The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[Boil]

Justin Long was just "a Mac"...

The original "Mac" was the Macintosh, which was a desktop all-in-one, so if any current Mac product would claim the name of "Mac", it would have to be the iMac line-up of desktop all-in-ones...?

 

[trickster is meaningless]

Why do people keep suggesting they call it the Mac. That’s the name of the entire category of Apple personal computers. Think about the next event: Tim Cook on stage “we have some exciting updates coming to the mac” ….. wait, what mac? THE Mac? Or the category of mac computers? Is macOS just for THE Mac? Or for Mac?

Apple will never call a single device just “Mac”

Apologies for clearly triggering something. Genuine typo, should have read “Mac mini, Mac Pro…”.

 

[iAssimilated]

I disagree the Mac mini isn't "mini". My coworkers that have desktops have full towers, so yes, the mini is "mini compared to them. My minis at home are definitely "mini" next to my Mac Pros (and my eGPU enclosure). I would rather have a powerful system with proper cooling than a smaller system for the sake of it being smaller. If you want a Raspberry Pi or NUC sized computer, then buy one, but leave my mini alone! Like others, I would prefer Apple use the extra space in the current mini to give us m.2 expansion slots or more ports or better cooling.

 

[EugW]

I disagree the Mac mini isn't "mini". My coworkers that have desktops have full towers, so yes, the mini is "mini compared to them. My minis at home are definitely "mini" next to my Mac Pros (and my eGPU enclosure). I would rather have a powerful system with proper cooling than a smaller system for the sake of it being smaller. If you want a Raspberry Pi or NUC sized computer, then buy one, but leave my mini alone! Like others, I would prefer Apple use the extra space in the current mini to give us m.2 expansion slots or more ports or better cooling.

It is very, very unlikely Apple will have m.2 expansion slots in the next mini. Cooling will be as good as Apple deems necessary.

Given these points and the fact that Apple Silicon is more power efficient than Intel, that likely means Apple will decrease the mini's size. And Raspberry Pi is essentially irrelevant in this discussion, because Apple isn't going to be competing against that for size.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

I disagree the Mac mini isn't "mini". My coworkers that have desktops have full towers, so yes, the mini is "mini compared to them. My minis at home are definitely "mini" next to my Mac Pros (and my eGPU enclosure). I would rather have a powerful system with proper cooling than a smaller system for the sake of it being smaller. If you want a Raspberry Pi or NUC sized computer, then buy one, but leave my mini alone! Like others, I would prefer Apple use the extra space in the current mini to give us m.2 expansion slots or more ports or better cooling.

In context of towers, yes, but when it was launched it was impressively small, now it isn't, but that's fine. We're probably bound for a variant of the eternal "what is pro" discussion though. If you consider 2005 computers, it was quite impressive given that was prior to SSDs, still had socketed RAM etc. That was prior to smart phones and tablets and all the low energy advances that came with that boom, which enabled the likes of raspberry pi etc

Part of me would love m.2 sockets, but if that was at the expense of a thunderbolt port I think I'd prefer the port and use an enclosure. The M1 (all variants) don't seem to have PCIe lanes to spare. I think the MBP splits 4 lanes to cover the HDMI port and SD card reader. If the mini has a 10gb ethernet option, that may require some extra lanes (I think four).

I'm expecting the something like 3x thunderbolt 4, 1gbe (option for 10gbe), HDMI, a couple of USB A ports, and I think that saturates the available PCIe lanes unless we're getting some slight variation on the chips, which I'm not expecting.

I can't find a source for the number of lanes available unfortunately, but it looks like maybe 32 though.
12 x3 thunderbolt 4
4 nvme
4 ethernet (M1 10gbe ethernet doesn't ever share lanes apparently)
4 HDMI 2.0
4 split between usb A
4 bluetooth and wifi

 

[Jorbanead]

I would rather have a powerful system with proper cooling

We all want this. We are saying we think Apple can give us this, and also make it smaller at the same time. Not Apple TV small, just a bit smaller than the current design.

 

[jimimac71]

I would like a full complement of audio I/O ports.
It’s getting to a point where you’re lucky to get a combo headphone/microphone port on many computers.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

I would like a full complement of audio I/O ports.
It’s getting to a point where you’re lucky to get a combo headphone/microphone port on many computers.

I expect we'll get the DAC that's in the MacBook Pro. I've heard good things about it, one musician friend has ditched his headphone amp unless he's at his desk. I think he's on Sennheiser HD600s, or some variation of that line

 

[Neodym]

Why do people keep suggesting they call it the Mac. That’s the name of the entire category of Apple personal computers.

Absolutely! Imagine they would name an Apple laptop simply „MacBook“. That’s the name of the entire category of Apple laptops. Oh wait …

Apple will never call a single device just “Mac”

<nitpick> Actually they already did, way before it became a synonym for the Apple computer platform. </nitpick>

 

[Jorbanead]

Absolutely! Imagine they would name an Apple laptop simply „MacBook“. That’s the name of the entire category of Apple laptops. Oh wait …


<nitpick> Actually they already did, way before it became a synonym for the Apple computer platform. </nitpick>

Yes I’m aware, but it was called the Macintosh. Now apple refers to all mac’s as “Mac”. A MacBook is still a subset of the Mac category though, and not exactly the same thing. As someone else pointed out, if they for some reason did decide to call something just “Mac” it would likely be a tentpole product. The Mac mini is one of the least-popular macs.

 

[Lammers]

And over time Apple has shrunk the design of the mini more and more.

That's a bit of a stretch. Apple hasn't changed the basic design of the Mac mini for almost 11 years.

And this to my mind is a key consideration. What does Apple's pattern of behaviour tell us? To me it indicates that they're fine with the current design, as they evidently haven't felt compelled to change it. So the question then becomes whether now is the time when they DO feel that it is imperative to change it. And then it becomes a question of what the drivers for that might be.

At the November event they were happily describing the Mac mini as "delivers the Mac desktop experience in an incredibly small form factor" and "pack a remarkable amount of performance and capability into its compact design". Okay, that's marketing 101, clearly, but it's also not disingenuous or incongruent with reality. And I can easily see them up on stage at a March (or whenever) event saying "you've told us that you love the small form factor and beautiful design of the Mac mini" and leaving it at that.

I think it's certainly possible that Apple will launch a redesigned mini - it would help shift some people who might be on the fence, and knock out any potential criticism (however mild) about the fact that the design hasn't changed. But Apple have a strong bias towards inaction (for several reasons), so I think it's much less definite that they will redesign it than people here suggest.

 

[Lammers]

Do you REALLY think Apple didn’t figure out less volume means more products per freight being shipped can lead to faster sales revenue $$? Really?!

That's only true if supply is the constraining factor in sales (i.e. people can't buy it because it's out of stock), and if the supply constraint is driven by shipment volume limitations, and I don't think either of those are true for the Mac mini.

You probably mean profitability, not revenue. It is true that more units per shipment drives lower cost which drives greater profit. And yes, Apple knows that of course.

But the question isn't whether Apple knows that - obviously they do - the question is whether they will therefore redesign the mini in order to exploit that opportunity. Or in other words, is that opportunity compelling enough that they will bother to do it. And bear in mind they evidently haven't seen it as important enough up to this point.

My view is a strong no - i.e. the benefit to Apple from making the mini smaller to enable lower shipping costs is not, in and of itself, a compelling enough reason for them to do it.

 

[Moonjumper]

That's only true if supply is the constraining factor in sales (i.e. people can't buy it because it's out of stock), and if the supply constraint is driven by shipment volume limitations, and I don't think either of those are true for the Mac mini.

You probably mean profitability, not revenue. It is true that more units per shipment drives lower cost which drives greater profit. And yes, Apple knows that of course.

But the question isn't whether Apple knows that - obviously they do - the question is whether they will therefore redesign the mini in order to exploit that opportunity. Or in other words, is that opportunity compelling enough that they will bother to do it. And bear in mind they evidently haven't seen it as important enough up to this point.

My view is a strong no - i.e. the benefit to Apple from making the mini smaller to enable lower shipping costs is not, in and of itself, a compelling enough reason for them to do it.

Apple have mentioned smaller packaging several times during keynotes, highlighting the environmental benefits of less shipping. But as Tim Cook is renown for supply chain optimisation, the cost benefits are almost certainly a reason, just not one for putting in a keynote.

 

[Lammers]

Apple have mentioned smaller packaging several times during keynotes, highlighting the environmental benefits of less shipping. But as Tim Cook is renown for supply chain optimisation, the cost benefits are almost certainly a reason, just not one for putting in a keynote.

Yes of course. The question is whether those reasons are enough to go to the trouble of redesigning the mini. So far they haven't been.

 

[Neodym]

Apple have mentioned smaller packaging several times during keynotes, highlighting the environmental benefits of less shipping. But as Tim Cook is renown for supply chain optimisation, the cost benefits are almost certainly a reason, just not one for putting in a keynote.

I think Apple could still shrink the existing mini packaging significantly, without changing the chassis of the mini itself.

 

[Lammers]

I think Apple could still shrink the existing mini packaging significantly, without changing the chassis of the mini itself.

Probably true.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

That's a bit of a stretch. Apple hasn't changed the basic design of the Mac mini for almost 11 years.

And this to my mind is a key consideration. What does Apple's pattern of behaviour tell us? To me it indicates that they're fine with the current design, as they evidently haven't felt compelled to change it. So the question then becomes whether now is the time when they DO feel that it is imperative to change it. And then it becomes a question of what the drivers for that might be.

It's weird, I had it in my head the current was the third chassis, but its only 2.5, with the .5 being the removal of the optical drive. There's a nice post here. Apparently the 2005 model had a connector that had been intended for an iPod dock.

I think Apple could still shrink the existing mini packaging significantly, without changing the chassis of the mini itself.

It's been about 4 years since I had a new apple product to unbox, they do know how to make it an enjoyable experience. The mini box is a lot bigger than I remember, although in the UK the power plug is less conducive to graceful packaging.

 

[DeepIn2U]

That's only true if supply is the constraining factor in sales (i.e. people can't buy it because it's out of stock), and if the supply constraint is driven by shipment volume limitations, and I don't think either of those are true for the Mac mini.

You probably mean profitability, not revenue. It is true that more units per shipment drives lower cost which drives greater profit. And yes, Apple knows that of course.

But the question isn't whether Apple knows that - obviously they do - the question is whether they will therefore redesign the mini in order to exploit that opportunity. Or in other words, is that opportunity compelling enough that they will bother to do it. And bear in mind they evidently haven't seen it as important enough up to this point.

My view is a strong no - i.e. the benefit to Apple from making the mini smaller to enable lower shipping costs is not, in and of itself, a compelling enough reason for them to do it.

Supply: cannot supply if you cannot ship. Shipping or freight (an expense) comes in order to get revenue. After subtraction of expenses then comes profits (which is tallied at the end of a quarter).

Remember the phrase don’t count your chickens before your eggs hatch?!

Demand can be fulfilled if you can ship products to fulfill the demand. Your supply chain can be capable of meeting demand but the faster you ship, the faster you can fulfill the demand and thus realize your revenues. Faster out faster in. This is part of a whole solution of why Apple pretty much consistently beats expectations for revenues, earnings per share and profits quarter after quarter even in a chip deficient.

You’re right reducing shipping costs in/of itself isn’t enough for Apple to change the design to fit more units per freight going out.

From 2014-2018 yes Apple forgot the mini, engineering staff spread too thin. Since then a lot of love has gone to the mini. Until Apple begins reporting individual Mac sales we’ll not know how significant their interest has rewarded them or will continue to garner their interest.

I think the biggest factor is changing the design is:

Will a smaller form factor equal enough of a reduction of shipping costs, globally, and ignite higher interest in sales to warrant R&D costs for a smaller design. Will an M2 MBA be priced competitively enough and enough performance to affect a new designed Mac Mini?

Really hoping for a great new Mac Mini design and a price structure for an 16GB M1 Pro to be just under $1000US.

 

[Lammers]

Supply: cannot supply if you cannot ship. Shipping or freight (an expense) comes in order to get revenue. After subtraction of expenses then comes profits (which is tallied at the end of a quarter).

Remember the phrase don’t count your chickens before your eggs hatch?!

Demand can be fulfilled if you can ship products to fulfill the demand. Your supply chain can be capable of meeting demand but the faster you ship, the faster you can fulfill the demand and thus realize your revenues. Faster out faster in.

Yes - but again that only helps you if demand is outstripping supply, and I don’t believe that is ever the case with the mini. So shipping faster actually would be a bad thing because you’d just be piling up stock you can’t sell. Anyway, we digress.

I think the biggest factor is changing the design is:

Will a smaller form factor equal enough of a reduction of shipping costs, globally, and ignite higher interest in sales to warrant R&D costs for a smaller design. Will an M2 MBA be priced competitively enough and enough performance to affect a new designed Mac Mini?

Yes, agreed.

 

[Chancha]

I expect we'll get the DAC that's in the MacBook Pro. I've heard good things about it, one musician friend has ditched his headphone amp unless he's at his desk. I think he's on Sennheiser HD600s, or some variation of that line

But I think the above poster was referring to the 2012 era mini chassis, which had two 3.5mm ports. The output port had triple-duty as a regular analog output + TRRS combo jack (iPhone remote + mic) + a TOSLINK optical output. Then the input port is double-duty as TOSLINK optical input and mic level input (I may be wrong, it probably had no amplification).

Ever since then all Macs shipped afterwards had been decreasing their audio I/O capabilities (save for occasional sampling rate increase due to DAC choice), until the recent 14" 16" where they upped the amplifier impedance rating, which as you noted is mainly for on-the-road headphone monitoring.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

But I think the above poster was referring to the 2012 era mini chassis, which had two 3.5mm ports. The output port had triple-duty as a regular analog output + TRRS combo jack (iPhone remote + mic) + a TOSLINK optical output. Then the input port is double-duty as TOSLINK optical input and mic level input (I may be wrong, it probably had no amplification).

Ever since then all Macs shipped afterwards had been decreasing their audio I/O capabilities (save for occasional sampling rate increase due to DAC choice), until the recent 14" 16" where they upped the amplifier impedance rating, which as you noted is mainly for on-the-road headphone monitoring.

I'm aware of that. However I think the introduction of the Apple TV meant the home theatre usage for the mini dropped off and the need for TOSLINK connections became unnecessary. In context, HDMI was nowhere near as prolific or universal then.

Without sounding like some kind of audiophile zealot, I don't believe anyone uses the headphone jack for critical listening, but the new DAC may allow that in a pinch, as above. Given the low price of audio interfaces and usb microphones, I don't see the use of line in/mic anymore. The DAC quality and clean headroom available for £100 feels like a no brainer to me if audio IO is that important to you.

 

[jimimac71]

For me, having analog audio input and output would be fine, like my old iMac and the 2014 and earlier mini.
Apple ditched iTunes and the optical drive.
I don’t need to edit photos or create video. I’m a radio/music kind of guy.
Apple would rather sell Apple Music, while taking away audio tools.
Even Windows machines are making optical drives an option, or dropping them completely. Having a microphone/headphone jack, so people can Zoom, seems to be all that matters.
I purchased an Apple only audiobook. They still employ DRM.
I bought it! It’s mine! Apple doesn’t see it that way.
So I did a real time audio transfer from my iPad to my computer.
With my way too old iMac, I could run a 3.5 inch cable from the output back to the input. I just couldn’t hear anything.
I will be furious (kicking and screaming) if getting a Windows box is my only option.

 

[Maximara]

For me, having analog audio input and output would be fine, like my old iMac and the 2014 and earlier mini.
Apple ditched iTunes and the optical drive.

iTunes got broken up into varies parts: Music, TV, and Podcast.

It wasn't "ditched".

I don’t need to edit photos or create video. I’m a radio/music kind of guy.
Apple would rather sell Apple Music, while taking away audio tools.
Even Windows machines are making optical drives an option, or dropping them completely. Having a microphone/headphone jack, so people can Zoom, seems to be all that matters.
I purchased an Apple only audiobook. They still employ DRM.

Not really Apple's fault given how zealous copyright is these days. Just look at the clusterFUBAR Youtube is in.

I bought it! It’s mine! Apple doesn’t see it that way.

Actually it is the RIAA that sees it that way. They finally figured out that suing everybody insight wasn't going to work and judges were catching on to their BS thanks to them suing dead people or people who didn't even own a computer.

So I did a real time audio transfer from my iPad to my computer.
With my way too old iMac, I could run a 3.5 inch cable from the output back to the input. I just couldn’t hear anything.
I will be furious (kicking and screaming) if getting a Windows box is my only option.

 

[trickster is meaningless]

For me, having analog audio input and output would be fine, like my old iMac and the 2014 and earlier mini.
Apple ditched iTunes and the optical drive.
I don’t need to edit photos or create video. I’m a radio/music kind of guy.
Apple would rather sell Apple Music, while taking away audio tools.
Even Windows machines are making optical drives an option, or dropping them completely. Having a microphone/headphone jack, so people can Zoom, seems to be all that matters.
I purchased an Apple only audiobook. They still employ DRM.
I bought it! It’s mine! Apple doesn’t see it that way.
So I did a real time audio transfer from my iPad to my computer.
With my way too old iMac, I could run a 3.5 inch cable from the output back to the input. I just couldn’t hear anything.
I will be furious (kicking and screaming) if getting a Windows box is my only option.

Ah there is work around for that kind of B$. Install GarageBand and use the Inter-App audio. Then you can play a chapter at a time, or whatever, and save it in a non-DRM format. DRM is awful, just because it is digital, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. There are some apps that do this too, however I think they're all paid for, tuneFab has a monthly license for about £10 and will do it much faster, although on principle I accept not spending more money for something that you've already bought once. Legally, this may not be ok, so check in your region, but laws should reflect morals and protect the smaller party, ie the consumer.

Given the Mac mini doesn't have a camera, if someone needed a webcam for zoom etc, the majority of modern webcams have a mic built in.

Spoiler: Off topic DRM/Music Streaming Rant

To Moderators: I'm happy to delete this spoiler if you aren't happy with it, just ask. I am not a lawyer, but I have experience with copyrighting and take no responsibility for anyone doing something without conducting their own research.

As I'm a little angry on @jimimac71's behalf, there is very little legal precedent to stop you acquiring something you own from what would otherwise be a spurious source. For example, if you own a CD, ripping a digital copy is fine, however say you don't have a CD drive to hand, acquiring a copy from elsewhere is legally grey in most territories, please check in your own country as some laws are more explicit. I am not encouraging theft or piracy of content you do not already own. I think this is an example where laws are way out of date and need to be clarified to protect the user. Breaking or subverting a DRM might be illegal in some territories, but so is (or was) a passenger under 17 not wearing socks and shoes in Indiana.

With digital content, taking a copy of a file/CD isn't "stealing" as the original isn't missing. If two people rip their own copies of the same CD with the same settings, these files are digitally identical using a checksum (meta data for creation time excluded). If you were to swap the files on a usb stick and delete your original, there is no way to tell. If you sell the CD, you are required to delete the digital copy as you cannot keep it as a backup without the original serving as a license; I don't imagine many people do this when they sell their whole library on music magpie. Ripping a borrowed CD is technically more illegal than torrenting something you own in the UK and (I believe) the US. Torrents are also a legitimate way to release music, Thom Yorke of Radiohead released his second solo album as a paid torrent.

On music streaming, I just don't understand paying for a streaming service. CD's are £10 for a new release, much less for older stuff. I buy maybe 10-20 albums a year, and if there's something I want to listen to before buying, the free tiers are fine to use as a "targeted radio" with ads etc. Unless you have a huge library at FLAC/ALAC, there are plenty of free ways to get it to your phone if you don't have the storage... like Plex etc. I find the idea of "renting access" to music very strange. People are spending £100s a year for Spotify/Apple Music and get nothing once they cancel their subscription. It works for TV/Movies as you don't typically watch them on repeat... unless you have children.

Support musicians by buying as close to source as possible, and go to gigs if it is safe to do so.

 

[jimimac71]

I’m talking about iTunes the software not the store.
iTunes is my favorite for transcoding audio. (Windows)
Why did Apple get really of it?
I believe it stopped with Mac OS Catalina.
I can purchase audiobooks without DRM all day long from a company in Oregon.
I purchased The Time Machine, read by Kelsey Grammer.
Exclusive to Apple.
My iMac is so outdated (2007) GarageBand would not work. (C2D w/2 GB RAM)
I noticed Inter-App Audio is for iOS.
I don’t have iPhone, just iPad.
These guys have similar software for Mac:

Rogue Amoeba - Quality Audio Software for MacOS

Fantastic audio products for consumers and professionals alike

rogueamoeba.com

That doesn’t help with audio from the outside, but I appreciate the link.
EDIT: I cannot find Inter-App Audio for GarageBand on my iPad.
I haven’t used GarageBand since the 2008 iLife version for Mac.
Instead, I do okay with Audacity for Windows.