I have found the mac mini to be the best Apple solution for small to mid sized businesses. Why put extra money into larger than needed screens for checkouts. Set up internal server to connect the units and away you go. Very practical and efficient. Integrate the iPad or iPhone with them and your off and running.
Apple is certainly creating a lot of pent-up demand for the Mac mini by stretching out the refresh period this time! When it does come (probably Broadwell equipped in the fall) I think it's going to sell like hotcakes! And not just to all of us who have been waiting for it for so long now. I think they will probably inaugurate a new push for the general public, now that iOS devices are so popular among "non-Apple" people. Crossover time is ripe right now, and even more so in the fall with all the new goodies coming. A re-designed, smaller box with possibly AppleTV functionality built-in, and games, would sell like crazy to said public. They would eat it up. I think Apple is not neglecting it at all, but is crazy like a fox, and intent on truly maximizing sales, in the run-up to Christmas, of a brand-new, greatly enhanced machine. Or so we can hope...!
So I just don't buy the argument that Apple is resource-constrained.
The meaning of the resources argument, from my point of view at least, is not financial. Obviously there is ample cash to spend. The point is that Apple does not want to spend for such reasons. They proved it years ago, as I mentioned before, in the case of the pair OS X - iOS development. They had already tons of new cash each year in order to expand their developer teams, if they wanted to. Instead, they chose to move developers around according to the needs. They always try to push the available human resources to their limit. But this may mean delays and neglect for products that are not in the front line.
I don't see it being as small as the AppleTV, but I could see it being about the size of the USB SuperDrive (only taller). That would be significantly smaller and impressive, especially if they can keep the power supply internal.
The Mini: I see it as being in the same footprint as the Airport Extreme, but 1/2-1/3 the height. Maybe even a 1/2 cylinder of a Mac Pro, utilizing some of the cooling technologies... or even be passive cooling. It can't be too small, as it will need 2 antenna to be an effective 802.11ac receiver.
I see the superdrive being an add-on. Apple will forge ahead with the 'all content is streaming content' design.
The meaning of the resources argument, from my point of view at least, is not financial. Obviously there is ample cash to spend. The point is that Apple does not want to spend for such reasons. They proved it years ago, as I mentioned before, in the case of the pair OS X - iOS development. They had already tons of new cash each year in order to expand their developer teams, if they wanted to. Instead, they chose to move developers around according to the needs. They always try to push the available human resources to their limit. But this may mean delays and neglect for products that are not in the front line.
This is more like it, seems to me. Keep focus, move like a start-up, stay nimble. Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine were recently backing up this idea
Plus, good engineers don't grow on trees, and money can't buy everything.
The meaning of the resources argument, from my point of view at least, is not financial. Obviously there is ample cash to spend. The point is that Apple does not want to spend for such reasons. They proved it years ago, as I mentioned before, in the case of the pair OS X - iOS development. They had already tons of new cash each year in order to expand their developer teams, if they wanted to. Instead, they chose to move developers around according to the needs. They always try to push the available human resources to their limit. But this may mean delays and neglect for products that are not in the front line.
Perhaps there is a specialized business usage of the term "resource constrained" that I'm not aware of. I was only reading from a laymans perspective. But what you're describing, PB, is a choice, not a constraint, IMO. Similarly, if I choose to spend my weekends at the beach instead of mowing my lawn, it's not a resource constraint. It's a resource restraint. It's a choice. My neighbors might not like it, but like Apple, I have my priorities, which include gas money for the beach, but not for gardeners.
It's hard to constantly update your machines when there isn't much to update to.
If Apple were to release a Retina iMac with just a small increase in speed and the same or similar graphics, people would be bitching up a storm.
but they would bumping up against their Mac Pro low end.... I can't see a $1300 Retina iMac with Mac Pro like graphics. They will use the top of the line Haswell aligned Intel Graphics and something less than a D300 chipset as an upgrade.
Apple's upgrade path here is to build out the obsolescence curve for future OSX releases, maintain a cost/performance envelope <$1500, and align with the market in terms of components and features.
[...] Could this be the first Mac using an A9 chip???
I wonder if Apple is secretly optimizing Yosemite for their own processors along side of Intels?
No. Makes no sense. That sort of announcement would be made at WWDC. Developers need to be the first to know.
No.
Well, Maybe. But not in the way you think.
Switching to Swift allows them rejigger their entire compiler stack. Other than the deepest bowels of the kernel, all OSX/iOS frameworks will port to Swift over time, and that portation will optimise the common core set of frameworks, as well as develop a Intel/Aseries optimized LLVM.
So I just don't buy the argument that Apple is resource-constrained. Rather, I think Apple is just moving deliberately, on its own schedule, working to ensure continued product value. And the Mini is supposed to be a "switcher" device, but it's turned out that iOS is a better "switcher engine", so I'm not surprised that Apple has decided to let the sleeping dog lie for a while.
Apple has always been modestly staffed; they are very careful about who they hire, they simply won't grab some random schmuck walking down De Anza Boulevard to fill up a chair.
Here's what we know: iPhones and iPads have dominated both unit sales and overall company revenue for many years (Macs are an increasingly smaller part of the revenue pie). We also know that notebooks are around 75% of total Mac unit sales. In 2013, Apple sold about 7 million Macs, so let's say that there were 2 million Mac desktops sold. We don't know the exact breakdown of sales per model type, but let's say that 75% of desktop Macs were iMacs (a number which I believe to be higher) but for the sake of this analysis, we'll say 500,000 Mac desktops are either Mac minis or Mac Pros.
That's not a lot of boxes.
My hunch is that Apple has a Mac Desktop engineering team that splits time between the Mac Pro and the Mac mini (and possibly to the iMac, although the latter product line has enough sales to probably merit a separate team). Things that the team learns from working on the Mac Pro can be applied to the mini, and vice versa. It makes no sense for Apple to run two fully independent teams on product lines that have such small sales. There is a good chance that the team that designed the new Mac Pro is working on the next generation Mac mini as we speak, and will switch back to the Mac Pro. Unlike the notebooks and the iMac which have some motivation to ship for the "back to school" sales season, that is not really the case for the Mac mini nor Mac Pro. Sure, there are deadlines for that team, but the deadlines don't correspond to a typical release cycle which is why Mac Pro started shipping a few units at the end of last year.
Apple has not gone a wild hiring spree for Mac engineers, so one might deduce that management is relative satisfied with the pace of new Mac products in their pipeline.
Does anyone have any idea what kind of GPU they will use for the new high end model? I hope they stick to nvidia. As a 3D artist, nvidia is a priority now, I use CUDA software.
Maybe GTX 880M... It's the fastest mobile GPU with 8 GB + low power consumption which make sane for the slim design.
I just ordered the current model but the credit was not yet approved. So I have a little door open for the new one. What do you think? Should I wait for the new one or should I continue with the current one?
Okay, after having some time to re-read things again (and view everyone else's helpful comments), I too think (hope!) that Apple has grand plans for the mini. That said, a minor refresh in the meantime would be appreciated. The base-level iMac had a perfectly-decent quad-core i5 with Iris Pro graphics, and I've no doubt that, if this config turned up in the next Mac mini refresh, there'd be many interested buyers, myself included.
Count me as another who has been patiently waiting for a refreshed MacMini for a full year now. I already have a keyboard, mouse and monitor. I just need a Mac that's well under the $1k threshold, but is powerful and has tons of memory. I don't need an iMac. The MacBook is out of my price range. The MacAir doesn't quite cut it for me (I have an iPadAir instead). The MacMini is perfect (with max'ed out RAM and large HD space), great price point, and it's small enough to be portable.
A mini that would do double-duty as an AppleTV would be pretty cool. Throw in a digital TV antenna for local programming and DVR functionality and we've got something.
I agree. I have no reason to buy an iMac without a Retina Display.
I'm much happier with a fast Mac mini and whatever 1080p display(s) I choose. As long as the 21.5" is still 1080p like every other 21.5" monitor I have no incentive to get an iMac over a Mac mini.
Comments
So I just don't buy the argument that Apple is resource-constrained.
The meaning of the resources argument, from my point of view at least, is not financial. Obviously there is ample cash to spend. The point is that Apple does not want to spend for such reasons. They proved it years ago, as I mentioned before, in the case of the pair OS X - iOS development. They had already tons of new cash each year in order to expand their developer teams, if they wanted to. Instead, they chose to move developers around according to the needs. They always try to push the available human resources to their limit. But this may mean delays and neglect for products that are not in the front line.
I don't see it being as small as the AppleTV, but I could see it being about the size of the USB SuperDrive (only taller). That would be significantly smaller and impressive, especially if they can keep the power supply internal.
The Mini: I see it as being in the same footprint as the Airport Extreme, but 1/2-1/3 the height. Maybe even a 1/2 cylinder of a Mac Pro, utilizing some of the cooling technologies... or even be passive cooling. It can't be too small, as it will need 2 antenna to be an effective 802.11ac receiver.
I see the superdrive being an add-on. Apple will forge ahead with the 'all content is streaming content' design.
This is more like it, seems to me. Keep focus, move like a start-up, stay nimble. Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine were recently backing up this idea
Plus, good engineers don't grow on trees, and money can't buy everything.
The meaning of the resources argument, from my point of view at least, is not financial. Obviously there is ample cash to spend. The point is that Apple does not want to spend for such reasons. They proved it years ago, as I mentioned before, in the case of the pair OS X - iOS development. They had already tons of new cash each year in order to expand their developer teams, if they wanted to. Instead, they chose to move developers around according to the needs. They always try to push the available human resources to their limit. But this may mean delays and neglect for products that are not in the front line.
Perhaps there is a specialized business usage of the term "resource constrained" that I'm not aware of. I was only reading from a laymans perspective. But what you're describing, PB, is a choice, not a constraint, IMO. Similarly, if I choose to spend my weekends at the beach instead of mowing my lawn, it's not a resource constraint. It's a resource restraint. It's a choice. My neighbors might not like it, but like Apple, I have my priorities, which include gas money for the beach, but not for gardeners.
If it doesn't get a retina or 4K screen- NOT INTERESTED.
I wouldn't go as as far as saying not interested, but I don't see them releasing an iMac with Retina/4K without an 'event'
I feel this will be a '.5' upgrade
new CPU new graphics
Fusion Drive as the base drive.
HDMI 1.4ultra output
same price.
Current units drop in price, significantly if you're an educational buyer (that's the correct timing for Back to School sales).
It's hard to constantly update your machines when there isn't much to update to.
If Apple were to release a Retina iMac with just a small increase in speed and the same or similar graphics, people would be bitching up a storm.
but they would bumping up against their Mac Pro low end.... I can't see a $1300 Retina iMac with Mac Pro like graphics. They will use the top of the line Haswell aligned Intel Graphics and something less than a D300 chipset as an upgrade.
Apple's upgrade path here is to build out the obsolescence curve for future OSX releases, maintain a cost/performance envelope <$1500, and align with the market in terms of components and features.
No. Makes no sense. That sort of announcement would be made at WWDC. Developers need to be the first to know.
No.
Well, Maybe. But not in the way you think.
Switching to Swift allows them rejigger their entire compiler stack. Other than the deepest bowels of the kernel, all OSX/iOS frameworks will port to Swift over time, and that portation will optimise the common core set of frameworks, as well as develop a Intel/Aseries optimized LLVM.
So I just don't buy the argument that Apple is resource-constrained. Rather, I think Apple is just moving deliberately, on its own schedule, working to ensure continued product value. And the Mini is supposed to be a "switcher" device, but it's turned out that iOS is a better "switcher engine", so I'm not surprised that Apple has decided to let the sleeping dog lie for a while.
Apple has always been modestly staffed; they are very careful about who they hire, they simply won't grab some random schmuck walking down De Anza Boulevard to fill up a chair.
Here's what we know: iPhones and iPads have dominated both unit sales and overall company revenue for many years (Macs are an increasingly smaller part of the revenue pie). We also know that notebooks are around 75% of total Mac unit sales. In 2013, Apple sold about 7 million Macs, so let's say that there were 2 million Mac desktops sold. We don't know the exact breakdown of sales per model type, but let's say that 75% of desktop Macs were iMacs (a number which I believe to be higher) but for the sake of this analysis, we'll say 500,000 Mac desktops are either Mac minis or Mac Pros.
That's not a lot of boxes.
My hunch is that Apple has a Mac Desktop engineering team that splits time between the Mac Pro and the Mac mini (and possibly to the iMac, although the latter product line has enough sales to probably merit a separate team). Things that the team learns from working on the Mac Pro can be applied to the mini, and vice versa. It makes no sense for Apple to run two fully independent teams on product lines that have such small sales. There is a good chance that the team that designed the new Mac Pro is working on the next generation Mac mini as we speak, and will switch back to the Mac Pro. Unlike the notebooks and the iMac which have some motivation to ship for the "back to school" sales season, that is not really the case for the Mac mini nor Mac Pro. Sure, there are deadlines for that team, but the deadlines don't correspond to a typical release cycle which is why Mac Pro started shipping a few units at the end of last year.
Apple has not gone a wild hiring spree for Mac engineers, so one might deduce that management is relative satisfied with the pace of new Mac products in their pipeline.
Does anyone have any idea what kind of GPU they will use for the new high end model? I hope they stick to nvidia. As a 3D artist, nvidia is a priority now, I use CUDA software.
Maybe GTX 880M... It's the fastest mobile GPU with 8 GB + low power consumption which make sane for the slim design.
I just ordered the current model but the credit was not yet approved. So I have a little door open for the new one. What do you think? Should I wait for the new one or should I continue with the current one?
Count me as another who has been patiently waiting for a refreshed MacMini for a full year now.
I already have a keyboard, mouse and monitor. I just need a Mac that's well under the $1k threshold, but is powerful and has tons of memory. I don't need an iMac. The MacBook is out of my price range. The MacAir doesn't quite cut it for me (I have an iPadAir instead). The MacMini is perfect (with max'ed out RAM and large HD space), great price point, and it's small enough to be portable.
No Retina, no sale.
Translation: nobody buys the Mac mini. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing for Apple. More expensive computer = more profit.
That's ridiculous. The Mac mini is the most affordable Mac, and can still be upgraded after purchasing. The iMac is locked down, and overpriced.
I am anxiously awaiting a new Mac mini and it is ridiculous that is hasn't even been spec-bumped. RIDICULOUS.
Retina iMac, I buy.
No Retina, no sale.
I agree. I have no reason to buy an iMac without a Retina Display.
I'm much happier with a fast Mac mini and whatever 1080p display(s) I choose. As long as the 21.5" is still 1080p like every other 21.5" monitor I have no incentive to get an iMac over a Mac mini.