Price is my main concern, too. The starting price in Canada is $999. Not exactly a budget computer price, where the Mac mini originally filled a gap. Now it's been pushed into Pro space.
I'm curious about the "Mac Stack" configuration. They dropped support for Xgrid, so what grid computing technology is in use here? Nobody is saying anything about this. It's exactly what I want.... a modular Mac solution. Don't replace entirely, but supplement with more compute modules.
I’m with you 100% with the thought of adding minis together to create a single parallel computing resource (as the fabled Transputer promised). I was surprised they were connected via Ethernet rather than Thunderbolt 3 as it advantages have already been shown with the the external GPU option.
I can only say that Apple did very nice job this time. I have been using minis since 2006. The gap between 2012 and 2018 was bad. Last six years minis were nothing to buy. 2018 is huge improbvement oover 2012 quad cores not to mention last years poor minis. Now I can upgrade. The only little issue is small SSD, but having that newest Ethernet allows for processing using fast external server storage. So no bi issue there.
As far as price, folks, th is is what you get if you push that hard for SSD. It is still expensive. Just go the Apple Store and build few of them (I did) and you will see where the cost comes. You asked for it. I still like spinning drives and they last (if made properly) for many years for fraction of a price per GB comparing to SSD.
At those prices, the Mini will go they way of the Cube. Then Apple will claim that there was no interest... Um, duh!
I disagree. I believe they'll be used in a lot of server farms and in the enterprise for companies that use Apple products. It's just my opinion/hope. I think these Mac Minis are built like bricks and will last a long, trouble-free time. There's not much that can fail on them. If I spend $1700 on a Mac Mini tailored for my needs and the Mac Mini lasts five trouble-free years, I'll definitely feel I got my money's worth. I don't care if a Windows PC NUC is cheaper or slightly more powerful, I'm still going with the Mac.
I agree with everyone who says this is horribly overpriced. I cursed for a good few hours, but ultimately caved and ordered the $1,100 i5 6-core config, 256GB. I had to reming myself that I am not paying for specs. I am paying to have Mac OS and not Windows. That is worth the markup.
It might help to remind everyone that we are now living in a world where unskilled minimum wage earners make $15/hour. An $800 Mac mini is a paltry sum and makes more sense in comparison.
I used to think of buying a home PC as an every two year phenomenon. Of course that was when I purchased Wintel devices. Current iMac is a 2011. I put an SSD in it and it runs fine. So 7 years and its still going. These prices as such are not out of line.
Seriously! A fully configured Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse and monitor is over $4299!
for what? I7 6 core, with 64gb ram and a 1.5tb SSD. That’s a $1800 PC. Come on apple. Get real.
Who’s forcing you to order the maxed-out top-tier machine? Are you OK? Do you need help?
Oh, you’re just whining about price. Would it make you feel better if Apple didn’t offer that top-tier? If everyone of all income-levels had to buy the same exact lower-tier machine? Would that make it better?
Even the lower spec'd machines are ridiculously overpriced. I guess some people don't mind paying for "awesome engineering as a feature". Count me out. The value proposition just isn't there. And don't give me that crap about Apple using more awesomer components than every other computer manufacturer. They source the same parts as every other manufacturer. They don't get better Intel I3 chips. They don't get better RAM. They don't get better hard drives.
That's nonsense. It's 800 bucks. The mini was launched for 500 in 2005, which with inflation is at least $650 in today's dollars. It was a bare-bones, low-powered machine, using mobile parts. Today's is 800, which is $150 more -- and for that it's a much, much more capable machine. If you can't spend $150 for the much improved capabilities, then you probably never needed one.
It's not a cheapee commodity PC. Macs are premium, and have a lower TCO. You couldn't pay me $150 to use a commodity PC.
I used to think of buying a home PC as an every two year phenomenon. Of course that was when I purchased Wintel devices. Current iMac is a 2011. I put an SSD in it and it runs fine. So 7 years and its still going. These prices as such are not out of line.
Likewise -- I'm an enterprise software dev, and while I have a speedy MBP, my desktop (which I also dev on) is a 2011 iMac, was maxed out with SSD, RAM and VRAM. It's a great machine. The TCO on Mac absolutely crushes the competition.
it is absolutely unbelievable what Apple charges for these things. The base model is $799 and only comes with an I3 processor, 8 GB RAM, and a 128 SSD drive. Want to upgrade to 256 GB? That'll be $200...the cost of a 1TB SSD on Amazon.
Ridiculous.
Those SSDs aren't even close to equivalent in performance. The $200 1TB SSD is 1/6 the speed of the Apple drive.
I get where you're coming from, but compare like with like.
You have to pay attention that primary characteristic of storage is capacity and speed is secondary. You may want to ask yourself what you could do with only 12GB storage that is 60 times faster. Would you buy it? 128 GB came with my MacBook Air 11 inch in 2010 that is eight years ago. Regardless of how fast it was it was handling those days projects. The key is balance of primary characteristic with secondary. Speed is only impression if you cannot handle todays projects due to low capacity on storage. People go for slower storage frequently because they need more of it. It is still improvement over spinning disks. i would say if Apple offered minimum 256GB with half of the speed it offers it would give more comfort to more users. Just make it paid option to get faster drives and everybody is happy.
I'm a tad confused. The T2 chip is supposed to enable things like Touch ID and camera control. But these devices don't exist on a Mac Mini. Can someone provide a list of all the things this T2 chip won't be doing in the Mini? Is it more like a T1.5 chip since it only does certain functions?
The Apple T2 Security Chip, our second-generation custom Mac silicon, brings industry-leading security to Mac. It features a Secure Enclave coprocessor, which provides the foundation for APFS encrypted storage, secure boot, and Touch ID on Mac.
In addition to the security components, the T2 chip integrates several controllers found in other Mac systems—like the system management controller, image signal processor, audio controller, and SSD controller.
A dedicated AES hardware engine included in the T2 chip powers line-speed encrypted storage with FileVault. FileVault provides data-at-rest protection for Mac. The T2 chip is the hardware root of trust for secure boot. Secure boot ensures that the lowest levels of software aren’t tampered with and that only trusted operating system software loads at startup.
On Mac computers with Touch ID and the T2 chip, the Secure Enclave also secures Touch ID. In addition, all Mac portables with the T2 chip have a hardware disconnect that ensures the microphone is disabled when the lid is closed.
... With the MBP I'm using it as a closed desktop about 99% of the time, completely ignoring the investment in the monitor, keyboard, touchpad and touchbar. Hence my pondering if the integrated UHD 630 would be sufficient for Illustrator/Photoshop work (packaging design mostly, so no bigger than 500MB) Saves serious money, is very easy to carry around, and I'm using all of what I pay for.
I just don't have a good feel for the UHD 630, but you can always add an eGPU. I hope it's faster than some of the previous integrated graphics in the mini or other Mac models, or at least equivalent to them. I'm not sure which MBP model you use, but it would be interesting to see a comparison between some of the integrated graphics. If you have the one with dedicated graphics, then it's going to be quite a bit slower, I think (GPU-wise).
... I don’t mind form factor is the same but lack of anything new other than faster and different ports makes me wonder why it’s taken sooooooo long to get a refresh. Disappointing but thankful it’s at least got released.
Like what, though? If it has the latest in terms of CPU, ports, GPU (for what it is), etc. and one doesn't update the form-factor (would it be a 'mini' then?)... what would have been done to it that you'd like?
As I said previously, I'm nearly overjoyed they DIDN'T try to redesign it too much and muck it up!
As far as price, folks, th is is what you get if you push that hard for SSD. It is still expensive. Just go the Apple Store and build few of them (I did) and you will see where the cost comes. You asked for it. I still like spinning drives and they last (if made properly) for many years for fraction of a price per GB comparing to SSD.
For sure, but I don't think I'll ever buy a computer with a spinning disk again. Plus, it's just too easy to add externally now, and be fast too.
maciekskontakt said: You have to pay attention that primary characteristic of storage is capacity and speed is secondary. You may want to ask yourself what you could do with only 12GB storage that is 60 times faster. Would you buy it? 128 GB came with my MacBook Air 11 inch in 2010 that is eight years ago. Regardless of how fast it was it was handling those days projects. The key is balance of primary characteristic with secondary. Speed is only impression if you cannot handle todays projects due to low capacity on storage. People go for slower storage frequently because they need more of it. It is still improvement over spinning disks. i would say if Apple offered minimum 256GB with half of the speed it offers it would give more comfort to more users. Just make it paid option to get faster drives and everybody is happy.
I don't agree with your whole argument, but I do here (bolded). There is a huge difference between a spinning disk and a basic SSD. There is also a huge difference between a basic SSD and what's in Apple's computers. But, for the majority of users, they'd probably opt for the basic SSD and lower prices where they to try out machines equipped with both.
That said, I think most of us who have been using rather small SSD equipped Macs now for almost a decade, have redesigned our workflows around that and easily add some cheap (but still rather fast) external storage. The internal SSD is for the OS, apps, and 'scratch space'.
I get the appeal of the MacMini (sort of)...but it seems so antithetical to Apple's design ethos. I.e., cables, cables, too many cables! Looking at a MacMini with a keyboard, mouse and monitor from Walmart or Amazon looks so 'cludgy!' I'd much prefer an iMac with only one power cable coming out the back or my 2017 MacBook (rose gold) with no cables at all!
Except that if you actually take the laptop (especially a MBA or MBP) and start adding cables, docks, etc., you quickly have an even bigger mess. At lease with a mini or Mac Pro, the cables are all coming neatly out the back. Yes, the iMac is even more elegant... but it's also way more limited.
Seriously! A fully configured Mac Mini without keyboard, mouse and monitor is over $4299!
for what? I7 6 core, with 64gb ram and a 1.5tb SSD. That’s a $1800 PC. Come on apple. Get real.
Who’s forcing you to order the maxed-out top-tier machine? Are you OK? Do you need help?
Oh, you’re just whining about price. Would it make you feel better if Apple didn’t offer that top-tier? If everyone of all income-levels had to buy the same exact lower-tier machine? Would that make it better?
Even the lower spec'd machines are ridiculously overpriced. I guess some people don't mind paying for "awesome engineering as a feature". Count me out. The value proposition just isn't there. And don't give me that crap about Apple using more awesomer components than every other computer manufacturer. They source the same parts as every other manufacturer. They don't get better Intel I3 chips. They don't get better RAM. They don't get better hard drives.
Just for grins and giggles, why don't you find the magical machine that you think is out there. For a $799 price, you get a quad core coffee lake i3 (8100 on ark) that consistently benchmarks at 15000-16000 on Geekbench for similar configurations (http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=8100&sort=multicore_score), 2666 MHZ ddr4 memory, and fast SSD. That does not seem overpriced at all (even given that Apple almost sells at premium)
I will say when others have tried this, they were comparing vastly inferior machines e.g. dual core i3, and surprise! they were cheaper.
I will admit, I am guessing on the intel chip, but the 8100 is the only quad core 3.6 ghz i3 on Ark (and apple does use this chip on other builds).
I get the appeal of the MacMini (sort of)...but it seems so antithetical to Apple's design ethos.
I.e., cables, cables, too many cables!
Looking at a MacMini with a keyboard, mouse and monitor from Walmart or Amazon looks so 'cludgy!'
I'd much prefer an iMac with only one power cable coming out the back or my 2017 MacBook (rose gold) with no cables at all!
Mine would be barely visible below a 43” 4K display. I could mount it on the display if I cared.
keyboard and mouse are wireless from Logitech. I actually prefer them the Apple...especially the mouse.
given the two things connected to my Mac Pro is a fireproof disk and a raid array those two would still be connected to an iMac. The only additional box vs an iMac would be for an eGPU...that doubles as a dock.
Ok, so here’s my take on the new mini: 1/ Great desktop class CPU. 65w rather than 95w, but that’s still equal to, if not better, than an AIO (iMac) is likely to ever get. 2/ Upgradable RAM. Ok, 2 slots rather than 4, but that still allows up to 64MB, which should be enough for many (most?) users. 3/ Terrible iGPU (Intel’s faut) and no BTO option (Apple’s ... choice). The supplied Intel UHD630 has *half* the performance of the Nvidia GTX 680mx in my 6 year old iMac! But, this surely helps the thermals. 4/ Open question on the thermals, but supposedly x2 better cooling than the previous mini. To be seen, but given the weak GPU included, fingers crossed that this will be enough to avoid thermal throttling. 5/ 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports. At 1st glance that’s fantastic, but dig a bit deeper and it’s pretty clear that they’re hanging off 1 Thunderbolt 3 controller (somehow - controllers more generally support 2, not 4 ports).
It appears that Apple is positioning this new mini to cover needs up to “pro” or “power” users, yet points 3 and 5 contradict this to a certain extent. If you need better graphics performance use an eGPU (aside fairly significant cost and aesthetics that don’t match the mini), but eGPU or otherwise, the moment you plug a display in, you will consume bandwidth on the (estimated, not confirmed) single TB3 controller. This will potentially limit what else you might want to add to this otherwise nice machine. Especially, I can’t see how you can hang 2x 5K displays from this machine, with or without eGPUs. And 2x 4K displays leave very little bandwidth for anything else.
Separately from the above bandwidth constraint, can 2x 4K displays can be accelerated by 1 eGPU such as the Blackmagic? And if not, can 2 Blackmagic eGPUs be linked to 1 mini (that is to say, to 1 TB3 controller)?
Will the above be a real issue for users? Probably not for everyone, but it *might* be an issue for the more demanding users that this mini appears to want to cater for at the upper end of the scale. What do you think? Would an accelerated 5K display and 2 high performance raid arrays work at full capacity? What about 2x 4K displays and 2 raid arrays?
Lot's of comments about cost, and even more comments to justify the cost. Apple customers are the best. There was a time when Apple would hold a keynote and they would brag about the price staying the same or remaining very close to the price of the product they were replacing or upgrading. Those days are gone.
I love Apple products and will buy a Mini, but to increase the price for a base unit by $300, include only a 128gb of storage, and an i3 processor is insulting. We already got slapped in the face when Apple downgraded the mini for 2014, and the same strategy continues. Granted those entry level machines will be fine for the "switchers" or those who need a desktop for web browsing or email, but many of us are going to fork up some coin to get a decent spec'd machine. It's all relative. Ya the new mini can be configured to be pretty impressive, but it's going to cost you. To me that contradicts my whole reason for purchasing a mini.
The base mini used to have an i5, granted now its an older spec, but at the time it was competitive for what it was and was considered a good value. I guess waiting four years to upgrade a product line gives one the luxury of claiming the new machines are much faster and better than the old ones, thus the price increase.
When it comes to Apple prices it makes me think of a line for a Green Day song, "I may be dumb, But I'm not a dweeb, I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem". So I keep buying even though I know the value is not there. Things we do to stay in the "eco-system".
Comments
It's not a cheapee commodity PC. Macs are premium, and have a lower TCO. You couldn't pay me $150 to use a commodity PC.
I.e., cables, cables, too many cables!
Looking at a MacMini with a keyboard, mouse and monitor from Walmart or Amazon looks so 'cludgy!'
I'd much prefer an iMac with only one power cable coming out the back or my 2017 MacBook (rose gold) with no cables at all!
Like what, though? If it has the latest in terms of CPU, ports, GPU (for what it is), etc. and one doesn't update the form-factor (would it be a 'mini' then?)... what would have been done to it that you'd like?
As I said previously, I'm nearly overjoyed they DIDN'T try to redesign it too much and muck it up!
For sure, but I don't think I'll ever buy a computer with a spinning disk again. Plus, it's just too easy to add externally now, and be fast too.
I don't agree with your whole argument, but I do here (bolded). There is a huge difference between a spinning disk and a basic SSD. There is also a huge difference between a basic SSD and what's in Apple's computers. But, for the majority of users, they'd probably opt for the basic SSD and lower prices where they to try out machines equipped with both.
That said, I think most of us who have been using rather small SSD equipped Macs now for almost a decade, have redesigned our workflows around that and easily add some cheap (but still rather fast) external storage. The internal SSD is for the OS, apps, and 'scratch space'.
Except that if you actually take the laptop (especially a MBA or MBP) and start adding cables, docks, etc., you quickly have an even bigger mess. At lease with a mini or Mac Pro, the cables are all coming neatly out the back. Yes, the iMac is even more elegant... but it's also way more limited.
I will say when others have tried this, they were comparing vastly inferior machines e.g. dual core i3, and surprise! they were cheaper.
I will admit, I am guessing on the intel chip, but the 8100 is the only quad core 3.6 ghz i3 on Ark (and apple does use this chip on other builds).
keyboard and mouse are wireless from Logitech. I actually prefer them the Apple...especially the mouse.
given the two things connected to my Mac Pro is a fireproof disk and a raid array those two would still be connected to an iMac. The only additional box vs an iMac would be for an eGPU...that doubles as a dock.
1/ Great desktop class CPU. 65w rather than 95w, but that’s still equal to, if not better, than an AIO (iMac) is likely to ever get.
2/ Upgradable RAM. Ok, 2 slots rather than 4, but that still allows up to 64MB, which should be enough for many (most?) users.
3/ Terrible iGPU (Intel’s faut) and no BTO option (Apple’s ... choice). The supplied Intel UHD630 has *half* the performance of the Nvidia GTX 680mx in my 6 year old iMac! But, this surely helps the thermals.
4/ Open question on the thermals, but supposedly x2 better cooling than the previous mini. To be seen, but given the weak GPU included, fingers crossed that this will be enough to avoid thermal throttling.
5/ 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports. At 1st glance that’s fantastic, but dig a bit deeper and it’s pretty clear that they’re hanging off 1 Thunderbolt 3 controller (somehow - controllers more generally support 2, not 4 ports).
The last point is a potential bottleneck. The 4 TB3 ports on the mini “only” support 1x 5K display or 2x 4K displays. 2 controllers would double this. See https://thunderbolttechnology.net/sites/default/files/Thunderbolt3_TechBrief_FINAL.pdf for details.
It appears that Apple is positioning this new mini to cover needs up to “pro” or “power” users, yet points 3 and 5 contradict this to a certain extent. If you need better graphics performance use an eGPU (aside fairly significant cost and aesthetics that don’t match the mini), but eGPU or otherwise, the moment you plug a display in, you will consume bandwidth on the (estimated, not confirmed) single TB3 controller. This will potentially limit what else you might want to add to this otherwise nice machine. Especially, I can’t see how you can hang 2x 5K displays from this machine, with or without eGPUs. And 2x 4K displays leave very little bandwidth for anything else.
Separately from the above bandwidth constraint, can 2x 4K displays can be accelerated by 1 eGPU such as the Blackmagic? And if not, can 2 Blackmagic eGPUs be linked to 1 mini (that is to say, to 1 TB3 controller)?
Will the above be a real issue for users? Probably not for everyone, but it *might* be an issue for the more demanding users that this mini appears to want to cater for at the upper end of the scale. What do you think? Would an accelerated 5K display and 2 high performance raid arrays work at full capacity? What about 2x 4K displays and 2 raid arrays?
I love Apple products and will buy a Mini, but to increase the price for a base unit by $300, include only a 128gb of storage, and an i3 processor is insulting. We already got slapped in the face when Apple downgraded the mini for 2014, and the same strategy continues. Granted those entry level machines will be fine for the "switchers" or those who need a desktop for web browsing or email, but many of us are going to fork up some coin to get a decent spec'd machine. It's all relative. Ya the new mini can be configured to be pretty impressive, but it's going to cost you. To me that contradicts my whole reason for purchasing a mini.
The base mini used to have an i5, granted now its an older spec, but at the time it was competitive for what it was and was considered a good value. I guess waiting four years to upgrade a product line gives one the luxury of claiming the new machines are much faster and better than the old ones, thus the price increase.
When it comes to Apple prices it makes me think of a line for a Green Day song, "I may be dumb, But I'm not a dweeb, I'm just a sucker with no self-esteem". So I keep buying even though I know the value is not there. Things we do to stay in the "eco-system".
If those were correct then the i3 mini represents a great value.