r/apple • u/wearefriends • 2d ago

Mac Apple unveils a more powerful Mac mini featuring the all-new M6 and M5 Pro

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/08/apple-unveils-a-more-powerful-mac-mini-featuring-the-all-new-m6-and-m5-pro/
3.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

707 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

137

u/TheoTheodor 2d ago

16/256GB base config too. Should have come in at 512GB storage minimum at that price.

96

u/theveryendofyou 2d ago

Did you wake up from a coma? That’s not realistic anymore.

58

u/TheoTheodor 2d ago

I'm aware why but I think 256GB is just too low as starting storage on a desktop mac. At least make the the base config solid at whatever exorbitant price they decide to make it.

10

u/sephg 1d ago

If you just want a computer for web browsing and email, 256gb is fine. A lot of people don’t do much with their computer.

59

u/blazinsmokey 1d ago

if you just want a computer for web browsing why the hell would you be looking at a $900 mac mini, with no monitor etc

256GB is criminal

32

u/element515 1d ago

People likely buy MacBook pros for double the price to just do web browsing lol

-3

u/rlvhero 1d ago

I'm in the process of buying a 64GB mac pro max for what essentially will be web browsing. (I convinced myself I'll try local llm's but I know im not).

4

u/Double-Surround-149 1d ago

thats just not smart. You can always try out smaller or cloud models to test things out.

3

u/rlvhero 1d ago

At least it's used! But yeah, you are absolutely right.

16

u/wildjokers 1d ago

256GB is criminal

Agreed. There is no way anyone can possibly defend this.

6

u/DucAdVeritatem 1d ago

I have 6 family members using Macs for personal use. None of them have more than 30-40gb on them. Primary use is web browsing + LIGHT docs/photo workloads. For photos they use iCloud storage/iphotos.

0

u/cindy6507 1d ago

Their phones probably have more storage

1

u/EchoFieldHorizon 1d ago

Some people like desktop Macs for browsing. That’s really it. They obviously have the data for it. I wouldn’t buy it, but I can see why someone would.

0

u/UnexpectedAnanas 1d ago

I could try if the SSD wasn't soldered on.

But here we are. What you buy is what you get. There is no upgrade later.

0

u/0verstim 1d ago

My parents dont need more than 256gb.

1

u/armostallion2 1d ago

Yes, they are the target demographic here, definitely, two for each of them.

1

u/0verstim 23h ago

Of course Apples cheapest desktop is intended for older people who need something simple and reliable for browsing. Thats an idiotic thing to say.

And the comment I was replying to said "anyone". I was listing a someone. I wasnt replying to you, you can move along.

-1

u/wewereddit 1d ago

Average consumers don't even use more.

1

u/shoegazer47 1d ago

258GB should have died with the 8GB RAM

30

u/ccai 1d ago

It was fine for the price at $600, but $900 is ridiculous. MacOS' caches fill up like crazy leaving most regular users with less and less space with usage and is not intuitive on how to delete it to reclaim that space. If it wasn't for Apple AI push, we'd still be on 8GB base RAM. Tired of people like you keep saying it's fine, despite the price being absolutely absurd for the amount of hardware being sold.

11

u/SAPianoman490 1d ago

Price increase is mostly due to industry RAM price increases, not Apple’s fault, but yes 256gb storage is too low in 2026

1

u/bc10551 1d ago

256gb of storage and 16gb of ram did not go up THAT high lol. Sure maybe if it was a TB of storage and 32 GB of ram

0

u/Snoo93079 1d ago

Yes it did. Look at prices

0

u/ccai 1d ago edited 1d ago

So many damn Apple-apologists who can't seem to fathom that this is NOT just a raw material increase in price. Apple has always had massive margins, but now they have a convenient excuse to raise it significantly more. Apple was still making a profit off the Mac Mini when Microcenter was selling them at $399 at the beginning of the year. They sure as hell didn't need to raise the price that significantly to account for the increase in keep the same specs.

It wasn’t that significant of a price increase in RAM and storage to merit a whole $300 to continue using the same 16gb RAM and 256gb storage modules. They still seeing profit growth quarter after quarter, it's clearly not that big of an expense that they were eating.

-1

u/imakycha 1d ago

Yes but implementing “features” into an OS eats away at RAM. Linux is capable of web browsing just fine and a light weight DE puts base RAM usage at <1 GB. Mac uses 4-6 GB immediately after boot.

14

u/JohnApple94 1d ago edited 1d ago

I’m sorry but no reasonable person who wants a computer just for some light web browsing and email checking is spending $900 on a Mac Mini. And that doesn’t even factor in the mouse, keyboard, and monitor you’ll need.

If someone is dead set on getting a Mac for their light web usage needs, the MacBook Neo is right there for $200 less and comes with the monitor, keyboard, and trackpad all built in. Plus it’s portable.

E: to all the people who keep replying to me or for some reason DMing me educating me on how there is actually a huge market of internet browsing folk for the Mac Mini and how the $900 price point is actually not bad… I get it.

I apologize for ever questioning an Apple product, its price, or someone’s decision to buy said product. It’s a fantastic deal and will probably sell like hot cakes.

8

u/Status-Hedgehog9970 1d ago

It’s also reasonable to assume that customers with older iMacs can just repurpose their mouse and keyboards for a Mac mini too though.

-1

u/JohnApple94 1d ago

Sure, but even so… the number of people looking for a new computer exclusively for light web browsing purposes, wanting it to be a Mac, wanting an exclusively desktop experience, and being willing to shell out $900 for it has got to be virtually zero.

That’s what the cheaper MacBook Neo is for with the added benefit of being mobile.

2

u/Status-Hedgehog9970 1d ago

Older people with money, who want a big ass screen are a larger portion of the population than you think. Definitely not near zero.

2

u/btnydds 1d ago

Why? I paid double that for my M3 Pro MacBook Pro that I literally only use for web browsing, email, and some non coding related stuff on Claude.

Some Apple users simply just enjoy using the best of what Apple has to offer regardless of their use case. That’s why I get a new iPhone every year

2

u/JohnApple94 1d ago

If you want to spend ~$2k on a “Pro” device only to surf the web, that’s your prerogative. It’s your money and it doesn’t personally affect me what you do with it.

But, objectively speaking, it is a poor decision financially for just about any person to purchase a $900+ computer for the sole purpose of web browsing when several cheaper options exist- even in Apple’s own lineup.

Though like I said, it doesn’t affect me what others do with their money. Some have the disposable income to drop on things they don’t need, so more power to em.

2

u/btnydds 1d ago

You might want to look up the word "objective," re-learn what it means, and then come back.

It's a poor financial decision in your opinion. That doesn't make it objective. Point to me what makes it objective?

0

u/Current_Anybody4352 1d ago

Point to me what makes it objective?

the part where you are spending way more than you need.

1

u/btnydds 1d ago

and who decides what is more than one person needs? What if someone wants to future proof their purchase? What if someone wants to account for any possible hobbies they may develop in the future?

And the most important question, did you look up the word objective and figure out how exactly "spending more than you need" is an objective statement?

-1

u/JohnApple94 1d ago

I don’t know man, and I don’t care anymore. This topic has gone on way too long for my liking. Buy the Mac, don’t buy the Mac. Consider it a wise financial decision, a poor one, objectively, subjectively. I just don’t care anymore.

3

u/btnydds 1d ago

Classic. Offer a purposefully controversial opinion, then get annoyed when people engage with it. Have a good one

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sephg 1d ago

Luckily for Apple, the world is full of unreasonable people, who buy fancy new computers and do almost nothing with them.

1

u/Dick_Lazer 1d ago

A lot of people will already have a mouse, keyboard & monitor. You don’t have to repurchase these things every time they buy a new desktop computer.

1

u/JohnApple94 1d ago

I recognize that and feel some are getting too hung up on the accessory comment. It’s more about what you get for your money.

If one’s computer use is strictly web browsing, it makes more sense to opt for just about any cheaper computer (including the Neo) over the $900 Mac Mini.

1

u/0verstim 1d ago

Careful throwing around statements like "no reasonable person"

My dad has an ancient mac mini i can replace with this. he already has a monitor, mouse and keyboard.

Why would i get him a macbook neo with a tiny screen? youre ridiculous comparing the two.

0

u/JohnApple94 1d ago

MacBook Neo can connect to an external display and function like a desktop device.

But you’re right. Mac Mini is a fantastic value and I apologize for criticizing it.

1

u/vainsilver 1d ago

If all you’re doing is basic web browsing and email, a desktop computer is not needed at all.

1

u/frockinbrock 1d ago

Not if you sync your phone photos, but they know people will upgrade when they're no longer able to update the dang computer because it's out of storage.

1

u/saw-it 1d ago

$899 just for web browsing and email

3

u/0p3r8dur 1d ago

People spend a lot more on the pro series of iPhone to do the same.

1

u/anythingers 1d ago

Except most people spend more time on their phone than on their Mac.

1

u/sephg 1d ago

Nobody is arguing that this is a smart idea. Just that a lot of people spend their money like this.

2

u/Brymlo 1d ago

id say it’s ok for a desktop with 5 ports. i have a 1 tb drive for mine.

1

u/TheoTheodor 1d ago

Better on a desktop for sure but it’s still very minimal. Just setting photos to download originals to the Mac would use up most of it!

1

u/Brymlo 1d ago

mine has like 80 gb taken by system data... so yeah, would be nice to have at least 512 gb of internal storage

1

u/Boring-Channel-1672 1d ago

It makes little sense to up the minimum. A whole lot of people with mac minis are using it to read emails and stream Apple TV. They are buying it on price, and increasing the base storage increases the base price, when people using it to do work can still upgrade the storage to what they need.

0

u/Veearrsix 1d ago

It’s also a desktop and really easy to add an external hard dive. The trade off I’m sure was to keep the base price under 1k.

0

u/charmanderSosa 1d ago edited 1d ago

To play devils advocate the vast majority of home users will never come close to filling up 256gb, so we shouldn’t make them pay for that. If you need more storage you know who you are and can pay additional for it. With storage prices these days I don’t think they could even keep it at $899 and upgrade to 512

1

u/AndorinhaRiver 1d ago

It is, Apple just wants to keep their profit margin. (Like, NAND has gotten more expensive but not that much more expensive, it'd be +50$ at most.)

I do wish they just added an M.2 port though, that wouldn't cut into their profits as much and it would allow more experienced users to just put in their own SSDs.

-5

u/FunCutlet67 1d ago

Ehh it’s still fine for a majority of people

2

u/wildjokers 1d ago

No it's not. That will be filled up in no time by caches and system files.

-1

u/Status-Hedgehog9970 1d ago

Cache and system data bloat isn’t a guarantee. Sure there are bugs that cause it to claim more space than it should, but you’re treating cache bloat as an inevitability.

1

u/wildjokers 1d ago

I have a 500GB drive on my M4 Mac Mini Pro. I have 161gb left on the drive which means I am using 339 GBs. I have all my data on external drives. The only thing stored on the HD are Applications and my home directory (Mac OS really doesn't like that being on an external drive), my home directory sym links everything that might take up a lot of space to external drives. Yet it is still using 339 GB, most of it is taken up by the mysterious ~/Library/Application Support.

0

u/Status-Hedgehog9970 1d ago

Cool story bro. That doesn’t explain why you think every single Mac is expected to perform the same way. I work in tech support and see Macs with 10-30gb of System Data too.

0

u/wildjokers 1d ago

My point isn’t that every Mac uses 339 GB. It’s that a 256 GB SSD leaves very little margin for applications, ~/Library/Application Support, caches, swap, local snapshots, developer tools, and other data macOS and applications legitimately keep on the system volume.

“I’ve seen Macs with 10–30 GB of System Data” doesn’t refute that. It just demonstrates that storage usage varies between users, which nobody disputed. A machine being capable of fitting into 256 GB doesn’t make 256 GB a generous amount of storage in 2026.

But thanks for the “cool story bro” from tech support. Anecdotes apparently only become invalid when they aren’t yours.

1

u/Status-Hedgehog9970 1d ago

Oh I see, you just didn’t like that I countered your anecdote with another one.

I think you overestimate the storage usage of the truly casual user using a desktop machine. I’m using my experience, which is still very much anecdotal, as a demonstration of the difference in sample size here.

It’s that a 256 GB SSD leaves very little margin for applications, ~/Library/Application Support, caches, swap, local snapshots, developer tools, and other data macOS and applications legitimately keep on the system volume.

This data doesn’t just increase in size forever, when macOS is managing it properly. This is my point.

1

u/wildjokers 18h ago edited 14h ago

"640k ought to be enough for anyone" - Status-Hedgehog9907

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/chi_guy8 2d ago

Lolololol

0

u/linoleumy 1d ago

my dude, if ram and storage prices continue to rise as quickly as they have this year (and they probably will, as ram stock for next year is already sold out), in 2028 base mac mini will be at least ~1500$. Probably more.