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 such a lengthy delay for a Mac Mini refresh?
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're missing the point. All components are cheaper from RAM to HDDs and SSDs and in the quantity Apple would buy them the reduction from 2 years ago in the cost of base-configuration RAM and storage would cover CPU price increases.
Also, they've actually reduced the cost of the MacBook Pro in all configurations from their previous retail cost and doubled their standard RAM so any increase in CPU cost hasn't made any difference because all recent Haswell systems are faster, offer more standard RAM and cost less than the previous range. Even the existing 2012 Mac Mini got a slight price reduction at roughly the same time too.
This is kind of the reason I want to wait as well. I realize that an i7 mini would suit my needs quite well, but the cheapskate in me realizes that Apple's making much more of a profit on my mini unit than they did a year or year and a half ago. I suspect if they do have a modest upgrade, that they'll lower the price (like they did with the MBA) or have higher capacity RAM or SSD for the same price. At that point, I'll pull the trigger even if it's only a modest upgrade in performance.
Also, I'd like 802.11ac standard and some TB2s.
I'd be happy if there was a 2.6Ghz Haswell option based on the 2014 Macbook Pro and an upgrade to TB2. If they up the standard RAM too then that's a bonus.
One thing I think we could see on the Mac Mini and iMac is a move to Fusion drives as a standard option. They have a gaping storage throughput gap in their mid-range systems with only BTO options filling the gap and component cost has reduced to the point where it's a non-issue to add the cost of an 128Gb SSD (PCIe or SATA 6Gb/s) to either system. That way every Mac has PCIe flash or least 500Mb/s+ SSDs as standard storage. Further justifying premium brand pricing.
It's rediculous with PCIe Flash across the board on all portables and the Mac Pro that their mid range and entry level desktops are still using HDDs in base configurations.
All flash baby, all the time. Spinners and Hybrids are useless. Get an external for large storage. End of story.
You could not pay me enough money to use an entry level mini. YUCK. That alleged hard drive is an antique.
Buh bye spinners!
You could not pay me enough money to use an entry level mini. YUCK. That alleged hard drive is an antique.
Buh bye spinners!
What point am I missing? So if Intel sets the cost of a processor at 378 at release, and if they give apple a volume discount of even a 25%, that means that the cost is $300. The Macbook Pros use a $475 (roughly, too lazy to look it up), so even volume discount of 25% means approx $390. So where does Apple make up the $90 difference initially? Charge more? Eat it? I can tell you Apple doesn't generally do #2.
Look at the cost of RAM. It dipped, but actually is more expensive than a couple of years ago. You can't just say all components drop in cost, because they don't.
Sometimes manufacturers are willing to eat the cost, because they have less SKU's which can have savings in inventory balancing (now the 15" macbook pros went from 6 motherboards with two memory options and 3 CPU's and now they only have 3 motherboards since they only differ in CPU's).
But a $90 cost on a 600-800 product is a lot to eat! That means it is probably being sold at a loss or at best break even.
----------
What point am I missing? So if Intel sets the cost of a processor at 378 at release, and if they give apple a volume discount of even a 25%, that means that the cost is $300. The Macbook Pros use a $475 (roughly, too lazy to look it up), so even volume discount of 25% means approx $390. So where does Apple make up the $90 difference initially? Charge more? Eat it? I can tell you Apple doesn't generally do #2.
Look at the cost of RAM. It dipped, but actually is more expensive than a couple of years ago. You can't just say all components drop in cost, because they don't.
Sometimes manufacturers are willing to eat the cost, because they have less SKU's which can have savings in inventory balancing (now the 15" macbook pros went from 6 motherboards with two memory options and 3 CPU's and now they only have 3 motherboards since they only differ in CPU's). But a $90 cost on a 600-800 product is a lot to eat! That means it is probably being sold at a loss or at best break even.
What I'd do is exactly that. I already have a fast 7200 rpm external drive for my media storage with the first 300Gb partitioned for recording. My OS is booting off a 60Gb SSD which actually has nearly 20Gb free because applications don't eat space as much as documents, music and video does. Any Mac I get needs 128Gb Max, any more is just a bonus.
Taking into account the reduction in cost of the MacBook Pro from £1699 to £1599 happened simultaneously with a jump in CPU power over the previous model and a doubling of standard RAM from 8Gb to 16Gb and it proves the point I was making.
Both my Mac Mini's (2011 & 2012) are the entry level ones (had the mid's before). They've got sufficient computing power for what I am doing. But I replaced the HDD in both and they now each have two 128Gb SSD's in them. The 2012 has also an external 256 Gb SSD (USB 3 connection).
See, you did the right thing! I also bought that crappy 500GB version, booted it, said, WAY TO SLOW and proceeded to put in a 512 SSD, which I had at the ready.
Saying a spinner is fast enough is like saying dial up is fast enough. Um, nope!
The jump occurred on MBPs that were minor upgrades using the same family of processors. It was not a generational jump like ivy bridge to Haswell. It proves that apple would have to charge more at the beginning of a CPU upgrade and can lower prices during the life cycle. It proves my point that if apple wants to use a $500 proc in the Mini instead of a price comperable CPU (ie hd4600 based), they would have to raise the price at least initially.
No. It confirms the total component costs have dropped and they've passed that saving onto their customers.
Actually there was no drop in COST. In the US the cost is the same as it was. Difference in value of currency is what dropped the price. Since Apple works in Dollars, the USA cost of the Entry level MBP is the same price, thus they are charging the same just the varience in currency value is what drove the reduction for Europeans (weaker dollar). The ONLY thing that they "threw in" was the extra RAM. And as I pointed out in previous posts, that often can be because of the reduction in SKU's they need to track. That can be a savings to a company enough to offset the minor gains.
So the reduction in total component costs that afforded a doubling of the standard RAM was because of exchange rates? Got it
So the reduction in total component costs that afforded a doubling of the standard RAM was because of exchange rates? Got it
Please tell me you at least understand exchange rates and that items vary in cost from one country to te next based on the value of one currency or another... If you don't then there is really no point in arguing with you as even the basics of business in a world market is lost on you. (PS currency values actually can account for lower prices components as well for example if the The Dollar is high compared to the Yen and you buy the RAM from Japan).
Overall my point was that you said there was a 100 reduction in cost to the end user given by Apple. Since obviously Apple still charges the same In it's native currency ($) then the reduction was simply a correction due to a weak dollar vs other currency and NOT an actual reduction in value by Apple.
I fully understand exchange rates thanks but attempts at being patronising don't change the point I was making.