madan

I agree completely with this article except for one point. When the article indicates that eGPUs don't lose a lot and then indicate that eGPU performance is about 80%-85% of the card's natural profile. I can't imagine anyone that wouldn't balk at having 20% less of something they care about. 20% less salary? 20% value on your home? 20% less value on your life savings? 20% less food given at a restaurant? 20% less product for your money? 20% diminishment is *significant*. Basically, that means that to get Vega 64 performance externally is: A. Impossible. B. You're going to get Vega 56 performance using a Vega 64 plus a 500-600 dollar carriage. That's outrageous. And that 20% loss of performance *for twice the price* doesn't even factor the crazy markup Apple has been pushing with their newest systems (Read: Mac Mini -- which is marked up 80% already!) So yeah, I agree that the Mac Pro won't be what we want. I also predict it will be a flop like the *last* Mac Pro. And yes, Apple themselves admitted it was a complete flop in the same interview that they dropped the existence of the 2019 impending Mac Pro. Bad products won't sell well. Mac OS and build quality are worth a lot. Are they worth a 20% overcharge? Maybe. Are they worth a 100% overcharge? Only to four people. If they release a staid eGPU-humping system that can't take advantage of multiple Thunderbolt lanes to get at least 90-95% eGPU performance at a reasonably competitive price...expect *another* failure. Hopefully AI won't blame Apple pros at that point for avoiding this system like the plague when it offers non-pro performance at an exorbitantly broken price.

nht said:

madan said:

lorin schultz said:

nht said:

What folks are STILL whining about a decade and a half later is that Apple stopped making affordable towers when they dropped the MDD G4 machines in 2004.  

They could make it a little larger but if they solved the thermal issues there’s no reason to.  With 2x airflow it’s likely fine.

So it’s useless whining about something Apple has shown its not going to do.  We now have a headless iMac that costs pretty much exactly like an iMac (within $50 or so) without the screen. It’s not “overpriced”.  It’s not “underpowered”. And it’s designed like every other fucking Mac out there with soldered parts, adhesives and limited user upgrades.  

People just need to GET OVER IT.  15 years of whining about how Apple cheats users, overcharges them and don’t give them what they want is enough for everyone else to get tired of it and tell these losers to buy a PC.   They aren the losers because of what they want but because they stay with a vendor that they think has been abusing them for over a decade.  Especially the dimwitted tools that start thier whining with “Ive owned a Mac ever since the original and Steve wouldn’t blah blah blah”.  Holy shit...that was an AIO  that if Steve could have gotten away with gluing shut to keep users out he would have.

Apple isn’t going to build it.  Move the fuck on.  HP makes a great little box. The intel NUCs are nice little boxes.  There’s lots of options in 2018 and win10 is a decent OS.

Just for the record, I'm not advocating for a design change. The size doesn't matter to me. Within certain practical limits, it just doesn't seem like an issue worthy of much attention, at least to me.

I was simply responding to the argument that Apple had to make concessions in areas like graphics capability and internal storage in order to keep the mini small. That's begging the question, since Apple could have chosen to make it bigger.

Apple didn't. I don't care that they didn't. I just don't buy the argument for WHY they didn't. It's a logical fallacy.

Exactly.  We're all Mac enthusiasts here.  People don't need to get so defensive.  We understand that Macs are expensive but the difference between this Mini and other past products is just how high the markup is.

People are not defensive but annoyed about the constant whining.

This machine has no GPU.  Great, Mac Minis don't have discrete GPUs.  The problem is that this Mini's specs are hardly "super".  They're mid-range.  And yet they're charging 800 dollars for a computer that amounts to 500-550 tops.  That's practically a 100% markup.  Which is steep, even by Apple standards. 

Absolutely WRONG.  

The base mini is like the base iMac.  NO GPU.

$1049 - 21.5" iMac 2.3GHz DUAL core i5, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, Iris Plus Graphics 640, 1920x1080 Display

$799 - Mac mini 3.6GHz QUAD core i3, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD, Intel UHD Graphics 630
$130 24" LG IPS monitor http://a.co/d/ieZ0bFj
$48 Logitech K750
$74 Magic Mouse
----
$1051

Other than the keyboard being a Logitech THERE NO MARKUP FROM THE IMAC.

Then we have the allegation that this is a good pro machine.  A good pro machine without a GPU and a good monitor is what exactly?  If you were to try to match the specs in an imac Core i7/580 right now, you'd be looking at spending close to 2200 dollars.  On top of the 800 dollars for the mini.  That's practically 33% more than a comparably specced-iMac...for the same performance.

$2399 27" iMac 4.2-4.5GHz QUAD core i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD Radeon Pro 575 4GB DDR5

$1299 Mac mini 3.2-4.6GHz HEXA core i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD
$699 Blackmagic eGPU Radeon Pro 580 8GB DDR5
$294 LG 27UD58-B 27" 4K UHD IPS - http://a.co/d/h0Z31yq
$48 Logitech K750
$74 Magic Mouse
----
$2414

6 core vs 4 core
Radeon Pro 580 vs Radeon Pro 575
4K vs 5K

That's not a good value proposition on any level.  Yes, the mini has certain uses and advantages.  It's small.  It can be stacked. It can be used in server farms. It can make a great HTPC or set top box. And if you're as dumb as a box of rocks with no financial limitations you can try to turn this into a spider-web iMac Pro/Mac Pro by shoving a Vega 64 (and getting only Vega 56 performance through eGPU) in an external carriage, hooking up a monitor and paying almost 4000 dollars for the privilege.

$4999 iMac Pro 3.2Ghz OCTO core Xeon W 32GB ECC, 1TB SSD, Vega 56 w/8GB HBM2

$1899 Mac mini 3.2-4.6GHz HEXA core i7, 8GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 10GbE
$271 Crucial 32GB SODIMM
$1199 Blackmagic eGPU Pro Vega 56 w/8GB HBM2
$1499 LG 27" 5K IPS
$48 Logitech K750
$74 Magic Mouse
-------
$4990

So no markup vs the iMac PRO either.  It is slower since it 6 core vs 8 and you take a hit on the GPU performance but the real kicker is the $100 10GbE option for render farms.  You can configure a set of minis for encoding (Compressor, Resolve, whatever) and hang it off the primary mini or iMac.  

Not for the $5K base price of a iMac Pro but for a $8K budget I bet you could build a more effective configuration based on the Mac mini than based on an 18 Core iMac Pro with a Vega 64.

Apple has a big margin on iMacs but it's not offensively big.

Then neither is the mini.

Constant "whining" is a straw man.  No one is "whining".  Several of us are simply saying that the past Mini was outdated.  It was.  It was using 3 year old hardware.  And the price wasn't reduced at all.  Secondly, the new Mac Mini is now 50% more expensive, despite having strictly midrange hardware.  It's not "whining" to contend that it's a disappointing development to see Apple produce an interesting but ultimately uncompelling product.  Not everyone has to be a circle-jerking bubble droid to be an Apple enthusiast or supporter.  Criticism is allowed.

As to my post, instead of marking up my post with conclusion-jumping "Wrong"s! How about you actually read what I wrote because I was very clearly comparing the Mini to an iMac 27" i7/580.  Every 27" iMac comes with a GPU.  I would know, as I have two on my desk linked TB-MDP linked.  If you're going to compare a Mini to the 21" iMac, then a discrete GPU isn't necessary, so why would I have brought up the GPU?  Btw, most "pros" don't use a 21" iMac, which I very clearly addressed and you, I don't know, ignored? 

Pros don't use a Core i3 (starting Mini CPU) and even the 6 core upgrade for the Mini is an i5, which is hardly some world-beating super chip. Comparing it against the iMac 27" i7/580, would be the kind of "pro" machine you could reasonably contrast.  I like how you compared the iMac 21" to the Mac Mini 799 intro and ignored that the Mini has 1/8 the storage capacity and that the 21" iMac is almost 2 year old hardware.  So yes, I suppose if you compare the intro Mini to a *2 YEAR OLD COMPUTER*, it's a consistent offering.  Your contention is that the i3 is a great offering...if you compare it to a Mac released almost 2 full years ago.  You also glossed over the fact that the Mini is marked up over 100% over its base cost.  Any comment on that?

I suppose not.

You're also moving goalposts.  Why have an i7-based iMac and opt for a 575 when the 580 is a droplet more and produces 35% more graphics performance.  The i7 4.2/580 iMac with a 2TB Fusion HD costs 2500 dollars.  The Mini by comparison has 2 more cores but 50% less clock. Check the benchmarks.  That 7-series i7 still smokes that 6 core i5, even in multithreaded tasks because the i7's superior clock gives it so much more IPC.  Combine that with the fact that it has a 256 GB SSD, while the iMac has a component of SSD within its Fusion drive, and an additional 1.75+ TB of HD disk space.  Then you add on a GPU carriage.  And a Radeon 580 but already you're misrepresenting the facts.  Because no 580 you put in a carriage will give you 580 class performance.  So now you're cherry picking parts. Drop the 580 to a 575 so that the carriage 580 can keep up.  Except few pros that use graphics would settle for a card that has 3.5 Tflops of performance when the 580 has almost twice that for nary a hundred dollars more. 

Except that's why you did that right?  Because then what are your options if you want 6- TFlop class performance and you're doing pro level editing or 3D work or the like and you need to hit the minimum 5Tflop marker that is the minimum threshold.  Well gee, then you'd have to pull a Vega 56 and suddenly the Mini is costing you several hundred more than the iMac and your argument falls apart.  But nice try cherry picking your parts.

You're right about one thing.  You can't compare a Mini to an iMac Pro.  The strongest Mini CPU has no shot against an iMac Pro CPU.  None. Zero. it's not even 75% as fast.  It's not even *50%* as fast on deep/mt assignments.  And since there's no chip you can put in a carriage that will give you Vega 64 performance due to the inherent 20-50% eGPU tax, the best you can hope for is to spend a fortune for a machine with the equivalent of a GTX 1070 GPU that's *STILL SLOWER* than a base, intro iMac pro.

Go ahead and cherry pick some more parts or compare the new Mini to a 2010 MacBook pro and tell us what a great bargain it is.

lemon bon bon. said:

madan said:

lorin schultz said:

nht said:

lorin schultz said:

macplusplus said:

StayPuftZombie said:

macplusplus said:

StayPuftZombie said:

macplusplus said:

tylersdad said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tylersdad said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

d3bug said:

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".

Okay, I'll bite. What's Apple's definition of "Pro" then? Show me where they codified it? Apple uses "Pro" as nothing more than a marketing term, and never has applied a classification to what makes one product pro and one not.

Upgrading components is in utterly no way the definition of "Pro." That may be YOUR definition, but it means you're calling Disney, Pixar, NASA, IBM, and most of the rest of the market not pro because they don't crack the cases open -- and never have, even when the door folded down. You really don't have any room to call somebody else a hypocrite in this matter.

It's not just about not being able to upgrade. Components fail. Apple hardware is no less susceptible to this than other hardware. If you can't upgrade the SDD, then you certainly can't repair it. Which begs the question: What happens when parts fail? Do these devices need to be sent back to Apple or taken to an Apple authorized repair facility?

I don’t think I understand the question fully. If they fail, then yes. That also has no bearing on “pro” though.

My comment had less to do with the Pro vs. Not-Pro debate. I honestly have no opinion there, since each person's definition of "Pro" is bound to vary considerably. 

I'm more or less just thinking about how these companies would possibly use a device like this without repairability (if that's even a word) .If you have a farm of these, some component is bound to fail. It's just the reality of electronics--no matter the quality of the components that make up the electronics. The companies you mentioned never crack them open at all? Not even to make repairs? I've built out data centers. Stuff breaks. And rather than be down a server, I can just pop in new components and have my downed server back up and running in a few hours. We keep spares of certain types of hardware--RAM, hard drives, CPUs. It's not an option with a device like this. You just have to wait for it to get repaired, do without, or keep spare computers around. 

If you have built server farms and have repair experience, then you are able to upgrade also the new Mac Mini’s SSD. It is your job to figure out how. You cannot expect the same from all Apple customers. Apple doesn’t build computers for you and the ones like you, it build computers for general public. On the other hand, we are no more in the “plug and pray” era, those tightly integrated devices cannot be repaired using a   mere how-to sheet, this is a matter of a very valuable expertise, training, talent and refined personal taste. You cannot expect that from people who get OCD when they face a new version of a stupid keyboard.

Um no one force apple to say this machine would be directed to pros. Which they did. And Pros and power users and enthusiasts all want user upgradable storage.  Because 2 years from now a 4TB SSD stick will cost nothing and it's wasteful to then need to toss out an entire machine because it doesnt offer enough storage. Or the other option is to have a rats nest of drives cables ala the oh-so-successful trashcan mac. Yea great choices for the enthusiats.  Way to show you care.

If 2 years from now a 4 TB SSD stick will cost nothing then so a Thunderbolt external storage will be, and no one will toss out the entire machine, calm down...

Right so screw the people that need internal storage. Viva la snake pit attached drive bricks. People that need embedded solutions, lets begrudge them. There’s only one true way. Rats nests of external storage. Again, look to the trash can Mac for an example of that raging success. A success so great, yet apple had to admit it was a failure. 

How do you embed those “drive bricks” and “rats nets” into a Mac Mini enclosure? Stop dreaming, if people need those they’ll be external, obviously. If you dream of an enclosure as big as to enclose all of your fauna then you’re on the wrong thread, this thread is related to Mac Mini.

There's an argument to made that there's no point in the Mac being "mini" if it requires an assortment of external peripherals to make it useful. Most external storage systems are bigger than the computer. Same with graphics accelerators like the Blackmagic. Doesn't that make the size of the computer itself pretty much irrelevant?

How would the enjoyment or utility of a Mac in this class be adversely affected by making it twice as big? Or even three or four times as big, like the size of a small RAID enclosure? If that meant quieter operation, better thermal control, room for internal storage, and more flexibility in the components Apple can design around (like discrete graphics and/or more powerful CPUs), wouldn't that be grounds for making it bigger?

I'm not saying that I'd prefer a bigger enclosure, I don't really care very much, I'm just saying it doesn't really NEED to be tiny. It just needs to be small enough to fit comfortably in the majority of use settings. Making it bigger wouldn't deter me from buying one.

What folks are STILL whining about a decade and a half later is that Apple stopped making affordable towers when they dropped the MDD G4 machines in 2004.  

They could make it a little larger but if they solved the thermal issues there’s no reason to.  With 2x airflow it’s likely fine.

So it’s useless whining about something Apple has shown its not going to do.  We now have a headless iMac that costs pretty much exactly like an iMac (within $50 or so) without the screen. It’s not “overpriced”.  It’s not “underpowered”. And it’s designed like every other fucking Mac out there with soldered parts, adhesives and limited user upgrades.  

People just need to GET OVER IT.  15 years of whining about how Apple cheats users, overcharges them and don’t give them what they want is enough for everyone else to get tired of it and tell these losers to buy a PC.   They aren the losers because of what they want but because they stay with a vendor that they think has been abusing them for over a decade.  Especially the dimwitted tools that start thier whining with “Ive owned a Mac ever since the original and Steve wouldn’t blah blah blah”.  Holy shit...that was an AIO  that if Steve could have gotten away with gluing shut to keep users out he would have.

Apple isn’t going to build it.  Move the fuck on.  HP makes a great little box. The intel NUCs are nice little boxes.  There’s lots of options in 2018 and win10 is a decent OS.

Just for the record, I'm not advocating for a design change. The size doesn't matter to me. Within certain practical limits, it just doesn't seem like an issue worthy of much attention, at least to me.

I was simply responding to the argument that Apple had to make concessions in areas like graphics capability and internal storage in order to keep the mini small. That's begging the question, since Apple could have chosen to make it bigger.

Apple didn't. I don't care that they didn't. I just don't buy the argument for WHY they didn't. It's a logical fallacy.

Exactly.  We're all Mac enthusiasts here.  People don't need to get so defensive.  We understand that Macs are expensive but the difference between this Mini and other past products is just how high the markup is.

This machine has no GPU.  Great, Mac Minis don't have discrete GPUs.  The problem is that this Mini's specs are hardly "super".  They're mid-range.  And yet they're charging 800 dollars for a computer that amounts to 500-550 tops.  That's practically a 100% markup.  Which is steep, even by Apple standards.  Then we have the allegation that this is a good pro machine.  A good pro machine without a GPU and a good monitor is what exactly?  If you were to try to match the specs in an imac Core i7/580 right now, you'd be looking at spending close to 2200 dollars.  On top of the 800 dollars for the mini.  That's practically 33% more than a comparably specced-iMac...for the same performance.

That's not a good value proposition on any level.  Yes, the mini has certain uses and advantages.  It's small.  It can be stacked. It can be used in server farms. It can make a great HTPC or set top box. And if you're as dumb as a box of rocks with no financial limitations you can try to turn this into a spider-web iMac Pro/Mac Pro by shoving a Vega 64 (and getting only Vega 56 performance through eGPU) in an external carriage, hooking up a monitor and paying almost 4000 dollars for the privilege.

Again, it's not that the Mini is a bad product.  It's a *good* product.  It's not that it doesn't have some advantages. It has some *distinct* advantages.  It's that it's product price isn't compelling unless you're clueless about computers.  I'd be hard pressed, even today, to build a 1.5 year old iMac i7/580 for significantly less than 2000 dollars. Hell the 27" 5K LG monitor on Amazon/Newegg is still going for almost 900 dollars.  An i7, 2 DIMMs of DDR 4 and an Intel mobo with built in USB C-Thunder+Bluetooth+Wifi will easily run you another 7-800 dollars.  The value is there even if the parts are old.  Apple has a big margin on iMacs but it's not offensively big.

The notion that Macs are "overpriced" is a myth.  The *product matrix* has a combination of expensive features that make Apple computers by their nature/capabilities...expensive.  They come with Intel motherboards.  They pack Thunderbolt.  Bluetooth. Wifi.  They have built in cameras, dual mics, decent speakers.  They have world-class monitors.  Those computers are expensive by virtue of what they have.  The Mini is a nicely engineered machine with some nice features but it's not worth 800 dollars in any dimension.  It's not worth 75% of 800 dollars.  It's uncompelling and while some people may have very particular needs that are well suited by the Mini and while everyone should buy what they want, we shouldn't be overly-aggressive Apple fanboys and attack other Apple enthusiasts simply because they don't drink the koolaid on this upgrade.

The last guy nails it.  At least the iMac attempts to give some overall value with the 5k screen (for what is, a middle range computer...)

The Mac Mini.  Welcome, as all Mac updates are.  It was horrendously out of date along with the shocking Mac Pro.

Take a look at HP's line of computers with upto date specs and snazzy design to remind yourself of the company Apple used to be in 2001.

Mac Mini doubles in price yet Apple nickels and dimes when they can get an i5 processor and 256 SSD drives for next to nothing in bulk.  They could pass on their great leveraging power to the consumer...but no...they want to pocket the advantage (we gave them, by the way...) for themselves on top of the excessive mark up they already have.

Mac Mini.  Entry.  No monitor?  No keyboard?  No mouse?  i3, no dedicated graphics, 128 gig SSD which you can buy for peanuts now.  (Really Apple?  SSD prices have been dropping like rocks and you're still pretending it's a premium sell up?  Along with hostage to fortune memory gauging?)

£995.  i5 6 core.  Dedicated graphics.  256 SSD.  16(!) gigs of ram.  That's you're killer machine right there.

£1495.  i7 8 Core.  Better dedicated graphics.  512 SSD.

Do that?  I'd buy one.  Missed the boat with no i-9 and no 8 core on the high end.

And most stupidly...no dedicated graphics?  What about at least including the graphics of the macbook pro in the base mini?  Or RX 580 in the 'high end' config?  At least?

Sorry, Apple, 4-6 core machines are already passe in x86 land.  It's 8, 10, 12, 16 core and 32 core machines for the price of a maxed out mini.  And with a GPU that will pound it's face into the sand.

No Nvidia choices?  So, we don't get the highest performing hardware because of some political grudge Apple has with Nv?

The old Blue and White G3 tower was a far better design with far better choices.

I was disappointed when I saw the mini design.  I was really hoping it would be a bit bigger and include a decent gpu...and up an 8 core machine.

I guess I'll have to hope 8 core will come to the iMac.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I don't mind the small size, or the lack of GPU.  But the new price is a marketing oddity.

130 dollar CPU, married to 80 dollar RAM and a 30 dollar SSD (BEFORE bulk discounts!).  That's 240 dollars worth of parts.  How much is that ~250-300W power supply and case worth? Apple used to use PCPC psus but they don't even shell out for that anymore.  We're talking about what?  Maybe 50-75 bucks?  How much is that USB-C/TB motherboard really worth? 200 bucks? 225? Like I said...it's a 500 dollar computer..priced at almost twice its cost.  Who is Apple targeting?  Enthusiasts?  Server farms/IT? HTPC/Tinkerers? Home families in need of a computer?  The price is just bizarre too.  The original Mini intro price hit that 500 dollar sweet spot that was so important.  It was in the same class as a phone or a console or other electronic device. But 800 dollars (for an uninspiring i3/8 GB system no less), after taxes could run you almost 875 dollars in some states.  That's just absolutely counter productive.

It's a sweet little machine.  I'd love to tinker with one with an eGPU just for academic purposes but in practice holy hell is that little box overpriced.

lorin schultz said:

nht said:

lorin schultz said:

macplusplus said:

StayPuftZombie said:

macplusplus said:

StayPuftZombie said:

macplusplus said:

tylersdad said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

tylersdad said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

d3bug said:

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".

Okay, I'll bite. What's Apple's definition of "Pro" then? Show me where they codified it? Apple uses "Pro" as nothing more than a marketing term, and never has applied a classification to what makes one product pro and one not.

Upgrading components is in utterly no way the definition of "Pro." That may be YOUR definition, but it means you're calling Disney, Pixar, NASA, IBM, and most of the rest of the market not pro because they don't crack the cases open -- and never have, even when the door folded down. You really don't have any room to call somebody else a hypocrite in this matter.

It's not just about not being able to upgrade. Components fail. Apple hardware is no less susceptible to this than other hardware. If you can't upgrade the SDD, then you certainly can't repair it. Which begs the question: What happens when parts fail? Do these devices need to be sent back to Apple or taken to an Apple authorized repair facility?

I don’t think I understand the question fully. If they fail, then yes. That also has no bearing on “pro” though.

My comment had less to do with the Pro vs. Not-Pro debate. I honestly have no opinion there, since each person's definition of "Pro" is bound to vary considerably. 

I'm more or less just thinking about how these companies would possibly use a device like this without repairability (if that's even a word) .If you have a farm of these, some component is bound to fail. It's just the reality of electronics--no matter the quality of the components that make up the electronics. The companies you mentioned never crack them open at all? Not even to make repairs? I've built out data centers. Stuff breaks. And rather than be down a server, I can just pop in new components and have my downed server back up and running in a few hours. We keep spares of certain types of hardware--RAM, hard drives, CPUs. It's not an option with a device like this. You just have to wait for it to get repaired, do without, or keep spare computers around. 

If you have built server farms and have repair experience, then you are able to upgrade also the new Mac Mini’s SSD. It is your job to figure out how. You cannot expect the same from all Apple customers. Apple doesn’t build computers for you and the ones like you, it build computers for general public. On the other hand, we are no more in the “plug and pray” era, those tightly integrated devices cannot be repaired using a   mere how-to sheet, this is a matter of a very valuable expertise, training, talent and refined personal taste. You cannot expect that from people who get OCD when they face a new version of a stupid keyboard.

Um no one force apple to say this machine would be directed to pros. Which they did. And Pros and power users and enthusiasts all want user upgradable storage.  Because 2 years from now a 4TB SSD stick will cost nothing and it's wasteful to then need to toss out an entire machine because it doesnt offer enough storage. Or the other option is to have a rats nest of drives cables ala the oh-so-successful trashcan mac. Yea great choices for the enthusiats.  Way to show you care.

If 2 years from now a 4 TB SSD stick will cost nothing then so a Thunderbolt external storage will be, and no one will toss out the entire machine, calm down...

Right so screw the people that need internal storage. Viva la snake pit attached drive bricks. People that need embedded solutions, lets begrudge them. There’s only one true way. Rats nests of external storage. Again, look to the trash can Mac for an example of that raging success. A success so great, yet apple had to admit it was a failure. 

How do you embed those “drive bricks” and “rats nets” into a Mac Mini enclosure? Stop dreaming, if people need those they’ll be external, obviously. If you dream of an enclosure as big as to enclose all of your fauna then you’re on the wrong thread, this thread is related to Mac Mini.

There's an argument to made that there's no point in the Mac being "mini" if it requires an assortment of external peripherals to make it useful. Most external storage systems are bigger than the computer. Same with graphics accelerators like the Blackmagic. Doesn't that make the size of the computer itself pretty much irrelevant?

How would the enjoyment or utility of a Mac in this class be adversely affected by making it twice as big? Or even three or four times as big, like the size of a small RAID enclosure? If that meant quieter operation, better thermal control, room for internal storage, and more flexibility in the components Apple can design around (like discrete graphics and/or more powerful CPUs), wouldn't that be grounds for making it bigger?

I'm not saying that I'd prefer a bigger enclosure, I don't really care very much, I'm just saying it doesn't really NEED to be tiny. It just needs to be small enough to fit comfortably in the majority of use settings. Making it bigger wouldn't deter me from buying one.

What folks are STILL whining about a decade and a half later is that Apple stopped making affordable towers when they dropped the MDD G4 machines in 2004.  

They could make it a little larger but if they solved the thermal issues there’s no reason to.  With 2x airflow it’s likely fine.

So it’s useless whining about something Apple has shown its not going to do.  We now have a headless iMac that costs pretty much exactly like an iMac (within $50 or so) without the screen. It’s not “overpriced”.  It’s not “underpowered”. And it’s designed like every other fucking Mac out there with soldered parts, adhesives and limited user upgrades.  

People just need to GET OVER IT.  15 years of whining about how Apple cheats users, overcharges them and don’t give them what they want is enough for everyone else to get tired of it and tell these losers to buy a PC.   They aren the losers because of what they want but because they stay with a vendor that they think has been abusing them for over a decade.  Especially the dimwitted tools that start thier whining with “Ive owned a Mac ever since the original and Steve wouldn’t blah blah blah”.  Holy shit...that was an AIO  that if Steve could have gotten away with gluing shut to keep users out he would have.

Apple isn’t going to build it.  Move the fuck on.  HP makes a great little box. The intel NUCs are nice little boxes.  There’s lots of options in 2018 and win10 is a decent OS.

Just for the record, I'm not advocating for a design change. The size doesn't matter to me. Within certain practical limits, it just doesn't seem like an issue worthy of much attention, at least to me.

I was simply responding to the argument that Apple had to make concessions in areas like graphics capability and internal storage in order to keep the mini small. That's begging the question, since Apple could have chosen to make it bigger.

Apple didn't. I don't care that they didn't. I just don't buy the argument for WHY they didn't. It's a logical fallacy.

Exactly.  We're all Mac enthusiasts here.  People don't need to get so defensive.  We understand that Macs are expensive but the difference between this Mini and other past products is just how high the markup is.

This machine has no GPU.  Great, Mac Minis don't have discrete GPUs.  The problem is that this Mini's specs are hardly "super".  They're mid-range.  And yet they're charging 800 dollars for a computer that amounts to 500-550 tops.  That's practically a 100% markup.  Which is steep, even by Apple standards.  Then we have the allegation that this is a good pro machine.  A good pro machine without a GPU and a good monitor is what exactly?  If you were to try to match the specs in an imac Core i7/580 right now, you'd be looking at spending close to 2200 dollars.  On top of the 800 dollars for the mini.  That's practically 33% more than a comparably specced-iMac...for the same performance.

That's not a good value proposition on any level.  Yes, the mini has certain uses and advantages.  It's small.  It can be stacked. It can be used in server farms. It can make a great HTPC or set top box. And if you're as dumb as a box of rocks with no financial limitations you can try to turn this into a spider-web iMac Pro/Mac Pro by shoving a Vega 64 (and getting only Vega 56 performance through eGPU) in an external carriage, hooking up a monitor and paying almost 4000 dollars for the privilege.

Again, it's not that the Mini is a bad product.  It's a *good* product.  It's not that it doesn't have some advantages. It has some *distinct* advantages.  It's that it's product price isn't compelling unless you're clueless about computers.  I'd be hard pressed, even today, to build a 1.5 year old iMac i7/580 for significantly less than 2000 dollars. Hell the 27" 5K LG monitor on Amazon/Newegg is still going for almost 900 dollars.  An i7, 2 DIMMs of DDR 4 and an Intel mobo with built in USB C-Thunder+Bluetooth+Wifi will easily run you another 7-800 dollars.  The value is there even if the parts are old.  Apple has a big margin on iMacs but it's not offensively big.

The notion that Macs are "overpriced" is a myth.  The *product matrix* has a combination of expensive features that make Apple computers by their nature/capabilities...expensive.  They come with Intel motherboards.  They pack Thunderbolt.  Bluetooth. Wifi.  They have built in cameras, dual mics, decent speakers.  They have world-class monitors.  Those computers are expensive by virtue of what they have.  The Mini is a nicely engineered machine with some nice features but it's not worth 800 dollars in any dimension.  It's not worth 75% of 800 dollars.  It's uncompelling and while some people may have very particular needs that are well suited by the Mini and while everyone should buy what they want, we shouldn't be overly-aggressive Apple fanboys and attack other Apple enthusiasts simply because they don't drink the koolaid on this upgrade.

tedp88 said:

man, DED is seriously bitter about so much. Painful to read. One time I would like to see him turn his cynicism towards Apple. The way he writes, just plays into the rabid fanboy view others have of us Mac users. The MS Reddit is having a field day with this one. 

I've been a strictly Apple user for all things in life since 2007.  The simplicity and good, thoughtful technology was a major breath of fresh air that kept me hooked for a very long time. I have seen a (perceived on my part) steady slip in Apple's quality and mojo over the last few years. It could be a maturation of the brand and life cycle effects but it also seems like a shift in priorities is an issue. "Luxury" is Apple's new mantra. 

My original MBP was fully user serviceable. My 2012 rMBP had the logic board and screen replaced twice. My 2016 tbMBP has experienced a battery failure, logic board replacement and now sleep issues / sticky keys on the new repaired parts.  My iPhones (owned every one) have been buggier through the generations. The 7 was my last good one. The X has been terrible for basic voice calls (mic issues that no one can pin down and Apple just keeps replacing). The comments about poor RF and WiFi performance on XS and Max are downright alarming and this year will be the first upgrade cycle I sit out. 

I ignored all of the worrying changes with Apple's products because I was a fan. A big one. I influenced a lot of switchers. I didn't mind paying a premium for a good product and still don't. I will happily pay extra for user serviceable hardware that works well together and emphasizes longevity, value and privacy as chair legs. The serviceable part of Apple's products has disappeared. Privacy is still there. Value is questionable. 

The extra $$ we now pay simply goes towards the elitist illusion Apple is pushing. This new focus on differentiating as a luxury product, is what make me question my loyalty going forward. It feels like now that they have everyone hooked in a walled garden, they start upping the rent. If MS or Google or anyone else wants to probe the defenses, let them. We shouldn't feel threatened by it and need to defend a company who in the end only cares about our willingness to open the wallet (unless you feel some guilt for coming to the same realization and continue to spend on Apple). I am sticking with Apple for now but watching for exits. DED needs to chill and stop throwing stones. 

My iPhone X has easily been the best phone I’ve ever used and has had great reception.  Maybe your phone is a lemon but don’t be spreading FUD like facts.