I'm sure I provide more of an Apple service to the community than you ever will.
I seriously doubt that you will.
Having worked in Apple product management I happen to know what goes into the development of the products and how the future product plans are laid out years in advance. I know that not updating a product for multiple years usually means the product is EOL or there is a serious creativity crisis in product development/management.
Apple's main mantra for product development was always market creation, and they still do in some segments. However the decimation of the ecosystem around macOS signals a company in crisis that no longer are able to create and inspire in the product segment that still carries the company (in that all products rely on code generated on macOS).
I'm a person who works in IT who supports macOS, iOS, ChromeOS, Android, and Windows all in one organization. Believe me...I know what works and what doesn't
Maybe you do in your particular company, but you sure as heck know nothing about Apple's user base overall and what makes it tick.
Actually you come across as someone who would call your users for lusers, because that is the undertone of most of your postings dissing Apple and Apple customers.
The Apple user base is people looking for the ease of use that has been the hallmark of Apple's system integration in their own ecosystem, and now that base are thrown to each on their own to figure out how to make their system work across system upgrades, diverse components and time.
Tim Cook stands at the risk of throwing out the very core base that was willing to pay a premium price exactly for that integrated environment where all worked. They came to Apple either because they did not have the time to tinker around or they simply had no interest in the technical issues as they were focused on other, to them more important things, where the Mac became their tool for expression, creativity and business development.
I'd guess between 40 and 60 unique users posting in this thread. I've read that there are 10 to 20 times more AI visitors reading this. There are only a couple of websites catering to the Mac; and between Mac Rumors, and AI, you've probably found the bulk of ardent Mac Mini users.
Based on this, I'm throw out 50,000 as the maximum number of users actually interested in continuing the Mac Mini line, who won't find a substitute in another Mac product. Then of course, there is that Mac Pro in the future which Apple has promised to users as a more expensive modular option.
I'll go with 50,000 units/year x $1000 (seems high for out years) which is $50 million in revenue. With margins of 20% (from the graph, and estimate), that's $10 million in profit. But then there is that development cost for a product in a shrinking market, and the engineering and marketing costs to keep it fresh. Is it even a necessary product?
Better to keep pushing the rest of the existing line, the Mac Pro, and some ARM analog to the Mac Book.
Yeah this is kinda my point here....But we have armchair experts who know everything! Can't tell them this stuff. Their head might explode!
The masses apparently want this! It's what really holding back Mac sales! Beforehand, they were just flying off shelves! Apple couldn't make enough of them! /s
I think that the next gen Mac mini will be Apple’s 1st foray into a custom chip solely powering an actual computer...
It makes sense that if there are growing pains, or that their 1st attempt doesn’t quite have the power of the latest gen i7, that they don’t put it in MacBook or iMac for another few generations.... However, Mac mini is the perfect platform to deliver such a new technology.
If that’s true- it may also help explain the delay. That’s an enormous undertaking!
I'll go with 50,000 units/year x $1000 (seems high for out years) which is $50 million in revenue. With margins of 40%, that's $20 million in profit. But then there is that development cost for a product in a shrinking market, and the engineering and marketing costs to keep it fresh. Is it even a necessary product?
Sure, you can hold that up in isolation, but offering a minimum of server and pro class type configurations spawns a whole lot of backend development that now leaks off to Microsoft and Linux. Development that in turn could fuel the iOS and low-end portable clients in myriads of ways.
Microsoft's server software now pulls the bulk of their revenue and is pivotal to their success and proliferation in the enterprise market. Of course going after this market is an entirely new ballgame that Apple in the past never have mastered, but then again they indirectly have to as iOS clients adaption increasingly is rising in SME and large enterprise alike. To be so entirely on the back burner in this area is frankly shocking.
It is also a matter of priority. Virtue signaling with red phones, that don't bring them one extra dollar in revenue, is more important than catering to their core and keeping existing product line current.
Apple's Macintosh hardware business is also not shrinking (for the record).
"a whole lot of backend development", is not data.
I'm guessing that Apple has the data on Mac Mini's being used for servers, and see's that it is not a viable market.
Even if Apple were to develop an SOC solution for an ARM analog for the Mac Mini, which might be cost effective, the market is still very small for the generated revenue. Let MS have that.
The NUC is also a solid platform for VMWare ESXi. I installed ESXi on a Mac Mini once, but quickly became frustrated and took it off.
Add to that the demise of OSX Server, I think the handwriting is on the wall for the Mini. Too bad IMO
I have a 2012 i7 quad core Mac Mini, which I used as the ESXi host at one point, but it's now sitting on my desk powered down. I also have a Skull Canyon NUC being used as an ESXi host. The NUC is running 12 VMs concurrently (with 32 GB of RAM installed). It boots ESXi off my NAS' LUN and all the VMs are hosted on the NAS LUNs as well. The NAS has an option to back up the LUNs, so it's a pretty sweet setup. The NUC has no internal storage at all - all the storage is on the NAS.
Yep, a very good use case for showing the NUC's usefulness but also a prime example of why Apple isn't losing any sleep over the Mini. Can you imagine Tim Cook getting up on stage during a keynote and trying to generate excitement and buzz around Apple launching a sexy new Mini to serve as an ESXi host to run multiple VMs, most of which are likely Linux based? This is simply not a market that Apple has decided to compete in. Based on Apple's revenue and bottom line numbers the lack of an updated Mini is costing them less-than-noise losses. Not "nothing" but indiscernible from nothing. Whatever Apple decides to do with a new Mini it has to fit into their portfolio, which is largely consumer, education, entertainment, creativity, etc. Maybe the Apple-IBM partnership could come up with interesting applications for a Mini, but why bother when blade server based platforms are already filling the needs of businesses and Apple doesn't have the domain expertise on the hardware side.
Boy this turned out to be a great click bait article! I can see AI posting a few more articles praising a non Apple PC then hiding till it's over. . Go to say, that new Intel / AMD Hades Canyon (tweaked for macOS) would be a nice addition to a new Mac mini IMHO.
Show me the data that demonstrated the viability of the product.
You are forced to have a computer turned on, logged in, and iTunes open to be able to access a local iTunes library from an Apple TV. That’s the purpose of the Mac Mini. Since Apple doesn’t care about their ecosystem anymore, and since Apple has discontinued the AirPort line, the odds that Apple will now let you take just a router, plug in a hard drive, and put a folder of iTunes Library-formatted content on it so you can stream it to your Apple TV is now 0%.
Discontinuing the (ancient) Mac Mini would mean that the cheapest (and lowest power) computer for doing this is the (ancient) MacBook Air. Using a laptop as an immobile local iTunes server. This is Apple now. “Just purchase everything you already own again and stream it, since that’s what Apple wants you to do” is not an argument. Not everyone lives in southern California. Not everyone makes six figures. Not everyone throws their entire lives on an unending stream of credit cards.
Soli said: What do you mean they don't put substantial resources into the Mac? Apple puts a great deal of R&D and plans ahead for years for the Mac. You may not like the Touch Bar, Touch ID, Apple Pay, or the T1 chip that runs it all, but that took considerable resources to do. macOS had to be rewritten so that it could support that very unique resolution OLED display, all the other tie ins for the other HW to the OS, and APIs and frameworks just for that feature to be work. Out of the gate developers could modify their apps to work with it, and a surprising number did just that, including typical holdouts like Adobe and MS, because of the efforts Apple put into making it easy for 3rd-party app developers to adopt. But, hey, you keep telling yourself that Apple doesn't care about the Mac.
Ok, yes, they've put some resources into the Mac, just not the right type, or under the right kind of guidance, I guess. What about just updating the product lines? I suppose, what you've pointed out to me proves, is that I should be very afraid for when they update the existing products?
That they have some X amount of budget attributed to Mac, and wasted it, doesn't make me feel much better. But, I'll take your point... so long as there is a Mac line item on the R&D or expenditures, I suppose the care about the Mac in some way. I should be grateful for small things.
Also, this again confirms the marketing-drive vs product-driven argument. They went for something flashy they could sell as 'innovation' to a particular crowd, rather than create an excellent line of products the users actually need.
geirnoklebye said: ... I know that not updating a product for multiple years usually means the product is EOL or there is a serious creativity crisis in product development/management.
Apple's main mantra for product development was always market creation, and they still do in some segments. However the decimation of the ecosystem around macOS signals a company in crisis that no longer are able to create and inspire in the product segment that still carries the company (in that all products rely on code generated on macOS).
...
Tim Cook stands at the risk of throwing out the very core base that was willing to pay a premium price exactly for that integrated environment where all worked. They came to Apple either because they did not have the time to tinker around or they simply had no interest in the technical issues as they were focused on other, to them more important things, where the Mac became their tool for expression, creativity and business development.
At this point, I don't need Apple's creativity... the machines, as they are (or were in a couple cases), are just fine. They need newer chips and ports. I'd actually rather they don't get creative, as this point!
re: 'throwing out the very core base' - The argument often given here is that we're just not important to Apple any longer, and they have such a huge new core base, it doesn't really matter if they lose us. I think that's a bad argument (as it will have huge impact), but I'm worried that argument is accurate, in that this is how Apple (Cook) is thinking too.
axcoatl said: I bet a lot that a typical user will not realize any signifficant performance difference, should he be asked to compare a 2014 Mac Mini to a 2018 NUC.
Thus, sure it would be great to get a new Mac Mini, but if you are only office, internet and media consumer, the 2014 Mac Mini will still fit to your requirements.
Well, I'd take the 2012 Mini when it had quad-cores, and be happy with it... *IF* it had modern ports and I knew it would have long-enough OS support from Apple. Yes, computers are now fast enough at that average user isn't so concerned with huge performance leaps, generation to generation. But, having current ports and OS support is important.
With that attitude Apple would have been toast in the 90-ties. It was not what we fought for; to let MS have it.
Show me the data that demonstrated the viability of the product.
The fact of the matter is that when Steve Jobs returned, he axed a number of products; that's why Apple survived.
The MS onslaught on Apple was ongoing while Steve was away, and to a large extent sorted by the time Steve returned to Apple. Steve only got the pleasure of executing an already prepared stab to Bill Gates that was mostly hidden from the public view. At the same time Steve saved Microsoft from being split by the DOJ. The stab was set in motion when it was detected Microsoft had stolen the QuickTime code for use in Video for Windows.
What Steve did was to axe the licensing program and some other activities that in many ways were as misguided as the ones Tim Cook & Co are on to now. His most important decision was to rewrite Mac OS based on Nextstep, and launch the resulting Mac OS X, which is the base of all current Apple products.
tenthousandthings said: ... However, although the promises themselves were vague, they were not anonymous. So I do think something is happening with the mini.
... Add to that the 2019 Mac Pro and at least one forthcoming Thunderbolt 3 Display, and there's just one major gap remaining: the non-Pro "Mac." The Mac "mini" has kinda, sorta fit into this space if you squint at it... ... I guess that's one reason why Apple didn't care to refresh the mini -- a lot of users were switching to iMacs (and MacBooks). The exodus/return to Windows that is so often held up here as a consequence of such decisions isn't altogether real, at least in the case of my sister, for whom the choice "iMac or Windows" was a no-brainer.
Tim has made a number of vague statements like that. The question is whether they indicate something or he's just being diplomatic, or trying to appease the base until some new product/change comes that he thinks will appease that base (i.e.: buying time).
But, I completely agree about that hole in the product line, and how the Mini could fit it (or some new product, should the Mini go lower-end in it's next revision). I'm sure hoping you're right!
re: move to iMac - Yes, that's the solution Apple would give me, I think, if I asked them. The Mini was for 'switchers' and they probably think everyone else should just buy an all-in-one iMac or laptop solution. I suppose that for many, that's a good-enough replacement. The problem for me is that I don't want a single-use display, and my experience with iMacs is that they aren't up to extended usage like a Mini, or the Mac Pro/iMac Pro have been.
tmay said: I'll go with 50,000 units/year x $1000 (seems high for out years) which is $50 million in revenue. With margins of 20% (from the graph, and estimate), that's $10 million in profit. But then there is that development cost for a product in a shrinking market, and the engineering and marketing costs to keep it fresh. Is it even a necessary product?
Better to keep pushing the rest of the existing line, the Mac Pro, and some ARM analog to the Mac Book.
I'm not even going to try and follow the math, but that sounds quite low to me. I know things are different today, but the last time I worked in an IT department, we had dozens of them in our server racks and another dozen or so on developer's desks around the office.
BUT.... (and I keep stressing this in so many posts), things in the real world don't work like pie-charts and spreadsheets might lead one to think. They'll sell even less Mac Pros, yet it's a crucial product to have in the lineup, just like Chevy doesn't sell as many Corvettes as they do Cobalts. If it is a relevant product to have in the lineup, the numbers are kind of irrelevant.
They don't necessarily need to keep the Mac Mini, but they do need a product roughly somewhat like what the Mini has been. (i.e.: a desktop Mac w/o a monitor)
I've been wanting to purchased a Mac mini for some time now for an office, but kept waiting for a refresh. I hope Apple does something sooner or later, or if anything, put a fire-sale on the current Mac to reflect the real price depreciation of the unit and I'll snap one up.
What a shame. I think Apple is dropping the ball here.
The mac mini has been my worst experience ever on a mac. Wish I hadn't gotten one. I mean, who hard wires RAM onto the motherboard anymore? And 4GBs??? There has been improvement, but I'm doing maintenance on a weekly basis (cache purging). I should have just ponied up the extra $$ and got the iMac.
What do you mean "anymore." Do you have a Mac from the 1980s with RAM soldered to the motherboard? If you do, that'll be worth a lot of money. Well, except that it's a fake.
RAM is soldered for a variety of reasons. It's ridiculous to be dumbfounded that RAM on an iPhone has soldered RAM on its motherboard. Are there lots of Android phones with socketed RAM you'd like to point out?
If 4GiB of RAM wasn't enough for you then you should've gotten more RAM, or if the soldering of RAM on a motherboard was some egegious issue then you shouldn't have gotten a Mac mini…. or a MB, or a MBP, or an iPhone, or an iPad, or an Apple Watch, or an iPod, or AirPods, or an AirPort, or countless other products by Apple and 3rd parties.
Good luck with your iMac. You better get a non-Pro 27" iMac if you want easy access to RAM because otherwise it's as good as soldered for someone like you.
PS: Bullshit on your "weekly cache purging" claim.
I was being computer specific with my 'ram soldered to the motherboard' comment as these devices have had consumer access to changing out the ram. My previous macs had user-upgradeable ram, I just assumed my mac mini did too. (Hell, even ram in my mac se was upgradeable, but I had to have it done). I assumed wrong based on my past experiences.
The cache purging was one of the suggestions I got from Apple Support. It seemed to help my situation quite a bit. I don't boot into safe mode weekly, but use a utility to purge application caches. This has been a positive step in my situation. If you think it's BS, fine. It does seem to make a difference for me.
k2kw said: Apple has been around 40 years now and will definitely be around in 100 Years. And I think the macOS will survive even if merged in with iOS so the mac will exist in some form.
Society is moving far too recklessly fast to predict 100 years out.
macxpress said: Oh great...now we have an armchair expert here! Just what we need! More of these type of people! You might as well be CEO now. You know what people want and Apple doesn't. Why don't you submit your resume?
I think Apple has made it quite clear through their choice and almost-admission recently, they they don't actually have a better handle on what people want/need than some of us here do. (And, you've made it abundantly clear you're a fanboy, so Apple can do no wrong.)
macxpress said: Yeah this is kinda my point here....But we have armchair experts who know everything! Can't tell them this stuff. Their head might explode!
The masses apparently want this! It's what really holding back Mac sales! Beforehand, they were just flying off shelves! Apple couldn't make enough of them! /s
I sure wish we could run this experiment. I'd bet you that if Apple built the right Mini or xMac type box that so many here want, it would outsell several products in Apple's lineup that they are putting considerable effort into.
Will it outsell the iPhone? No. But, I'm not the one measuring everything against the Pie-chart™.
I think that the next gen Mac mini will be Apple’s 1st foray into a custom chip solely powering an actual computer...
It makes sense that if there are growing pains, or that their 1st attempt doesn’t quite have the power of the latest gen i7, that they don’t put it in MacBook or iMac for another few generations.... However, Mac mini is the perfect platform to deliver such a new technology.
If that’s true- it may also help explain the delay. That’s an enormous undertaking!
True, but if that's the case, it isn't what many of us here are hoping for, and won't fill the hole in Apple's product lineup (like the 2012 Mini did).
dewme said: Can you imagine Tim Cook getting up on stage during a keynote and trying to generate excitement and buzz around Apple launching a sexy new Mini to serve as an ESXi host to run multiple VMs, most of which are likely Linux based?
He wouldn't do that for the Mac Pro either, but they will get used in those ways. He just needs to get up on stage (or just put out a press release) and say it's a modernized version of the computer the user-base has been asking for... and the crowd will go more wild than some 'innovative' thing no one wanted or needed.
Boy this turned out to be a great click bait article! I can see AI posting a few more articles praising a non Apple PC then hiding till it's over. . Go to say, that new Intel / AMD Hades Canyon (tweaked for macOS) would be a nice addition to a new Mac mini IMHO.
And... it wouldn't have worked unless the masses (at least of Apple journalism site followers) weren't chomping at the bit for it.
tmay said: The fact of the matter is that when Steve Jobs returned, he axed a number of products; that's why Apple survived.
Well, there's the Watch, HomePod, Apple AI efforts, TV shows ... Yes, Apple could use a house-cleaning.
geirnoklebye said: The MS onslaught on Apple was ongoing while Steve was away, and to a large extent sorted by the time Steve returned to Apple. Steve only got the pleasure of executing an already prepared stab to Bill Gates that was mostly hidden from the public view. At the same time Steve saved Microsoft from being split by the DOJ. The stab was set in motion when it was detected Microsoft had stolen the QuickTime code for use in Video for Windows.
Oh my, you really aren't following the 'M$ saved Apple' narrative, are you? (I always get a kick out of that story that is perpetrated everywhere!)
Oh boy...here we go! Continuous bitching about the Mac mini. I doubt most here are gonna buy one anyways.
Well, that was the most arrogant comment I’ve seen in a while. “Here we go”? Are you one of those who without any basis in fact, dump on AI writers and commenters with a legitimate criticism of Apple? Or are you merely a troll? I rarely see “bitching” on the MM in this forum so your comment has NO basis in fact.
My MacMini6,2 (Late 2012) is still the workhorse it was when i got it....after upgrading to 2x500Gb Samsung Evo Pro SSD's and 16Gb of RAM a few years back i'm still amazed at how well this thing works! I really hope they offer some more powerful minis in the future with better graphics options as thats really the only thing thats lacking with them.
Oh boy...here we go! Continuous bitching about the Mac mini. I doubt most here are gonna buy one anyways.
Well, that was the most arrogant comment I’ve seen in a while. “Here we go”? Are you one of those who without any basis in fact, dump on AI writers and commenters with a legitimate criticism of Apple? Or are you merely a troll? I rarely see “bitching” on the MM in this forum so your comment has NO basis in fact.
It's fine -- if the emails and messages I get in total during the week saying that I am Apple's biggest fanboy, and Tim Cook's sworn enemy are roughly equivalent in volume, then I'm doing my job right.
Oh boy...here we go! Continuous bitching about the Mac mini. I doubt most here are gonna buy one anyways.
Well, that was the most arrogant comment I’ve seen in a while. “Here we go”? Are you one of those who without any basis in fact, dump on AI writers and commenters with a legitimate criticism of Apple? Or are you merely a troll? I rarely see “bitching” on the MM in this forum so your comment has NO basis in fact.
I'm curious how you define his comment as arrogant. I not only see "bitching" about the Mac mini when it's a article about the Mac mini, but also when it's an alter about a different Mac, a non-Mac, or even about no Apple HW whatsoever. For example, head on over an article today about Cook doing a commencement speech at Duke and you'll see a commenter who decided it was the right time to bitch about the Mac mini. Or, just read the comments in this thread. I think macxpress' statement about it being "continuous" has a lot of merit.
My MacMini6,2 (Late 2012) is still the workhorse it was when i got it....after upgrading to 2x500Gb Samsung Evo Pro SSD's and 16Gb of RAM a few years back i'm still amazed at how well this thing works! I really hope they offer some more powerful minis in the future with better graphics options as thats really the only thing thats lacking with them.
Yeah, I'd buy a 2012 Mini if I weren't scared about OS support dropping off soon (and the GPU, which could be fixed with an eGPU and some hacking... though with huge performance loss).
Comments
Yeah this is kinda my point here....But we have armchair experts who know everything! Can't tell them this stuff. Their head might explode!
The masses apparently want this! It's what really holding back Mac sales! Beforehand, they were just flying off shelves! Apple couldn't make enough of them! /s
It makes sense that if there are growing pains, or that their 1st attempt doesn’t quite have the power of the latest gen i7, that they don’t put it in MacBook or iMac for another few generations.... However, Mac mini is the perfect platform to deliver such a new technology.
If that’s true- it may also help explain the delay. That’s an enormous undertaking!
I'm guessing that Apple has the data on Mac Mini's being used for servers, and see's that it is not a viable market.
Even if Apple were to develop an SOC solution for an ARM analog for the Mac Mini, which might be cost effective, the market is still very small for the generated revenue. Let MS have that.
The fact of the matter is that when Steve Jobs returned, he axed a number of products; that's why Apple survived.
Discontinuing the (ancient) Mac Mini would mean that the cheapest (and lowest power) computer for doing this is the (ancient) MacBook Air. Using a laptop as an immobile local iTunes server. This is Apple now. “Just purchase everything you already own again and stream it, since that’s what Apple wants you to do” is not an argument. Not everyone lives in southern California. Not everyone makes six figures. Not everyone throws their entire lives on an unending stream of credit cards.
That they have some X amount of budget attributed to Mac, and wasted it, doesn't make me feel much better. But, I'll take your point... so long as there is a Mac line item on the R&D or expenditures, I suppose the care about the Mac in some way. I should be grateful for small things.
Also, this again confirms the marketing-drive vs product-driven argument. They went for something flashy they could sell as 'innovation' to a particular crowd, rather than create an excellent line of products the users actually need.
At this point, I don't need Apple's creativity... the machines, as they are (or were in a couple cases), are just fine. They need newer chips and ports. I'd actually rather they don't get creative, as this point!
re: 'throwing out the very core base' - The argument often given here is that we're just not important to Apple any longer, and they have such a huge new core base, it doesn't really matter if they lose us. I think that's a bad argument (as it will have huge impact), but I'm worried that argument is accurate, in that this is how Apple (Cook) is thinking too.
Well, I'd take the 2012 Mini when it had quad-cores, and be happy with it... *IF* it had modern ports and I knew it would have long-enough OS support from Apple. Yes, computers are now fast enough at that average user isn't so concerned with huge performance leaps, generation to generation. But, having current ports and OS support is important.
The MS onslaught on Apple was ongoing while Steve was away, and to a large extent sorted by the time Steve returned to Apple. Steve only got the pleasure of executing an already prepared stab to Bill Gates that was mostly hidden from the public view. At the same time Steve saved Microsoft from being split by the DOJ. The stab was set in motion when it was detected Microsoft had stolen the QuickTime code for use in Video for Windows.
What Steve did was to axe the licensing program and some other activities that in many ways were as misguided as the ones Tim Cook & Co are on to now. His most important decision was to rewrite Mac OS based on Nextstep, and launch the resulting Mac OS X, which is the base of all current Apple products.
Tim has made a number of vague statements like that. The question is whether they indicate something or he's just being diplomatic, or trying to appease the base until some new product/change comes that he thinks will appease that base (i.e.: buying time).
But, I completely agree about that hole in the product line, and how the Mini could fit it (or some new product, should the Mini go lower-end in it's next revision). I'm sure hoping you're right!
re: move to iMac - Yes, that's the solution Apple would give me, I think, if I asked them. The Mini was for 'switchers' and they probably think everyone else should just buy an all-in-one iMac or laptop solution. I suppose that for many, that's a good-enough replacement. The problem for me is that I don't want a single-use display, and my experience with iMacs is that they aren't up to extended usage like a Mini, or the Mac Pro/iMac Pro have been.
I'm not even going to try and follow the math, but that sounds quite low to me. I know things are different today, but the last time I worked in an IT department, we had dozens of them in our server racks and another dozen or so on developer's desks around the office.
BUT.... (and I keep stressing this in so many posts), things in the real world don't work like pie-charts and spreadsheets might lead one to think. They'll sell even less Mac Pros, yet it's a crucial product to have in the lineup, just like Chevy doesn't sell as many Corvettes as they do Cobalts. If it is a relevant product to have in the lineup, the numbers are kind of irrelevant.
They don't necessarily need to keep the Mac Mini, but they do need a product roughly somewhat like what the Mini has been. (i.e.: a desktop Mac w/o a monitor)
The cache purging was one of the suggestions I got from Apple Support. It seemed to help my situation quite a bit. I don't boot into safe mode weekly, but use a utility to purge application caches. This has been a positive step in my situation. If you think it's BS, fine. It does seem to make a difference for me.
I think Apple has made it quite clear through their choice and almost-admission recently, they they don't actually have a better handle on what people want/need than some of us here do. (And, you've made it abundantly clear you're a fanboy, so Apple can do no wrong.)
I sure wish we could run this experiment. I'd bet you that if Apple built the right Mini or xMac type box that so many here want, it would outsell several products in Apple's lineup that they are putting considerable effort into.
Will it outsell the iPhone? No. But, I'm not the one measuring everything against the Pie-chart™.
True, but if that's the case, it isn't what many of us here are hoping for, and won't fill the hole in Apple's product lineup (like the 2012 Mini did).
He wouldn't do that for the Mac Pro either, but they will get used in those ways. He just needs to get up on stage (or just put out a press release) and say it's a modernized version of the computer the user-base has been asking for... and the crowd will go more wild than some 'innovative' thing no one wanted or needed.
And... it wouldn't have worked unless the masses (at least of Apple journalism site followers) weren't chomping at the bit for it.
Well, there's the Watch, HomePod, Apple AI efforts, TV shows ... Yes, Apple could use a house-cleaning.
Oh my, you really aren't following the 'M$ saved Apple' narrative, are you?