I need a new mini at some point so a Haswell refresh will work for me but I thought that was only for desktops not mobile. Is there a new roadmap? I'll have to look that up.
Marvin, I appreciate your comments, though I see things from a different perspective. The Engineering team handicapped the Mac Mini from the very beginning. No rational observer of this can then say that no one is buying them even with updates. They are grossly underpowered, not given nearly enough GPU performance, and only given bare minimum requirements in Ram and storage. This is not the work of someone who wants a product to succeed. The engineers at Apple need to provide a machine that people actually want, and it's not a gutless wonder like they have now. Anyone with an IQ of above my birthweight knows that.
The ARM argument you offered further proves my point. You said, "They could use 4x A7s and it would rival a 2011 MBP quad-i7 with a much lower TDP and likely cost over $200 less, although they'd have to add a laptop GPU on top."
?So let me get this straight, you're basically saying you're cool with a computer powered to 2011 levels being sold in 2014? Three years old performance. And just remember, you'll own that computer for at least five years, unless you get pissed off with its molasses-like speed and use it for target practice before then. It's just this sort of thing that I'm wholly against. We don't need to put out products that are old tech the very minute they are packaged. We need something that can stand on it's own. That's why I'm so pissed at the engineers at Apple. They aren't even trying. Every time Johnny Ive gets up and waxes poetic about his latest and greatest designs, I'd love to go up, stop his performance and hand him a Mac Mini. Right in front of everyone. And tell him to talk about his worst work. There's absolutely no way that he can feel proud of the Mac Mini. He's not even making an attempt at a current product. I don't want 2011 tech. I want 2014 tech. At this point I'd even be willing to have them supply the motherboard to the iMac. It's not that big. Put the thing in a housing with a fan, and sell it to us. At least then we'd have a decent computer that could run circles around a Mac Mini. This lowest-level laptop configuration is just an insult. The worst thing about it is that we don't have any choice unless we go hackintosh, and that's not something I'm willing to do.
I want the engineers at Apple to make a Mac Mini that doesn't underperform. Hasn't happened yet.
They are grossly underpowered, not given nearly enough GPU performance, and [/COLOR]only given bare minimum requirements in Ram and storage.
That's because of the profit margins. If they give up the margins like PC manufacturers, it's not worth doing. I partly agree on the GPU, which is why I think they should use Iris Pro this time in the higher model but I don't think it's going to change the demand for the Mini.
The ARM argument you offered further proves my point, you're basically saying you're cool with a computer powered to 2011 levels being sold in 2014? Three years old performance.
Those weren't equivalent options. The i7 is a 45W chip, 4x A7 is still well below that. ARM is ahead in performance-per-watt (Intel has fabricated benchmarks to prove otherwise though). Pick a Wattage and ARM will be faster and cheaper.
I'm not saying it's the right thing for Apple to do because the thing about desktops/laptops is they aren't the growth market any more so it doesn't really benefit them to screw around with it. I just think ARM has some advantages. For a server model, who knows it might be a better option. Servers all run custom software anyway.
I don't want 2011 tech. I want 2014 tech. At this point I'd even be willing to have them supply the motherboard to the iMac. It's not that big. Put the thing in a housing with a fan, and sell it to us. At least then we'd have a decent computer that could run circles around a Mac Mini. This lowest-level laptop configuration is just an insult. The worst thing about it is that we don't have any choice unless we go hackintosh, and that's not something I'm willing to do.
I want the engineers at Apple to make a Mac Mini that doesn't underperform. Hasn't happened yet.
It's not quite as extreme as that. The cpus for the current models came out mid 2012, not 2011. "2014 tech" may not be available in volume prior to Q3. It will probably make it to the mini much later. I remain unsure what they'll do at the moment given that they used to follow the notebooks, and the notebooks went to more expensive cpu options. Interestingly for a lot of things that do not have to deal with opengl drawing in 3 dimensions, a refreshed mini could be basically on par with other systems for real world use.
Marvin, in regard to the server option, I'm not going to debate that point because I've never once run a server, nor am I inclined to ever do so. If that's what server folks want, let them have it.
I'm discussing headless Macs from a user perspective. The demand for the Mini is something that Apple has to actually work at creating. The problem is that they don't even do that. They don't provide an appealing model that has the latest hardware inside, they don't advertise AT ALL, and they don't even display them in the stores half the time. As for the argument that peripherals cost too much, they aren't actually listening to us. WE ALREADY HAVE THEM!!! We just need a new machine. I'd love nothing more than to ask Tim Cook why I need to buy an iMac when I have an awesome 30" ACD on my desk. I'd actually love to hear his answer. I haven't heard it yet, though.
And hmm, I understand what you're saying regarding volume of chips, but Apple doesn't sell many Mac Mini's anyway because of their dismally awful advertising and presentation of the headless Mac. Surely there's enough chips to handle the volume they have. They simply choose not to do it. It's like they go into the scrap bin and get all the stuff no one else wants at Apple and uses that to make the Mini. It's an embarrassment. and your comment about open GL was right on the money. If we start making exceptions here, and exceptions there, sure it's just like any other computer, so long that all you ever use it for is Microsoft Word. Arguments like that infuriate me. Do these people think that no one buys DSLR's with high megapixel counts? Ever tried editing high definition footage above 1080p? This isn't stuff that's complex. I have a GoPro that records 1440p, and it's just this little waterproof cube. I guess I fall into the "prosumer" category, but after you put some decent Ram into the Mac Pro, it's easily over $5k.
It's not like Apple's giving us any options here. We have a gutless wonder Mac Mini, and for the rich, we have the Mac Pro. What do people like me have? Um. Nothing. Tim Cook ought to address that issue. And forget the iMac. I already own the screen I want, I certainly don't want another.
Every time Johnny Ive gets up and waxes poetic about his latest and greatest designs, I'd love to go up, stop his performance and hand him a Mac Mini. Right in front of everyone. And tell him to talk about his worst work.
It's unlikely that it would change much if anything. The mid generation bumps are typically .2 ghz on the same chip design if that. The article just talks about where intel was having problems.
Quote:
It's because hardly anyone buys them even when they update them. I reckon they should try ditching the entry model and just build one with the entry 15" MBP chip with Iris Pro. This pushes up the average selling price at least.
That's what they did with the mid range cpu option last year. It ditched discrete graphics and went to a more costly cpu. This time they have nothing to adjust that cost ratio, so I'm unsure what would happen. There's no absolute way of knowing if their current margins are high or low relative to rounding factor. By that I mean they always do it in increments of $100. There is some point where they decide to round up relative to the volume and importance of the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green
And hmm, I understand what you're saying regarding volume of chips, but Apple doesn't sell many Mac Mini's anyway because of their dismally awful advertising and presentation of the headless Mac. Surely there's enough chips to handle the volume they have. They simply choose not to do it. It's like they go into the scrap bin and get all the stuff no one else wants at Apple and uses that to make the Mini. It's an embarrassment. and your comment about open GL was right on the money. If we start making exceptions here, and exceptions there, sure it's just like any other computer, so long that all you ever use it for is Microsoft Word. Arguments like that infuriate me. Do these people think that no one buys DSLR's with high megapixel counts? Ever tried editing high definition footage above 1080p? This isn't stuff that's complex. I have a GoPro that records 1440p, and it's just this little waterproof cube. I guess I fall into the "prosumer" category, but after you put some decent Ram into the Mac Pro, it's easily over $5k.
I didn't comment on the volume of chips. I said Apple used chips at a different price point with the current generation. Looking at 2011 they had discrete graphics and one chip in the middle version. 2012 they dropped discrete graphics but went with a more expensive cpu. This year the cpu cost went up again due to their choices. I don't anticipate a broadwell mini in the current year if they play their usual games with it. What did you like about the OpenGL comment? I mention OpenGL frequently. There's a board obsession with OpenCL, yet OpenGL is far more widespread. The entire concept of a workstation gpu was built around being tuned OpenGL performance with general computation coming later. Some of the lighter stuff may run quite well on the current generation of intel graphics. I can't guarantee it, but it's certainly possible. When it comes to computation where the gpu itself is better suited in the sense of floating point math performed across millions of elements, it doesn't necessarily have to be the beefiest one available.
Aside from all of that, rolling it out months later than everything else is complete garbage. They should have been able to release something by now.
It's not like Apple's giving us any options here. We have a gutless wonder Mac Mini, and for the rich, we have the Mac Pro. What do people like me have? Um. Nothing. Tim Cook ought to address that issue. And forget the iMac. I already own the screen I want, I certainly don't want another.
The Macbook Pro is a pretty good option (it has a screen but you can run it closed if you want) and is one of the machines they keep updated regularly. It has the same CPUs as the Mini. It costs more new but the refurbs are ok:
If you'd have gotten a Mini with core-i7 and dedicated GPU at $999, the 2012 MBP for $1449 isn't that much of a premium. The 2012 model is the one that lets you easily upgrade RAM and HDD. The downside is only having two USB ports but besides that, not much difference and it won't use all that much desk space.
The problem with the current Mini is inside the machine, not the exterior.
Frank777, I stand corrected, I had always thought that Johnny Ivy was responsible for the Mac Mini because he's the one who talks about the internals during keynotes. According to Apple's website, Dan Riccio (a man I've never even heard of) is responsible for the engineering of the Macs. It should be him who we bring out on stage and ask him to explain himself for the gutless wonder known as the Mac Mini. He also is primarily responsible for why an XMac (though I still think they ought to bring back the cube design, just not see through) has never been offered to Mac users because it might just cut into their iMac sales.
Tim Cook said that they haven't forgotten about the Mac, but he's given us absolutely nothing to support his statement. At this point it's no different than NASA saying that they haven't forgotten about the Moon. The Mac Mini was last updated in October 2012, and it wasn't that great of an update. Put a fan in the thing and give us some real power for a change.
The Macbook Pro is a pretty good option (it has a screen but you can run it closed if you want) and is one of the machines they keep updated regularly. It has the same CPUs as the Mini. It costs more new but the refurbs are ok:
If you'd have gotten a Mini with core-i7 and dedicated GPU at $999, the 2012 MBP for $1449 isn't that much of a premium. The 2012 model is the one that lets you easily upgrade RAM and HDD. The downside is only having two USB ports but besides that, not much difference and it won't use all that much desk space.
Marvin, I appreciate what you're saying, but you're missing the point. People are expecting us to buy a computer that doesn't meet our needs. We're paying for a screen that we don't want, a keyboard we don't want, etc. Just take the motherboard out and give us a decent Mac. They could have done that with the iMac motherboard (it's insanely small) but they choose to handicap headless Mac's that aren't for the rich. I thought of just buying a top of the line MBP and keeping the thing closed and hiding it under my desk, but it's the point of the matter. They have this stuff readily available and they are refusing to give us a great Mac that doesn't come with all the stuff we don't want built into it.
Arguments like that infuriate me. Do these people think that no one buys DSLR's with high megapixel counts? Ever tried editing high definition footage above 1080p? This isn't stuff that's complex. I have a GoPro that records 1440p, and it's just this little waterproof cube. I guess I fall into the "prosumer" category, but after you put some decent Ram into the Mac Pro, it's easily over $5k.
The 2012 mini handles high MP raw just fine in aperture with max ram and ssds or raid.
If you do certain GPU functions a lot then the mini isn't so great. On the other hand if you're just using iMovie it's probably just fine.
/shrug
The 2012 Mac mini was a powerhouse for the price with the core i7. A year and a half later it's just okay but a haswell mini would the a powerhouse again even for most prosumers.
Some pros run CS6 and FCPX on their 13" MBPs and MBAs. Even the 2012 ones with the HD4000 much less the new ones. Granted at their office they have much more powerful machines but on the road that's the trade off they made vs a 15" MBP.
nht, Haswell has been out since last summer if I remember correctly. Here we are in February (more than half a year gone by) and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. HD4000 graphics isn't anything to be proud of. I've played with them. I'm not a gamer, but I have friends who are. I've gotten to see the frame rates and they leave much to be desired.
The dinosaur I'm on now (MacPro2,1) is being put out to pasture as soon as the new Mac Minis are released. I no longer need insane power like I did in 2007, but I want something that'll last several years without feeling as laggy as the dinosaur I'm on now. Waiting this long for a good update to current technology is rough. The HD4000 was the reason I didn't buy the last version. I know I'm being picky now, but I'd love a redesign, preferably something that allows easy swapping of memory and hard drives.
You're more likely to retain that without a redesign.
hmm, I would have thought that too until I saw the new Mac Pro and how easy it is to get at everything. It truly is an amazing design. If they put that same wisdom toward the Mac Mini, things will be very good indeed. It's the delay that's killing me.
hmm, I would have thought that too until I saw the new Mac Pro and how easy it is to get at everything. It truly is an amazing design. If they put that same wisdom toward the Mac Mini, things will be very good indeed. It's the delay that's killing me.
I wasn't sure they would go full thunderbolt. Even today the peripheral cost can be a significant addition, which must be paid for upfront. A lot of the predictions were complete nonsense from people with little tech knowledge. For example several people predicted soldered memory and cpus, when the chipset and cpus used by the mac pro do not currently support those things. The cpu one was even more laughable, because it implied that it would somehow benefit Apple to do that with low volume $2k+ cpus. The mini is a completely different line, so they could do it. I don't think they would gain anything from it, but they could do it. If you look at a rmbp, the soldered memory takes up significantly more area on the logic board surface. It allowed for a thinner design, and Stephen King got to cash his royalty check from Apple. I don't think they would solder it just to solder it. The issue is that if they redesign the mini, access to its internal components is not likely to be viewed as a design priority.
you're missing the point. People are expecting us to buy a computer that doesn't meet our needs. We're paying for a screen that we don't want, a keyboard we don't want, etc. Just take the motherboard out and give us a decent Mac. They could have done that with the iMac motherboard (it's insanely small) but they choose to handicap headless Mac's that aren't for the rich. I thought of just buying a top of the line MBP and keeping the thing closed and hiding it under my desk, but it's the point of the matter. They have this stuff readily available and they are refusing to give us a great Mac that doesn't come with all the stuff we don't want built into it.
The same point has been expressed for close to a decade now, including by me years ago - it hasn't been missed. The point not being gotten is that it clearly doesn't make much difference for Apple.
IDC thinks that 135 million desktops and 180 million laptops were sold in 2013, total 315m. HP and Lenovo are the two biggest around 16%. This gives them around 50 million per year each. Apple sells roughly 20 million Macs (about 6% share), 25% are desktops and dropping.
That means in order to be the biggest PC manufacturer on the merit of their desktops and laptops, Apple just has to grow less than 3x in unit shipments. But, the way they do that is at the low-end. Because they use the same components as other manufacturers, that means cutting the margins. PC manufacturers are falling over themselves trying to boost volumes and making very little profit:
"the weighted average selling price (ASP) of a PC has fallen from $614.60 in the first quarter of 2010 to just $544.30 in the third quarter of 2013"
The average PC is cheaper than the cheapest Mac. This means over half the volume has to be below $544 for the entire package.
"by the third quarter of 2013, the weighted average profit had fallen to $14.87"
Apple makes around 25% net margins, 10x the PC counterparts so they could be making at least $150 on a Mini. So the idea that all Apple needs to revamp interest in the desktops is a decent Mini is unfounded. What they do by selling more Minis instead of iMacs is lose margins on display sales and peripherals and lower their average selling price.
They have very little reason to invest in it. Adding a good GPU isn't going to affect volume because it comes in at a higher price. They could drop the whole Mini lineup and it would make negligible difference to their income. It might even be a positive thing because it would push whatever remaining Mac server owners there are to buy Mac Pros and Mini owners to iMacs or laptops at a higher price.
I don't want to see them do that, I'd rather that they stuck with having a decent value desktop but it's negligible to their income and marketshare.
It doesn't really make a lot of sense to update the Mini now either because Haswell refresh is coming in April. If they can launch updated Macbook Airs and Macbook Pros in 2-4 months, why not bring the Mini along too? Haswell refresh isn't a significant CPU upgrade but there's a chance it can come with a GPU improvement.
The Mini will never be a model that they push because they'd rather sell you an iMac or Macbook Pro. Complaining about it isn't going to change that and hasn't changed it for 10 years. If you want to avoid having a reason to complain about lack of updates, buy a Macbook Pro because they are the biggest selling lineup and Apple will always cater to it. It doesn't matter if you are paying for more than you need (extra screen, battery etc), you are getting more than you need too and will end up using those benefits and it maintains a higher resale value.
I think if every Mac Mini owner switched to a MBP of some kind and used it for 3 years, getting the same quad-i7 CPU and dedicated GPU with regular upgrade options, they'd forget why they even bothered about the Mac Mini.
nht, Haswell has been out since last summer if I remember correctly. Here we are in February (more than half a year gone by) and what do we have to show for it? Nothing.
Actually the Haswell release got split between the mid summer and fall. Your point remains though it has been a very long time. This is why I suspect a major overhaul of the platform.
HD4000 graphics isn't anything to be proud of. I've played with them. I'm not a gamer, but I have friends who are. I've gotten to see the frame rates and they leave much to be desired.
HD 4000 is Intel just getting there and as you state isn't exactly something to be proud of. This isn't just a gaming issue either. Haswell goes a long ways to correcting this though.
The dinosaur I'm on now (MacPro2,1) is being put out to pasture as soon as the new Mac Minis are released. I no longer need insane power like I did in 2007, but I want something that'll last several years without feeling as laggy as the dinosaur I'm on now.
RAM is a very important feature that enable goo OS/X performance so if that laggy feel is a problem you might want to make sure you factor RAM into any new hardware buy. Haswell itself isn't a huge factor here unless you can leverage the GPU's, the thing is Haswell CPU did not get a significant performance boost. So any improvements are directly related to your ability to leverage the GPU.
On a side note HSA is the wave of the future. It promises a lot but one big issue is the impact RAM has on HSA systems performance. In a nutshell RAM needs to be a lot faster that DDR3 so I expect Apple to switch to either DDR4 or some other technology rather quickly. Faster RAM is the only way to really leverage the new integrated chips. The current Mini is well too mini to pack in quad channel memory, at least with DDR3 it is.
This makes me wonder if the hold up isn't so much Apple or Intel related as it might be other technologies like DDR4.
Waiting this long for a good update to current technology is rough. The HD4000 was the reason I didn't buy the last version.
Frankly that is a very good reason.
I know I'm being picky now, but I'd love a redesign, preferably something that allows easy swapping of memory and hard drives.
Swapping of memory and hard drives may become a significant problem. I can see Apple soldering in the RAM just like they do on the laptops. As for hard drives I expect Apple to go SSD only in the Mini. In fact I'm expecting so in all machine relatively quickly.
In the end I can only think of two reasons for the delay. One is the model is about to be discontinued for something different. The other is that there is technology out there they are waiting on that simply isn't ready or possibly a little of both. The Mini suffers significantly from the iPads success so I'm thinking major overhaul to try to stimulate sales.
With a Haswell refresh, the same graphics would still be used (4600, 5100 and 5200) even on new processors correct? The i5-4258U would be fine for me but I would prefer the i7-4558U even though both are dual core.
The same point has been expressed for close to a decade now, including by me years ago - it hasn't been missed. The point not being gotten is that it clearly doesn't make much difference for Apple.
It is pretty clear Apple doesn't care. I actually think the Mac line, the entire product line, was about to be jettison a few years ago. The problem is Apple has ignored the desktop product line for so long that it is no surprise at all that most of their sales go to laptops. Maybe the Mac Pro is an indictor that Apple has taken a renewed interest in desktops and has a major rework of its desktop product line in the works.
With iTunes, AppleTV and all the other media related stuff they are involved inI have a hard time understanding why they don't have a Mac that is better suited to act as a media server. Today of course it doesn't have to be a Mac per say, it could be an ARM based device for all I care.
In any event there are many missing products in Apples line up. I know they like to focus but I also know that markets and consumer needs change. A desktop lineup with no major changes in years is not a good thing.
IDC thinks that 135 million desktops and 180 million laptops were sold in 2013, total 315m. HP and Lenovo are the two biggest around 16%. This gives them around 50 million per year each. Apple sells roughly 20 million Macs (about 6% share), 25% are desktops and dropping.
Dropping desktop sales are a reality, just walk into any store selling computers and this becomes obvious. That is not however justification for keeping a product line static.
That means in order to be the biggest PC manufacturer on the merit of their desktops and laptops, Apple just has to grow less than 3x in unit shipments. But, the way they do that is at the low-end. Because they use the same components as other manufacturers, that means cutting the margins. PC manufacturers are falling over themselves trying to boost volumes and making very little profit:
Many of those manufactures will go the way of Kodak and other companies that failed to see where markets are going. The problem with Apple is that their hardware line up literally locks them out of many business because of their desktop line up. I've only recently seen compact form factor acceptance in business at all. Beyond that business still has huge need for machines with lots of ports and other features. Apple has no play here.
"the weighted average selling price (ASP) of a PC has fallen from $614.60 in the first quarter of 2010 to just $544.30 in the third quarter of 2013"
The average PC is cheaper than the cheapest Mac. This means over half the volume has to be below $544 for the entire package.
More importantly is what are they selling in these machines. Many of these slow cost machines have very very low end processors that a Mini was never intended to compete against. This is one reason why I believe Apple could have significant success with an ARM based low end desktop. With the right chip they will effectively be able to compete on price with the i86 based machines and frankly give the customer better performance.
I know people like to dismiss ARM based chips here but the age of low performance is long gone. AMDs new A1100 clearly demonstrates what is possible with ARM technology, if Apples advancements aren't convincing enough. The thing here is that ARM gives Apple a way to attack its high price image while keeping relatively good margins. As PC prices fall it will become harder and harder to convince the entry level crowd that an Apple computer, that costs many times the cost of a PC is worth buying.
I could see Apple attacking this segment with an ARM based computer that is basically a keyboard with the computer integrated into it. Such a platform would have to be limited to about 10 to 15 watts total.
"by the third quarter of 2013, the weighted average profit had fallen to $14.87"
Apple makes around 25% net margins, 10x the PC counterparts so they could be making at least $150 on a Mini. So the idea that all Apple needs to revamp interest in the desktops is a decent Mini is unfounded. What they do by selling more Minis instead of iMacs is lose margins on display sales and peripherals and lower their average selling price.
This argument has never flown with me.
They have very little reason to invest in it. Adding a good GPU isn't going to affect volume because it comes in at a higher price. They could drop the whole Mini lineup and it would make negligible difference to their income. It might even be a positive thing because it would push whatever remaining Mac server owners there are to buy Mac Pros and Mini owners to iMacs or laptops at a higher price.
If you honestly believe that a Mini server owner would switch to a Mac Pro if Apple tired to force them to do so you are sadly mistaken. Just like with Xserve these customers will simply switch to another platform. Frankly the same thing applies to consumer owners of the Mini, forcing people to spend thousands when they know a few hundred will do the job is a sure way to loose customers. Apple doesn't need to loose customers they need to gain customers.
I don't want to see them do that, I'd rather that they stuck with having a decent value desktop but it's negligible to their income and marketshare.
That is pretty much the case with the majority of PC manufactures these days. The desktop market is well hurting. However you don't abandon customers just because you don't give a damn about their needs.
It doesn't really make a lot of sense to update the Mini now either because Haswell refresh is coming in April. If they can launch updated Macbook Airs and Macbook Pros in 2-4 months, why not bring the Mini along too? Haswell refresh isn't a significant CPU upgrade but there's a chance it can come with a GPU improvement.
We don't really know what Haswell redress will bring. intel has actually been a bit confused about what they are doing here. The impression I'm left with is that has well refresh is desktop focused.
The Mini will never be a model that they push because they'd rather sell you an iMac or Macbook Pro. Complaining about it isn't going to change that and hasn't changed it for 10 years. If you want to avoid having a reason to complain about lack of updates, buy a Macbook Pro because they are the biggest selling lineup and Apple will always cater to it. It doesn't matter if you are paying for more than you need (extra screen, battery etc), you are getting more than you need too and will end up using those benefits and it maintains a higher resale value.
Some applications simply don't need a MBP. Beyond that I thought the theme of the thread was more or less: where is the new Mini? it is a reasonable question at this point.
I think if every Mac Mini owner switched to a MBP of some kind and used it for 3 years, getting the same quad-i7 CPU and dedicated GPU with regular upgrade options, they'd forget why they even bothered about the Mac Mini.
As a MBP owner I'm pretty certain that is garbage. A MBP is a very nice laptop no doubt about that, but it is not a desktop machine and can not be slotted into some uses like a Mini can.
Comments
Marvin, I appreciate your comments, though I see things from a different perspective. The Engineering team handicapped the Mac Mini from the very beginning. No rational observer of this can then say that no one is buying them even with updates. They are grossly underpowered, not given nearly enough GPU performance, and only given bare minimum requirements in Ram and storage. This is not the work of someone who wants a product to succeed. The engineers at Apple need to provide a machine that people actually want, and it's not a gutless wonder like they have now. Anyone with an IQ of above my birthweight knows that.
The ARM argument you offered further proves my point. You said, "They could use 4x A7s and it would rival a 2011 MBP quad-i7 with a much lower TDP and likely cost over $200 less, although they'd have to add a laptop GPU on top."
?So let me get this straight, you're basically saying you're cool with a computer powered to 2011 levels being sold in 2014? Three years old performance. And just remember, you'll own that computer for at least five years, unless you get pissed off with its molasses-like speed and use it for target practice before then. It's just this sort of thing that I'm wholly against. We don't need to put out products that are old tech the very minute they are packaged. We need something that can stand on it's own. That's why I'm so pissed at the engineers at Apple. They aren't even trying. Every time Johnny Ive gets up and waxes poetic about his latest and greatest designs, I'd love to go up, stop his performance and hand him a Mac Mini. Right in front of everyone. And tell him to talk about his worst work. There's absolutely no way that he can feel proud of the Mac Mini. He's not even making an attempt at a current product. I don't want 2011 tech. I want 2014 tech. At this point I'd even be willing to have them supply the motherboard to the iMac. It's not that big. Put the thing in a housing with a fan, and sell it to us. At least then we'd have a decent computer that could run circles around a Mac Mini. This lowest-level laptop configuration is just an insult. The worst thing about it is that we don't have any choice unless we go hackintosh, and that's not something I'm willing to do.
I want the engineers at Apple to make a Mac Mini that doesn't underperform. Hasn't happened yet.
That's because of the profit margins. If they give up the margins like PC manufacturers, it's not worth doing. I partly agree on the GPU, which is why I think they should use Iris Pro this time in the higher model but I don't think it's going to change the demand for the Mini.
Those weren't equivalent options. The i7 is a 45W chip, 4x A7 is still well below that. ARM is ahead in performance-per-watt (Intel has fabricated benchmarks to prove otherwise though). Pick a Wattage and ARM will be faster and cheaper.
I'm not saying it's the right thing for Apple to do because the thing about desktops/laptops is they aren't the growth market any more so it doesn't really benefit them to screw around with it. I just think ARM has some advantages. For a server model, who knows it might be a better option. Servers all run custom software anyway.
Originally Posted by Brian Green
I don't want 2011 tech. I want 2014 tech. At this point I'd even be willing to have them supply the motherboard to the iMac. It's not that big. Put the thing in a housing with a fan, and sell it to us. At least then we'd have a decent computer that could run circles around a Mac Mini. This lowest-level laptop configuration is just an insult. The worst thing about it is that we don't have any choice unless we go hackintosh, and that's not something I'm willing to do.
I want the engineers at Apple to make a Mac Mini that doesn't underperform. Hasn't happened yet.
It's not quite as extreme as that. The cpus for the current models came out mid 2012, not 2011. "2014 tech" may not be available in volume prior to Q3. It will probably make it to the mini much later. I remain unsure what they'll do at the moment given that they used to follow the notebooks, and the notebooks went to more expensive cpu options. Interestingly for a lot of things that do not have to deal with opengl drawing in 3 dimensions, a refreshed mini could be basically on par with other systems for real world use.
Marvin, in regard to the server option, I'm not going to debate that point because I've never once run a server, nor am I inclined to ever do so. If that's what server folks want, let them have it.
I'm discussing headless Macs from a user perspective. The demand for the Mini is something that Apple has to actually work at creating. The problem is that they don't even do that. They don't provide an appealing model that has the latest hardware inside, they don't advertise AT ALL, and they don't even display them in the stores half the time. As for the argument that peripherals cost too much, they aren't actually listening to us. WE ALREADY HAVE THEM!!! We just need a new machine. I'd love nothing more than to ask Tim Cook why I need to buy an iMac when I have an awesome 30" ACD on my desk. I'd actually love to hear his answer. I haven't heard it yet, though.
And hmm, I understand what you're saying regarding volume of chips, but Apple doesn't sell many Mac Mini's anyway because of their dismally awful advertising and presentation of the headless Mac. Surely there's enough chips to handle the volume they have. They simply choose not to do it. It's like they go into the scrap bin and get all the stuff no one else wants at Apple and uses that to make the Mini. It's an embarrassment. and your comment about open GL was right on the money. If we start making exceptions here, and exceptions there, sure it's just like any other computer, so long that all you ever use it for is Microsoft Word. Arguments like that infuriate me. Do these people think that no one buys DSLR's with high megapixel counts? Ever tried editing high definition footage above 1080p? This isn't stuff that's complex. I have a GoPro that records 1440p, and it's just this little waterproof cube. I guess I fall into the "prosumer" category, but after you put some decent Ram into the Mac Pro, it's easily over $5k.
It's not like Apple's giving us any options here. We have a gutless wonder Mac Mini, and for the rich, we have the Mac Pro. What do people like me have? Um. Nothing. Tim Cook ought to address that issue. And forget the iMac. I already own the screen I want, I certainly don't want another.
Every time Johnny Ive gets up and waxes poetic about his latest and greatest designs, I'd love to go up, stop his performance and hand him a Mac Mini. Right in front of everyone. And tell him to talk about his worst work.
I like the way you think.
To be fair, Ive's a designer not an engineer.
The problem with the current Mini is inside the machine, not the exterior.
The following article suggests later 2014:
http://semiaccurate.com/2014/02/19/sky-falling-intels-14nm-broadwell/
There's a Haswell refresh coming first:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/132295-Rumor-Intel-Moves-Haswell-CPU-Refresh-From-May-to-April
They might be better off waiting until April.
It's unlikely that it would change much if anything. The mid generation bumps are typically .2 ghz on the same chip design if that. The article just talks about where intel was having problems.
Quote:
It's because hardly anyone buys them even when they update them. I reckon they should try ditching the entry model and just build one with the entry 15" MBP chip with Iris Pro. This pushes up the average selling price at least.
That's what they did with the mid range cpu option last year. It ditched discrete graphics and went to a more costly cpu. This time they have nothing to adjust that cost ratio, so I'm unsure what would happen. There's no absolute way of knowing if their current margins are high or low relative to rounding factor. By that I mean they always do it in increments of $100. There is some point where they decide to round up relative to the volume and importance of the product.
And hmm, I understand what you're saying regarding volume of chips, but Apple doesn't sell many Mac Mini's anyway because of their dismally awful advertising and presentation of the headless Mac. Surely there's enough chips to handle the volume they have. They simply choose not to do it. It's like they go into the scrap bin and get all the stuff no one else wants at Apple and uses that to make the Mini. It's an embarrassment. and your comment about open GL was right on the money. If we start making exceptions here, and exceptions there, sure it's just like any other computer, so long that all you ever use it for is Microsoft Word. Arguments like that infuriate me. Do these people think that no one buys DSLR's with high megapixel counts? Ever tried editing high definition footage above 1080p? This isn't stuff that's complex. I have a GoPro that records 1440p, and it's just this little waterproof cube. I guess I fall into the "prosumer" category, but after you put some decent Ram into the Mac Pro, it's easily over $5k.
I didn't comment on the volume of chips. I said Apple used chips at a different price point with the current generation. Looking at 2011 they had discrete graphics and one chip in the middle version. 2012 they dropped discrete graphics but went with a more expensive cpu. This year the cpu cost went up again due to their choices. I don't anticipate a broadwell mini in the current year if they play their usual games with it. What did you like about the OpenGL comment? I mention OpenGL frequently. There's a board obsession with OpenCL, yet OpenGL is far more widespread. The entire concept of a workstation gpu was built around being tuned OpenGL performance with general computation coming later. Some of the lighter stuff may run quite well on the current generation of intel graphics. I can't guarantee it, but it's certainly possible. When it comes to computation where the gpu itself is better suited in the sense of floating point math performed across millions of elements, it doesn't necessarily have to be the beefiest one available.
Aside from all of that, rolling it out months later than everything else is complete garbage. They should have been able to release something by now.
The Macbook Pro is a pretty good option (it has a screen but you can run it closed if you want) and is one of the machines they keep updated regularly. It has the same CPUs as the Mini. It costs more new but the refurbs are ok:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD103LL/A
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE664LL/A
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE293LL/A/
If you'd have gotten a Mini with core-i7 and dedicated GPU at $999, the 2012 MBP for $1449 isn't that much of a premium. The 2012 model is the one that lets you easily upgrade RAM and HDD. The downside is only having two USB ports but besides that, not much difference and it won't use all that much desk space.
To be fair, Ive's a designer not an engineer.
The problem with the current Mini is inside the machine, not the exterior.
Frank777, I stand corrected, I had always thought that Johnny Ivy was responsible for the Mac Mini because he's the one who talks about the internals during keynotes. According to Apple's website, Dan Riccio (a man I've never even heard of) is responsible for the engineering of the Macs. It should be him who we bring out on stage and ask him to explain himself for the gutless wonder known as the Mac Mini. He also is primarily responsible for why an XMac (though I still think they ought to bring back the cube design, just not see through) has never been offered to Mac users because it might just cut into their iMac sales.
https://www.apple.com/pr/bios/dan-riccio.html
Tim Cook said that they haven't forgotten about the Mac, but he's given us absolutely nothing to support his statement. At this point it's no different than NASA saying that they haven't forgotten about the Moon. The Mac Mini was last updated in October 2012, and it wasn't that great of an update. Put a fan in the thing and give us some real power for a change.
The Macbook Pro is a pretty good option (it has a screen but you can run it closed if you want) and is one of the machines they keep updated regularly. It has the same CPUs as the Mini. It costs more new but the refurbs are ok:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FD103LL/A
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE664LL/A
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FE293LL/A/
If you'd have gotten a Mini with core-i7 and dedicated GPU at $999, the 2012 MBP for $1449 isn't that much of a premium. The 2012 model is the one that lets you easily upgrade RAM and HDD. The downside is only having two USB ports but besides that, not much difference and it won't use all that much desk space.
Marvin, I appreciate what you're saying, but you're missing the point. People are expecting us to buy a computer that doesn't meet our needs. We're paying for a screen that we don't want, a keyboard we don't want, etc. Just take the motherboard out and give us a decent Mac. They could have done that with the iMac motherboard (it's insanely small) but they choose to handicap headless Mac's that aren't for the rich. I thought of just buying a top of the line MBP and keeping the thing closed and hiding it under my desk, but it's the point of the matter. They have this stuff readily available and they are refusing to give us a great Mac that doesn't come with all the stuff we don't want built into it.
The 2012 mini handles high MP raw just fine in aperture with max ram and ssds or raid.
For cs6 some things are slower:
http://barefeats.com/imac12p.html
If you are doing a lot of tilt/blur or liquefy filters you will be moderately unhappy but these should be decent if there is a haswell update.
If you want to edit in 1440p I guess you can. I'd probably drop down to 1080p since that's my target output anyway.
The pro apps test for premiere look about the same as for Photoshop:
http://barefeats.com/imac12p2.html
If you do certain GPU functions a lot then the mini isn't so great. On the other hand if you're just using iMovie it's probably just fine.
/shrug
The 2012 Mac mini was a powerhouse for the price with the core i7. A year and a half later it's just okay but a haswell mini would the a powerhouse again even for most prosumers.
Some pros run CS6 and FCPX on their 13" MBPs and MBAs. Even the 2012 ones with the HD4000 much less the new ones. Granted at their office they have much more powerful machines but on the road that's the trade off they made vs a 15" MBP.
nht, Haswell has been out since last summer if I remember correctly. Here we are in February (more than half a year gone by) and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. HD4000 graphics isn't anything to be proud of. I've played with them. I'm not a gamer, but I have friends who are. I've gotten to see the frame rates and they leave much to be desired.
The dinosaur I'm on now (MacPro2,1) is being put out to pasture as soon as the new Mac Minis are released. I no longer need insane power like I did in 2007, but I want something that'll last several years without feeling as laggy as the dinosaur I'm on now. Waiting this long for a good update to current technology is rough. The HD4000 was the reason I didn't buy the last version. I know I'm being picky now, but I'd love a redesign, preferably something that allows easy swapping of memory and hard drives.
I know I'm being picky now, but I'd love a redesign, preferably something that allows easy swapping of memory and hard drives.
You're more likely to retain that without a redesign.
You're more likely to retain that without a redesign.
hmm, I would have thought that too until I saw the new Mac Pro and how easy it is to get at everything. It truly is an amazing design. If they put that same wisdom toward the Mac Mini, things will be very good indeed. It's the delay that's killing me.
hmm, I would have thought that too until I saw the new Mac Pro and how easy it is to get at everything. It truly is an amazing design. If they put that same wisdom toward the Mac Mini, things will be very good indeed. It's the delay that's killing me.
I wasn't sure they would go full thunderbolt. Even today the peripheral cost can be a significant addition, which must be paid for upfront. A lot of the predictions were complete nonsense from people with little tech knowledge. For example several people predicted soldered memory and cpus, when the chipset and cpus used by the mac pro do not currently support those things. The cpu one was even more laughable, because it implied that it would somehow benefit Apple to do that with low volume $2k+ cpus. The mini is a completely different line, so they could do it. I don't think they would gain anything from it, but they could do it. If you look at a rmbp, the soldered memory takes up significantly more area on the logic board surface. It allowed for a thinner design, and Stephen King got to cash his royalty check from Apple. I don't think they would solder it just to solder it. The issue is that if they redesign the mini, access to its internal components is not likely to be viewed as a design priority.
The same point has been expressed for close to a decade now, including by me years ago - it hasn't been missed. The point not being gotten is that it clearly doesn't make much difference for Apple.
IDC thinks that 135 million desktops and 180 million laptops were sold in 2013, total 315m. HP and Lenovo are the two biggest around 16%. This gives them around 50 million per year each. Apple sells roughly 20 million Macs (about 6% share), 25% are desktops and dropping.
That means in order to be the biggest PC manufacturer on the merit of their desktops and laptops, Apple just has to grow less than 3x in unit shipments. But, the way they do that is at the low-end. Because they use the same components as other manufacturers, that means cutting the margins. PC manufacturers are falling over themselves trying to boost volumes and making very little profit:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/09/pc-value-trap-windows-chrome-hp-dell-lenovo-asus-acer
"the weighted average selling price (ASP) of a PC has fallen from $614.60 in the first quarter of 2010 to just $544.30 in the third quarter of 2013"
The average PC is cheaper than the cheapest Mac. This means over half the volume has to be below $544 for the entire package.
"by the third quarter of 2013, the weighted average profit had fallen to $14.87"
Apple makes around 25% net margins, 10x the PC counterparts so they could be making at least $150 on a Mini. So the idea that all Apple needs to revamp interest in the desktops is a decent Mini is unfounded. What they do by selling more Minis instead of iMacs is lose margins on display sales and peripherals and lower their average selling price.
They have very little reason to invest in it. Adding a good GPU isn't going to affect volume because it comes in at a higher price. They could drop the whole Mini lineup and it would make negligible difference to their income. It might even be a positive thing because it would push whatever remaining Mac server owners there are to buy Mac Pros and Mini owners to iMacs or laptops at a higher price.
I don't want to see them do that, I'd rather that they stuck with having a decent value desktop but it's negligible to their income and marketshare.
It doesn't really make a lot of sense to update the Mini now either because Haswell refresh is coming in April. If they can launch updated Macbook Airs and Macbook Pros in 2-4 months, why not bring the Mini along too? Haswell refresh isn't a significant CPU upgrade but there's a chance it can come with a GPU improvement.
The Mini will never be a model that they push because they'd rather sell you an iMac or Macbook Pro. Complaining about it isn't going to change that and hasn't changed it for 10 years. If you want to avoid having a reason to complain about lack of updates, buy a Macbook Pro because they are the biggest selling lineup and Apple will always cater to it. It doesn't matter if you are paying for more than you need (extra screen, battery etc), you are getting more than you need too and will end up using those benefits and it maintains a higher resale value.
I think if every Mac Mini owner switched to a MBP of some kind and used it for 3 years, getting the same quad-i7 CPU and dedicated GPU with regular upgrade options, they'd forget why they even bothered about the Mac Mini.
On a side note HSA is the wave of the future. It promises a lot but one big issue is the impact RAM has on HSA systems performance. In a nutshell RAM needs to be a lot faster that DDR3 so I expect Apple to switch to either DDR4 or some other technology rather quickly. Faster RAM is the only way to really leverage the new integrated chips. The current Mini is well too mini to pack in quad channel memory, at least with DDR3 it is.
This makes me wonder if the hold up isn't so much Apple or Intel related as it might be other technologies like DDR4. Frankly that is a very good reason.
Swapping of memory and hard drives may become a significant problem. I can see Apple soldering in the RAM just like they do on the laptops. As for hard drives I expect Apple to go SSD only in the Mini. In fact I'm expecting so in all machine relatively quickly.
In the end I can only think of two reasons for the delay. One is the model is about to be discontinued for something different. The other is that there is technology out there they are waiting on that simply isn't ready or possibly a little of both. The Mini suffers significantly from the iPads success so I'm thinking major overhaul to try to stimulate sales.
With iTunes, AppleTV and all the other media related stuff they are involved inI have a hard time understanding why they don't have a Mac that is better suited to act as a media server. Today of course it doesn't have to be a Mac per say, it could be an ARM based device for all I care.
In any event there are many missing products in Apples line up. I know they like to focus but I also know that markets and consumer needs change. A desktop lineup with no major changes in years is not a good thing. Dropping desktop sales are a reality, just walk into any store selling computers and this becomes obvious. That is not however justification for keeping a product line static. Many of those manufactures will go the way of Kodak and other companies that failed to see where markets are going. The problem with Apple is that their hardware line up literally locks them out of many business because of their desktop line up. I've only recently seen compact form factor acceptance in business at all. Beyond that business still has huge need for machines with lots of ports and other features. Apple has no play here. More importantly is what are they selling in these machines. Many of these slow cost machines have very very low end processors that a Mini was never intended to compete against. This is one reason why I believe Apple could have significant success with an ARM based low end desktop. With the right chip they will effectively be able to compete on price with the i86 based machines and frankly give the customer better performance.
I know people like to dismiss ARM based chips here but the age of low performance is long gone. AMDs new A1100 clearly demonstrates what is possible with ARM technology, if Apples advancements aren't convincing enough. The thing here is that ARM gives Apple a way to attack its high price image while keeping relatively good margins. As PC prices fall it will become harder and harder to convince the entry level crowd that an Apple computer, that costs many times the cost of a PC is worth buying.
I could see Apple attacking this segment with an ARM based computer that is basically a keyboard with the computer integrated into it. Such a platform would have to be limited to about 10 to 15 watts total. This argument has never flown with me. If you honestly believe that a Mini server owner would switch to a Mac Pro if Apple tired to force them to do so you are sadly mistaken. Just like with Xserve these customers will simply switch to another platform. Frankly the same thing applies to consumer owners of the Mini, forcing people to spend thousands when they know a few hundred will do the job is a sure way to loose customers. Apple doesn't need to loose customers they need to gain customers. That is pretty much the case with the majority of PC manufactures these days. The desktop market is well hurting. However you don't abandon customers just because you don't give a damn about their needs. We don't really know what Haswell redress will bring. intel has actually been a bit confused about what they are doing here. The impression I'm left with is that has well refresh is desktop focused. Some applications simply don't need a MBP. Beyond that I thought the theme of the thread was more or less: where is the new Mini? it is a reasonable question at this point.
As a MBP owner I'm pretty certain that is garbage. A MBP is a very nice laptop no doubt about that, but it is not a desktop machine and can not be slotted into some uses like a Mini can.