Imagine a 15" MBP without the touchbar. One can dream..
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.
Apple Registers Several New Mac Models in Eurasia Ahead of October 30 Event
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is a sad day when the value of a technology is reduced to its ability to segment a market.
The strength of TB3 in addition to its versatility is its ability to bring additional graphics capabilities to thin and light notebooks. If Apple were serious about pushing into VR and AR, the entire lineup would have at least one full speed TB3 port from which to run an eGPU. Unfortunately, the only example of this in Apple's lineup is the 13" MBP, but this is more an indirect consequence of Apple segmenting its Pro lineup.
Hopefully Apple will appropriate TB3 across its lineup as a demonstration of its understanding of the inherent value of the technology rather than as an artificial means to differentiate Professional / Prosumer lines from Consumer lines with USB-C; however, this would require Apple to again lead the industry in vision rather than profits.
If they remove the touchbar, people like me will be really happy. I’d instantly trade some of my touchbar MBPs. The non physical escape key is very annoying in day to day tasks.
Im trying to not be unrealistically optimistic. The last few years have been only disappointment in the Mac announcements
Yeah, that would be big news/announcement, that they kill off the touchbar.
I can see min ram being at the level to fill all channels and any dual cpu build to start with more ram. But storage can start lower with a lot more config choice as unlike the imac pro it should have slots and at least 2 REAL m.2 cards (not the imac pro's 2 card for 1 HDD)
But 1TB flash will be push cost up to much for base level.
It's a Pro level Mac desktop, 1TB seems to be the lowest offering for storage. I don't see Apple changing that as it increases the margin on the machines.
The picture is the same for all of them tho. Couldn’t it just be a stock image they are using?
The memory controller is 6-channels whether it is a single CPU or a dual CPU configuration, but I do not see Apple using 4GB DDR4 2666 ECC DIMMs even though they are available. Meaning, the base single CPU module only has 24GB of DRAM. It is possible that Apple will go that route, but 48GB seems more likely as this machine is going to be premium priced and a premium over the iMac Pro.
Given the expectations for this system and the precedence set by the iMac Pro, there is zero reason to believe Apple would equip it with less than 1TB of SSD storage in the base model. Your config choices for the main module that boots macOS will most likely be 1TB, 2TB, 4TB and possibly 8TB (50/50).
Apple has not equipped any of its computers with a true m.2 interface, instead relying on its proprietary blades or soldered NAND. I expect that there will be a base module that contains the CPU/ports/DRAM and that you will select those items up front, with only the DRAM being upgradeable or replaceable over time.
For additional storage, I can see a module with SATA III, SAS and/or U.2 (yes, I actually mentioned U.2) connections. Perhaps Apple will allow m.2 modules for additional storage, but it will not have those slots on the main CPU module for you to boot macOS and then swap out when you need more storage. Remember, there is going to be at least a T2 module in this beast and it will be in charge of the storage that boots macOS. You will need to buy what you need from the outset, just like the iMac Pro.
I also see a PCIe slot module that offers 2-3 PCIe x8 electrical/x4 bandwidth capable slots for PCIe storage, Red Rocket, AVID HDX, et al. You may even be able to have a second PCIe slot module should you have a dual CPU rig.
I also expect the GPU to be a separate module that you can swap in and out depending on your needs and maybe some thought to allowing dual GPUs (2 stacked modules) depending on how many CPUs you have in your system. I do not expect to see a module with a pair of x16 PCIe 3.0 slots for people to stick NVIDIA cards into the system. If that is what you are counting on, you are going to be disappointed and angry. Apple moved away from NVIDIA 5 years ago and they are unlikely to go back.
Apple is not really worried about the cost of the Mac Pro. Potential buyers may be, Apple is not.
[doublepost=1540482380][/doublepost]
Apple has segmented its product lines in the past just like any other PC OEM. They may not give them fancy names like Dimension, Latitude and Vostro, but the MacBook Pro and the MacBook were very distinct products at one time. However, over the years, the MacBook Air gained some Pro abilities and the MacBook Pro came down in price and lost some Pro things (discrete GPU in the 15", for example). Now, it seems that Apple is intent on delineating the MacBook from the MacBook Pro again.
Perhaps I am wrong and the 13" MacBook (Air) replacement will have Thunderbolt 3. However, if you are using an eGPU as your justification for its inclusion, that is not a strong enough argument. eGPUs are not cheap for most consumers who are buying a MacBook based on price, which is what I keep reading in these forums is the main driver for Apple to introduce this particular model in the first place. That and the endless crying about the Touch Bar.
Apple is serious about pushing VR and AR on iOS, not so much on macOS, unless you are a developer. Both of these technologies have yet to yield much in the way of anything really interesting to the average consumer so far, but maybe 2019 will be the "Big Year".
I do hope that Apple pushes Thunderbolt 3 across the lineup, but I think that until Intel integrates a Thunderbolt 3 controller into the CPU die as they have mentioned previously, Apple is going to hold off on adding it to the 12" and 13"/14" MacBook. Besides, pushing USB-C and getting users to embrace that technology is really more important than Thunderbolt 3 for the average consumer buying a MacBook. It becomes even more important should the new iPad Pro replace the Lightning port with a UB-C port.
Oh sure, I'm very convinced they chose to neglect the Mac Mini for 5 years because they couldn't spare the resources
*cough* IIvx/Centris 650 *cough*
I was lucky.. Budget had made me wait until the 650 came out..
That's the most reasonable (and simplest) explanation. The time-honored Occam's Razor rule applies.
Too bad it doesn't fit into your Conspiracy Theory mindset.
Time for another layer on that Tinfoil Hat...
Ah yeah, the Dublin abbreviation - nearly everything ends in the letter O, especially people's names: "Me name's Tony, but you can call me Anto for short". My own brother became Damo when he moved there.
There are other reasons which are just as simple and reasonable--higher ROI for resources used for other projects (e.g., iPhone, iPad), continuing sales with lower cost of components, etc.
You can argue that Apple lacks resources all you like, but the simpler reality is money. With Apple's increasing focus on ASP, there is an increasing focus on profits. If they is making enough money on current sales of the Mini due to lower component costs or did not believe they could make enough additional money with an update which would bring an increase in component costs, they would feel no need to update the Mini.
But with Intel of late, you can also make a "Simpler" argument with PERFORMANCE.
If Apple could not get enough additional PERFORMANCE with an update which would bring an increase in component costs, they would feel no need to update the Mini.
I think that my argument works until late 2016 when the TB MBPs came out using lower-power Quad-Core chips. These might have worked to put a Quad-Core back in the Mini, and with an SSD and GPU bump, might have quieted things down for a bit.
After 2016, it was probably more of a "juggling priorities" and "moving-pains" that slowed down the mini Update.
One factor that would make the Mac Mini my next desktop - since the Mac Pro has only been announced and not one definite idea - is the fact that my 23 inch ACD from 2008 is still very useful.
Cannot understand why someone would refer to what has been rumored previously as dead cert. Can't write the complete word? We're not British and we're not gamblers.
No price has been mentioned as of this date, so to what are you referring, the 'old' Mini or the updated Mini?
Where is the promised Mac Pro?
That and there just isn’t much reason for the Mac mini to exist these days.
I decided if they release a new Air with THE SAME KEYBOARD AS IT HAS NOW, a retina screen, and at least two USB-Cs (I spent way too much money on #donglelife), I'm buying it.
But if they don’t include a TB3 controller, they’ll need a USB-C controller - something that comes “free” with the TB3 controller. Part of Intels strategy seems to be pushing their Thunderbolt chipset as the go-to USB-C controller.
AFAIK, the original rMB CPU just couldn’t support TB - but once that is possible, it seems silly not to include it: the alternative is an invisible incompatibility between the rMB and the rest of the range - and one less distinction between the rMB and the iPad Pro. Mind you, that sort of confusion is all part of the USB-C train wreck...
Both the Whiskey Lake and Amber Lake CPUs have built-in support for USB-C Gen 2 without the need for an external controller. Essentially, making Gen 2 “free” for Apple as well.
This lets Apple add several ports to the MacBook, essentially giving it TB1 speeds, and allowing for cheaper and more flexible docks, including up to 4K60p video.
This inclusion by Intel essentially “anoints” USB-C Gen 2. Things are already getting better and will continue as Gen 2 is now the de facto standard. Even the motherboard manafacturers (ASRock, Asus, Gigabyte and MSI) are including more USB-C Gen 2 ports and headers with the newer B360, H370 and Z390 motherboards.
Last edited:
Of course not. I mean, who in their right minds would want a desktop costing under two grand, right?
Yeah, a desktop running MBA specs, and you still have to spring for the peripherals yourself.
The original intent of the Mac mini was to serve as a cheap Mac for consumers wanting to have a taste of the apple ecosystem, and the primary vector of entry at that time was the Mac, so it made sense. Today, most consumers enter the apple ecosystem via the iPhone, and then get a Mac to complement that experience. In this context, a cheap, entry-level desktop Mac no longer makes sense from a strategic viewpoint, because most users aren't buying a Mac first, then an iPhone.
All I see for those chips is USB 3.1 gen 2 - just one of the stack of protocols used by USB-C - an actual USB-C port also needs to do cable detection, DisplayPort alt-mode routing, USB 2 fallback and power delivery which (I believe) is bundled into the TB3 controller.
If the new CPUs actually include all the gubbins to drive a multifunction USB-C port then I stand corrected, otherwise, though, USB-C still needs an extra chip.