
Not Only Is the Mac Mini Outdated, It's No Longer Mini - okket
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/06/14/snellintosh
======
SiVal
I think the way to think about all of these Apple products is through the lens
of what I believe their long-term strategy to be.

Apple wants to onboard people into the _new_ Apple ecosystem, which is iToys
and backend services. They believe this will be better for you, not just for
them. They control the iOS-based world in a way they could never control
"computers". They're trying to get as many people as they can into their new
Disneyland-ish ecosystem, where everything you do is approved and monitored
and everything you buy is bought through them.

The low-end Mac seems to only matter now as a source of low-end users, who
need carrot and stick to move them off Mac and onto iOS, so low-end Macs won't
get better but low-end iOS devices will. I suspect we'll see touchscreen
laptops running iOS pretty soon, and that will signal the end of low-end Macs.

The high-end Mac users have a better story, because Apple needs developers for
their ecosystem, and those people need good tools. I can't imagine Apple being
interested in developing dev tools that run on non-Apple devices, and I think
they'll want an absolutely guaranteed source of computers with whatever
features are needed to develop the best stuff for their ecosystem, so I think
a high-end Mac product line will live on with each new version being a bit
more iOS-like. If they want to keep the lockdown on iOS while retaining full
power to develop for it, they will probably have to keep the less-locked-down
macOS going for dev machines for a long time, but things like the Mac Mini
have no place in this picture.

~~~
haberman
> I suspect we'll see touchscreen laptops running iOS pretty soon

Seems unlikely. From a 2016 interview:

> MacOS is meant to be operated with a mouse and keyboard. Apple says it
> doesn’t make sense to lean forward to touch your Mac screen. An iOS-powered
> iPad works best with fingers, which means you can just lean back while using
> it.

> “We did spend a great deal of time looking at this a number of years ago and
> came to the conclusion that to make the best personal computer, you can’t
> try to turn MacOS into an iPhone,” Schiller says. “Conversely, you can’t
> turn iOS into a Mac…. So each one is best at what they’re meant to be — and
> we take what makes sense to add from each, but without fundamentally
> changing them so they’re compromised.”

\--[https://www.cnet.com/special-reports/does-the-mac-still-
matt...](https://www.cnet.com/special-reports/does-the-mac-still-matter/)

~~~
FooHentai
The split view of 'producer' vs 'consumer' often seems like a good yardstick
for this kinda stuff, rather than high/low end.

For situations where you want to be productive on a device, mouse and
keyboard, desktop, big screen, proper seat all very important. For situations
where someone consumes on a device, touch input, portability, small screen,
headphones connectivity.

That seems to match the philosophical split for MacOS vs IOS, and maybe future
developments can be best predicted by applying that lens.

~~~
WorldMaker
Why is that a useful framework, though?

I've never met people that fall squarely into "producer" or "consumer",
everyone you talk to has a creative hobby or three, and might be either a
"producer" or a "consumer" at different times of day, or different moods, or
as inspiration strikes.

It's a wide, diverse spectrum turned into a strange false dichotomy that
leaves us with weird pseudo-categories like "prosumer" (and "conducer"?)
middle grounds.

Maybe there is something about enforcing that dichotomy in leaving them to
different contexts, different devices it forces you to switch hats in a
physical visceral sense. Certainly studies say that such a forced context
switch can be good for the brain to know it's time to X where X is produce or
consume (or "prosume"?). Yet that seems a strange reason to force that on
users. Is it anything more than an equivalent to "It's good for you, you must
eat your vegetables before dessert?"

I naturally flow between consumption and production use cases, so why
shouldn't the devices I use switch to my context instead of me switching to
theirs?

It's an interesting philosophical split, but I'm curious how useful it is in
the real world. Microsoft's "everyone can be a creator, everyone should be a
creator, your devices should support you whatever you decide to do on the
creation/consumption spectrum" reaction marketing seems the better approach to
me, philosophically. I'm not defined by a "consumer" or "producer" 'gender',
and I don't see why I should be.

How does this philosophical split help Apple in the long term?

~~~
FooHentai
>Why is that a useful framework, though?

>why shouldn't the devices I use switch to my context instead of me switching
to theirs?

Mostly because, in my opinion, every attempt to create a device that does that
has resulted in failure, and those failures are due to fundamental opposing
priorities with each 'mode'.

I may of course be wrong, in which case you're right this framework should be
junked. But so far nobody's cracked both use cases well with a single setup,
and the model holds. IMO.

>How does this philosophical split help Apple in the long term?

For a brand that's betting so heavily on the walled garden, ecosystem-based
sales and marketing methods, having an 'answer' to every consumer need is
essential to is to not have an answer for one of your customer's needs, ecause
that opens the door for that customer to adopt something outside your
ecosystem. Keep them within the curated suite of products you offer, and keep
them happy, or you'll see attrition. Note all of the noise about the latest
MBP devices and how they're no longer meeting the needs of many content
creators, to see how tricky this can be.

------
adsfgionioni
Geekbench is pretty much useless, especially across architectures and OSes. It
claims a maybe three-watt iPhone CPU can beat a 40-watt Ryzen 1200, which is
plainly ridiculous. Apple makes a good CPU, but you'd have to be crazy to
think they have beaten the competition by a factor of ten in power consumption
with no compromise. When you see something incredible, be incredulous.

[https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2051](https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2051)
[https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/50](https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/50)

Does anyone know of a decent iPhone benchmark? I'd be very interested in
comparing their hardware to other CPUs, but none of the benchmarks I know run
on iPhones. And the people who know what they're doing, e.g. Phoronix, don't
test much mobile hardware.

~~~
dep_b
The transistor count of an A11 is 4.3 million, the Ryzen has about 4.8 million
depending on the type. And x86 is a bit wasteful in terms of what it does
effectively with those transistors because the front-end required to translate
x86 instructions.

~~~
dingo_bat
I don't know about A11 but Ryzen transistor count is 4.8 billion, not million.

~~~
dep_b
You're right, can't edit anymore

------
emisario
"But the striking thing to me is just how much smaller the Intel NUC is."

Add the volume of the NUC's hideous and ungainly power supply brick. Then make
your judgement on size.

If you've taken a mini apart, you'd see that the easiest way volume could be
significantly reduced is by replacing the space for two 3.5" drives with space
for one modern NVME gum stick - a trick which the already NUC does thanks to
its being developed more recently.

The mini has Thunderbolt and and digital audio in/out. The NUC has neither of
these.

If you compare the interior of the mini and the NUC, the NUC does not stand
out as an marvel of engineering or miniaturization.

Anyway, whose desk cannot fit a mac mini?

~~~
nottorp
I really don't understand how people can put up with these huge power bricks.
Just because you can hide it under a desk it doesn't mean it's not there.

And speaking of all in ones, the iMac doesn't have a power brick either. If
you screw your NUC to the back of a monitor/tv you will end up with _two_
power bricks if you're unlucky. They may fit under the desk, or the cable may
be too short and you'd have to keep one or both _on_ the desk. I don't see the
advantage.

Apple has other, significant problems right now, but the devices not being
mini enough isn't one of them.

~~~
nxc18
Every Mac I've every seen can message with a huge power brick, often
integrated directly into the plug.

I can't plug my MacBook in under my desk because it's one two-pronged and it's
super heavy so it falls down.

I don't care if it has a power brick or not, just make it easy to plug in.
Bonus: a cable material that is designed to withstand years of use not months;
their cables are no better than the competition and they have a crazy failure
rate.

~~~
megaman22
Those Mac wall-wart chargers are awful. You essentially have to buy the
extension cable, and voila, you have a bulkier version of the power adapter
every laptop comes with.

And how in the world do they not have a grounded plug?

~~~
Milner08
Because they're double insulated, so no need for ground. Also with UK plugs
(The superior plug type) the apple chargers are pretty great, no way they're
falling out the wall then. With the US plug they're pretty annoying though.
But I have to say I do prefer the extension (which I luckily have from
previous Macs).

~~~
sneak
I (resident in the US) have replaced all my outlets with universal sockets,
and routinely use the U.K. style plug on my Apple power supplies.

------
JetSetWilly
> I don’t expect that Apple would make a box quite this ugly—those two USB
> ports on the front of the case would be the first to go

That's what's annoying about Apple hardware and great about PCs in a nutshell:
the constant need to put facile design looks above actual usability. Why
should I have to fiddle around the back every time I want to plug or unplug a
usb device?

~~~
rtpg
There's a bit of a bet going on in Apple's mindset. For most people, USB
drives are no longer a thing (Dropbox, mail-to-self, etc.), so why put ports
in the front? If they're in the back you can set up your keyboard cable or w/e
nicely and keep those out of the way.

_If_ your USB usage is not 'often plugging/unplugging stuff into the port',
then having the ports in the back is better for usability and the like.

Of course this doesn't work if the bet they make is wrong (see MBP dongles)

~~~
jimrandomh
Because there are a zillion things other than USB drives that people plug into
those ports. Phones (both to charge and occasionally to sync), headphones, 2FA
authenticators, cameras, gamepads, printers--the list is long and it isn't
getting much shorter over time.

~~~
Gorbzel
None of these things inherently need to be plugged in. Wireless and battery
technology need to continue to improve.

~~~
cwt137
Most 2FA USB devices do not support NFC to make them wireless. Even if you do
have an NFC enabled 2FA device, Macs don't have NFC. So, wireless is not an
option.

------
nextos
I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a fanless Mini. There's a
respectable market for fanless NUCs, and the original Mini was a great
machine. Plus, it's a cheap entry level to the Apple ecosystem.

~~~
ovao
"Cheap" and "entry-level" are two terms Apple is particularly unfond of,
however. The reason why the Mac mini is no longer being updated may be because
it's simply too cheap.

~~~
scarface74
The $329 iPad is pretty nice. It’s cheap and fairly powerful.

~~~
Retric
That's still 4x the price of many tablets. Which gives Apple room for high
quality and a healthy profit margins.

~~~
moolcool
4x the price of some vastly inferior tablets. Don't get me wrong, the margin
is still high, but the entry level iPad is well above the specs and build of
the Kindle Fire

------
kwijibob
My main work and home "PC"s are Mac Minis running Ubuntu.

They are fantastic, beautiful and small machines that have worked reliably for
6-7 years. (as has Ubuntu!)

At the time of purchase the Mac Mini was the best combination of small size
and still fairly decent CPU/GPU firepower.

I also have upgraded them to full SSD and 8gig ram.

Of course, I will get a NUC whenever they need replacing, but I don't see that
happening anytime soon...

------
cseelus
> Apple TV 4K is tiny compared to a Mac Mini, but judging by Geekbench scores
> (Mac Mini; iPad Pro, which uses the A10X in the Apple TV) it’s a slightly
> faster computer than even the maxed-out Mac Mini configuration. Apple TV 4K
> probably has better GPU performance too. In addition to all the performance
> problems stemming from the fact that the Mac Mini hasn’t been updated in
> three years, it’s also inarguable that it’s no longer even “mini”. You could
> arrange four Apple TV units in a 2 × 2 square and they’d take up the same
> volume as one Mac Mini.

Hadn't thought about that. Would be awesome if it would be possible to run
arbitrary software on that little TV box, e.g. use it as a real, powerful (for
the size), cheap general purpose personal computer.

~~~
j45
If one could:

\- run VM's on Apple TV it would be great.

\- use multiple ATVs, you mighe be able to get around not having 16 GB of ram.

Still, 32 GB in an Intel NUC is very attractive.

~~~
MR4D
I’m cool with just getting Linux on it. Would be like a raspberry pi on
steroids!

~~~
meatmanek
That would be cool, though it's worth pointing out that if you just want a
more powerful single-board ARM computer, those exist.

Sorry for slideshow, but [https://www.techrepublic.com/pictures/want-a-more-
powerful-r...](https://www.techrepublic.com/pictures/want-a-more-powerful-
raspberry-pi-choose-from-these-20-alternatives/)

~~~
j45
Thanks for the list. The link above had a single page link:
[https://www.techrepublic.com/article/raspberry-pi-not-
powerf...](https://www.techrepublic.com/article/raspberry-pi-not-powerful-
enough-check-out-these-20-beefy-boards/)

------
bane
You want a mini-device that you can also take on the go?
[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-win-2-handheld-
game-c...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gpd-win-2-handheld-game-console-
for-aaa-games--2#/)

It's about the size of a 3DS, has an Intel Core m3 Kaby Lake dual core 2.6Ghz
CPU with integrated GPU, 8GB of RAM and a swappable m.2 SSD. Plus built in
screen, keyboard, game controller etc. Has an HDMI port, USB and so on so you
can connect it to more comfortable I/O devices when using it from a fixed
location.

Runs Windows 10 so you can probably get a Linux prompt on it.

Weighs 1 pound and can run GTA V at playable speeds, ~$700 or the same as a
mid-tier Mac Mini. The same manufacturer also produces a few other pocketable-
portables.

I think it's important to understand that a no-name manufacturer can do this,
Apple should be able to do it as a rounding error in their sleep.

------
giancarlostoro
This is sad I still await the Mac Mini being properly updated. Please Apple do
not disappoint...

~~~
wahern
I'm still using my 4-core, mid-2011 Mini. Aside from the poorly supported
graphics hardware--video playback in Chrome, etc has inexplicably taken up
more CPU over the years, I guess because lazy developers increasingly depend
on more modern CPU and GPU features--I have no reason to upgrade and nothing
enticing to upgrade to. It seems my mini won't be supported for macOS 10.14,
and I have no idea what I'll do.

I'm also still hanging onto my Macbook Air, which to me is the epitome of
laptop design.

~~~
fetus8
I'm still rocking my mid-2012 Mini that I upgraded to 16GB RAM and an SSD,
luckily I'm getting 10.14, but otherwise I also see zero reason to upgrade my
desktop Mac atm. This machine has been more than powerful for most tasks I've
thrown at it, and it still runs like a dream.

If Apple were to actually upgrade/update the Mini with new CPUs and a smaller
form factor, I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade finally. Those Intel NUCs are
starting to get real appealing to me, but I'm not ready to jump to Windows or
Linux for my home machines...

~~~
j45
Mind sharing which SSD you used? I'm on the fence of updating my 2012 mini
like yours or move to a NUC but not be able to upgrade it.

Might be worth just riding it out until the next Mac mini that runs on A*
cpu's instead arrives.

~~~
Tempest1981
I upgraded a 2012 Mini with a 240GB SanDisk [0]. It wasn't too bad, but watch
the YouTube videos first. (And, as noted above, the 2014 may be trickier.)

[0]
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00M8ABEIM](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00M8ABEIM)

~~~
j45
Thanks! Seems like a good way to get some time out of this. Just have to keep
in mind when Apple may EOL the MacOS/Security updates.

------
mb_72
I've got an 2011-era Mac Mini that I've loved for developing - updated to 8GB
of RAM + an SSD, it's been a great Xamarin machine for years. However now I'm
looking for a replacement as Mojave won't support the hardware. With the dated
Mac Mini and reports of many keyboard issues on Macbook Pros I'm looking at a
Mac Air for a new development machine - and even these are getting a bit long
in the tooth. Not really sure what Apple is up to these days.

~~~
gm-conspiracy
It is really sad there is no equivalent for a 7 year old device.

Is a Hackintosh an option for Mojave?

~~~
nyreed
People usually have success in getting newer OS versions running on formally
unsupported macs.

~~~
saagarjha
I doubt this will work for Mojave, since I believe everything was written
using Metal.

------
314
I've just finished doing something similar. My mac mini was from 2011 and the
harddisk had just died. It was an awkward year in that an SSD can be fitted to
replace the mechanical drive, but it would be limited to half-speed on the
controller.

The replacement is a NUC from last year (NUC7i5BNK), but there did not seem to
be any point installing macos on it - over the years Apple seem to have
crammed in a lot of stuff that I don't like and made it much worse as a small
cheap unix workstation.

It's running FreeBSD instead and the difference in size / performance /
efficiency is remarkable. It's sad that Apple have let the mac mini line die
such a slow protracted death, but unless you are determined to be walled
inside Apple's ecosystem there is very little reason to get one.

------
twerkmonsta
Doesn't this all feed into the idea that Apple is ditching x86/x64 and going
full ARM?

It would make sense that the Apple TV is so much more powerful considering
Apple pours so much into custom ARM chip design and OS development. MacOS
doesn't work on ARM, and it doesn't seem like Apple is interested in porting
it. Seems more likely the new Mini, if there ever is one, would be ARM based.

~~~
kitsunesoba
I would be shocked to an extreme degree if Apple hasn’t been maintaining a
version of macOS for their A-series chips for several years now. There’s
precedent — they kept the lid sealed on their x86 OS X build for half a decade
before the Intel transition was announced.

So while I agree that updates to the Mini are being held back by a pending ARM
transition, I don’t think it’ll run iOS. It’ll run macOS for ARM.

~~~
rusk
_> they kept the lid sealed on their x86 OS X build for half a decade before
the Intel transition_

Do you think they’re still the same Apple though?

~~~
saagarjha
I wouldn't be surprised if there were builds for Mac OS X on ARM ever since
iPhone came out.

~~~
Qub3d
If you read the Walter Issacson biography, it also implies this.

~~~
rusk
I have this sitting on my shelf a long time and I'm so embarrassed I haven't
read it yet.

Again, I think that Apple is a very different beast even since then ...

------
edvinbesic
This will come across as nit-picky but this:

    
    
      > Calling the Mac Mini “mini” is absurd in 2018.
    

doesn't make much sense. Mini is not an absolute unit of measurement, and the
mac mini is still the smallest mac you can buy.

The rest of it I agree with though and am patiently awaiting for a new mini or
a better pro.

~~~
elicash
The writer didn't say it was absolute. A huge part of the piece was comparing
to Apple TV.

------
dman
He could have rewritten the last sentence from "They just seem to have lost
any interest in making one that runs MacOS." to "They just seem to have lost
any interest in MacOS.".

------
imagetic
I think I have about about 20 Mac Mini's for various roles around my office.
Probably the most used computers / servers in our entire environment. They're
starting to show their age though. One by one they are being retired.

------
dmitriid
> "They just seem to have lost any interest in making one that runs MacOS."

Sadly, I believe that this statement is true not just for Mac Mini, but for
the whole "pro"/desktop line of computers.

------
dragonshed
I (might have) had a similar experience to the author, but instead with an
earlier skylake model of the Intel NUCs. The only issue I (in theory) had was
the predictably slow graphical performance due to the lack of a GPU.

Ultimately I chose to keep using an older macbook pro as my main driver and
installed linux to run things that were too slow for Vagrant/VMs.

[Edit] Upon reflecting on this article and my (theoretical) experience, I'm
going to do a little reading into how well supported AMD APUs are (i.e. Ryzen
5 2400g).

------
andrewstuart
The thing that annoys me most is that Apple won't say that this product is
dead, or if it is not dead then I'm even more annoyed at how long it takes to
update.

~~~
gowld
What does dead mean? You can buy one, and it will be supported for several
years. The lack of a new one doesn't make the old one dead.

~~~
andrewstuart
It's dead if it is not a product that will be updated.

That's the definition of dead for any line of computer products - sure you
might be able to buy one now, but if there are no more iterations coming then
the product (line) is dead.

~~~
adrianratnapala
As old time MS-DOS loving Never Appler, I don't get this. Every few years, if
I need a new computer, I look at the options and then I buy or build one that
meets my needs.

What does it matter if the vendor is going to, or not going to, offer a
similar-but-updated one in a few years?

~~~
andrewstuart
I was a die hard Microsoft lover for many many years.

OSX is a much better operating system than Windows.

So Im stuck with buying from Apple and Mac Mini was their entry level cost
machine, that's why it matters.

~~~
adrianratnapala
Nitpick: I always hated Windows, I've used Linux for the last 23 years.

But I still don't get it. Suppose in two years time, Apple axes the Mac Mini;
but today the mini meets your needs. In three years time, you will have to
shop around for whatever MacOS supporting computer meets your needs then, but
you'll have to do that regardless of which Mac you buy today.

Now it _might_ matter if you are considering switching OSes. I.e. you fear
that in a few years time, MacOS will support _no_ computers that meet your
needs. In that case, you might consider making your peace with Linux (or even
Windows!) today.

~~~
andrewstuart
I've tried all operating systems that took my interest.

For my purposes, and by my personal measures, OSX is far and away the very
best OS out there. I therefore will buy whatever computer I must to use that
OS. Nothing else matters to me.

------
psyclobe
As much as I like to think apple is really fuct and what not (I mean, I relish
seeing them suck lately), fact is they are mere inches away from fixing all of
the recent complaints people have had with their products. I'm seriously
looking forward to this years macbook refresh, (less so the mini, but its
still a cool piece of kit).

------
agumonkey
apple desktop lineup is such a mess..

~~~
wilsonnb2
Eh. No one every really complains about the iMac, which makes up most of their
desktop offering.

~~~
ropeadopepope
Do you have a source on that? I never hear about iMacs, which makes me assume
nobody uses them.

~~~
jakobegger
I've just looked at some statistics from update checks from Postico, a
database app used mostly by web developers.

\- 93% of my customers have a laptop

\- 70% of desktop users have an iMac

Graphs: [https://imgur.com/a/H0N0BZy](https://imgur.com/a/H0N0BZy)

~~~
gowld
Those graphs are missing the scale. 70% of nothing is nothing.

~~~
ropeadopepope
Context is everything. We're talking about desktop computers. We already know
laptop users dwarf desktop users these days. My question implied I was curious
about what percentage of desktop users use iMacs. 70%, even for a product that
isn't widely used, is interesting.

------
aetherspawn
The low end Mac isn’t about the hardware. It’s about being the cheapest
possible entry level thing required to get the macOS developer experience, ie
being able to compile iPhone apps, run Selenium over Safari or whatever.

At the end of the day, they aren’t really selling it for the hardware.
Otherwise it’d be like 6mm thick, half the footprint and three times as fast.

------
eddieh
I would love to use my old Apple TV as mini computer, but there doesn't seem
to be a way to jailbreak the 3rd gen Apple TV.

------
willfiveash
Man, in the last couple of years I've been counting myself lucky in that I
bought a late 2012 Mini with the fastest i7 offered. It appears to be downhill
for the Mini from then on.

------
andybak
I haven't read Gruber in a while. Is this as uncharacteristically critical and
disappointed as it seems based on my recollection?

Or has the ardour been fading on a longer time scale?

~~~
Aaronn
You may have thought of him as overly positive but I never saw that. He has
always liked some things and disliked other things.

------
wodenokoto
This guy said this thing 2 month ago, and I said it last year too, so here's
an article where I stick those two old posts together. Enjoy!

------
Jyaif
Translation: Apple is going to release a smaller mac.

------
microcolonel
The Mac Mini is Maxi because they didn't bother to change the chassis much
after removing the optical drive.

------
NathanCH
Can someone explain why Apple computers seemingly only have a 2-3 year
lifespan? I've had the "opportunity" of owning three Macs in my life and none
of them have lasted more than a couple years.

Sure, they work. I gave me Grandma my old iMac and she uses it to this day.
But it's impossibly slow, as is my 2015 iMac that I'm writing this on.

Restarting this $2500 computer takes several minutes, opening applications
takes similar period of time. The computer lags when you open ANY save dialog.
Even opening finder takes about 1 second.

Meanwhile I also have a five year old Windows PC I built myself, restarts in
under 15 seconds. As soon as I see my desktop I can launch any application
instantly.

I like using OSX but it's fucking slow.

~~~
Watabou
Does the iMac possibly have a HDD rather than an SSD (which your custom PC
probably has)?

The SSD makes a huge difference in response time. It’s the only reason I’m
still using my 5 year old MacBook Pro which has a PCIe SSD and I have no plans
to upgrade other than to maybe get TB3 support.

I actually do real development on it, running multiple applications, running
Xcode builds, the lot. It does everything I throw at it like a champ.

I’m not sure where you’re getting the 2-3 but that’s definitely not what you
should be getting from a modern PC/Mac, especially if they have an SSD.

~~~
NathanCH
Yeah that's correct, the Windows machine has a SSD and the iMac does not.
Perhaps I've just forgotten how intolerable HDDs are.

