Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
IMHO Apple sees the Mac mini in general as a transitional product ie transitional from PC to Mac.
While I agree with that, I also think that in 2023, it makes perfect sense to go all USB-C. USB-C is much more prevalent now than it was in 2020, interestingly enough. I say this as someone who just bought an M1 Mac mini. In 2020 I would have said I would prefer to have at least a couple of USB-A ports, but I wouldn't say the same thing now.
USB-C is much more flexible, AND the peripherals are everywhere now. Even a large chunk of the USB-A hubs are USB-C now for the host connector.
This day, nine years ago this thread came to be. Since then the new Mac Mini has been almost certainly coming next week, next month, next year or never, and there have been three incarnations.
True of the 2005 original and promoted as such. Not so much these days.
This right here is why I expect the next Mac Pro to have some sort of rackmountable, blade expandable layout; at least as an option. Apple Silicon might actually make sense in some cloud setups.
80% of the market are laptops and Apple did built a 24GB M2 MacBook Air, despite that makes a MacBook Pro totally unnecessary for Photoshop and Lightroom. So internal competition for more expensive products is not the problem.
The M1 Pro mini doesn't exist for the same reasons there's no new iPhone mini. It's a comparatively small market with low demand, but also very price sensitive. Most people are fine with an M1 mini and a few are more than willing to pay like crazy for an M1 Ultra Studio, because they compare it to what their Mac Pro used to cost. Apple must offer something for these two customer groups at the extreme end of the spectrum. The people in the middle are left to decide to which group they belong more.
Because even if Apple did build a Mac mini Pro, most customers would still go either for the cheapest or the fastest (most expensive) option. Apple can't grow their market share with the perfect product for the customers in the middle. Other products have higher priority. The engineers are needed for the iMac Pro and it will end up being too powerful and too expensive for those who just wanted an M1 iMac with a larger screen.
Likewise the iPhone mini is trapped between the iPhone SE and iPhone Pro. Those who know no spending limits prefer large phones with more cameras than a spider has eyes. And the cheapest phone is always going to be the large phone of the past. The experiment to build a modern small phone failed, because it wasn't the most affordable or the most premium.
We already know what is happening - The M2 mini is coming towards the end of Q1, with no M2 Pro in sight. Everyone (including myself) will be massively disappointed. And despite exchange rates gaining some of the lost ground, European pricing will SUCK and Apple will continue to wonder why the Mac mini sells like crap at £1,300.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is abundantly clear to everybody that Apple is not in a hurry to do anything. And that is pretty frustrating for customers of the products that get the fewest updates.
It is bizarre how they have seen fit to update the MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro with an M2, but not the mini or the iMac. You would think the portables would require the most amount of effort to update the chip since they are designed right to the edge of space and thermal capacity. A mini and iMac update should be a lot easier.
And as for an M1 Pro Mac mini, I just don't think Apple has any interest in giving away a Pro chip for less than $1999. That's the cheapest you can go for a MacBook Pro (M1 Pro) or a Mac Studio (M1 Max).
It is bizarre how they have seen fit to update the MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro with an M2, but not the mini or the iMac. You would think the portables would require the most amount of effort to update the chip since they are designed right to the edge of space and thermal capacity. A mini and iMac update should be a lot easier.
And as for an M1 Pro Mac mini, I just don't think Apple has any interest in giving away a Pro chip for less than $1999. That's the cheapest you can go for a MacBook Pro (M1 Pro) or a Mac Studio (M1 Max).
Apple does have a lot of things to deal with not related to product development but rather logistics. I can't imagine the amount of effort to move production out of China to somewhere else.
My current feeling is that if you need a Mac mini Pro, just get the Studio. I did and I love it. The monitor support and all of the extra ports are just great.
TBH, I think the $1999 Mac Studio is a reasonable product for someone with a workload that requires running 3 monitors. And with that you get an M1 Max.
What do you think Apple would charge for the hypothetical M1/M2 Pro Mac mini? It would be something ridiculous like $1599, completely negating all value. For $400 more you would get an M1 Max and better thermal management.
The Mac Studio is absolutely the Mac mini Pro, some people just don't want to admit it, because they have dreams of an M1 Pro desktop that is a couple hundred dollars cheaper. It is just not happening.
I went with a 16" MacBook Pro instead, which is a desktop computer for me 99% of the time, but when I do want to work away from the desktop or need to go on a trip, I can take it with me. It's a pretty good deal.
I have the Studio and an M1 Pro MacBook Pro 16. I do not want to plug and unplug 3 or 4 monitors, my Time Machine disk and all of the other things that I have connected to the Studio daily. I think that most people don't have 3-5 monitors on the desktop though.
I have a single CallDigit hub handling all of that. The only thing connected to my MBP is a single TB4 cable. The desk at (2) 4K UltraFine displays, time machine disk, ethernet adapter, headphones, and probably something else too. All neatly tucked away under the desk. It's a pretty nice experience to not juggle 2 Macs anymore.
As mentioned previously, I got a good deal on used M1 Mac mini with 1 TB SSD and 16 GB RAM. However, this deal has cost me another CA$1000 (US$735) plus CA$207 (US$152) plus tax.
My previous 2014 i5 Mac mini had a decent amount of ports, but the new 2020 M1 Mac mini has fewer, so I spent another $207 to get a Plugable Thunderbolt 4 / USB 4 hub to compensate. However, Apple Silicon's implementation of USB-C / DisplayPort Alt-Mode has caused all sorts of compatibility problems with 3rd party monitors, and even with Apple's own older monitors that are no longer supported.
I had a 30" Cinema HD Display that behaved well with my Intel Macs (eg. 2017 iMac, 2017 MacBook, 2014 Mac mini), but which had all sorts of problems with the M1 Mac mini. Sleep stopped working properly with some adapters, some adapters didn't work at all, and HDCP stopped working for some strange reason. Because of all this, and because the monitor has some image retention, I finally just got a new monitor. Or several new monitors actually.
I started with an Asus ProArt PA328CGV. This is a 1440p 32" monitor (92 ppi) and I was running it at native 2560x1440. Text in a Windows VPN was crisp but pixelated at my seating distance, and it was blurry in macOS. BTW, this monitor is an HDR600 monitor which looked good, but which I ended up not using HDR. The 165 Hz support was a nice bonus though. 165 Hz is not critical, but screen navigation was considerably smoother than 60 Hz. Actually, I didn't notice much difference between 165 and 120 Hz though so I ran it at 120 Hz. This monitor is factory Calman calibrated and colours look great.
Even though my previous Apple Cinema Display was only 2560x1600 (101 ppi), that slightly higher rez plus the slightly smaller size at 30" made it a little harder to see the pixels (although it was obvious a little bit closer).
So then I ordered a higher rez model from Amazon Warehouse, an Asus ProArt PA329CV. This is a 4K 2160p 32" monitor (138 ppi), but I received another PA328CGV in the box. It seems like someone scammed Amazon Warehouse by buying the PA329CV and returning a PA328CGV. So then I reordered it retail from elsewhere.
I just got it today and I'm currently also running at "looks like" 2560x1440p. In this mode, macOS text is considerably better, decent, but not awesome. Text in the Windows VPN is also decent. I tried at "looks like" 3008x1692 and while macOS still looked relatively OK (albeit with smaller fonts), the Windows VPN text quality took a nosedive. I tried turning off font smoothing, but while the text in macOS was crisper, it also thinned some fonts making them look a bit anemic, so I'm back with font smoothing back on. BTW, this unit has a bit of backlight bleed but at this point I can't be bothered to get another one, especially since AFAIK it has no stuck pixels. This is an HDR400 model and interestingly Apple doesn't allow HDR on this model, which is fine, since HDR400 is kinda pointless anyway. This is also factory Calman calibrated and again, colours look great. I'm running this monitor through the Thunderbolt hub too. I'm sticking with this monitor, but it's definitely not the perfect solution for a Mac mini. One interesting tidbit. The monitor can act as a USB hub, but there are settings for USB 2.0 vs. USB 3.1. If you set it to USB 2.0, macOS gives you 5 default scaling options up to full 3840x2160 at 60 Hz. If you set it to USB 2.0, macOS gives you 4 default and less flexible scaling options up to 3200x1800 at 60 Hz. I guess the USB 2.0 setting frees up more bandwidth over that USB-C cable.
I also have a 2017 5K iMac (218 ppi) running at native "looks like" pixel-doubled 2560x1440 and while text is amazingly crisp, I find the default font sizing too small. If I decrease the "looks like" resolution, text is way too big and there is not enough screen space. For the same reason, I don't want to buy an Apple Studio Display. It's expensive, for a too small 27" size at 5K IMHO. I've said this before, but I'd love to be able to buy a 30" 5K 16:10 or 5K 16:9 monitor. That would be awesome. The 32" 6K Pro Display XDR is far too expensive and is way overkill for my usage anyway.
My holy grail would probably be something like an ultra wide 6K at 33" with a resolution of 6016x2880 (202 ppi), with 120 Hz support, but that would likely take an M3 or M4 or something.
---
tl;dr:
M1 Mac mini is a disaster for monitor support, but a lot of you knew that already. For text quality:
30" 2560x1600 at 2560x1600 - 101 ppi is OK. Not great but acceptable text.
32" 2560x1440 at 2560x1440 - 92 ppi text is blurry and pixelated.
32" 3480x2160 at 2560x1440 - 138 ppi is decent, but text looks a bit soft.
324" 3480x2160 at 2560x1440 - 138 ppi with font smoothing off looks crisper, but some fonts are too thin looking.
32" 3480x2160 at 3008x1692 - 138 ppi is OK but Windows VPN text quality is noticeably worse.
27" 5120x2880 at 2560x1440 - 218 ppi looks great, but the default font sizes are smaller than my preference.
I'd like to see a 5K 30" at 5120x2880 - 196 ppi, or 6K 32" at 6016x2880 - 202 ppi. Text would be excellent.
120 Hz at that high a resolution would probably take an M3 or M4, but 120 Hz isn't mission critical.
My previous 2014 i5 Mac mini had a decent amount of ports, but the new 2020 M1 Mac mini has fewer, so I spent another $207 to get a Plugable Thunderbolt 4 / USB 4 hub to compensate. However, Apple Silicon's implementation of USB-C / DisplayPort Alt-Mode has caused all sorts of compatibility problems with 3rd party monitors, and even with Apple's own older monitors that are no longer supported.
I had a 30" Cinema HD Display that behaved well with my Intel Macs (eg. 2017 iMac, 2017 MacBook, 2014 Mac mini), but which had all sorts of problems with the M1 Mac mini. Sleep stopped working properly with some adapters, some adapters didn't work at all, and HDCP stopped working for some strange reason. Because of all this, and because the monitor has some image retention, I finally just got a new monitor. Or several new monitors actually.
I started with an Asus ProArt PA328CGV. This is a 1440p 32" monitor (92 ppi) and I was running it at native 2560x1440. Text in a Windows VPN was crisp but pixelated at my seating distance, and it was blurry in macOS. BTW, this monitor is an HDR600 monitor which looked good, but which I ended up not using HDR. The 165 Hz support was a nice bonus though. 165 Hz is not critical, but screen navigation was considerably smoother than 60 Hz. Actually, I didn't notice much difference between 165 and 120 Hz though so I ran it at 120 Hz. This monitor is factory Calman calibrated and colours look great.
Even though my previous Apple Cinema Display was only 2560x1600 (101 ppi), that slightly higher rez plus the slightly smaller size at 30" made it a little harder to see the pixels (although it was obvious a little bit closer).
So then I ordered a higher rez model from Amazon Warehouse, an Asus ProArt PA329CV. This is a 4K 2160p 32" monitor (138 ppi), but I received another PA328CGV in the box. It seems like someone scammed Amazon Warehouse by buying the PA329CV and returning a PA328CGV. So then I reordered it retail from elsewhere.
I just got it today and I'm currently also running at "looks like" 2560x1440p. In this mode, macOS text is considerably better, decent, but not awesome. Text in the Windows VPN is also decent. I tried at "looks like" 3008x1692 and while macOS still looked relatively OK (albeit with smaller fonts), the Windows VPN text quality took a nosedive. I tried turning off font smoothing, but while the text in macOS was crisper, it also thinned some fonts making them look a bit anemic, so I'm back with font smoothing back on. BTW, this unit has a bit of backlight bleed but at this point I can't be bothered to get another one, especially since AFAIK it has no stuck pixels. This is an HDR400 model and interestingly Apple doesn't allow HDR on this model, which is fine, since HDR400 is kinda pointless anyway. This is also factory Calman calibrated and again, colours look great. I'm running this monitor through the Thunderbolt hub too. I'm sticking with this monitor, but it's definitely not the perfect solution for a Mac mini. One interesting tidbit. The monitor can act as a USB hub, but there are settings for USB 2.0 vs. USB 3.1. If you set it to USB 2.0, macOS gives you 5 default scaling options up to full 3840x2160 at 60 Hz. If you set it to USB 2.0, macOS gives you 4 default and less flexible scaling options up to 3200x1800 at 60 Hz. I guess the USB 2.0 setting frees up more bandwidth over that USB-C cable.
I also have a 2017 5K iMac (218 ppi) running at native "looks like" pixel-doubled 2560x1440 and while text is amazingly crisp, I find the default font sizing too small. If I decrease the "looks like" resolution, text is way too big and there is not enough screen space. For the same reason, I don't want to buy an Apple Studio Display. It's expensive, for a too small 27" size at 5K IMHO. I've said this before, but I'd love to be able to buy a 30" 5K 16:10 or 5K 16:9 monitor. That would be awesome. The 32" 6K Pro Display XDR is far too expensive and is way overkill for my usage anyway.
My holy grail would probably be something like an ultra wide 6K at 33" with a resolution of 6016x2880 (202 ppi), with 120 Hz support, but that would likely take an M3 or M4 or something.
---
tl;dr:
M1 Mac mini is a disaster for monitor support, but a lot of you knew that already. For text quality:
30" 2560x1600 at 2560x1600 - 101 ppi is OK. Not great but acceptable text.
32" 2560x1440 at 2560x1440 - 92 ppi text is blurry and pixelated.
32" 3480x2160 at 2560x1440 - 138 ppi is decent, but text looks a bit soft.
324" 3480x2160 at 2560x1440 - 138 ppi with font smoothing off looks crisper, but some fonts are too thin looking.
32" 3480x2160 at 3008x1692 - 138 ppi is OK but Windows VPN text quality is noticeably worse.
27" 5120x2880 at 2560x1440 - 218 ppi looks great, but the default font sizes are smaller than my preference.
I'd like to see a 5K 30" at 5120x2880 - 196 ppi, or 6K 32" at 6016x2880 - 202 ppi. Text would be excellent.
120 Hz at that high a resolution would probably take an M3 or M4, but 120 Hz isn't mission critical.
Last edited:
The Mac Studio is the entry level Mac Pro for people who only need the performance and not the expandability. A Mac mini Pro might happen eventually, but likely as a once in a decade opportunity. Like when the 2012 mini suddenly had a quad-core option and the 2014 again didn't. Apple is in no rush to upgrade the Mini every year, let alone make it more powerful. It's main job is to be the cheapest Mac desktop. When everyone has one and there is no other way to improve sales, they will give it a spec bump with a larger more expensive chip.
The Mac Studio is a new category between the mini and what will be the Pro.
I really wanted the mini to work for me but there are just too many compromises.
I'm currently using all of the back ports on my Studio and these are connected to four additional port hubs. Three of the port hubs are on my Dell Ultrasharp monitos and the fourth is a 7-Port Anker USB 3 hub.
The base Mac Studio is just right for me on CPU, a bit weak on GPU, okay for RAM, really good on ports and okay on appearance (I prefer symmetry on Macs). Once I got to the realization that I could never get the performance and setup that I wanted on the mini, the decision was easy to try the Studio. And I sold my 2014 iMac 27 and will sell my M1 mini so the deal has been closed with no turning back.
I'm pretty sure that the upcoming Mac Pro will probably start with the Ultra chip which is overkill for me. It might have more ports and I always like more ports as you can lose performance with port hubs and sharing. But I like the Studio as a stopgap solution that works for a lot of people while they work on a Mac Pro. The Studio is like the mini in that sense. The mini is great for the vast majority, in terms of meeting needs. But there are a lot of Mac customers, particularly those with 27 inch iMacs, iMac Pros and Mac Pros who need more. The Studio fits a lot of those users for now until the Mac Pro gets launched.
You do have to accept the higher price of the Studio but you do get some of that back when you sell your mini.
The other major obstacle for me (and many others) is the potential noise issues reported by many Studio users. This actually had me skip looking at the Studio for several months and I've seen others report similar concerns. In the end, I would just return it if I had the problem but my Studio doesn't have the various noises reported so I'm overall very happy with it.
It feels like Apple has slowed down or that they are late from expectations. The current economic and geopolitical situation is difficult so I'll give them a pass.
Who else has transformed their entire OS to run on ARM and built their own superior chip design? Naturally they can't release the entire new Mac lineup at the same time. Forget expectations and look what they did offer!
I've worked on many architectural software ports from the 1980s but that's more software than hardware. And I think that the delays in products is more about logistics than it is about chip design. I suspect that the chips have been done for quite some time.
With every month, I more firmly believe it is the replacement for the iMac 5K (doubly so when paired with the Apple Studio Display).
The base Studio will probably be where I end up (hopefully paired with a 27" Pro Display XDR) when it comes time to replace my 2020 iMac 5K in a few years.
It may well be but I think that Apple is keeping their options open. I could still see a larger iMac if their marketing indicates that that there is good demand for it. I run into people that want an all-in-one so that they don't have to deal with cables and options in general and the demand is there - the question is in the numbers.