I have been an all-Apple person for 20+ years starting with PowerMac 6100AV. Never owned a PC. I purchased NUC7i5BNK a couple of weeks ago because Mac mini is such a disgrace these days. I needed a small form factor machine and I got tired of waiting for Apple to update their Mac hardware. If Apple cannot handle their computer division maybe they should spin-off the Mac subsidiary.
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.
„From a benchmark perspective, the NUC6i7KYK delivers a score of 4580 single-core and 13838 in multi-core. The 2.3GHz late 2012 i7 quad-core Mac mini cranks out a 3458 in single-core, and a 11868 in multi-core —but it is long-gone at retail.“
This means about 30% improvement with 3-4 Intel CPU generations,
Hey, Intel, what are you trying to tell us? Is it really necessary to get 3-4 CPU generations for a lousy 30% performance improvement? What a complete waste of ressources.
Anyway: the Mac Mini was always a comprimise, a consumer Mac, and therefore the typical case how to use thie Mac Mini would be consuming of Media, of Internet services and normal office usage. Any other cases were covered by iMac and Mac Pro.
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.
One point that many people forget: due to the lack of a successor of the the 2014 Mac Mini, the macOS support for the 2014 Mini should last some more years.
PS: From my point of view this ‚upgrade‘ philosophy is caused by the Windows PC world.
This is: buy a new PC every three years, to get more performance, because Windows requires additional CPU and RAM, or, instead, upgrade your CPU/Board/RAM every two years to get the performance.
In April 2010 I bought an iMac because I got crazy by this philosophy. I did not wanted to upgrade any longer, nor did I wanted to lose hours and hours for configuring and supporting any Windows PC any longer.
Guess what: the iMac still serves me well, and without any upgrades, new CPUs, any additional RAM, etc. I think I am not the only whon who made these kind of experiences.
And from my point of view this is exactly what an 2014 Mac Mini should do, if I ordered one Mini today. E.g. serve me as a macOS machine for several years.
A machine to work with, and not to lose lots of time to support the machine.
Thus, yes, I would appreciate a new Mac Mini, four years are far too long. But from the typical usage perspective the 2014 Mac Mini would also serve well a typical user. Should anybody need more performance, he should feel free to buy an iMac, iMac Pro oder Mac Pro instead.
geirnoklebye said: ... 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. ... 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).
... 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.
If not for the three (IIRC) relatively recent "vague promises" (to quote Mike, the article's author) re: the Mac mini directly from Cook and other executives, most people here would assume the mini is EOL. However, although the promises themselves were vague, they were not anonymous. So I do think something is happening with the mini.
The question is what? Mike thinks we're "tilting at windmills" if we think we'll be getting easy access to memory and storage in the new mini. He's probably correct, given recent decisions, like the 4K iMac.
As for the "decimation of the ecosystem around macOS," I'm not sure I agree, unless you don't consider iOS to be part of that ecosystem. Yes, in terms of hardware, a line was drawn at Airport, and now in addition to the non-Apple modem I've always had, I'm going to (eventually) have to choose a non-Apple router/wi-fi network. But the care and attention given to MacBook/MacBook Pro and iMac/iMac Pro is a good foundation for things to come. 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 -- Jobs seemed to see it that way, as the successor to the NeXT cube and the G4 Cube. The Intel/AMD hardware showcased in the NUC discussed in this article would fit the bill, obviously, sitting neatly between laptop and desktop.
Mike doesn't mention one key drawback in the Hades Canyon NUC -- it uses an older Thunderbolt 3 controller, Alpine Ridge, rather than the new Titan Ridge, which Anandtech describes as follows: "The new Titan Ridge family of controllers pick up where Intel's previous Alpine Ridge controllers left off by incorporating new DisplayPort [1.4] functionality, and for the first time, a USB-C fallback mode when used as a sink/peripheral device. This mid-generation update for Thunderbolt 3 will allow the standard and devices using the new Titan Ridge controllers to catch up with current display standards, and work better with the next generation of UHD displays."
It's not crazy to think Apple is waiting for DisplayPort 1.4 in Thunderbolt 3 with Titan Ridge, and we should all just relax. The new mini needs to be able to comfortably support Apple's forthcoming Thunderbolt 3 Display(s), above all.
Finally, a personal data point. My sister, the NYC architect I've mentioned before in these discussions about the mini, finally gave up waiting to replace her 2012 Mac minis along with her ancient (2007) Dell displays, and went iMac this year. It's fine, not a problem, but it's worth pointing out that she's now in the iMac world, and her days of her office running Vectorworks on (two generations of) Mac minis are over. 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 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.
This is exactly the point, and this is the reason why I bought my iMac in April 2010.
It saved me a lot of time compared to a the time a Windows PC user needs to keep his machine up and running. And I did not even had to think for a minute about how to upgrade the PC hardware for keeping a well-performant machine.
My iMac just worked from the beginning until now. And this is, why I payed some more money compared to a Windows machine.
The core problem is that a corporation built, saved and rebuilt by a visionary is now run by a supply chain efficiency expert.
Bingo... though in a efficient product matrix (aka SJ's 2x2) you'd have something like:
BYOD - Mac (Mini ) Mac Pro AIO - iMac iMac Pro Lap - MacBook MacBook Pro Tablet - iPad iPad Pro Phone - iPhone iPhone "Pro"
In each element of the matrix that has displays 2 options max. In the others you can scale CPU/RAM/Storage.
And if you say no one would buy a Mac Mini then you have to logically say that no one would buy an iMac... frankly plenty of people have a display, keyboard, mouse... I'm at the point of throwing displays away (1080... as I move to 4k). I don't want to be forced to buy an AIO when I've got 4k displays hanging around (and waiting for the 32 inch Philips 8K to come out this year). After that I want to upgrade the machine every cycle, but don't need to upgrade the display for ~4 year at least
geirnoklebye said: ... 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. ... 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).
... 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.
...
Mike doesn't mention one key drawback in the Hades Canyon NUC -- it uses an older Thunderbolt 3 controller, Alpine Ridge, rather than the new Titan Ridge, which Anandtech describes as follows: "The new Titan Ridge family of controllers pick up where Intel's previous Alpine Ridge controllers left off by incorporating new DisplayPort [1.4] functionality, and for the first time, a USB-C fallback mode when used as a sink/peripheral device. This mid-generation update for Thunderbolt 3 will allow the standard and devices using the new Titan Ridge controllers to catch up with current display standards, and work better with the next generation of UHD displays."
It's not crazy to think Apple is waiting for DisplayPort 1.4 in Thunderbolt 3 with Titan Ridge, and we should all just relax. The new mini needs to be able to comfortably support Apple's forthcoming Thunderbolt 3 Display(s), above all.
Well, sure, but the same could have been said about the shift from TB2 to TB3 in 2016 -- that they skipped 2015 because TB3 was imminent, yet here we are.
That, and given the myriad NUC revisions, which I have only touched on, Intel will iterate quickly.
All this fuss and consternation over Mac hardware.
But, for the most part, every major component of any Mac made today is simply an off the shelf component that anybody can buy. Except for a few gimmicks, there is very little that is unique about Mac hardware.
There are three things that set Macs apart from everybody else: 1) Build quality
2) The Apple ecosystem (including ongoing support structure).
3) MacOS
When any low-life commodity maker (like Dell) can match Apple hardware spec for spec, Apple should take that as a wake up call. Letting hardware fall out of date is pretty much inexcusable because it undermines what sets them apart for little or no reason except laziness.
While this article is about the MacMini, the problem has been pervasive across the Mac line. Yes, the iMac has been recently updated as has the MBP line, but that leaves all the rest of the Mac line lying in the dust.
Apple needs to return to their roots here and either shit or get off the pot. Apple has never done well with half way measures.
geirnoklebye said: ... 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. ... 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).
... 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.
...
Mike doesn't mention one key drawback in the Hades Canyon NUC -- it uses an older Thunderbolt 3 controller, Alpine Ridge, rather than the new Titan Ridge, which Anandtech describes as follows: "The new Titan Ridge family of controllers pick up where Intel's previous Alpine Ridge controllers left off by incorporating new DisplayPort [1.4] functionality, and for the first time, a USB-C fallback mode when used as a sink/peripheral device. This mid-generation update for Thunderbolt 3 will allow the standard and devices using the new Titan Ridge controllers to catch up with current display standards, and work better with the next generation of UHD displays."
It's not crazy to think Apple is waiting for DisplayPort 1.4 in Thunderbolt 3 with Titan Ridge, and we should all just relax. The new mini needs to be able to comfortably support Apple's forthcoming Thunderbolt 3 Display(s), above all.
Well, sure, but the same could have been said about the shift from TB2 to TB3 in 2016 -- that they skipped 2015 because TB3 was imminent, yet here we are.
That, and given the myriad NUC revisions, which I have only touched on, Intel will iterate quickly.
The difference is that in 2015 Apple didn't have a promised Thunderbolt 3 Display due in 2016. Just the LG Ultrafine deal, which didn't go smoothly, and was probably only ever an interim solution even if it had. And could Apple have made a Late 2016 TB3 Mac mini with Intel graphics able to drive a 4K or 5K display? [Not rhetorical, I don't know. Can Skull Canyon do that?]
Another difference vis-a-vis 2015/2016 is of course the vague promises in 2017/2018, which are at least attributed to real people and not mysterious "sources within the company." I just don't see how they can put this off to 2019 -- and yet here we are, as you've so aptly put it.
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest Intel won't update the NUC with the new controllers when they are available.
However, although the promises themselves were vague, they were not anonymous.
That is absolutely to the core of the issue.
When a CEO makes a public statement that a current product line is important to the future of the company, yet it has not been updated for 4 years, with absolutely no horizon of a replacement, you both start to build resentment and abandonment in your user base. Those users you shed in that process is likely to never return + they will stop being ambassadors for your platform and products.
The situation with the mini is that the most powerful model was shipped in 2012 - that is 6 years ago, and people scour iBay for these i7 equipped systems and pick them up at prices that are often higher than the original retail price. Of course that situation is not sustainable, and a direct loss for all parties et the end of the day.
Many people completely fail to understand how the mini is used. Often it is sitting there headless in a corner chugging away as a small business server year after year after year with maintenance cost that is negligible compared to most alternatives.
Although the selection of software is small, there are software titles that are macOS only, and since Apple forbid virtualization of macOS on anything but Apple hardware, while at the same time removing any sensible small server configuration, they more or less pull the rug on a class of use cases. The ability to run macOS server type applications in combination with open source software on the same box can be incredibly valuable. Replacing this with a cloud server solution is often not possible both for practical and legislative reasons. The practical reason is that there is no hardware that legally can run macOS in the datacenter.
The Mac Pro is much of the same story where the trash-can model is a) almost impossible to place in a standard datacenter rack and b) carries a lot of hardware that is completely unneeded in such a setting resulting in higher cost overall, higher space requirements and higher cooling requirements than alternative hardware.
Adding insult to injury is the complete gutting Apple has announced of the macOS server software.
When I speak of decimation of the macOS ecosystem I don't count in iOS directly, but it is actually, in a bad sense, part of it because on the Altar of iOS, they have dumbed down many aspects of macOS, been very late to deliver key technologies to these users, but importantly also dumbed down or removed productivity applications that in effect has made it more painful to use macOS in many settings.
Removing the routers and the Time Capsules also makes it harder for users to orient in the marketplace, select and maintain an environment where doing backups were almost a no-brainer. The need for local backups rather than cloud backups can both be based in legal requirements, but equally important major sections of the markets Apple operate in don't have bandwidth in excess because they mostly have mobile type connections, rather than the relative abundance of fast wired connections in parts of North America and Western Europe.
Mac Mini: per article, update. Make speedy, GPU AND CPU wise. USB-C only. Two versions: discreet GPU and lower end, integrated one.
Macbook: improve keyboard. Introduce cheaper offering to close the “Air gap”
Macbook: changes per recent article on AI.
iMac: new system with separate monitor and computer unit that looks great and is visually integrated. The chin “computer behind monitor” is getting old. I want to keep the monitor longer than the hardware.
iMac Pro: kill off. Makes no sense. Professionals don’t want it.
However, although the promises themselves were vague, they were not anonymous.
That is absolutely to the core of the issue.
When a CEO makes a public statement that a current product line is important to the future of the company, yet it has not been updated for 4 years, with absolutely no horizon of a replacement, you both start to build resentment and abandonment in your user base. Those users you shed in that process is likely to never return + they will stop being ambassadors for your platform and products.
... Many people completely fail to understand how the mini is used. Often it is sitting there headless in a corner chugging away as a small business server year after year after year with maintenance cost that is negligible compared to most alternatives.
Although the selection of software is small, there are software titles that are macOS only, and since Apple forbid virtualization of macOS on anything but Apple hardware, while at the same time removing any sensible small server configuration, they more or less pull the rug on a class of use cases. The ability to run macOS server type applications in combination with open source software on the same box can be incredibly valuable. Replacing this with a cloud server solution is often not possible both for practical and legislative reasons. The practical reason is that there is no hardware that legally can run macOS in the datacenter.
... Adding insult to injury is the complete gutting Apple has announced of the macOS server software.
When I speak of decimation of the macOS ecosystem I don't count in iOS directly, but it is actually, in a bad sense, part of it because on the Altar of iOS, they have dumbed down many aspects of macOS, been very late to deliver key technologies to these users, but importantly also dumbed down or removed productivity applications that in effect has made it more painful to use macOS in many settings.
Removing the routers and the Time Capsules also makes it harder for users to orient in the marketplace, select and maintain an environment where doing backups were almost a no-brainer. The need for local backups rather than cloud backups can both be based in legal requirements, but equally important major sections of the markets Apple operate in don't have bandwidth in excess because they mostly have mobile type connections, rather than the relative abundance of fast wired connections in parts of North America and Western Europe.
I can't argue with a lot of what you say. I'm in that group of tech "ambassadors" that you speak of, in the non-tech-professional, "creatives" division. You're in the tech-professional division, so your perspective is different. I get that. Nothing, certainly not an amorphous statement from the CEO, can mitigate the ongoing frustration in the class of use cases you describe.
With regard to the iOS-ification of the macOS, I feel your pain, but I guess I just hope that it is a transitional problem, and the long-term goal is smooth integration between the two. I was affected by the Pages rollback -- it went from being a decent tool for writing multilingual academic papers to not that. It's coming back, though. I may try to use it for something serious again, soon.
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.
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).
You have to remember the original reason Apple made the Mac Mini - it was to lure Windows developers to also cross develop/port title to the Mac. The idea was to give a person with no Mac the cheapest possible development platform they could get away with - and I personally knew developers who did just that. The Mac Mini existed for only one reason - for them to port their software to Mac.
Apple's decision to not support the Mac Mini could be viewed in two ways: Either they feel enough developers have full fledged Macs now that they don't need to be coerced with an affordable model, or else, after years of trying, Apple has given up trying to make the MacOS platform an App heaven, and is instead looking to the future where people run mainly iOS apps on their Macs.
I've found that a lot of reasons that Mac HW features "wither on the Vine" is because if Apple has decided that 5 years down the road they won't be supporting a feature, then they don't invest in it in the present. A classic example is the MacOS HDMI out driver bug, now 10 years and running, that makes it so Mac owners can only use their HDMI ports with televisions, not monitors. It's such a simple fix for able - maybe 15 minutes - yet they still haven't done it. Instead HDMI out still outputs in CMYK mode, resulting in awful, uncorrectable blooming effects when trying to use any monitor over HDMI. The reason? Apple knew long ago they were going to ditch HDMI ports, and internally, they apparently never used or tried external monitors that way.
I do wish Apple tried a little harder to focus on the present. They have to realize that if every generation withers because there's a new one on the horizon, then the platform will always remain subpar.
k2kw said: I expect Apple to be around in 100 years and Mac computers to be around too, just not the Mini unfortunately.
100 years? I suppose that's possible, but things are going to drastically change in 100 years. I doubt the country Apple exists in will be around in a 100 years. I also doubt the Mac and iOS devices will be around in 100 years. Whether Apple still exists, doing whatever it is people do in 100 years, will depend on whether they choose to stick to your origins of product/UX priority, or whether they head down the fashion/popularity/profits path they've been flirting with.
ks for the feedback. That has been my impression as well (a bit from afar in the last several years, as I haven't needed to work in the Windows eco-system). I think I need to try and get-by for another hardware generation on Apple to see where things are going. But, the way Apple is acting, it's mighty tempting to move on, too.
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.
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.
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?
Comments
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).
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.
„From a benchmark perspective, the NUC6i7KYK delivers a score of 4580 single-core and 13838 in multi-core. The 2.3GHz late 2012 i7 quad-core Mac mini cranks out a 3458 in single-core, and a 11868 in multi-core —but it is long-gone at retail.“
This means about 30% improvement with 3-4 Intel CPU generations, Hey, Intel, what are you trying to tell us? Is it really necessary to get 3-4 CPU generations for a lousy 30% performance improvement? What a complete waste of ressources.
Anyway: the Mac Mini was always a comprimise, a consumer Mac, and therefore the typical case how to use thie Mac Mini would be consuming of Media, of Internet services and normal office usage. Any other cases were covered by iMac and Mac Pro.
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.
One point that many people forget: due to the lack of a successor of the the 2014 Mac Mini, the macOS support for the 2014 Mini should last some more years.
PS: From my point of view this ‚upgrade‘ philosophy is caused by the Windows PC world.
This is: buy a new PC every three years, to get more performance, because Windows requires additional CPU and RAM, or, instead, upgrade your CPU/Board/RAM every two years to get the performance.
In April 2010 I bought an iMac because I got crazy by this philosophy. I did not wanted to upgrade any longer, nor did I wanted to lose hours and hours for configuring and supporting any Windows PC any longer.
Guess what: the iMac still serves me well, and without any upgrades, new CPUs, any additional RAM, etc. I think I am not the only whon who made these kind of experiences.
And from my point of view this is exactly what an 2014 Mac Mini should do, if I ordered one Mini today. E.g. serve me as a macOS machine for several years. A machine to work with, and not to lose lots of time to support the machine.
Thus, yes, I would appreciate a new Mac Mini, four years are far too long. But from the typical usage perspective the 2014 Mac Mini would also serve well a typical user. Should anybody need more performance, he should feel free to buy an iMac, iMac Pro oder Mac Pro instead.
Just my 51 Cents.
The question is what? Mike thinks we're "tilting at windmills" if we think we'll be getting easy access to memory and storage in the new mini. He's probably correct, given recent decisions, like the 4K iMac.
As for the "decimation of the ecosystem around macOS," I'm not sure I agree, unless you don't consider iOS to be part of that ecosystem. Yes, in terms of hardware, a line was drawn at Airport, and now in addition to the non-Apple modem I've always had, I'm going to (eventually) have to choose a non-Apple router/wi-fi network. But the care and attention given to MacBook/MacBook Pro and iMac/iMac Pro is a good foundation for things to come. 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 -- Jobs seemed to see it that way, as the successor to the NeXT cube and the G4 Cube. The Intel/AMD hardware showcased in the NUC discussed in this article would fit the bill, obviously, sitting neatly between laptop and desktop.
Mike doesn't mention one key drawback in the Hades Canyon NUC -- it uses an older Thunderbolt 3 controller, Alpine Ridge, rather than the new Titan Ridge, which Anandtech describes as follows: "The new Titan Ridge family of controllers pick up where Intel's previous Alpine Ridge controllers left off by incorporating new DisplayPort [1.4] functionality, and for the first time, a USB-C fallback mode when used as a sink/peripheral device. This mid-generation update for Thunderbolt 3 will allow the standard and devices using the new Titan Ridge controllers to catch up with current display standards, and work better with the next generation of UHD displays."
It's not crazy to think Apple is waiting for DisplayPort 1.4 in Thunderbolt 3 with Titan Ridge, and we should all just relax. The new mini needs to be able to comfortably support Apple's forthcoming Thunderbolt 3 Display(s), above all.
Finally, a personal data point. My sister, the NYC architect I've mentioned before in these discussions about the mini, finally gave up waiting to replace her 2012 Mac minis along with her ancient (2007) Dell displays, and went iMac this year. It's fine, not a problem, but it's worth pointing out that she's now in the iMac world, and her days of her office running Vectorworks on (two generations of) Mac minis are over. 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.
It saved me a lot of time compared to a the time a Windows PC user needs to keep his machine up and running. And I did not even had to think for a minute about how to upgrade the PC hardware for keeping a well-performant machine.
My iMac just worked from the beginning until now. And this is, why I payed some more money compared to a Windows machine.
My best invested money ever.
BYOD - Mac (Mini ) Mac Pro
AIO - iMac iMac Pro
Lap - MacBook MacBook Pro
Tablet - iPad iPad Pro
Phone - iPhone iPhone "Pro"
In each element of the matrix that has displays 2 options max. In the others you can scale CPU/RAM/Storage.
And if you say no one would buy a Mac Mini then you have to logically say that no one would buy an iMac... frankly plenty of people have a display, keyboard, mouse... I'm at the point of throwing displays away (1080... as I move to 4k). I don't want to be forced to buy an AIO when I've got 4k displays hanging around (and waiting for the 32 inch Philips 8K to come out this year). After that I want to upgrade the machine every cycle, but don't need to upgrade the display for ~4 year at least
Put quad core back !!
That, and given the myriad NUC revisions, which I have only touched on, Intel will iterate quickly.
1) Build quality
Another difference vis-a-vis 2015/2016 is of course the vague promises in 2017/2018, which are at least attributed to real people and not mysterious "sources within the company." I just don't see how they can put this off to 2019 -- and yet here we are, as you've so aptly put it.
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest Intel won't update the NUC with the new controllers when they are available.
When a CEO makes a public statement that a current product line is important to the future of the company, yet it has not been updated for 4 years, with absolutely no horizon of a replacement, you both start to build resentment and abandonment in your user base. Those users you shed in that process is likely to never return + they will stop being ambassadors for your platform and products.
The situation with the mini is that the most powerful model was shipped in 2012 - that is 6 years ago, and people scour iBay for these i7 equipped systems and pick them up at prices that are often higher than the original retail price. Of course that situation is not sustainable, and a direct loss for all parties et the end of the day.
Many people completely fail to understand how the mini is used. Often it is sitting there headless in a corner chugging away as a small business server year after year after year with maintenance cost that is negligible compared to most alternatives.
Although the selection of software is small, there are software titles that are macOS only, and since Apple forbid virtualization of macOS on anything but Apple hardware, while at the same time removing any sensible small server configuration, they more or less pull the rug on a class of use cases. The ability to run macOS server type applications in combination with open source software on the same box can be incredibly valuable. Replacing this with a cloud server solution is often not possible both for practical and legislative reasons. The practical reason is that there is no hardware that legally can run macOS in the datacenter.
The Mac Pro is much of the same story where the trash-can model is a) almost impossible to place in a standard datacenter rack and b) carries a lot of hardware that is completely unneeded in such a setting resulting in higher cost overall, higher space requirements and higher cooling requirements than alternative hardware.
Adding insult to injury is the complete gutting Apple has announced of the macOS server software.
When I speak of decimation of the macOS ecosystem I don't count in iOS directly, but it is actually, in a bad sense, part of it because on the Altar of iOS, they have dumbed down many aspects of macOS, been very late to deliver key technologies to these users, but importantly also dumbed down or removed productivity applications that in effect has made it more painful to use macOS in many settings.
Removing the routers and the Time Capsules also makes it harder for users to orient in the marketplace, select and maintain an environment where doing backups were almost a no-brainer. The need for local backups rather than cloud backups can both be based in legal requirements, but equally important major sections of the markets Apple operate in don't have bandwidth in excess because they mostly have mobile type connections, rather than the relative abundance of fast wired connections in parts of North America and Western Europe.
Macbook: improve keyboard. Introduce cheaper offering to close the “Air gap”
Macbook: changes per recent article on AI.
iMac: new system with separate monitor and computer unit that looks great and is visually integrated. The chin “computer behind monitor” is getting old. I want to keep the monitor longer than the hardware.
iMac Pro: kill off. Makes no sense. Professionals don’t want it.
Mac Pro: modular system for professional use.
With regard to the iOS-ification of the macOS, I feel your pain, but I guess I just hope that it is a transitional problem, and the long-term goal is smooth integration between the two. I was affected by the Pages rollback -- it went from being a decent tool for writing multilingual academic papers to not that. It's coming back, though. I may try to use it for something serious again, soon.
Quick back of the envelope calculation.
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.
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).
Apple's decision to not support the Mac Mini could be viewed in two ways: Either they feel enough developers have full fledged Macs now that they don't need to be coerced with an affordable model, or else, after years of trying, Apple has given up trying to make the MacOS platform an App heaven, and is instead looking to the future where people run mainly iOS apps on their Macs.
I've found that a lot of reasons that Mac HW features "wither on the Vine" is because if Apple has decided that 5 years down the road they won't be supporting a feature, then they don't invest in it in the present. A classic example is the MacOS HDMI out driver bug, now 10 years and running, that makes it so Mac owners can only use their HDMI ports with televisions, not monitors. It's such a simple fix for able - maybe 15 minutes - yet they still haven't done it. Instead HDMI out still outputs in CMYK mode, resulting in awful, uncorrectable blooming effects when trying to use any monitor over HDMI. The reason? Apple knew long ago they were going to ditch HDMI ports, and internally, they apparently never used or tried external monitors that way.
I do wish Apple tried a little harder to focus on the present. They have to realize that if every generation withers because there's a new one on the horizon, then the platform will always remain subpar.