The Mac Mini was launched and intended as an affordable Mac option for migrating PC users to the macOS world. The basic version was less than 500$. It seems that everybody forgets that.
Now the Mini is clearly something else. It is not the "most affordable Mac desktop" anymore. Period.
The price, the specs, everything indicates their strategy for this product has radically changed.
You want an "affordable" Mac? get an iOS iPad/iPhone.
macOS for the "masses"? None for you.
To this I concur... I would argue that a $499 configuration with a low end MacBook Pro (or low end iMac) chipset, 128GB SSD and 8GB of memory (and maybe just 2 TB3 ports, but I know that's serious enclosure creep... maybe just put plastic plugs in the milled openings) would have been a consumer parity move. Yeah, I know there are few pc desktop 'switchers,' bit it's still a thing.
I do think this is the 'desktop' that just works pricing model. I'd argue that the right entry price is $599, but I think $Apple a) wants to steer people to the iMac or laptops (bigger ASPs), and they are acknowledging b) people who want a higher end system anyway... buy once, and let it sit unuqdated for 3-5 years, while swapping out to the latest monitor or peripherals. Apple is cautious to build the computer you need - not the cheap one that allows you save money in the short term, but then complain about the 'non-upgradeability' in 2 years when Apple rarely does annual upgrades for CPU memory and disk.
So it is a niche market (not the gamers, not the build their own, not the need cheapest desktop to read email and do spreadsheet's... this is a computer for people who have a need for a standalone monitor and then don't want to think about the base for 3-5 years, and they'll pay extra for it.
Appleinsider is deleting comments. Censuring much?
We deleted one comment in this thread that stepped way, way over our commenting guidelines. A second was deleted because it quoted the first. Your previous comment was on page three of this thread, and your deleted comment was the one I'm referring to as the second deleted here, because it quoted the first one that was in violation of the rules.
So, no, we aren't censoring anything. We have rules for a reason, and they are enforced.
The Mac mini update is great! I am Excited to own one. I have always wanted a Mac mini. The problem is that the IMac had better performing internals, so I would spend more to get more. Now I see this as a very viable option! Now all we need is an Apple Monitor! You know one with a camera, speakers, and USB hub built in, all connected by a USB-C Thunderbolt 3 port. Then I would have a great monitor and (almost) an all in one computer where I can upgrade the internals (the Mac mini) every few years and keep the display. Are their any reports on the Apple monitor beyond that it will arrive in 2019? I for one will be waiting to purchase my Mac Mini until I am able to get a space grey Apple Monitor to match my space gray, keyboard, Track Pad, and New Mac Mini! Apple please give us news on the specs of the upcoming Apple Monitor and some idea of a date, because at that date is where you will see a dramatic increase in Mac mini sales.
This is a very strange article. Why is it necessary to attack and belittle people who were complaining about the Mac Mini delay between updates (>1000 days!)? These are people who are into Apple stuff and want Apple to make better machines; what is the value in this kind of petty "told you so" editorial? The tone of these pieces seem to have taken a nosedive recently, Apple doesn't need this kind of defence, it further contributes to the image of the smug, petulant Apple fanboy.
We weren't talking about the complaints about the years between updates because we are on record for saying that was unreasonable, I'm not even sure where you got that.
This is an editorial, and is clearly labeled as such. This is a pro-focused Mac mini, and covers nearly everything that (realistically) Apple wanted to include based on users' complaints. SATA internal storage was never going to happen. PCI-E was never going to happen.
This isn't a defense of Apple, but more aimed at the (unrealistic) expectations that this would start at $499. But yet, here we are.
You raise the point that I kinda was questioning.
One of the basic complaints of recent Mac____'s is their lack of repair-ability and upgrade-ability.
So, while I thought the upgradable RAM was good I was surprised that the SSD is not. So how many will blindly purchase the 128Gb and quickly run out of storage? I don't get it. I can see not going with SATA, but not eliminating the PCI-E upgrade path. What (or how much) performance did they gain by eliminating that option?
My feeling is that the Mac design team has a very narrow focus on its target audience.
Admittedly, the average user won't be able to or interested in upgrading the SSD. But that could be something Apple Genius Bar could provide.
OR: Could the Thunderbolt 3 ports provide that upgrade-ability with an external drive?
I'm madly in love with the new mac mini. My 2011 model is coughing it's last breaths and is desperately hanging on til I can upgrade it to the new one. This will handle all my regular uses, and I can devote my gaming laptop to Fallout and Farcry.
This is a very strange article. Why is it necessary to attack and belittle people who were complaining about the Mac Mini delay between updates (>1000 days!)? These are people who are into Apple stuff and want Apple to make better machines; what is the value in this kind of petty "told you so" editorial? The tone of these pieces seem to have taken a nosedive recently, Apple doesn't need this kind of defence, it further contributes to the image of the smug, petulant Apple fanboy.
We weren't talking about the complaints about the years between updates because we are on record for saying that was unreasonable, I'm not even sure where you got that.
This is an editorial, and is clearly labeled as such. This is a pro-focused Mac mini, and covers nearly everything that (realistically) Apple wanted to include based on users' complaints. SATA internal storage was never going to happen. PCI-E was never going to happen.
This isn't a defense of Apple, but more aimed at the (unrealistic) expectations that this would start at $499. But yet, here we are.
You raise the point that I kinda was questioning.
One of the basic complaints of recent Mac____'s is their lack of repair-ability and upgrade-ability.
So, while I thought the upgradable RAM was good I was surprised that the SSD is not. So how many will blindly purchase the 128Gb and quickly run out of storage? I don't get it. I can see not going with SATA, but not eliminating the PCI-E upgrade path. What (or how much) performance did they gain by eliminating that option?
My feeling is that the Mac design team has a very narrow focus on its target audience.
Admittedly, the average user won't be able to or interested in upgrading the SSD. But that could be something Apple Genius Bar could provide.
OR: Could the Thunderbolt 3 ports provide that upgrade-ability with an external drive?
This, very specifically. I suspect that's why there are four of them. On a portable machine it makes a ton of sense to get all the internal storage you can muster, in the absence of reliable cloud-based services that is. This is less important for a desktop machine like a Mac mini. 40 gigabits per second through Thunderbolt 3 is 5 gigabytes per second of transfer speed -- faster even than the internal storage.
All in all yesterday's announcements were remarkable and demonstrate that Apple is both: 1) listening to its customers and responding appropriately, and 2) continuing to push the outer edges of the envelope in product categories that it dominates in the presence of little to no real competition, like the iPad. They could simply ride all their cash cows and reap the profits built on customer loyalty, but they are staying in the game and playing hard.
I love how even on "rival" blogs, Apple haters are giving credit and impressed with the iPad, which really has no competition, other than the one Samsung Tab S4. I see people everday with Microsoft Surfaces also using iPad Pro. It's just a very intuitive device.
The Mac Mini 2018 is a tad more than I was expecting. Yes, I love all the stats, but they really need an "entry level" for sub $599. As it is, it's cannibalizing the imac and imac pro sales,
I definitely plan to pic one up next year or so. I love my current Mac Mini for being a great pc for being 6 years old and going strong, outlasting 3 Windows 10 machines.
If this Mac Mini would have been announced 18 months ago, I would have bought 3 machines for my software development company. Now the window of opportunity is gone and it probably remain closed for the next 2 years
As a professional my main complaint about Apple is lack of transparency and roadmap. If I need to take a business decision that has a >$100K impact I cannot wait 4 years until Tim Cook decides that a new machine will be announced. I need a roadmap that I can rely upon.
I do understand that for the consumer market Apple cannot disclose new product announcement, but for a professional market this is different. So if this machine is targeted at a professional market, the attitude of Apple about secrecy must change.
I understand what you're saying from a business perspective but having Apple openly disclosing long range product roadmaps (NDA or not) would be an unmitigated disaster for all sides. I've been on both sides of the Roadmap fence in industries that are much narrower than Apple's and it's never been a pleasant experience. It's ends up being a minefield where there are so many ways to go wrong and so few ways to get through it unscathed. If you are the vendor you can be accused of FUD, overpromising, underdelivering, getting tunnel vision around a single big f-in order (BFO blindness), or opening the kimono too far in the face of onlooking competition. If you are the customer you can end up binding your business dependencies to house-of-cards level promises, over-reliance on too few suppliers, signing up your company for crash test dummy servitude, or incurring excessive opportunity costs while waiting. Navigating the promises minefield sometimes turns relationships sour and often burns out the developers big time because prospective customers are leaning on the c-suite folks and we all know the trajectory of crap flow in every organization. Once the crap and fan collide everyone tends to flip the bozo bit and stupidity reigns supreme. next thing you know you have your development team baking dog & pony "proof of progress" prototypes to placate the BFO honchos. Costs explode, schedules explode, everyone's pissed - dogs and cats are living together in sin, ... all the usual goofiness that goes along with navigating the minefield. If you reach the point where someone brings up the question "Is that a promise - or a commitment?" you are most assuredly screwed and swamp-bound. Not that I've ever seen any of this ever happen ...
Apple has a miserable time as it is managing internal, partner, and supplier leaks even with a blanket of NDAs. Imagine another layer of NDAs spanning a much wider range of potential leakers. Not something Apple wants to sign up for. Ever.
I know there is a lot of conventional wisdom within the larger business community for getting new products to market efficiently and effectively to a crowd of eager waiting customers. Apple hasn't followed conventional wisdom and is somehow thriving. It's customer loyalty is astounding. Basically, whatever Apple is doing is working pretty darn well. Why upset the Apple cart?
I'm a pro, and the minis do not satisfy me at all. They cost roughly the price of a real mac pro. They force me to buy an external enclosure for expanded storage. They force me to buy an external enclosure for PCI cards. Why do I care if the mini is small, if the whole package is multiple boxes connected by multiple wires? Why do I care if the mini is elegantly designed if the whole package is a salad of devices with different form factors made by different companies? This is not "modular." The classic Mac Pro is modular. This is an incomplete part of a kit.
The Mac Mini was launched and intended as an affordable Mac option for migrating PC users to the macOS world. The basic version was less than 500$. It seems that everybody forgets that.
Now the Mini is clearly something else. It is not the "most affordable Mac desktop" anymore. Period.
The price, the specs, everything indicates their strategy for this product has radically changed.
You want an "affordable" Mac? get an iOS iPad/iPhone.
macOS for the "masses"? None for you.
$500 in 2005 is about $650 today, so the difference is not as dramatic as it seems, but you're right that $650 to $800 base price is still a large increase.
This is a hostile, lopsided article that fails to understand users needs.
I am no Mac Mini enthusiast or buyer, but I can relate to the user’s arguments of a reasonably cost effective Mac for those who aren’t seeking portability and who already own a monitor, keyboard etc. For Apple to slap them with such high prices is not going to go well. There should’ve been a well configured option for $499, then charge whatever for the pro. They sure know how to pull off such options for the iPad.
You are right but I am hoping that this was the plan all along. If Apple switches to A series chips for some to their macs next hear or the year after I think this leaves room for one more mac. Perhaps a "Mac Nano", in a form factor of an enlarged Apple TV with a couple of USB-C ports an HDMI port and thats it. Perhaps two storage options and a price range of $299 - $399. This would totally be a consumer machine. I could see dozens of uses for tiny macs.
I'm a pro, and the minis do not satisfy me at all. They cost roughly the price of a real mac pro. They force me to buy an external enclosure for expanded storage. They force me to buy an external enclosure for PCI cards. Why do I care if the mini is small, if the whole package is multiple boxes connected by multiple wires? Why do I care if the mini is elegantly designed if the whole package is a salad of devices with different form factors made by different companies? This is not "modular." The classic Mac Pro is modular. This is an incomplete part of a kit.
How is 800 bucks roughly the price of a MP? What nonsense.
The Mac Mini was launched and intended as an affordable Mac option for migrating PC users to the macOS world. The basic version was less than 500$. It seems that everybody forgets that.
Now the Mini is clearly something else. It is not the "most affordable Mac desktop" anymore. Period.
The price, the specs, everything indicates their strategy for this product has radically changed.
You want an "affordable" Mac? get an iOS iPad/iPhone.
macOS for the "masses"? None for you.
$500 in 2005 is about $650 today, so the difference is not as dramatic as it seems, but you're right that $650 to $800 base price is still a large increase.
So $150 for much improved capabilities and hardware. That’s fair. Anybody whining that $800 isn’t “affordable” needs to get a real career.
Ha!, I'm one of those with a self installed processor upgrade - its tricky, not hard.
These machines are awesome, even the old ones - just look at the prices they fetch on eBay, like all Apple machines, they retain value, some value, way beyond that of a $300 or £300 laptop or desktop made by some lesser company running an imitation operating system.
So I'll carry on using a late 2009 mac mini on High Sierra until I get around to applying the patch that will let me install Mojave. Is it blisteringly quick? no, but with 6GB ram and a 1TB hard drive, it will do till I get around buying a newer one on eBay.
That mini sits on top of another mini running Debian Stretch, that's called sweating assets....
I still have a working upgraded Apple Cube - 1.5GHz processor, video, 20inch Apple Cinema Display, now that's value for money.. Still looks amazing.
For those that say the GPU is limited. The GPU is spec'd to the whole package and its small so heat is a factor. If you need a super fast GPU, then add an eGPU to the new Mac Mini.
The Mac mini is not a bad machine. But if I wanted to make a pro machine I would have added a better GPU option. Anything in the 1050 or 560 range would be fine. Apple even shows one benchmark with an external GPU. So Apple is aware that people might want more GPU power.
Not all Mac minis would need a faster GPU, but this will in no way make Pro users that looking for a new desktop happy. Especially with no new iMacs.
The problem that I see is not the technology or even the base price. It's the storage size. If you're upgrading Apple's SSD is so expensive it costs thousands more than the one you're replacing. If you used a 500GB hard drive odds are the 128GB SSD isn't going to cut it. To match the space we had (not to mention plan for growth as storage can't be updated) tends to add up to $1000 or more to the base price of Apple's units. To put 128 on a $799 machine today is an insult. Just like Apple shipping iMacs with HDD's still.
Exactly this. How much space does the OS take? How much space do applications take? 128 GB of storage in a device in 2018? In a device that costs $800? Insane. Absolutely insane. The fact that it costs $400 to get you that 512 GB of storage is even more insane. The drives they put in these devices are not superior to the highest end drives tested by Tom's Hardware. One of the fastest drives they've tested (at the 512 GB capacity) is the Samsung 970 Pro. Those are $200 on Amazon.
Between their base price being outrageous (for what you get) and the cost of upgrading to capacities that makes these devices useful, they've really shown just how little respect they have for their customers.
That won't stop neophytes with no clue as to how much these components actually cost from buying them.
I'm sorry Mr Gallagher and Mr. Wuerthele, but you cannot redefine what "Pro" means just for Apple. Everyone abides by the same definition of "Pro" or nobody does. I'm afraid you are guilty of a classic hypocrisy move... one definition for me, and one for thee. When the components you might wish to upgrade (RAM, HDD, CPU, GPU) are soldered to the board, I'm afraid you cannot claim that system to be professional in any way... You might get away with "Prosumer", but not "Professional".
Comments
I do think this is the 'desktop' that just works pricing model. I'd argue that the right entry price is $599, but I think $Apple a) wants to steer people to the iMac or laptops (bigger ASPs), and they are acknowledging b) people who want a higher end system anyway... buy once, and let it sit unuqdated for 3-5 years, while swapping out to the latest monitor or peripherals. Apple is cautious to build the computer you need - not the cheap one that allows you save money in the short term, but then complain about the 'non-upgradeability' in 2 years when Apple rarely does annual upgrades for CPU memory and disk.
So it is a niche market (not the gamers, not the build their own, not the need cheapest desktop to read email and do spreadsheet's... this is a computer for people who have a need for a standalone monitor and then don't want to think about the base for 3-5 years, and they'll pay extra for it.
So, no, we aren't censoring anything. We have rules for a reason, and they are enforced.
"Apple won't give me something for nothing!"
Apple has a miserable time as it is managing internal, partner, and supplier leaks even with a blanket of NDAs. Imagine another layer of NDAs spanning a much wider range of potential leakers. Not something Apple wants to sign up for. Ever.
I know there is a lot of conventional wisdom within the larger business community for getting new products to market efficiently and effectively to a crowd of eager waiting customers. Apple hasn't followed conventional wisdom and is somehow thriving. It's customer loyalty is astounding. Basically, whatever Apple is doing is working pretty darn well. Why upset the Apple cart?
They cost roughly the price of a real mac pro.
They force me to buy an external enclosure for expanded storage.
They force me to buy an external enclosure for PCI cards.
Why do I care if the mini is small, if the whole package is multiple boxes connected by multiple wires?
Why do I care if the mini is elegantly designed if the whole package is a salad of devices with different form factors made by different companies?
This is not "modular." The classic Mac Pro is modular. This is an incomplete part of a kit.
So $150 for much improved capabilities and hardware. That’s fair. Anybody whining that $800 isn’t “affordable” needs to get a real career.
Between their base price being outrageous (for what you get) and the cost of upgrading to capacities that makes these devices useful, they've really shown just how little respect they have for their customers.
That won't stop neophytes with no clue as to how much these components actually cost from buying them.