"The missing mid-range desktop Mac"

[halse]

Adobe. Photoshop. Illustrator.
for many of their uses these are largely single thread, needing a lot of DRAM for all of those high resolution, high bit depth layers/textures and so on to avoid page outs
the current M1 mini chokes on these applications---simply not enough DRAM (the M2 will probably be a clean slate design with at least 32 GB possible)
multi-thread & GPUs are nice but the computng resources that Photoshop/Illustrator need are very different from video/animation where multi-GPU/high bandwidth are crucial

The 5K iMac needs a replacement for those who don't work at a "studio". The M1 Max is overkill for me and the M1 doesn't have enough RAM for what I do.

I'm curious what the workflows are that "require more RAM" but "don't need extra grunt to churn through all the stuff in that RAM".

 

[wrylachlan]

the M2 will probably be a clean slate design with at least 32 GB possible

I’ve seen this sentiment from a few people in this thread and others but I have no idea where this is coming from. I haven’t seen any credible rumors of a 32GB capable M2. And Apple has traditionally been quite stingy with RAM in their iPhones and iPads - so the idea of allowing 32 GB Olin their entry level models seems quite out of character. Don’t get me wrong I’d be all over a 32 GB M2 MBA for my wife. But I’m pretty skeptical that that’s in the cards.

 

[ScifiGeek]

the M2 will probably be a clean slate design with at least 32 GB possible

I’ve seen this sentiment from a few people in this thread and others but I have no idea where this is coming from. I haven’t seen any credible rumors of a 32GB capable M2. And Apple has traditionally been quite stingy with RAM in their iPhones and iPads - so the idea of allowing 32 GB Olin their entry level models seems quite out of character. Don’t get me wrong I’d be all over a 32 GB M2 MBA for my wife. But I’m pretty skeptical that that’s in the cards.

Time Marches on. 32GB capable has become more expected over time, and it's another opportunity for Apple to upsell a high margin option.

Plus, IIRC there are 16GB LPDDR5 chips, which means they don't really have to do anything extra to support 32GB on a dual channel M2.

 

[Jade]

Ming-Chi Kuo now says no new Mac mini for 2022, and that the 2023 model will be unchanged in design. If so, that will be the 13th year for the form factor.

I'm not convinced the twitter feed is the same person - besides he missed the Studio mac so maybe his source has lost some reliability. Felipe Esposito did call the Studio - says new mini this year with M2.
https://9to5mac.com/2022/03/10/exclusiv ... this-year/

By miss, he didn't predict it exactly like 9to5Mac, but he did say there would be a "more powerful Mac mini and more affordable external display" before the Mac Studio and Studio Display were announced. His tweet after the Apple Event seems to be taking this into consideration. Still, one rumor is right, the other wrong, about timing for the next Mac mini.

There does seem to be a shift in the Power Monger rankings, though. Mark Gurman seems less informed and more speculative too. Ross Young has moved up, and 9to5mac appears to have some solid sourcing. I wonder if someone will leave them to take Mark Gurman's place at Bloomberg.

Edit: Regarding the identity of the Twitter account, MacRumors contacted him directly and confirmed it is him.

 

[UserJoe]

the M2 will probably be a clean slate design with at least 32 GB possible

I’ve seen this sentiment from a few people in this thread and others but I have no idea where this is coming from. I haven’t seen any credible rumors of a 32GB capable M2. And Apple has traditionally been quite stingy with RAM in their iPhones and iPads - so the idea of allowing 32 GB Olin their entry level models seems quite out of character. Don’t get me wrong I’d be all over a 32 GB M2 MBA for my wife. But I’m pretty skeptical that that’s in the cards.

The 16 GB limit on the current Mini seems to come from an Apple limit on the DDR4 RAM per memory channel that holds across all M1 cpus. Assuming that the M2 will switch from DDR4 to DDR5 that limit will be raised due to intrinsic limits of DDR5 vs. DDR4 DIMM sizes.

 

[wrylachlan]

the M2 will probably be a clean slate design with at least 32 GB possible

I’ve seen this sentiment from a few people in this thread and others but I have no idea where this is coming from. I haven’t seen any credible rumors of a 32GB capable M2. And Apple has traditionally been quite stingy with RAM in their iPhones and iPads - so the idea of allowing 32 GB Olin their entry level models seems quite out of character. Don’t get me wrong I’d be all over a 32 GB M2 MBA for my wife. But I’m pretty skeptical that that’s in the cards.

The 16 GB limit on the current Mini seems to come from an Apple limit on the DDR4 RAM per memory channel that holds across all M1 cpus. Assuming that the M2 will switch from DDR4 to DDR5 that limit will be raised due to intrinsic limits of DDR5 vs. DDR4 DIMM sizes.

Were there inherent limits to the Intel chips Apple shipped in the MBA? Because “technically possible” and “Apple chooses to offer it” are two very different things. I could easily see Apple able to support 32 GB on the M2 but choosing to limit it to 16GB for segmentation.

 

[ScifiGeek]

Were there inherent limits to the Intel chips Apple shipped in the MBA? Because “technically possible” and “Apple chooses to offer it” are two very different things. I could easily see Apple able to support 32 GB on the M2 but choosing to limit it to 16GB for segmentation.

IIRC, same issue as on M1 Macs.
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macb ... specs.html
"3733 MHz LPDDR4X"

LPDDR4[x] had limitations on available capacity, 8GB/channel, dual channel max = 16GB.

But now with LPDDR5, 16GB LPDDR5/channel is available, dual channel max = 32GB.

 

[UserJoe]

the M2 will probably be a clean slate design with at least 32 GB possible

I’ve seen this sentiment from a few people in this thread and others but I have no idea where this is coming from. I haven’t seen any credible rumors of a 32GB capable M2. And Apple has traditionally been quite stingy with RAM in their iPhones and iPads - so the idea of allowing 32 GB Olin their entry level models seems quite out of character. Don’t get me wrong I’d be all over a 32 GB M2 MBA for my wife. But I’m pretty skeptical that that’s in the cards.

The 16 GB limit on the current Mini seems to come from an Apple limit on the DDR4 RAM per memory channel that holds across all M1 cpus. Assuming that the M2 will switch from DDR4 to DDR5 that limit will be raised due to intrinsic limits of DDR5 vs. DDR4 DIMM sizes.

Were there inherent limits to the Intel chips Apple shipped in the MBA? Because “technically possible” and “Apple chooses to offer it” are two very different things. I could easily see Apple able to support 32 GB on the M2 but choosing to limit it to 16GB for segmentation.

Apple does not have those limits in the Intel Mini RAM and chooses to offer a up to a 64 GB Mini. The 27 inch iMac went up to 128 GB. Maybe the addition of the Mac Studio would change their segmentation calculus but there doesn't seem to be a good reason to limit AS Minis and iMacs to 16 GB.

 

[dal20402]

IIRC, same issue as on M1 Macs.
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macb ... specs.html
"3733 MHz LPDDR4X"

LPDDR4[x] had limitations on available capacity, 8GB/channel, dual channel max = 16GB.

But now with LPDDR5, 16GB LPDDR5/channel is available, dual channel max = 32GB.

But the A15 doesn't use LPDDR5, so if the M2 is based on the A15 core as rumored it presumably won't either. It's hard for me to believe that Apple would ship a new desktop SOC in 2022 that can't have more than 16 GB RAM, but that seems to be where we're going.

 

[UserJoe]

IIRC, same issue as on M1 Macs.
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macb ... specs.html
"3733 MHz LPDDR4X"

LPDDR4[x] had limitations on available capacity, 8GB/channel, dual channel max = 16GB.

But now with LPDDR5, 16GB LPDDR5/channel is available, dual channel max = 32GB.

But the A15 doesn't use LPDDR5, so if the M2 is based on the A15 core as rumored it presumably won't either. It's hard for me to believe that Apple would ship a new desktop SOC in 2022 that can't have more than 16 GB RAM, but that seems to be where we're going.

The core is separate from the memory controller. Even if it was the same, you can make a memory controller that can control both ddr4 and ddr5.

 

[ScifiGeek]

IIRC, same issue as on M1 Macs.
https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macb ... specs.html
"3733 MHz LPDDR4X"

LPDDR4[x] had limitations on available capacity, 8GB/channel, dual channel max = 16GB.

But now with LPDDR5, 16GB LPDDR5/channel is available, dual channel max = 32GB.

But the A15 doesn't use LPDDR5, so if the M2 is based on the A15 core as rumored it presumably won't either. It's hard for me to believe that Apple would ship a new desktop SOC in 2022 that can't have more than 16 GB RAM, but that seems to be where we're going.

M1 Pro/Max/Ultra already use LPDDR5. The only reason the base M1 doesn't is that it wasn't ready in time.

M chips are NOT going to regress LPDDR4 going forward.

 

[ZnU]

I really doubt they are keeping the Intel Mini to keep developers happy. Laptops are the most important Mac Market and I would bet that applies to developers as well.

They wouldn't be keeping it around so much for use by individual developers, but as a build/test server. This is a sufficiently important use case that e.g. AWS offers a Mac instance type (hosted on minis) basically just for this purpose.

 

[Thinine]

Yeah, the Intel mini is still around to keep MacStadium supplied, and the fact that the top Intel mini (6-core i7) can outperform the regular M1. I imagine it will go away when the M2 mini comes out.

 

[ScifiGeek]

Yeah, the Intel mini is still around to keep MacStadium supplied, and the fact that the top Intel mini (6-core i7) can outperform the regular M1.

At what? IIRC the M1 Mini beat the Intel i7 Mini and just about everything.

They wouldn't be keeping it around so much for use by individual developers, but as a build/test server. This is a sufficiently important use case that e.g. AWS offers a Mac instance type (hosted on minis) basically just for this purpose.

Sure, but there are already M1 AWS instances as well and I expect interest in Intel Instances will only be declining going forward. Also development shops are likely converting developers to M based Macs, and the old development machines can become regression test machines.

I can't see anything that indicates Apple has any concern at all about continuing to sell Intel Macs outside of the two marketing segments that still aren't covered by ARM Macs (Mac Pro and Higher end Mini).

 

[japtor]

Yeah, the Intel mini is still around to keep MacStadium supplied, and the fact that the top Intel mini (6-core i7) can outperform the regular M1.

At what? IIRC the M1 Mini beat the Intel i7 Mini and just about everything.

For that particular niche where they can be running multiple VMs per box the 64 vs 16GB RAM limit probably helps. And maybe 6 full cores vs 4+4 helps in their particular usage.

But uh, I wonder how the M1 Ultra Mac Studios work out math wise for them. They'd appear to take similar space as two Mac minis in MacStadium's setup, and have 16+4 vs 2x6 cores, 128GB RAM vs...2x64GB, heh. $4800 vs...2x$2400 , got lucky with the particular configs I chose. Course MacStadium probably saves a good chunk by just upgrading RAM themselves.

 

[dal20402]

The remaining Intel mini has gotta be mostly for corporate customers buying substantial numbers of machines who want a warranty and after-sale support. For the random developer who just needs a couple of Intel machines to test against, there are a million used Intel machines out there as well as a still-pretty-good selection of Apple refurbs. (And the AS transition is the first thing in a while that has really affected used Mac values; used Intel machines are cheaper than I've seen used Macs in some time.)

 

[hestermofet]

The remaining Intel mini has gotta be mostly for corporate customers buying substantial numbers of machines who want a warranty and after-sale support.

I don't know how popular the Mac Mini is in corporate environments. I've usually seen Macs in businesses as either laptops for developers*, or iMacs/Mac Pros for creatives. The Mac Mini... that form factor is much better served in the enterprise by a Lenovo/Dell/HP Tiny/Mini/Micro. The Mini is not VESA mountable without additional third party (and relatively expensive) hardware, they require a special software stack in order to image as basic Word/Excel machines unlike Windows (everything can be done with first party MS tools on the Windows side), they won't work with most LOB applications unless its web-based, Mac OS doesn't have the same RAD tools to create LOB applications like Windows does, they are not repairable in-house (every repair requires shipping off to Apple. Even minor ones like RAM: Apple hasn't sold a Mini with RAM that can be user-replaced without voiding the warranty since 2012), Apple doesn't provide the same NBD on-site service that Lenovo/Dell/HP can... they're just not good fleet machines.

I think the remaining Intel Minis are just leftover stock.

*as an actual developer, none of my colleagues have ever wanted a Mac desktop

 

[iljitsch]

Again, don't read too much into this. Apple keeps selling old models in order to hit pricepoints (does not apply here), because there is still demand (who knows?) or as a placeholder until a replacement arrives (probably the most important reason in this case).

Now if they update the Intel Mac Mini then obviously they are doing that to accommodate users (corporate, developer) who still want/need an Intel machine of some kind in this day and age, because the Mac Mini is the easiest form factor to update. See the ARM development machines several years ago. But just keeping the old one around can be for several reasons, and Apple isn't going to tell us. They never tell us anything other than marketing or legalese. So anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's.

 

[Hap]

A little late to the desktop/laptop discussion. This is just meant as a data point:

~130K employees.

Standard configuration provided to users is a Windows Ultrabook, 2 x 1080p monitors, keyboard/mouse, dock

Three tiers of engineering laptops are available as are desktop workstations (extremely rare). Mac laptops are also available in some use cases.

2nd computers are usually engineering desktops, a little over 50% of our work is classified, so desktops are pretty much required (so that that don't go wandering off) and systems are purchased on contract. Classified laptops are extremely rare and never issued to users.

I have a Tier 2 engineering laptop due to some analysis I do that stresses the CPU, but when I was in the office 100% of the time, I took my laptop home every night. I'm in middle management (engineering) and believe I need to be available to my employees/direct reports if they need something. Doesn't mean I stayed on it, just had it available. usually hooked up via a TB3 dock to a 4K monitor at home also via TB3.

Personal setups:

1 x 2013 Mac Pro (rack mount) running FM Server, Home Automation server, VMs, and various other server oriented products
2 x 2018 Intel Mac mini used as iTunes Media servers

1 x MBA (M1) used as my portable personal system, LG 5K, but rarely used as when I'm sitting at a desk, I'm at the Mac Pro
1 x 2019 Rack Mac Pro - personnel work station (video, software development, database development, numerical analysis, etc...), 3 x 4K LG monitors, 1 HD Touchscreen monitor
1 x M1 iMac in my workshop. I got tired of forgetting to bring my MBA out there. Use it for looking up how to's, doing inventory (yes, I have a hosted inventory database for tools/parts), playing music to HomePods in my workshop & woodshop.

My wife's personal setup: 2011 Mac mini running Win 10 with dual monitors. She does not want a laptop, nor an upgrade (I've asked to upgrade her many times).

The point is that we're all different and have different uses for our computers and have a wide variety of computing setups. I suspect that a very large portion of people are actually Niche use cases, they are just different Niche use cases.

 

[ant1pathy]

The Intel Mini doesn't surprise me at all. There's still a lot of Intel machines out there, and devs need something to test against. I don't see it as anything more than that.

 

[ScifiGeek]

The Intel Mini doesn't surprise me at all. There's still a lot of Intel machines out there, and devs need something to test against. I don't see it as anything more than that.

I don't see this as any kind of major driver.

Most of them already have their Intel Macs, and also be upgrading their development machines to M1 chips, so the old development machines also become regression test machines. There should be a surplus of Intel machines to test on.

 

[hestermofet]

The Intel Mini doesn't surprise me at all. There's still a lot of Intel machines out there, and devs need something to test against. I don't see it as anything more than that.

I don't see this as any kind of major driver.

Most of them already have their Intel Macs, and also be upgrading their development machines to M1 chips, so the old development machines also become regression test machines. There should be a surplus of Intel machines to test on.

Nobody is writing new software for Intel, just like PPC development pretty much dropped off a cliff as soon as Intel machines were launched, and 68K before that when the first PPC Macs hit the market. I just don't see this nebulous "developer" thing being a big enough market to keep a whole product line around.

Because let's be honest, as an absolute percentage of developers out there, only a small number require a Mac. The developer community that's "Apple-only" is tiny, and the number of "Mac-only" developers is even tinier. There are a lot of developers who develop for iOS, but there are a lot of cross-platform development tools PLUS build services so you don't even need a Mac to write iOS apps. And if you are developing for iOS, why aren't you using an AS Mac instead of an old and busted Intel Mac?

And how many developers are writing apps that really require an Intel machine? i.e. they are targeting desktop apps for a dead-end platform? Very few developers write for Mac OS to begin with, and of those, there are enough that are writing for an already marginal platform using a dead end variant on a deprecated architecture to justify keeping one last old and obsolete product around? I just don't see it.

The point is that we're all different and have different uses for our computers and have a wide variety of computing setups. I suspect that a very large portion of people are actually Niche use cases, they are just different Niche use cases.

I think this a great take that a lot of people overlook. It's like that saying, people only ever use 80% of the features of MS Word, but they don't all use the same features.

 

[hestermofet]

The Intel Mini doesn't surprise me at all. There's still a lot of Intel machines out there, and devs need something to test against. I don't see it as anything more than that.

I don't see this as any kind of major driver.

Most of them already have their Intel Macs, and also be upgrading their development machines to M1 chips, so the old development machines also become regression test machines. There should be a surplus of Intel machines to test on.

Nobody is writing new software for Intel, just like PPC development pretty much dropped off a cliff as soon as Intel machines were launched, and 68K before that when the first PPC Macs hit the market. I just don't see this nebulous "developer" thing being a big enough market to keep a whole product line around.

Because let's be honest, as an absolute percentage of developers out there, only a small number require a Mac. The developer community that's "Apple-only" is tiny, and the number of "Mac-only" developers is even tinier. There are a lot of developers who develop for iOS, but there are a lot of cross-platform development tools PLUS build services so you don't even need a Mac to write iOS apps. I think in this day and age, if you are building a major, significant app and are only targeting iOS, and not simultaneously writing for Android, you are making a big strategic blunder. And if you are developing for iOS, why aren't you using an AS Mac instead of an old and busted Intel Mac?

And how many developers are writing apps that really require an Intel machine? i.e. they are targeting desktop apps for a dead-end platform? Very few developers write for Mac OS to begin with, and of those, there are enough that are writing for an already marginal platform using a dead end variant on a deprecated architecture to justify keeping one last old and obsolete product around? I just don't see it.

The point is that we're all different and have different uses for our computers and have a wide variety of computing setups. I suspect that a very large portion of people are actually Niche use cases, they are just different Niche use cases.

I think this a great take that a lot of people overlook. It's like that saying, people only ever use 80% of the features of MS Word, but they don't all use the same features.

 

[Galvanic]

Again, don't read too much into this. Apple keeps selling old models in order to hit pricepoints (does not apply here), because there is still demand (who knows?) or as a placeholder until a replacement arrives (probably the most important reason in this case).

Don't read too little into it either. The continuing presence of the Intel Mini means that Apple sees a reason to keep it going for the moment, even though it stands out in the AS lineup. That means there's *something* that rewards them for that, and will likely reward an AS version. Pretty much guarantees it, I would say.

 

[ZnU]

Nobody is writing new software for Intel, just like PPC development pretty much dropped off a cliff as soon as Intel machines were launched, and 68K before that when the first PPC Macs hit the market. I just don't see this nebulous "developer" thing being a big enough market to keep a whole product line around.

I would expect most companies that ship desktop Mac apps to continue supporting Intel for at least another couple of years. The number of Intel Macs Apple will sell to such developers is obviously negligible, but enabling developers to continue supporting Intel has implications for millions of users.

 

[japtor]

My wife's personal setup: 2011 Mac mini running Win 10 with dual monitors. She does not want a laptop, nor an upgrade (I've asked to upgrade her many times).

Wonder if you could clone and swap it to a 2018 mini without her noticing

The point is that we're all different and have different uses for our computers and have a wide variety of computing setups. I suspect that a very large portion of people are actually Niche use cases, they are just different Niche use cases.

Yeah that's a good way of looking at things. I've looked at the Mac mini through that lens for a long time now, it's just a flexible good enough box that can be used in whatever contexts. I could see the Mac Studio in a similar light.

 

[hestermofet]

Nobody is writing new software for Intel, just like PPC development pretty much dropped off a cliff as soon as Intel machines were launched, and 68K before that when the first PPC Macs hit the market. I just don't see this nebulous "developer" thing being a big enough market to keep a whole product line around.

I would expect most companies that ship desktop Mac apps to continue supporting Intel for at least another couple of years. The number of Intel Macs Apple will sell to such developers is obviously negligible, but enabling developers to continue supporting Intel has implications for millions of users.

Like I said, I don't think anyone is writing new software for Intel. Software packages that already exist for Intel will continue to get support, but say, the newest version of Affinity Photo or Da Vinci Resolve will stop coming out for Intel the minute Apple stops making it as easy as checking a single button in XCode to compile a Universal Binary.

You don't need to buy a new Intel Mac Mini to continue updating software that's already mostly written because you run into the most problems with regression testing when adding new features, not when fixing bugs in minor point updates. From here on out, Intel software will mostly see minor point updates.

 

[Hap]

My wife's personal setup: 2011 Mac mini running Win 10 with dual monitors. She does not want a laptop, nor an upgrade (I've asked to upgrade her many times).

Wonder if you could clone and swap it to a 2018 mini without her noticing

Probably easily if she was running macOS. I struggle with Windows - there is always something that doesn't come over right. Also, since she ONLY runs Windows, I would prefer to move her over to an actual Windows system like this. I got a similar one for her sister and she loves it.

 

[Galvanic]

1 x 2013 Mac Pro (rack mount) running FM Server, Home Automation server, VMs, and various other server oriented products
2 x 2018 Intel Mac mini used as iTunes Media servers

1 x MBA (M1) used as my portable personal system, LG 5K, but rarely used as when I'm sitting at a desk, I'm at the Mac Pro
1 x 2019 Rack Mac Pro - personnel work station (video, software development, database development, numerical analysis, etc...), 3 x 4K LG monitors, 1 HD Touchscreen monitor
1 x M1 iMac in my workshop. I got tired of forgetting to bring my MBA out there. Use it for looking up how to's, doing inventory (yes, I have a hosted inventory database for tools/parts), playing music to HomePods in my workshop & woodshop.

(drools)

 

[ant1pathy]

You don't need to buy a new Intel Mac Mini to continue updating software that's already mostly written because you run into the most problems with regression testing when adding new features, not when fixing bugs in minor point updates. From here on out, Intel software will mostly see minor point updates.

Uhhh.... I don't know how many codebases you've worked with, but I cannot echo this particular sentiment.

 

[iljitsch]

Like I said, I don't think anyone is writing new software for Intel.

Software companies don't write software "for" a processor architecture. That's all details way down the stack that your average software engineer probably doesn't even know about, let alone cares about.

How many hundreds of millions of Intel Macs are out there still in use? It would be stupid to ignore that potential customer base even if it took a good deal more effort to support it, which it doesn't.

Aside: this summer I wrote a little utility that I needed to run on Amigas from the 1990s with only a few megabytes of memory. But those keyboards haven't been getting any better over the intervening decades and compiling takes forever. So I did my development on my Mac Mini. 32 bit 68k vs 64 bit x86, byte order, 1000 x the CPU speed, 1000 x the memory... None of it made a difference as far as my code was concerned. And that was in C, probably the lowest level high level language you can find. (Ok potentially not having POSIX required some attention.)

will stop coming out for Intel the minute Apple stops making it as easy as checking a single button in XCode to compile a Universal Binary.

Sure, that will make a big difference. But that's not happening anytime soon.

Don't forget that with the PowerPC -> Intel transition, Apple was hurting quite a bit. This time around, yes, the performance jump is also significant, but that's not from "way behind the industry" to "the same as everyone else", but "the same as everyone else (and most users long since stopped caring)" to "better than the industry (but users still don't care as much as Apple marketing seems to think)".

 

[daGUY]

Again, don't read too much into this. Apple keeps selling old models in order to hit pricepoints (does not apply here), because there is still demand (who knows?) or as a placeholder until a replacement arrives (probably the most important reason in this case).

Don't read too little into it either. The continuing presence of the Intel Mini means that Apple sees a reason to keep it going for the moment, even though it stands out in the AS lineup. That means there's *something* that rewards them for that, and will likely reward an AS version. Pretty much guarantees it, I would say.

The Intel Mac mini still exists because it’s the only Mac mini that has support for more than 16 GB of RAM, more than one external display, and more than two Thunderbolt ports. A Mac mini with an M1 Pro would support all of these things, but such a model doesn’t currently exist – and the only other alternative in a similar form factor is the Mac Studio, which costs almost $1,000 more, so that isn’t a practical replacement.

I fully expect a Mac mini with an M1 Pro will become available sooner or later, and the moment it does, the Intel Mac mini will go away. I’m guessing the only reason why there isn’t one already is because of supply constraints (note how you can only get an M1 Pro in a laptop and there are no desktops that offer it as an option).

 

[toasterwaffle86]

I fully expect a Mac mini with an M1 Pro will become available sooner or later, and the moment it does, the Intel Mac mini will go away. I’m guessing the only reason why there isn’t one already is because of supply constraints (note how you can only get an M1 Pro in a laptop and there are no desktops that offer it as an option).

I agree with supply constraints on the M1 Pro.

I tested the 14” MBP with the M1 Pro and M1 Max and concluded that the Max is actively worse for many users in that form factor (who don’t have a specific NEED for the special GPU or 64GB). You lose 20-30% of your battery life under web browsing/light virtualization and it runs hotter in general (especially when used on my lap). Things like scrolling webpages (which use the GPU) causes a power spike that’s several watts higher on the Max.

I bet you the Max Studio has plenty of cooling to make this a non-issue.

 

[Galvanic]

Again, don't read too much into this. Apple keeps selling old models in order to hit pricepoints (does not apply here), because there is still demand (who knows?) or as a placeholder until a replacement arrives (probably the most important reason in this case).

Don't read too little into it either. The continuing presence of the Intel Mini means that Apple sees a reason to keep it going for the moment, even though it stands out in the AS lineup. That means there's *something* that rewards them for that, and will likely reward an AS version. Pretty much guarantees it, I would say.

The Intel Mac mini still exists because it’s the only Mac mini that has support for more than 16 GB of RAM, more than one external display, and more than two Thunderbolt ports. A Mac mini with an M1 Pro would support all of these things, but such a model doesn’t currently exist – and the only other alternative in a similar form factor is the Mac Studio, which costs almost $1,000 more, so that isn’t a practical replacement.

I fully expect a Mac mini with an M1 Pro will become available sooner or later, and the moment it does, the Intel Mac mini will go away. I’m guessing the only reason why there isn’t one already is because of supply constraints (note how you can only get an M1 Pro in a laptop and there are no desktops that offer it as an option).

Yes, that’s what I said.

 

[leet]

Again, don't read too much into this. Apple keeps selling old models in order to hit pricepoints (does not apply here), because there is still demand (who knows?) or as a placeholder until a replacement arrives (probably the most important reason in this case).

Don't read too little into it either. The continuing presence of the Intel Mini means that Apple sees a reason to keep it going for the moment, even though it stands out in the AS lineup. That means there's *something* that rewards them for that, and will likely reward an AS version. Pretty much guarantees it, I would say.

The Intel Mac mini still exists because it’s the only Mac mini that has support for … more than one external display…

I believe you meant two. Base M1 supports two monitors, so 1 external on laptops, 2 on the mini.

 

[Robaba]

I believe (without any evidence mind you) that the Mini will hold on to the previous generation Apple silicon, including Pro and Max SoCs beyond the M2. It will have to make do with a cheaper-to-manufacture case as the current cast and machined aluminum, even as old as it is, just can’t bring the price down where they want it.

 

[sjsharkie]

Given the sales on the laptop the missing middle doesn’t really exist, minus needing multiple monitors.

There’s plenty of sales on M1 pro laptops you can just leave folded up, if you want a pro chip at under 2k.

“I want 32gb, multiple monitors with me Pro/Max, but not pay 2k”. Well okay, there’s no mini M1 Pro + 32gb for ~$1650 available (let’s assume it would be $200 and $250 for the processor and ram upgrade respectively if offered), but it’s only 15-20% from that missing machine to the Studio.

 

[ScifiGeek]

Given the sales on the laptop the missing middle doesn’t really exist, minus needing multiple monitors.

There’s plenty of sales on M1 pro laptops you can just leave folded up, if you want a pro chip at under 2k.

Better off waiting for a Studio sale then. The Cheapest Mac Pro laptop with M1-Pro is $2K, same price as the Studio with M1-Max.

Though, I expect there will be a desktop above the M1-mini and below M1-Max Studio.

 

[toasterwaffle86]

Given the sales on the laptop the missing middle doesn’t really exist, minus needing multiple monitors.

There’s plenty of sales on M1 pro laptops you can just leave folded up, if you want a pro chip at under 2k.

Better off waiting for a Studio sale then. The Cheapest Mac Pro laptop with M1-Pro is $2K, same price as the Studio with M1-Max.

Though, I expect there will be a desktop above the M1-mini and below M1-Max Studio.

Best Buy has the base 14” with M1 Pro and 16GB on sale for $1749. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/macbook-pr ... Id=6450856

 

[ScifiGeek]

Given the sales on the laptop the missing middle doesn’t really exist, minus needing multiple monitors.

There’s plenty of sales on M1 pro laptops you can just leave folded up, if you want a pro chip at under 2k.

Better off waiting for a Studio sale then. The Cheapest Mac Pro laptop with M1-Pro is $2K, same price as the Studio with M1-Max.

Though, I expect there will be a desktop above the M1-mini and below M1-Max Studio.

Best Buy has the base 14” with M1 Pro and 16GB on sale for $1749. https://www.bestbuy.com/site/macbook-pr ... Id=6450856

So? You don't think there will ever be a Studio M1-Max on sale?

Plus, a lot of the reason people want a Mini with M1-Pro is to bump it to 32 GB. This has 16GB.

The Studio with M1-Max has 32GB in base config.