I dunno. Why can't we have a new Mac Mini once a year instead of every 2. Or 3. Or whatever it is now.
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.
Why can't we have a mini with discrete graphics?
- Thread starter MysticCow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As Apple sees it, if you want a beefy 4 core computer with good graphics, open up your wallet and give them 3 grand for the Mac Pro.
If you want (or maybe now it is "wanted") a small "inexpensive" mac to sit on your desk that is perfectly capable of doing normal PC tasks, the Mac mini fits the bill.
But the mini has to be crippled enough to not compete with the more expensive machines. Why would anyone buy a 4 core Mac Pro if it were only 10% faster but 2x more expensive than a mini?
It's all about profit. Apple's profit.
If you want (or maybe now it is "wanted") a small "inexpensive" mac to sit on your desk that is perfectly capable of doing normal PC tasks, the Mac mini fits the bill.
But the mini has to be crippled enough to not compete with the more expensive machines. Why would anyone buy a 4 core Mac Pro if it were only 10% faster but 2x more expensive than a mini?
It's all about profit. Apple's profit.
There was one in the past, with tech from 6 years ago.
Apple just doesn't want to offer a killer product, because it would compete with the higher margin offerings.
I'd just monitor the Mac Pro forum for a successor to the 2013 nMP if a GPU is important. There was a rumour that Apple were investigating a return to manufacturing in China which suggests that they do agree that the retail price of the 2013 Mac Pro (assembled in the USA) was a factor in relative lack of sales. If they realised that it was ahead of its time and the twin GPU approach doesn't suit a lot of folks they should produce an entry model with just one GPU.
In my opinion, to help Mac Mini owners go for a new (and cheaper) base model 2017 Mac Pro cynics would expect a 2017 Mini to come with the 15w CPUs that are in the non-touchbar Macbook Pros (yes, lowering the performance ceiling on the Minis again) to drive a lot of the people here towards a base Mac Pro 2017 which I'd bet would still cost $2k+.
Why don't they? Money.
All business decisions are fueled by money, that is the point of their existence. They want as much money as they can get, for a business to operating differently is a business design doomed for failure.
I'm sure their analyst have done more research then we can ever imagine to do.
A Mini with a dGPU would require virtually a completely different design then a model with an iGPU. So they likely simply looked at the demand (which we are a very poor representation of that btw) and said, the R&D, engineering, assembly, shipping, stocking, SKU vs the demand isn't worth it.
Then we need to ask if a dGPU is necessary for Apples (not ours, remember they are making it) intended use of the product. Someone sarcastically mentioned above "What do we need that much power for?!" but thats a true statement. Do you intend on doing professional grade photo/video editing on it? Because they have products for that. And really what are your plans for a Mini with dGPU? While more time consuming 4k editing can be done on it, hell I'll edit 4k video on my iPad Air 2 on occasion.
Obviously I agree a souped up Mini can/could cannibalize Apples other products. Again, more business decisions.
Point is we shouldn't be too upset with Apple, this is how businesses work they just want our money we aren't and will never be on the same side. Would I like a Mini with a quad core CPU and dGPU? Hell yeah! But I'd rather be surprised they make it then disappointed they didnt. Plus I'm a realist.
All business decisions are fueled by money, that is the point of their existence. They want as much money as they can get, for a business to operating differently is a business design doomed for failure.
I'm sure their analyst have done more research then we can ever imagine to do.
A Mini with a dGPU would require virtually a completely different design then a model with an iGPU. So they likely simply looked at the demand (which we are a very poor representation of that btw) and said, the R&D, engineering, assembly, shipping, stocking, SKU vs the demand isn't worth it.
Then we need to ask if a dGPU is necessary for Apples (not ours, remember they are making it) intended use of the product. Someone sarcastically mentioned above "What do we need that much power for?!" but thats a true statement. Do you intend on doing professional grade photo/video editing on it? Because they have products for that. And really what are your plans for a Mini with dGPU? While more time consuming 4k editing can be done on it, hell I'll edit 4k video on my iPad Air 2 on occasion.
Obviously I agree a souped up Mini can/could cannibalize Apples other products. Again, more business decisions.
Point is we shouldn't be too upset with Apple, this is how businesses work they just want our money we aren't and will never be on the same side. Would I like a Mini with a quad core CPU and dGPU? Hell yeah! But I'd rather be surprised they make it then disappointed they didnt. Plus I'm a realist.
In my case, it would have prevented me from building a "Mac mini" hackintosh.
While I agree I think thats a gamble manufacturers need to take. People will always leave for various reasons, I've considered it but want/need to maintain 1st party support. Just for ease of use, no technical reasons really.