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

Why the Mini Has Not Had a Refresh Since 2012

Lets not forget the large delay between the old mac pro and the new mac pro. Maybe this is for a major redesign.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
namethisfile said:
metaphor soup. first time i've heard of it used. good job but i think you're mixing metaphor with analogy. i'm using analogies b/c of my lack of knowledge with the process and inner-workings of a computer company like apple. i know steaks and hotdogs and i've used it because it's the simplest example i can think of to analyze and theorize the lack of a 2014 refresh of the mac mini.

let's look at it like this. a hotdog is a processed food, right? it's cheap b/c a hotdog is processed everything. from its contents to how it is made and how it is then sold to consumers. it can be made and stockpiled and stored for a while in freezers and whatnot. now, a freezer cost money but hotdogs take up so little space compared to lets say a chunk of meat that the freezer overhead cost to keep hotdogs in storage are sort of nullified since the place where these hotdogs would have been kept would have already had the freezer thing infrastructure, let's say, already in place for not just hotdogs but for other much more expensive items.

this is where the hypothetical mac mini comes in. the reason why apple is not releasing a 2014 refresh is because apple, theoretically, is afraid of filling up this "freezer" with hypothetical mac mini "hotdogs" instead of more expensive and "meatier" imacs and macbook pros.

why would apple use the space they have to fill up this freezer with these "hotdogs," instead of chunkier, beefier, fresher meatier meats?

as to the current mac mini, the current mac mini, if we continue on the hotdog analogy is no longer in this "freezer." but is in the "stores" or "warehouses." if they still assemble the mac mini, i'd be surprise. i mean, if they do, they are making like 2 mac mini's a month using one person.

if apple would have released a 2014 refresh, apple would then have to make more space for the mac mini, which they don't want to. i think they're afraid that people would buy them more than their "steaks." they'd still make profit, of course, and it's not about profit as to why apple prefers not to make this scenario happen where people will be buying 2014 mac mini's more than, let's say, imacs or macbok pro's. i don't think it's also about cannibilazing sales, either. i mean, a mac mini is still a computer and it is still running the same OS as their other computers. so its not cannibalizing, either. it's IMAGE. it's STEAK vs. HOTDOG!

it's also space in the "FREEZER." apple would have to make this "freezer" hold more mac mini's than their other computers, which might mean some machinery or tool that are expensive that would have been delegated to creating imacs and macbooks would be sitting in the dust, either left to bleed money since they would still need it to be running but not making as much and have the less expensive machinery to make mac mini's go full tilt--which would be fine for us and the consumers, but, to the corporation would mean dissipating resources and money. not profit, but the money they invested in the "freezer" thingy-majig analogy i am trying to make.

oh, boy. i am even making myself confuse, now. i aparently have no iLife. get it? just kidding.
Click to expand...

It will all be clear in the morning. Have a couple of hot dogs (I did, who needs steak) and sleep on it.
 
DesertSurfer said:
It will all be clear in the morning. Have a couple of hot dogs (I did, who needs steak) and sleep on it.
Click to expand...

i got it! i think it's the materials. the classic 15" macbook pro died and so did the mini. sort of. if you look at the classic unibody 15" macbook pro, it's aluminium is similar to the mac mini. the mac mini and the classic unibody mbp probably shared aluminium blocks.

the current mac mini is selling still and so is the classic 13" i think b/c of surplus of aluminium. or if not surplus, a limited supply of aluminium that has already been calculated 2 yrs ago. but, one thing is for sure, i don't think apple is ordering new alloys for the current mac mini or the classic 13" macbook.

the new macs now are slimmer. this means less alluminium. less materials. they should be able to squeeze in a refreshed mac mini in there, right? nope. since the way the aluminium in mac mini is different than the new alluminiums in the new macs today. can you guys check the thickness of alluminium of 2013 mbp retina to a 2012 classic 15" unibody?

i think this is it you guys. i think i might have figured out why there is no mac mini this year. and there won't be one until apple figures out exactly how to cut the body of the mac mini alongside their other macs.

this means waiting.
 
Seems like a lot of overthinking going on.

Simplest explanation would be that (in Apple's view) an IvyBridge to Haswell update wouldn't generate enough benefit to their typical Mac mini buyer and/or doesn't generate enough production cost savings to justify whatever changeover costs might exist. Especially in context of the upcoming Broadwell availability.

IMHO it's a small portion of the Mac mini target market that could even recognize the Ivy Bridge / Haswell / Broadwell names, what they mean, or even put them in chronological order.
 
deeddawg said:
Seems like a lot of overthinking going on.

Simplest explanation would be that (in Apple's view) an IvyBridge to Haswell update wouldn't generate enough benefit to their typical Mac mini buyer and/or doesn't generate enough production cost savings to justify whatever changeover costs might exist. Especially in context of the upcoming Broadwell availability.

IMHO it's a small portion of the Mac mini target market that could even recognize the Ivy Bridge / Haswell / Broadwell names, what they mean, or even put them in chronological order.
Click to expand...

there will always be a next "well" or something "bridge" in the horizon. but, a lot of people would like to argue you with you though about those "benefits" going from ivy to haswell, especially, if apple equips the mac mini with the same iris igpu as the macbook 13" retinas, or base imacs, which i argued in my previous post that apple would have to use the higher end iris igpu to have homogeny in their lineup. the cpu benefits might be 5-10% over ivy but the igpu benefits might be 50-100% increase over intel hd4xxx that is in the current mac mini now.

there is only one way to test this is for someone with 2013 13" MB retina to do a test using iGPU tasks against current 2012 mac mini. ideally, using FCP X, motion 5 test.

i still kinda hold on to my story that apple is unwilling to do this because of the IMAGE of people buying more mac mini's this fiscal year than say, base imacs or 13" MB retina's--which would mean more "hotdog" sales instead of "steak" sales. this doesn't mean less profit, but a downgrade in "marketing" and "image" for apple since the r&d for the current mac mini is so miniscule that if it were to be the more "popular" product--it would mean a lost in investment for apple, etc..... also a challenge for marketing since they won't be able to show off those pie charts and or maybe even commercials, since a mac mini is less "photogenic" than a 13" retina MB or imac....

i would like to rest my case.

i rest my case.
 
namethisfile said:
a lot of people would like to argue you with you though about those "benefits" going from ivy to haswell
Click to expand...

This suggests you really didn't understand the point of my post, or perhaps you have a substantially different opinion of the target market for the mini. I don't believe the target market for the mini is technically savvy nor do I think they have substantial compute or graphics requirements. That doesn't mean that some portion do, particularly propellerheads hanging out on internet forums; just not enough to force Apple's hand.

You can agree or disagree as you wish.
 
deeddawg said:
This suggests you really didn't understand the point of my post, or perhaps you have a substantially different opinion of the target market for the mini. I don't believe the target market for the mini is technically savvy nor do I think they have substantial compute or graphics requirements. That doesn't mean that some portion do, particularly propellerheads hanging out on internet forums; just not enough to force Apple's hand.

You can agree or disagree as you wish.
Click to expand...

so you know apple's target market for the mac mini? how can you know that? just b/c the mini is the least expensive mac, doesn't mean it's target market is different.
 
deeddawg said:
IMHO it's a small portion of the Mac mini target market that could even recognize the Ivy Bridge / Haswell / Broadwell names, what they mean, or even put them in chronological order.
Click to expand...

They might not recognise Ivy Bridge / Haswell / Broadwell, but a fair few would do some research, which could lead them to someone who does know, or to Wikipedia that shows the release date for the latest model. 2012 computer tech is too old to buy new for many.

Amazon UK dates the latest Mac Mini as 25 Oct 2012 in the product heading, making it obvious they would not be buying the latest tech. Amazon USA just says (NEWEST VERSION). Maybe there would be more motivation for an update if the USA site matched the UK site.
 
namethisfile said:
so you know apple's target market for the mac mini? how can you know that? just b/c the mini is the least expensive mac, doesn't mean it's target market is different.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You're trying to argue opinion based matters on the Internet? :rolleyes:

I stated my opinion. You're welcome to have a different one, doesn't bother me one little bit.

(Now if you do have actual citations from Apple showing their marketing department's positioning plan and roadmap for the mini, do post them)
 
deeddawg said:
Seriously? You're trying to argue opinion based matters on the Internet? :rolleyes:

I stated my opinion. You're welcome to have a different one, doesn't bother me one little bit.

(Now if you do have actual citations from Apple showing their marketing department's positioning plan and roadmap for the mini, do post them)
Click to expand...

i don't think "your" "opinion" about "mac mini target market" is solely your opinion. my argument is thus not just directed at you but those who share that opinion and regurgitate it on the web that potential owners of mac mini's are somehow less technical-savvy than other mac owners. it doesn't make sense. and the fact that you hold on to it... oh wait, you're just regurgitating opinions that YOU DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF YOURSELF!!!

nevermind then. you win, buddy!
 
namethisfile said:
you're just regurgitating opinions that YOU DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF YOURSELF!!!
Click to expand...

This statement is factually incorrect.

The rest of your post comes across like a shrill child, upset that others aren't agreeing with him. I suppose that is not your intent, but it is the perception you're conveying.

As I said before, you're welcome to your opinion. It really doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else here thinks.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeddawg
This statement is factually incorrect.
so you're saying you came up with the opinion about the target market for mac mini all by your lonesome self?

Quote:
The rest of your post comes across like a shrill child
are you trying to make fun of me or something?

Quote:
deeddawg
sounds deep.

Ok boys, have a few hot dogs and a beer. I have been wondering who buys minis myself. A cursory search didn't yield much. Of course we know people on this site are more knowledgeable about the mini than the average person, but how representative are they? I don't know. A simple (and probably useless) thought survey of the people I know who have or are thinking of buying a mini suggests that about 1/3 of them have no idea what is inside the box; another third are long-time reasonably sophisticated users who would look at specs but aren't into the details or knowledgeable about refresh cycles and coming CPU/gpus, and the rest are obsessed with such things as are we. I would not be shocked if iMac buyers had a similar range of expertise. I guess that is why each line has several models and BTO options. There probably is no single "target market." Therefore, the new Mac mini is almost certainly coming. QED
 
DesertSurfer said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeddawg
This statement is factually incorrect.
so you're saying you came up with the opinion about the target market for mac mini all by your lonesome self?

Quote:
The rest of your post comes across like a shrill child
are you trying to make fun of me or something?

Quote:
deeddawg
sounds deep.

Ok boys, have a few hot dogs and a beer. I have been wondering who buys minis myself. A cursory search didn't yield much. Of course we know people on this site are more knowledgeable about the mini than the average person, but how representative are they? I don't know. A simple (and probably useless) thought survey of the people I know who have or are thinking of buying a mini suggests that about 1/3 of them have no idea what is inside the box; another third are long-time reasonably sophisticated users who would look at specs but aren't into the details or knowledgeable about refresh cycles and coming CPU/gpus, and the rest are obsessed with such things as are we. I would not be shocked if iMac buyers had a similar range of expertise. I guess that is why each line has several models and BTO options. There probably is no single "target market." Therefore, the new Mac mini is almost certainly coming. QED
Click to expand...

a computer is a computer is a computer. apple knows this. this is why they work so hard to make it simple, accessible and aesthetically pleasing. like steve jobs said in the movie "Jobs", they want the mac to be an appliance. this meant that the computer they were making at the time (i think the macintosh) needed to be easy to use and also ubiquitous as part of the home. essential even. i think he said that he wants your grandpa to be able to use it.

today, the mac has grown to include several lines (mac mini, mac pro, macbook, macbook pro, macbook air). but, the fact that apple is also a software company means that how one interacts with all these computers is the same via OS X. so, whether or not a target market exist, to apple, there is just one. to apple, the target market is everyone. it would not make sense for apple to create a computer for this and that target market and another one for this and that target market. the mac mini, if i can get into apple's head and why it is created is essentially the baby of apple, if that makes sense. the mac mini is quintessentially, the dream mac. the cube. the least expensive mac, meaning that it can be more accessible to a wider-base of consumers. it is the mac that has the most potential to become this "appliance" that jobs dreamt of. but, i think there is internal struggle within apple and its corporate heads. the dream mac mini, is not so dreamy to the apple corporate heads, i think, of which i've already posted previously here plenty of time of why.
 
Last edited:
namethisfile said:
a computer is a computer is a computer. apple knows this. this is why they work so hard to make it simple, accessible and aesthetically pleasing. like steve jobs said in the movie "Jobs", they want the mac to be an appliance. this meant that the computer they were making at the time (i think the macintosh) needed to be easy to use and also ubiquitous as part of the home. essential even. i think he said that he wants your grandpa to be able to use it.

today, the mac has grown to include several lines (mac mini, mac pro, macbook, macbook pro, macbook air). but, the fact that apple is also a software company means that how one interacts with all these computers is the same via OS X. so, whether or not a target market exist, to apple, there is just one. to apple, the target market is everyone. it would not make sense for apple to create a computer for this and that target market and another one for this and that target market. the mac mini, if i can get into apple's head and why it is created is essentially the baby of apple, if that makes sense. the mac mini is quintessentially, the dream mac. the cube. the least expensive mac, meaning that it can be more accessible to a wider-base of consumers. it is the mac that has the most potential to become this "appliance" that jobs dreamt of. but, i think there is internal struggle within apple and its corporate heads. the dream mac mini, is not so dreamy to the apple corporate heads, i think, of which i've already posted previously here plenty of time of why.
Click to expand...

Suffering indigestion here. Long sentences and unconventional punctuation don't assist a simple soul. A hodge-podge of ideas in a meaningless jumble has me well lost.
 
Last edited:
Crosscreek said:
Most people that have IMac's and Mini's won't gravitate to a laptop. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

With only one in four new Macs sold being desktops, and with their laptop market on the rise and their desktop market on the decline, I'm disinclined to agree.

Plus, the Mac mini IS mostly a laptop anyway. It's not that far fetched to take a 13" MacBook Pro and, instead, keep it stationary with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse attached. Same machine at that point. Furthermore, it has been that way since 2009.
 
Yebubbleman said:
With only one in four new Macs sold being desktops, and with their laptop market on the rise and their desktop market on the decline, I'm disinclined to agree.

Plus, the Mac mini IS mostly a laptop anyway. It's not that far fetched to take a 13" MacBook Pro and, instead, keep it stationary with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse attached. Same machine at that point. Furthermore, it has been that way since 2009.
Click to expand...

I think you will find plenty of desktop users out there that will disincline your inclination. :)
 
Yebubbleman said:
With only one in four new Macs sold being desktops, and with their laptop market on the rise and their desktop market on the decline, I'm disinclined to agree.

Plus, the Mac mini IS mostly a laptop anyway. It's not that far fetched to take a 13" MacBook Pro and, instead, keep it stationary with a monitor, keyboard, and mouse attached. Same machine at that point. Furthermore, it has been that way since 2009.
Click to expand...

That is how I used my mid-2011 MacBook Pro. From home to work and back, with monitor, keyboard, and mouse/trackpad at each location, I seldom opened the laptop, but on the road I had a fully functional portable. But that is why the next mini update should use desktop, not mobile processors, so that it would provide something you could not get in a laptop. I know lots of people who have a laptop as well as desktop machines. I would like to be one of them. Come on Apple, give us the raging mini!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back