy an iMac, it's what you really want and need". Lets just let them enjoy their overly complicated setup they wished for.
 

Boil

macrumors 68040
Oct 23, 2018
3,477
3,173
Stargate Command
If running Windows is an important factor, then buying a current generation Intel Mac makes more sense than waiting. Intel Macs will be supported for years to come with new Intel Macs still in the pipeline. ... Apple says the first Arm-based Mac is set to be introduced before the end of 2020.

We have seen one of these new Intel Macs in the pipeline, the 27" iMac with 10th gen Intel CPU...

While Intel Macs will be supported (meaning software support, NOT regular hardware updates), the only Intel Macs still in the pipeline might be the 16" MacBook Pro getting updated with 10th gen Intel CPUs, possible new Xeon-W CPUs & RDNA2 GPUs for the iMac Pro (and maybe then it will also get the Nano texture option for the display); the Mac Pro, on the socket it is using, can only do a spec shuffle...?

I still say the smart thing for Apple to do for initial Apple silicon Macs is to release three products, all with the same SoC & logic board:

Mac mini
14" MacBook
24" iMac

This gets a good spread of form factor coverage, but allows a single SoC / logic board combo to be the initial commercial foray into Apple silicon Macs...
 

Cookie18

macrumors 6502a
Sep 11, 2014
584
684
France
If running Windows is an important factor, then buying a current generation Intel Mac makes more sense than waiting. Intel Macs will be supported for years to come with new Intel Macs still in the pipeline. ... Apple says the first Arm-based Mac is set to be introduced before the end of 2020.

For all we know the last Intel Macs have been released. They said new Intel Macs were in the pipeline before the new iMacs. They have fulfilled that promise. I wouldn’t expect any Intel Macs after the ARM ones start being released. Maybe something like the Mac Pro could still see an Intel update but this isn’t going to be two years of new Intel updates alongside new ARM models. Intel models are done now. You’re right about them still receiving software support.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Boyd01

deconstruct60

macrumors G5
Mar 10, 2009
12,493
4,053
None of the Macs using 8th Gen Intel CPUs have long to live, as the 8th Gen CPUs are going out of production at Intel. While both Intel and Apple may have some inventory for a short period of time, its not like they are sitting on 10s of Millions of CPUs.

The mini's processors are all "special package" ( BGA not socketed ). They aren't necessarily coupled to the retail market and may fall into "extended support" . The 10 of millions of CPUs would probably be several years worth. Mini volume is not that large. That is dual edge sword. Either Intel looses interest faster or optionally can fill apple's needs with 5-9 days worth of work ( i.e., turn of the spigot to everyone else 2-3 weeks in advance of apple and give them the last batches. It isn't like Intel would need months and months of production to do the mini. )

Apple doesn't have forever on the Mini. If Apple cuts the Mini back to what the lower end Macbooks are on ports ( two Thunderbolt) then they could perhaps go more quickly.


The Mac Pro will soon be in that situation as well.

Eh? Not even hardly. First, Intel hasn't even replaced the Xeon W3200 series at all. So they'd be extremely hard pressed to stop selling it any time soon . There isn't an "Ice Lake" Xeon W replacement coming before 2021. Intel , for better or worse" , appears to be throwing all their "big die" Ice lake wafer starts at the largest core count dies first to fill Xeon SP orders with much higher margins. Until they fill that initial peak demand bubble they'll kick out he Xeon W (3300 series likely) until further into the future. Probably a quarter or so into 2021.

The W3200 series first shipped in 2019


The Xeon W2100 series of the iMac Pro is on thin ice. ( 2017 launch time) , but there is a W2200 Intel/Apple could kick the can with that is drop in socket and chipset compatible with . Apple jumped to the price reduction that the W2200 brought, while still squatting on W2100.

The Skylake-x (the consumer version of the 2066 socket) is being dropped by January 2021 , but Xeon isn't necessarily on the same cycle.
"... The last shipment of Skylake-X processor is expected a year from now, on July 9 2021. ..."

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-is-discontinuing-its-9th-generation-skylake-x-processors


The W2200 series is based on Cascade Lake. It only started limited shipping in Q4 2019. It probably isn't being turned off in 13 months of time (before any replacement ships. ). the W2100 is being discontinued in part because the W2200 has shipped. When the 2200 is 6-8 months into service life time then can start talking about when he predecessor gets dropped.


Apple could tweak the iMac Pro later this Fall with a W-2200 and some GPU upgrades to kick the can into 2022 ( along with the Mac Pro ). If there is a substantive time gap to fill there isn't much upside to moving the iMac Pro sooner.


I expect that the availability of those CPUs will have some bearing on the introduction of the AS Macs in those form factors using 8th gen Intel CPUs. While they may not be in the first batch of AS Macs, they definitely will be in the second batch.

The Mac Pro ( iMac Pro ) are probably last. The I/O infrastructure that should be there is so entirely disconnected from that of the iPad Pro origins of what Apple is starting with that it is probably tagged as second generation AS implementation. Apple needs a SoC package that even does moderate PCI-e v3 (or v4) interaction with a discrete products let alone very high double digit lanes and quad digit RAM capacity. Apple jumping to that shortly out of the gate is unlikely.

A one or two port "wonder" MacBook would be easy with their past work. However, even a step up to a two port Thunderbolt , quad port 3.1 Gen2 USB-A system would be substantive move up in complexity for them.
 

Cookie18

macrumors 6502a
Sep 11, 2014
584
684
France
The mini's processors are all "special package" ( BGA not socketed ). They aren't necessarily coupled to the retail market and may fall into "extended support" . The 10 of millions of CPUs would probably be several years worth. Mini volume is not that large. That is dual edge sword. Either Intel looses interest faster or optionally can fill apple's needs with 5-9 days worth of work ( i.e., turn of the spigot to everyone else 2-3 weeks in advance of apple and give them the last batches. It isn't like Intel would need months and months of production to do the mini. )

Apple doesn't have forever on the Mini. If Apple cuts the Mini back to what the lower end Macbooks are on ports ( two Thunderbolt) then they could perhaps go more quickly.




Eh? Not even hardly. First, Intel hasn't even replaced the Xeon W3200 series at all. So they'd be extremely hard pressed to stop selling it any time soon . There isn't an "Ice Lake" Xeon W replacement coming before 2021. Intel , for better or worse" , appears to be throwing all their "big die" Ice lake wafer starts at the largest core count dies first to fill Xeon SP orders with much higher margins. Until they fill that initial peak demand bubble they'll kick out he Xeon W (3300 series likely) until further into the future. Probably a quarter or so into 2021.

The W3200 series first shipped in 2019


The Xeon W2100 series of the iMac Pro is on thin ice. ( 2017 launch time) , but there is a W2200 Intel/Apple could kick the can with that is drop in socket and chipset compatible with . Apple jumped to the price reduction that the W2200 brought, while still squatting on W2100.

The Skylake-x (the consumer version of the 2066 socket) is being dropped by January 2021 , but Xeon isn't necessarily on the same cycle.
"... The last shipment of Skylake-X processor is expected a year from now, on July 9 2021. ..."

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-is-discontinuing-its-9th-generation-skylake-x-processors


The W2200 series is based on Cascade Lake. It only started limited shipping in Q4 2019. It probably isn't being turned off in 13 months of time (before any replacement ships. ). the W2100 is being discontinued in part because the W2200 has shipped. When the 2200 is 6-8 months into service life time then can start talking about when he predecessor gets dropped.


Apple could tweak the iMac Pro later this Fall with a W-2200 and some GPU upgrades to kick the can into 2022 ( along with the Mac Pro ). If there is a substantive time gap to fill there isn't much upside to moving the iMac Pro sooner.




The Mac Pro ( iMac Pro ) are probably last. The I/O infrastructure that should be there is so entirely disconnected from that of the iPad Pro origins of what Apple is starting with that it is probably tagged as second generation AS implementation. Apple needs a SoC package that even does moderate PCI-e v3 (or v4) interaction with a discrete products let alone very high double digit lanes and quad digit RAM capacity. Apple jumping to that shortly out of the gate is unlikely.

A one or two port "wonder" MacBook would be easy with their past work. However, even a step up to a two port Thunderbolt , quad port 3.1 Gen2 USB-A system would be substantive move up in complexity for them.

I’m not quite sure why you expect Apple to go through the trouble of updating all of these instead of just leaving them be. The longer they leave them the bigger the “improvement” they can claim for the ARM chips.

There might be options available for Apple to update their older computers but that isn’t really what their main goal is right now. Apple doesn’t care if they sell X% more iMac Pro’s with Intel chips this year or next year. They are looking ahead to the ARM Pro Macs that are going to replace it.

Apple are making a pretty quick transition to ARM, two years isn’t a long time. Anything that doesn’t get an ARM chip replacement this year is essentially treading water until it does.
 

Kostask

macrumors regular
Jul 4, 2020
230
104
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
We have a divergent view of this. I don't think Apple will move the iMac Pro to the W2200, as that will be discontinued, as an opinion. They will not prolong a broken vendor relationship by continuing to use newer Intel designs, especially if the 30" AS Mac can come close to the performance of the current iMac Pro. When the W2100 CPUs run out, the iMac Pro is history. Apple will not sink any more R&D money inot any product that is Intel based going forward. That can be see in the latest 27" iMac announcement, where the iMac not only wasn't upgraded in any meaningful way (including no nanotextured screen), it was barely mentioned.

While I agree that the MacPro's SoC will appear last, I don't see any Intel upgrades being made. The next MacPro will be an AS Mac. I also am fairly certain that the MacPRo's SoC exists, and has for a while. It is probably currently undergoing validation tests and the software guys are starting to work with it. None of this happens in two years, it takes longer, in many cases, as I suspect the MacPro SoC to be one case, it will take 4-5 years from start of design to final product, 3 years at least for the SoC, and another year for software and logic board/system design and test (including life testing). If my thoughts are anywhere near true, we are at maximum, less than half a year away from the finalized MacPro SoC, perhaps less. And this assumes the worst case of Apple waiting for the full two years (as stated in the WWDC announcement) befor the Mac Pro makes the AS SoC transition. I personally think that the transition will not take 2 years, maybe 16-18 months at most, which working backwards, means that the MacPro is somewhere around 75-80% complete, today. So transitioning to a newer generation Intel CPU doesn't make sense. My best guess is that there will be a AS MacPro being sold before the end of 2021, and at that time, there will not be any Intel CPUs in any Macs being sold by Apple.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cookie18
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.