Why did Apple cripple the 2014 Mac Mini?

[maflynn]

Whatever Apple does the purpose is to make money and they are not in the charity business for their user base.

I don't think anyone is stating they are, but for me, and yes, I'm only one consumer, I'll probably look for a more powerful replacement. You're right, they're a business looking to maximize profits, and this action has removed a segment of customers for no other reason then to possibly increase profits. I'll vote with my wallet and pass on the computer.

 

[mrcat]

apples strategy is like that of any company selling products. have items that pull people in with the aim of pushing people further up the product line. if the lowest is good enough, then no one will upgrade, you could have a more powerful mac mini with a separate 5k thunderbolt screen but where would that leave the retina iMac market?

slowly slowly catch monkey.

 

[Icaras]

You're right, they're a business looking to maximize profits, and this action has removed a segment of customers for no other reason then to possibly increase profits. I'll vote with my wallet and pass on the computer.

And yet Apple continues to buck the downward spiral of the failing PC business with increased sales and profits quarter after quarter, year after year.

Whatever "segment of customers" you say that has been left behind is so marginally minuscule that it doesn't even matter to Apple's bottom line at all. I find it good to know that Apple doesn't have to feel obligated to stop to bend a knee for every customer group who feels they are owed something because of very specific needs. It really doesn't make much sense in a business standpoint, especially for a company such as Apple.

 

[George Dawes]

I bought a 2014 2.8 stock and overall I'm VERY impressed with the thing

The most impressive thing isn't the cpu etc , it's the fusion drive !!!!

WOW , that IS fast - i've got an ssd in my old mac mini and i swear it's even faster than that !

Did a hard disk test and it verified - it's really smoking !

For it's intended use - web browsing , youtube , iphoto , facebook and email the thing is perfect !!

 

[shaunp]

Because they don't want you to buy one, they want you to buy an iMac, or a Mac Pro if you don't want an all in one.

 

[Meister]

...And by crippling, I refer to the soldered RAM and missing 2nd SATA connection. Less upgradable and more locked down.

Most of the parts in computers are soldered down today. none of this makes any sense of course, apple is just getting it over with all together.
People seem not to complain about soldered cpus and gpus either.

 

[blanka]

It makes perfect sense. Look at Apple's bigger picture. Everything will be moving from local to iCloud.

That works if you are say Microsoft, who is on the software side with Office 365. For a hardware maker it makes no sense at all. You could as well put a 60$ banana Pi on your TV to work in the cloud.

----------

I bought a 2014 2.8 stock and overall I'm VERY impressed with the thing

The most impressive thing isn't the cpu etc , it's the fusion drive !!!!

Well compared to the old crap base drive it is. Now try a 2.6 quad 2012 with Raid 0 SSD.....

----------

People seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of people who buy the Mac Mini have no need for quad core, nor lots of ram, nor upgradability

Wrong, all Mini users I know use it as a MacPro replacement and they do care about upgradability.
For aunt Netty: buy a sub 100$ crapdroid tablet. That does what you assume the average Mini user does with its mini.

 

[Fishrrman]

George wrote above:
[[ Did a hard disk test and it verified - it's really smoking ! ]]

Could you run a Blackmagic Speed Test and post the results?

 

[Micky Do]

Wrong, all Mini users I know use it as a MacPro replacement and they do care about upgradability.
For aunt Netty: buy a sub 100$ crapdroid tablet. That does what you assume the average Mini user does with its mini.

Maybe all Mini users you know use it as a MacPro replacement, but to assume all Mini users care about upgradability is wrong.

How up gradable is a pre 2014 Mac Mini anyway?

You were stuck with the CPU it came with. You could up grade from the standard 4 GB of RAM to a maximum of 16 GB. You could swap out the HDD for a larger capacity one or a SSD…… in short, not a lot.

While the loss of the quad core model for 2014 is a blow for the few who really did have a need for it, the typical Mac Mini user doesn't for day to day needs. There is a range of 2014 Mac Minis, with up to the same maximum of 16 GB of Ram, and HDD, Fusion or SSD, available to suit a range of needs, dreams and means……

And the Mac Pro is available for those who really do need multi-core grunt and expandability…. at about 33% more than a maxed out Mini.

Aunt Netty probably cannot be bothered with a delicate little tablet to tote hither and yon. Likewise for many others.

A decent sized monitor, and a proper keyboard make for much easier use, as does OS X, compared to the alternatives out there. Additionally, it's good to be able to walk away from my desk, and be off line.

I do need a computer for work to knock out documents, make spread-sheets and keep records, as well as for photography, communications and so on, but I don't need anything powerful and fancy. My 2009 Mini soldiers on just fine, but if it required repairs or an upgrade that was not going to be cost effective, I would not hesitate to replace it with the 2014…. or whatever is current when the time comes.

The 2014 Mini may be underwhelming as an update but, with performance and usability at least as good as equivalent predecessors (with the exception of the quad-core), it is far from crippled.

 

[dyt1983]

edit: To remove personally identifying info not relevant to the conversation.

 

[lowendlinux]

Maybe all Mini users you know use it as a MacPro replacement, but to assume all Mini users care about upgradability is wrong.

How up gradable is a pre 2014 Mac Mini anyway?

You were stuck with the CPU it came with. You could up grade from the standard 4 GB of RAM to a maximum of 16 GB. You could swap out the HDD for a larger capacity one or a SSD…… in short, not a lot.

While the loss of the quad core model for 2014 is a blow for the few who really did have a need for it, the typical Mac Mini user doesn't for day to day needs. There is a range of 2014 Mac Minis, with up to the same maximum of 16 GB of Ram, and HDD, Fusion or SSD, available to suit a range of needs, dreams and means……

And the Mac Pro is available for those who really do need multi-core grunt and expandability…. at about 33% more than a maxed out Mini.

Aunt Netty probably cannot be bothered with a delicate little tablet to tote hither and yon. Likewise for many others.

A decent sized monitor, and a proper keyboard make for much easier use, as does OS X, compared to the alternatives out there. Additionally, it's good to be able to walk away from my desk, and be off line.

I do need a computer for work to knock out documents, make spread-sheets and keep records, as well as for photography, communications and so on, but I don't need anything powerful and fancy. My 2009 Mini soldiers on just fine, but if it required repairs or an upgrade that was not going to be cost effective, I would not hesitate to replace it with the 2014…. or whatever is current when the time comes.

The 2014 Mini may be underwhelming as an update but, with performance and usability at least as good as equivalent predecessors (with the exception of the quad-core), it is far from crippled.

That's really always been my logic with computers like this I wouldn't call the ability to throw RAM and Hard drives in it upgradeability even though it technically is. My soon to be arriving laptop is more upgradable than the mini and it's type and I still don't think of it as upgradeable because the grphics is non-upgradable. The world is all about different perspectives

 

[paulrbeers]

I presume you mean a 2012 Mac Mini, not a "pre 2014 Mac Mini" because some pre-2014 models had a changeable CPU.

Come on, the only Mini's that one could change the processor in were the 2006 and 2007, from 2009 models on they were soldered (and technically the G4 2005's were also soldered), so I think you are splitting hairs here. I don't think anyone would be confused by what Micky Do said. And he was obviously talking about the 2012's because that's the argument for why 2014 was a disappointment. Outside of the Server 2011 Mac Mini, there hadn't been a quad core Mini prior.

 

[dyt1983]

edit: To remove personally identifying info not relevant to the conversation.

 

[WilliamG]

My concern is that Apple confuses potentially slower sales on the 2014 model than the 2012 as a "people don't want the mini anymore" reason, rather than that the 2014 mini is a bit of a joke after waiting so many years for an "upgrade."

Only Apple knows what Apple knows, of course, and I'll assume the apparent run on 2012 models after the 2014 has been released is a decent indicator and that they'll get the message...

But again, Apple may not have wanted to pour too many resources into the mini when they're spreading themselves pretty thin these days as it is. Then again, there's also a lot of competition out there - more than there was two years ago. So hopefully we'll see some mini love before long.

 

[Larry-K]

All of those aren't crippling by definition. Disappointing, but not crippling. It isn't like Apple put 1GB of RAM into it with an Atom Processor and relied on network storage....

D'oh! Now you've given them the idea they were waiting for... plus making it thinner.

 

[xraydoc]

I've been very satisfied with my 2014 3.0GHz i7 mini. I've only had the thing about 72 hours now, but it's signifcantly snappier than my 2011 2.5GHz i5 was.

It's my office computer, so nothing I do on it benefits much from 4 cores (mostly office-type applications, MS Remote Desktop, Osirix Lite, PowerPoint/Keynote animations), so the increased single thread performance and super-speedy SSD (even compared to the SATA SSD I had in the old mini) have been very welcome.

And video/graphics performance has been great on two 24" 1920x1200 HP Z24i monitors.

Configured with the 3GHz i7, 16GB of RAM and 256GB SSD. Paired with a 7200 RPM 2TB USB 3.0 mechanical HD in an OWC mini stack case (which is the exact same size as the mini, so it looks really nice stacked together).

 

[ixxx69]

I've been very satisfied with my 2014 3.0GHz i7 mini. I've only had the thing about 72 hours now, but it's signifcantly snappier than my 2011 2.5GHz i5 was.

It's my office computer, so nothing I do on it benefits much from 4 cores (mostly office-type applications, MS Remote Desktop, Osirix Lite, PowerPoint/Keynote animations), so the increased single thread performance and super-speedy SSD (even compared to the SATA SSD I had in the old mini) have been very welcome.

And video/graphics performance has been great on two 24" 1920x1200 HP Z24i monitors.

Configured with the 3GHz i7, 16GB of RAM and 256GB SSD. Paired with a 7200 RPM 2TB USB 3.0 mechanical HD in an OWC mini stack case (which is the exact same size as the mini, so it looks really nice stacked together).

Did you post to the right place? Not sure what any of that has to do with the thread topic?

 

[Micky Do]

Did you post to the right place? Not sure what any of that has to do with the thread topic?

Xraydoc's experience with a 2014 Mini in use seems to be on topic……

That is unless the thread is restricted to whingers without a Mac Mini ranting in about the underwhelming specs of the 2014 update …. and knocking those for whom it has proven adequate for their needs in the real world, thus not crippled.

 

[xraydoc]

Did you post to the right place? Not sure what any of that has to do with the thread topic?

Sharing my experience that the 2014 isn't crippled at all. It's not a quad core, but that doesn't mean it's crippled.

Granted the inability to upgrade RAM is a downer, but if one configures it with 8 or 16GB at time of purchase, the point is moot. 8GB should be enough for most common uses. 16GB is definitely more sufficient for anything a mini would be (or should be) used for.

I chose 16GB simply because I often have a lot of open apps and the occasional Parallels Windows 8.1 VM. But if it weren't for Parallels, 8GB would have been sufficient.

 

[paulrbeers]

Did you post to the right place? Not sure what any of that has to do with the thread topic?

Not sure if you are serious? He has a 2014 Mini and saying that it is more than sufficient for all of his work. How is this not on topic? It's proving that saying the 2014 is crippled is just silly.

 

[brendu]

Then Apple needs to offer the xMac for the rest of us.

It's called a Mac pro... If you're doing things that require more power than the mini can give then there's the Mac pro. It is upgradable and more powerful than most people could make use of. If you are a real power user then the Mac pro is the machine for you.

 

[spatlese44]

My parents got the 2012 i5 with 4 GB RAM (must add 16 at some point) and the original 500G (rotating rust) hard disk.
They didn't complain yet.

As I got them a Apple Care, I'm not sure if I will add an SSD before it has run out. Hopefully, there are still SATA3 SSDs in 2017...

They could probably get by even with the new low-end 2014 Mini.

I'd bet they'd really be happy with the low-end 2014 Mini with a Fusion drive, which would only cost $150 more than the 2012 i5. I really wanted a Fusion drive in my 2012, but that wasn't an option. You had to first bump up to the 2.3 i7, which was $800, then add the fusion drive.

I went for the 2.3 i7 with no Fusion as that was the extent of my funds at the time. I thought I would add an SSD later, but that's looking problematic at this point. I don't want to deal with selling my computer, but if you put a mid level 2014 Mini with a Fusion drive on a table in front of me with my computer next to it and said "pick", I'd probably go for the 2014. It would be faster for my day to day tasks. And yes, that's just considering my uses. I'd say there's a substantial minority out there that really needs that quad-core, if you were that person who really needed that, wouldn't you have already bought one?

 

[NeilHD]

Though the update was underwhelming, and not the upgrade that geeks wanted, Apple didn't cripple the Mac Mini for 2014.

<snip>

All in all, not enough to encourage owners of recent generations to make the move to the 2014 Mac Mini, but still regarded as a sound enough machine by few reviews that have appeared.

I was waiting for the new Mini as I wanted to buy one and finally make the desktop switch from Windows to Mac (I switched laptops earlier last year).

The update wasn't enough to make me as a NEW user want one. I felt it better to buy a 2012 from the refurb store for a fantastic price. Being a tinkerer I added 16GB and a 256GB SSD and ended up with an awesome computer for a ultimately a very good price.

 

[ixxx69]

Xraydoc's experience with a 2014 Mini in use seems to be on topic……

Sharing my experience that the 2014 isn't crippled at all. It's not a quad core, but that doesn't mean it's crippled.

Not sure if you are serious? He has a 2014 Mini and saying that it is more than sufficient for all of his work. How is this not on topic? It's proving that saying the 2014 is crippled is just silly.

Because this thread is a venue to discuss the changes to the Mac Mini from previous versions (for better or worse). You can criticize it, defend it, rationalize it, explain it, whatever, but you should have a point related to the topic. If the topic had been "are you satisfied with your 2014 Mac Mini?", then his post would be appropriate. Simply stating that you're happy with your 2014 Mac Mini offers absolutely nothing of value to the topic, and it's antagonizing to boot.

It's the equivalent to users who post a problem and a bunch of people discuss the problem, and then someone chimes in that they don't have the problem. Yeah, duh, we already know not everyone has the problem - that doesn't add anything of value.

 

[paulrbeers]

Because this thread is a venue to discuss the changes to the Mac Mini from previous versions (for better or worse). You can criticize it, defend it, rationalize it, explain it, whatever, but you should have a point related to the topic. If the topic had been "are you satisfied with your 2014 Mac Mini?", then his post would be appropriate. Simply stating that you're happy with your 2014 Mac Mini offers absolutely nothing of value to the topic, and it's antagonizing to boot.

It's the equivalent to users who post a problem and a bunch of people discuss the problem, and then someone chimes in that they don't have the problem. Yeah, duh, we already know not everyone has the problem - that doesn't add anything of value.

No stating that a computer is crippled and then giving a rebuttal that the computer does everything someone needs it to is a VALID argument. Especially when the use case is presented.

That is a completely different discussion than someone saying "I don't have that problem".... Giving valid reasons why something isn't crippled is completely on topic. Now if you want to be narrow minded and only have people respond to threads if they agree with them, then what is the point about DISCUSSION forums?

If you can't see the difference between your example and what is going on in this thread, then I feel sorry for you sir.