flabber

For me the base price is also a little steep (€899 in Holland, including taxes). Primarily because, aside from the CPU, I don't see where all that money could have gone to. The ram still starts at a measily 8GB for example. And even though it's PCI-E storage, it's only 128GB compared to a previously 1TB HDD... pricewise that won't make a really big difference. And since the base model "only" has a quadcore CPU, that won't cost the difference either I believe.

But what bugs me the most is that they sell the Intel UHD 630 as having up to 60% more power... well that would be the bare minimum what I would expect for a computer that hasn't been upgraded in 4 years. And given the higher price, why not build in a tiny cheap dedicated GPU? Apple has done that before and it was a miniature beast compared to the integrated GPU options at the time, ánd it costed about the same as the base Mini of today.

Still, thanks to the user replaceable RAM and possibly SSD, and the very powerful CPU options, I find the new Mini very attractive as a work machine for Photoshop and Illustrator: it's small, quiet, and it won't cost as much as a MacBook Pro which I primarily use as a desktop with a bigger monitor (so i never use it's keyboard, monitor or touchbar).  

I'm still a little underwhelmed and surprised that Apple keeps naming things "pro" when they're not upgradeable. People have been complaining about the Mac Pro being very much not a Pro device because of all the extra séparate devices one needs to buy to actually get something done. Literally nothing about the thing is upgradeable (SSD, RAM, CPU, GPU). Then they apparently respond to the critics years later (3+ already) by making an iMac "Pro", making the same mistake all over again. I mean, who's going to pay $4999, regardless of wether it's undercutting a similar-specced PC, if you can't upgrade it's so-called "pro hardware" 3 years down the road?

Exactly. I still have 3 years to go before my current MBP is written off financially, and was thinking of buying an iMac and lugigng that around. Less convenient to carry, but at least I'm using all of the machine I'm paying for. 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.

How is thinnes helping heat dispersion? Bigger towers mean more airflow, so wouldn't that work in a similar manner with laptops? Thicker laptop means more room for airflow and bigger/stronger fans right?

Actually, you can definitely start a graphic design business on a laptop. Hence the "pro" in MacBook Pro. A lot of graphic design studios in Holland are actually using MacBook Pros instead of iMacs for their designers because of the mobility it offers. They need to go to clients, to photographers, and so on. If you're an artworker who works with hires files a lot and with a much stricter deadline, an iMac or Mac Pro would be a much better choice. But saying that you can't start a business on a notebook is just plain wrong. 

(and I do have a 4 year old iMac that I intend to keep around till my MacBook Pro arrives ánd is working correctly)

@nht ;
I need a MacBook Pro because:
- I sometimes will need to present my work at clients
- I rent myself out to companies who do not always have a computer available (partly due to EU/Dutch law issues starting in 2017)
- To be mobile enough to work when I'm sitting in a train on my way to a client
… basically the usual things on why people need laptops. I was thinking about an iMac, but it's a beast to keep carrying around

c.m.w. said:Can someone please define what it is to be a professional that is worthy of these missing features? I would like to know if I make the cut so I can start being angry that my perfectly awesome MBP has left me in some way jilted.

Seriously, what are the criteria?  So far it seems that the definition is arbitrary and individualized.
What defines a professional? I think that's different per profession. Someone who does audio-creation, 3D-rendering, graphic design or web design... they will all have different demands and needs from a computer after all. A web designer might have less need of 32GB of ram compared to a graphic designer or 3D-rendering artist for example. Problem is though, that a laptop usually lasts for about 4-5 years before someone buys a new one. And if a lot of professionals are already running close to the 16GB-limit with the software and documents they're using, imagine how much of a limit it will become after 4-5 years worth of software-upgrades.