Apple's problem with the mini is they no longer have a single machine that can be used as a cheap and reliable server, be it for a small business or a bigger setup. Even the latest releases of macOS Server points to abandonware.
It is time Apple advice their users what they recommend for running applications that a) don't need much graphics performance or requires the machine to be as thin and power lean as possible, and b) cannot be deployed to the cloud for multiple reasons; one being legal requirements.
It would be extremely interesting to have Mr. Cook stand up at their next WWDC talk about how the backends for their clients should be served.
My 2012 quad-core is presumably a year from obsolescence then. I really hope we get a new model soon, or I'll be forced down the hackintosh route (which I don't want to do). Sadly, I can't fit an iMac where my computer goes. Presumably I'd need a mortgage for the upcoming Mac Pro, so that isn't going to happen. What my 2012 Mini is missing is hardware H265 decoding and 4K 60hz support. Other than that, it is fine for my needs.
Parts support is not the same as dropping it from OS support. Many obsolete machines are supported by High Sierra.
If I was Apple, I'd take that Mac Pro trash can design and reuse it for the new Mac mini.
Depending what you do. Try serious publishing like we do or professional video editing and you will see huge diifference between Mac Mini and MacPro. We have both so no contest but we do this for living for large publishers (in fact the largers in the world for education so you could read some programming books that were edited by our studio). Now you have wrong idea beacuse actually MacPro should be made six-corre minimum and MacMini shouls stay being quad-core like mid-2011 and not dropped to mediocre dual-core with 2014 downgrade. In fact I consider 2014 already obsolete and underperforming on date of release.
Translation: we tried to go with Apple entry level model positioned as a vehicle to upsell to the rest of the Mac line to save a penny over buying an iMac that Apple has positioned as the entry level desktop for creatives even though we do work for the largest educational publishers and ended up pound foolish but it’s Apples fault.
Never mind most creatives today need a better GPU over more cores so automatically the 2014 mini is a downgrade. Even though today you can better edit 4K video on it using the TB2 connection to a $300 external GPU over using the older quad.
I don't know why this has to be so complicated. I mean, look what HP put together a year ago with the Z2 Mini G3.
Simple, small and relatively powerful.
Apple's next Mac mini doesn't need any gimmicks or fancy design. Just make it small, competitively priced and useful.
Margins and Price.
I dont think Apple has ever shipped a loss leader or low margin products. Their Margin, or Margin over time when included R&D are fairly consistent. And apart from the Windows OEM Price of about $50 Apple earned more compared to other vendor, it will be hard to make Apple's standard profits and this low cost segment.
Not exactly a loss leader. They start at around $1000 for the consumer packages with Core processors and integrated graphics, and they top out at around $2500 for the configurations with Xeon E3-1200 series processors, discrete NVIDIA graphics, and ECC memory. HP markets the Z2 Mini G3 as "The world's first mini workstation designed for CAD users."
Apple's current price range for the Mac mini is $500 to $2000. I think we will see a redesigned mini next year, based on three developments: [1] Intel's deal with AMD to supply discrete Radeon Graphics with 45W Core-H and [2] Xeon E (formerly Xeon E3) processors via [3] Intel's "Embedded Multi-Die Interconnect Bridge" (EMIB) technology. EMIB also allows Apple to easily incorporate an ARM processor into the mix.
There will be a new form factor, but I'm hoping they make it only slightly smaller than the current Mac mini, to allow for easy access to memory and storage. A "Mac mini" (Core-H, Silver) and a "Mac mini Pro" (Xeon E, Space Grey) would be ideal.
Apple's next Mac mini doesn't need any gimmicks or fancy design. Just make it small, competitively priced and useful.
I'm beginning to think Apple has forgotten how to do that. "Simple" doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary anymore.
Yeah, they should make the AirPods use a convoluted pairing process like the rest of the BT market instead of the simple solution they employ now. Oh and the Pencil shouldn't be so simple either. etc... Nice try but complete fiction.
Apple's problem with the mini is they no longer have a single machine that can be used as a cheap and reliable server, be it for a small business or a bigger setup. Even the latest releases of macOS Server points to abandonware.
It is time Apple advice their users what they recommend for running applications that a) don't need much graphics performance or requires the machine to be as thin and power lean as possible, and b) cannot be deployed to the cloud for multiple reasons; one being legal requirements.
It would be extremely interesting to have Mr. Cook stand up at their next WWDC talk about how the backends for their clients should be served.
Why would he need to tell the WWDC audience something they already know? Backend services are served up using RESTful APIs running in the cloud or on commodity linux servers. Apple doesn't play in that space.
If I was Apple, I'd take that Mac Pro trash can design and reuse it for the new Mac mini.
God no. The design was horrible. Just ask anyone who's worked on one. It looked cool, but functionally it was worse than the old Mac Pro.
Well, the design was bad for a Pro computer, but for a mini, maybe it will work better: not upgradeable, but maybe even smaller than the Mac Pro trash can, and people usually do not plug in as much stuff as in a pro machine, so you won't have the spagettifying of all the cords of everything that's plugged in. I guess it would be nice to make a small version of the trash can for the mini if any parts of that design were good at all. I was not a fan of that design, but I thought they would start reusing it for the mini, also, when it first came out. Maybe save in development cost.
You don't care for a design so you hope someone you don't know flunks out of a class?
What utility does the design serve in the effort to advance the hardware’s functionality? Everything about it screams a lack of understanding of its internals and the purpose the device serves.
Apple's problem with the mini is they no longer have a single machine that can be used as a cheap and reliable server, be it for a small business or a bigger setup. Even the latest releases of macOS Server points to abandonware.
It is time Apple advice their users what they recommend for running applications that a) don't need much graphics performance or requires the machine to be as thin and power lean as possible, and b) cannot be deployed to the cloud for multiple reasons; one being legal requirements.
It would be extremely interesting to have Mr. Cook stand up at their next WWDC talk about how the backends for their clients should be served.
Why would he need to tell the WWDC audience something they already know? Backend services are served up using RESTful APIs running in the cloud or on commodity linux servers. Apple doesn't play in that space.
Apple is slowly decimating the server product line both on the hardware and software side to the level of abandonware. Cook need to address this in public. One thing is that everyone "know", but they are at the same time sending very mixed messages where Swift, as an example, is being profiled as a server quality development language.
Apple's problem with the mini is they no longer have a single machine that can be used as a cheap and reliable server, be it for a small business or a bigger setup. Even the latest releases of macOS Server points to abandonware.
It is time Apple advice their users what they recommend for running applications that a) don't need much graphics performance or requires the machine to be as thin and power lean as possible, and b) cannot be deployed to the cloud for multiple reasons; one being legal requirements.
It would be extremely interesting to have Mr. Cook stand up at their next WWDC talk about how the backends for their clients should be served.
Why would he need to tell the WWDC audience something they already know? Backend services are served up using RESTful APIs running in the cloud or on commodity linux servers. Apple doesn't play in that space.
Apple is slowly decimating the server product line both on the hardware and software side to the level of abandonware. Cook need to address this in public. One thing is that everyone "know", but they are at the same time sending very mixed messages where Swift, as an example, is being profiled as a server quality development language.
Apple's problem with the mini is they no longer have a single machine that can be used as a cheap and reliable server, be it for a small business or a bigger setup. Even the latest releases of macOS Server points to abandonware.
It is time Apple advice their users what they recommend for running applications that a) don't need much graphics performance or requires the machine to be as thin and power lean as possible, and b) cannot be deployed to the cloud for multiple reasons; one being legal requirements.
It would be extremely interesting to have Mr. Cook stand up at their next WWDC talk about how the backends for their clients should be served.
Why would he need to tell the WWDC audience something they already know? Backend services are served up using RESTful APIs running in the cloud or on commodity linux servers. Apple doesn't play in that space.
Apple is slowly decimating the server product line both on the hardware and software side to the level of abandonware. Cook need to address this in public. One thing is that everyone "know", but they are at the same time sending very mixed messages where Swift, as an example, is being profiled as a server quality development language.
I don't think there is anything slow about it. Apple no longer makes hardware for the server market and no one but the smallest (and oddest) of small businesses would use macOS and the "Server" application to run their business. They never came out and said they were abandoning this market, but they certainly did.
Apple's problem with the mini is they no longer have a single machine that can be used as a cheap and reliable server, be it for a small business or a bigger setup. Even the latest releases of macOS Server points to abandonware.
It is time Apple advice their users what they recommend for running applications that a) don't need much graphics performance or requires the machine to be as thin and power lean as possible, and b) cannot be deployed to the cloud for multiple reasons; one being legal requirements.
It would be extremely interesting to have Mr. Cook stand up at their next WWDC talk about how the backends for their clients should be served.
Why would he need to tell the WWDC audience something they already know? Backend services are served up using RESTful APIs running in the cloud or on commodity linux servers. Apple doesn't play in that space.
Apple is slowly decimating the server product line both on the hardware and software side to the level of abandonware. Cook need to address this in public. One thing is that everyone "know", but they are at the same time sending very mixed messages where Swift, as an example, is being profiled as a server quality development language.
I don't think there is anything slow about it. Apple no longer makes hardware for the server market and no one but the smallest (and oddest) of small businesses would use macOS and the "Server" application to run their business. They never came out and said they were abandoning this market, but they certainly did.
But they still offer Xcode "server" moved out of "Server" in Xcode9 and the Caching server (which is actually rather useful in conserving bandwidth), without offering any alternatives but macOS to run it on. Then there is profile management too.
zimmermann said: The holdup is the big round building. I expect to see quicker refreshments of all models after a year they have occupied the saucer.
Yea, I hope it's something other than what I fear it is.
zimmermann said: I read, years ago, a research paper that whenever a business would build a humongous headquarter it would reflect negatively on the results. There was a direct relationship. I don’t understand why Apple is not continuing with regular updates the way it did years ago. Every year, maybe even faster, without much fuss, suddenly the whole range of iMacs or Mini’s or whatever would get faster memory, faster CPU’s etc. These last years are different in that respect and I have yet to read a good explanation.
My hunch is that this is more correlation than causation. It's a great thing (in my experience, having been part of a team that was broken up across offices in downtown SF) to get the team together under one roof. But, it's also disruptive, for sure. And, more likely more disruptive (longer term) for upper management that are involved than the individual workers who are disrupted on a more short-term basis.
But, I think if there is such correlation in the stats, it's more likely due to a principal my friend often like to point out (who was Sr. management for a Fortune 100, and afterwords consulted to Fortune 500)... 'big company equals stupid.' Basically, smaller companies are much smarter in how they do things, but struggle for resources. Once you 'make it' you have tons of resources, but keeping the whole thing working properly kind of goes out the window... but you have the resources to cover a lot or problems and inefficiencies.
That's why I was always amazed over the years working in IT consulting, when a small business moving more towards medium, would often want to emulate the systems if the really big companies. (i.e.: we should use Lotus Notes because GM is using it, etc.). Those companies don't often pick those solutions because they are the best, but because they had to for some reason, or are stuck with them (i.e.: legacy but estimated too much effort to change). Stick with optimal solutions as long as you possibly can.
Re: the specific of iMac, Mac mini, etc. I'd guess has to do with marketing dept driving decisions. If most of your target market don't need quad-core, why spend the extra money when you can charge just as much (and get it) as dual core? Instead of designing the best products for users, you end up the other way around... what market can I sell maximum numbers into, and then how shall I design the product to give them minimum requirements, so as to create maximum profit margin. Max profit margin x max # of units = max income/profit.
While it's clear Apple has always held this as a major factor, I think it's more recent that it's running the show... unless everything Steve said was just blowing smoke. But, typically, just blowing smoke doesn't get you to most valuable company in the world from an underdog status.
Soli said: 1) I think we saw a drop when there was heavy iPhone development. Could this be due to Apple's engineers working on another major innovation, like a self-driving system and/or AR and/or VR products?
2) As noted with the Mac mini's sordid past, we've seen Apple do this often with low-volume products. How often does the iPod Touch get updated and that would be comparatively simple to do since they've already done it all for that year's iPhone.
3) Intel keeps pushing back release dates, doesn't seem to ramp up volume as fast (or maybe the sales are more saturated out of the gate because of backed up demand from their longer release times), the iterations aren't as dramatic, processing speed seems to more than necessary for the majority of users today, and the focus for the whole PC market is likely to have another year of decline ending 2017 (which I think would make the 6th year in a row). One part of that equation is Apple clearly putting more focus on the iPhone, but the bigger picture is the whole market isn't as focused on people buying PCs which reduces inertia.
4) Many here have said the PC will go away but I can't see that happening; however, I do see this trend with the Mac continuing long after Apple Park is filled up—save for the usual blips in product launches—unless they finally come out with a lower price point which will dramatically increase the potential market, but that seems only possible with ARM-based Macs.
I agree with all of your points, except that they aren't really good excuses. re: #1 - they shouldn't prioritize that stuff over the Mac. re: #2 - makes a bit more sense, but they should have the capability not to do this. re: #3 - This doesn't keep them from updating with what *IS* available. re #4 - why do they have to achieve making the Mac sell like iOS devices for it to be an important part of the eco-system?
nht said: Translation: we tried to go with Apple entry level model positioned as a vehicle to upsell to the rest of the Mac line to save a penny over buying an iMac that Apple has positioned as the entry level desktop for creatives even though we do work for the largest educational publishers and ended up pound foolish but it’s Apples fault.
What's the alternative? You've either got the Mini or the Mac Pro if you don't want Apple's single-use display option.
nht said: Translation: we tried to go with Apple entry level model positioned as a vehicle to upsell to the rest of the Mac line to save a penny over buying an iMac that Apple has positioned as the entry level desktop for creatives even though we do work for the largest educational publishers and ended up pound foolish but it’s Apples fault.
What's the alternative? You've either got the Mini or the Mac Pro if you don't want Apple's single-use display option.
Then get windows and suffer worse TCO penalty than the cost of the display of the iMac.
Just don’t bitch here that you bought the wrong mac to save a penny over the Mac Pro or the iMac.
nht said: Then get windows and suffer worse TCO penalty than the cost of the display of the iMac.
Just don’t bitch here that you bought the wrong mac to save a penny over the Mac Pro or the iMac.
It's not about the cost. The iMac w/display is actually a great deal if you want a single-use unit on your desk. The problem comes in when you want more inputs to your main display. The iMac isn't a great solution for that.
And... the Mac Pro is more than a few pennies in cost over a Mini (and way out of date). There is a huge, gaping hole in Apple's product line between the Mini and Mac Pro.
Why is it so hard to understand the need for a prosumer/pro headless system? If Apple built one, there would be a relatively big market. It wouldn't have to be bargain basement either. Just a nice design that is quiet with iMac type hardware in it (i.e.: quad-core, semi-reasonable GPU, etc.). What's the resistance to building such a system?
The mini, at least back in the quad-core days, was sort of that system (though a bit underpowered in terms of GPU). If they'd even refresh it with TB3, at least it would be usable as I described above, though maybe not ideal (due to noise).
Why is it so hard to understand the need for a prosumer/pro headless system? If Apple built one, there would be a relatively big market. It wouldn't have to be bargain basement either. Just a nice design that is quiet with iMac type hardware in it (i.e.: quad-core, semi-reasonable GPU, etc.). What's the resistance to building such a system?
There is no resistance from the user community other than folks have been bitching about the lack of an xMac for over a decade.
People on AI were bitching about the original iPhone in 2007 and what Apple needed to survive was an under $1000 mid-tower with slots and not some iPod phone thing that took Apple’s focus away from the all important pro market.
Even by then folks had already been whining about an xMac for a couple years ever since the low end $1499 PowerMac model got axed in 2005. I think at some point there was a $1299 PowerMac G4 for edu buyers or something. I had a 800Mhz Quicksilver that was an edu model.
The xMac whining reached a crescendo in 2006 when the Mac Pros came out at $2199.
So why is it so hard to understand that Apple isn’t going to make a headless iMac?
SFF->AIO->Workstation has been the product line for over a decade and all the screaming on the forums have had zero effect other than annoy folks tired of people stamping their feet about how Apple won’t give them a fucking pony.
Well hell, we wanted a fucking pony too but if you’ve been holding your breath for one then last year would have been the 10th anniversary of your asphyxiation.
nht said: There is no resistance from the user community other than folks have been bitching about the lack of an xMac for over a decade.
Fair enough, though I'm not sure that's exactly what I'm asking for (not that it makes any difference in the outcome, you might be right).
I don't care if it has slots, or soldered RAM, or built-in storage, or costs under $1k, etc. I just want a reasonably capable machine that doesn't cost more than my car.
And, just because we're all screaming for it, and Apple isn't making it, doesn't mean it isn't a huge gaping hole in their lineup. I suppose we're secretly hoping one day Apple wakes up and listens. (Like they possibly did for the iPhone SE or upcoming Mac Pro.)
And, for the record, I was pretty darn excited about the iPhone (I was actually there, though not in the auditorium).
I didn't start complaining about Apple (though I was always pretty honest about their +/-) until 4 or 5 years ago when it became clear to me that the fundamental emphasis of the company had shifted. I'm hoping this gets fixed/rediscovered, etc. and if not, you won't have to worry about my being around here in another year or two. (I know people who are switching, and I'm keeping tabs on their reports... I've worked in IT for decades... possibly even spent more of it on Windows. I don't have to be here, I want to be.)
If Apple is only going to be the largest consumer gadget company in the world... I guess I wish them well, while it lasts. I have ZERO need for that. It will be a sad day when they are gone, though. Hopefully someone quickly fills their shoes in helping creatives be productive and making great products. The world needs that.
I figure Mac design and engineering teams move from Mac to Mac over time. The Mini for example is designed, manufactured and put to market. The intent is that it then is "abandoned" by the Mac team as they move to the next Mac. The Mini is designed to survive multiple years in the market without any additional attention. I think you can easily say the same about the Mac Pro. It seems iMac gets more attention and more frequent upgrades than the other Macs, probably because it is a bigger seller and a powerful visual icon for Apple marketing. This strategy would be very cost effective as it places resources where they are most needed and focusses development expenses where needed at a given point in time.
I think it is possible that the Mini could benefit from the newly invigorated Mac Pro and iMac Pro design direction. The Mini could easily be included in that new user oriented development strategy. There are really so many directions Apple could go with a new Mini, but which one makes the most sense for them? They told us they screwed up with Mac Pro and in a way admitted the same for all Macs (thus iMac Pro). It will be very interesting to see what the Mac lineup brings next year.
Comments
It is time Apple advice their users what they recommend for running applications that a) don't need much graphics performance or requires the machine to be as thin and power lean as possible, and b) cannot be deployed to the cloud for multiple reasons; one being legal requirements.
It would be extremely interesting to have Mr. Cook stand up at their next WWDC talk about how the backends for their clients should be served.
A system like that would immediately be dubbed "the ashtray". - So now we got the Trash Can and the Ash Tray.
Never mind most creatives today need a better GPU over more cores so automatically the 2014 mini is a downgrade. Even though today you can better edit 4K video on it using the TB2 connection to a $300 external GPU over using the older quad.
Apple's current price range for the Mac mini is $500 to $2000. I think we will see a redesigned mini next year, based on three developments: [1] Intel's deal with AMD to supply discrete Radeon Graphics with 45W Core-H and [2] Xeon E (formerly Xeon E3) processors via [3] Intel's "Embedded Multi-Die Interconnect Bridge" (EMIB) technology. EMIB also allows Apple to easily incorporate an ARM processor into the mix.
There will be a new form factor, but I'm hoping they make it only slightly smaller than the current Mac mini, to allow for easy access to memory and storage. A "Mac mini" (Core-H, Silver) and a "Mac mini Pro" (Xeon E, Space Grey) would be ideal.
What utility does the design serve in the effort to advance the hardware’s functionality? Everything about it screams a lack of understanding of its internals and the purpose the device serves.
My hunch is that this is more correlation than causation. It's a great thing (in my experience, having been part of a team that was broken up across offices in downtown SF) to get the team together under one roof. But, it's also disruptive, for sure. And, more likely more disruptive (longer term) for upper management that are involved than the individual workers who are disrupted on a more short-term basis.
But, I think if there is such correlation in the stats, it's more likely due to a principal my friend often like to point out (who was Sr. management for a Fortune 100, and afterwords consulted to Fortune 500)... 'big company equals stupid.' Basically, smaller companies are much smarter in how they do things, but struggle for resources. Once you 'make it' you have tons of resources, but keeping the whole thing working properly kind of goes out the window... but you have the resources to cover a lot or problems and inefficiencies.
That's why I was always amazed over the years working in IT consulting, when a small business moving more towards medium, would often want to emulate the systems if the really big companies. (i.e.: we should use Lotus Notes because GM is using it, etc.). Those companies don't often pick those solutions because they are the best, but because they had to for some reason, or are stuck with them (i.e.: legacy but estimated too much effort to change). Stick with optimal solutions as long as you possibly can.
Re: the specific of iMac, Mac mini, etc. I'd guess has to do with marketing dept driving decisions. If most of your target market don't need quad-core, why spend the extra money when you can charge just as much (and get it) as dual core? Instead of designing the best products for users, you end up the other way around... what market can I sell maximum numbers into, and then how shall I design the product to give them minimum requirements, so as to create maximum profit margin. Max profit margin x max # of units = max income/profit.
While it's clear Apple has always held this as a major factor, I think it's more recent that it's running the show... unless everything Steve said was just blowing smoke. But, typically, just blowing smoke doesn't get you to most valuable company in the world from an underdog status.
I agree with all of your points, except that they aren't really good excuses.
re: #1 - they shouldn't prioritize that stuff over the Mac.
re: #2 - makes a bit more sense, but they should have the capability not to do this.
re: #3 - This doesn't keep them from updating with what *IS* available.
re #4 - why do they have to achieve making the Mac sell like iOS devices for it to be an important part of the eco-system?
What's the alternative? You've either got the Mini or the Mac Pro if you don't want Apple's single-use display option.
Just don’t bitch here that you bought the wrong mac to save a penny over the Mac Pro or the iMac.
The problem comes in when you want more inputs to your main display. The iMac isn't a great solution for that.
And... the Mac Pro is more than a few pennies in cost over a Mini (and way out of date). There is a huge, gaping hole in Apple's product line between the Mini and Mac Pro.
Why is it so hard to understand the need for a prosumer/pro headless system? If Apple built one, there would be a relatively big market. It wouldn't have to be bargain basement either. Just a nice design that is quiet with iMac type hardware in it (i.e.: quad-core, semi-reasonable GPU, etc.). What's the resistance to building such a system?
The mini, at least back in the quad-core days, was sort of that system (though a bit underpowered in terms of GPU). If they'd even refresh it with TB3, at least it would be usable as I described above, though maybe not ideal (due to noise).
People on AI were bitching about the original iPhone in 2007 and what Apple needed to survive was an under $1000 mid-tower with slots and not some iPod phone thing that took Apple’s focus away from the all important pro market.
Even by then folks had already been whining about an xMac for a couple years ever since the low end $1499 PowerMac model got axed in 2005. I think at some point there was a $1299 PowerMac G4 for edu buyers or something. I had a 800Mhz Quicksilver that was an edu model.
The xMac whining reached a crescendo in 2006 when the Mac Pros came out at $2199.
So why is it so hard to understand that Apple isn’t going to make a headless iMac?
SFF->AIO->Workstation has been the product line for over a decade and all the screaming on the forums have had zero effect other than annoy folks tired of people stamping their feet about how Apple won’t give them a fucking pony.
Well hell, we wanted a fucking pony too but if you’ve been holding your breath for one then last year would have been the 10th anniversary of your asphyxiation.
I don't care if it has slots, or soldered RAM, or built-in storage, or costs under $1k, etc. I just want a reasonably capable machine that doesn't cost more than my car.
And, just because we're all screaming for it, and Apple isn't making it, doesn't mean it isn't a huge gaping hole in their lineup. I suppose we're secretly hoping one day Apple wakes up and listens. (Like they possibly did for the iPhone SE or upcoming Mac Pro.)
And, for the record, I was pretty darn excited about the iPhone (I was actually there, though not in the auditorium).
I didn't start complaining about Apple (though I was always pretty honest about their +/-) until 4 or 5 years ago when it became clear to me that the fundamental emphasis of the company had shifted. I'm hoping this gets fixed/rediscovered, etc. and if not, you won't have to worry about my being around here in another year or two.
(I know people who are switching, and I'm keeping tabs on their reports... I've worked in IT for decades... possibly even spent more of it on Windows. I don't have to be here, I want to be.)
If Apple is only going to be the largest consumer gadget company in the world... I guess I wish them well, while it lasts. I have ZERO need for that. It will be a sad day when they are gone, though. Hopefully someone quickly fills their shoes in helping creatives be productive and making great products. The world needs that.
I think it is possible that the Mini could benefit from the newly invigorated Mac Pro and iMac Pro design direction. The Mini could easily be included in that new user oriented development strategy. There are really so many directions Apple could go with a new Mini, but which one makes the most sense for them? They told us they screwed up with Mac Pro and in a way admitted the same for all Macs (thus iMac Pro). It will be very interesting to see what the Mac lineup brings next year.