Apple's Next Mac Mini Refresh: Everything We Know

[theluggage]

I don't think my example price of $1400 to $1500 would be too high for an M1 Pro Mac Mini.

Agreed - the existing Intel mini is already $1299 with 16GB RAM (so far the minimum seen on an M1 Pro) and you wouldn't have to argue too hard to claim that it was more comparable to the $1499 i7 option.

OTOH, so far Apple haven't use Apple Silicon as an excuse for huge price hikes, at least on the base model at each level: the only really significant change was from the "high end" 13" MBP to the 14" MBP, but that can be justified in that the M1 Pro 14" is now much closer in specs & performance to the 16" than the 13" was.

Plus, in the past computer prices have been pretty much immune from inflation, staying roughly the same price in figures, while specs rose dramatically, I think that we're probably going to have to start sucking up price rises across the board, and not just Apple.

That's basically what my last sentence said (with respect to the Intel models though). Apple would have to price a high performance Intel based Mac mini so high that it wouldn't be competitive at all as a desktop. An Intel NUC extreme barebones kit costs $2k for example, and you still have to add a GPU, ram and SSD.

Realistically, though, the Mac Minis have never been competitive with PC desktops, and Apple pulled a really fast one in 2018 when they basically switched them from mobile processors to significantly cheaper (for the same/better performance) desktop-class chips and still raised the prices. The "innovation" was really that throwing out the spinning rust and optical drive without shrinking the case freed up enough space for a desktop-class heatsink and fan. $799 for an desktop i3 with (feeble) Intel integrated graphics and 8GB of bog-standard DDR4 RAM was an absolute joke by PC standards. If using Windows or Linux was an option for your application, the only reason you'd take a second look is that it was quite sleek and lacked the huge power brick that you get with most NUC-type PCs. Of course, if you wanted/needed MacOS it was the only game in town.

As for the "NUC Extreme" - I think that is a rather cherry-picked example. It's really not in the same "mini" class, meaning it can take a full-length desktop GPU (...which is the M1/M1 Pro's weak point - they can thrash any sort of integrated/on-package graphics that would fit in a slim laptop, but their ace is performance-per-watt, not raw performance) and it's real niche is for gaming LAN parties (hence the lightshow) which is virtually nonexistant in the Mac world. Probably makes a noise like a 747 landing, too.

There are lots of smaller/quieter "mini PCs" for more modest prices, not to mention bog-standard mini-towers that can be hidden under the desk where their size doesn't matter.

Also - you've got to look at "total cost of ownership" - the NUC Extreme uses standard RAM, 4 slots for standard M.2 storage, you can change/upgrade the GPU and there's even the possibility of future "compute element" updates. As soon as you start adding sensibly-priced 3rd party RAM and storage rather than having to rely on Apple's pricey BTO options (...and the ability to add 3rd party RAM to the mini will be going away with M1) then the starting price difference will rapidly fade away.

...before this descends into PC vs Mac wars, my point is that Apple has never shown much concern about competing with PCs on price and that many Mac customers will value the MacOS compatibility and aesthetics enough to pay a substantial premium for Mac hardware. Conversely, in recent years there has always been the option to pay Apple prices for PC hardware by going with MS Surface, Razer or suchlike (and maybe NUC belongs on that list) but that isn't really representative of PC prices.

NB: you maybe overcooked the price of the NUC extreme a bit:

Intel NUC 11 Extreme Beast Canyon Series Mini PC

Intel NUC 11 Extreme Beast Canyon Series Mini PC

www.icubes.co.uk

...specced out with the i9 CPU option, 16GB RAM and a RTX 3060 that comes to £1620 before UK tax. So, yeah, you can spend about $2200, but that that includes RAM, SSD and the best CPU and GPU specs on offer from that reseller, and ignores the cheaper options.

I think the NUC Extreme (without the go-faster lights and skull) is closer to the sort of thing we might fantasise about from the "Mini Mac Pro" - but I suspect that will cost a lot more than $2000.

 

[t0pher]

Please, please, please allow 4, 6 or even 8TB of internal flash storage...It's such a great mini server...having a ton of internal storage would be great..so an external can be a backup, not the primary like we have had to do for so many years...

I suspect lots of fast internal storage would be hideously expensive and totally unnecessary For a server.

default is 1Gb Ethernet = 125MB/s. 10Gb Ethernet is -1.25GB/s still less than 1/3rd the speed of the expensive internal storage and well within the speeds of m2 ssd’s in an external thunderbolt/usb4 enclosure.

i’d much rather see 2 x 10Gb/s (2x 2.5gb/s would be enough) Ethernet ports and perhaps a thunderbolt/usb4 stack kit for storage.

 

[paradox00]

NB: you maybe overcooked the price of the NUC extreme a bit:

Intel NUC 11 Extreme Beast Canyon Series Mini PC

Intel NUC 11 Extreme Beast Canyon Series Mini PC

www.icubes.co.uk

...specced out with the i9 CPU option, 16GB RAM and a RTX 3060 that comes to £1620 before UK tax. So, yeah, you can spend about $2200, but that that includes RAM, SSD and the best CPU and GPU specs on offer from that reseller, and ignores the cheaper options.

I think the NUC Extreme (without the go-faster lights and skull) is closer to the sort of thing we might fantasise about from the "Mini Mac Pro" - but I suspect that will cost a lot more than $2000.

I took the launch pricing, or thought I did anyway, but looks like it was wrong. My point was that mini PC costs quickly ramp up when you try to bring them closer to higher levels of desktop performance. I'm aware there are moderately priced options, but I was discussing why Apple didn't release higher performance Intel versions. The cost increases quicker than performance. You have to use lower wattage chips due to cooling, and getting more performance out of them just costs a lot more, especially since they are produced in low volume. It's why gaming laptop pricing quickly spirals out of control too.

 

[rhett7660]

Fingers crossed this comes sooner than later. Going to be buying a couple of these... I have some old devices that need to be replaced and Mac Mini is what I want to replace them with! Bring them on!!!!

 

[brofkand]

The part that I don't get is if they are using the same power cable as the iMac, why isn't the ethernet port on the brick? This has me concerned about the validity of his information.

Not all the iMacs have ethernet ports on the power brick, so they could ship the Mac mini with one of those power bricks.

It's silly to ship a desktop computer with a power brick in my opinion, but a lot of companies do, not just Apple.

 

[theluggage]

In general, use the 14" MBpro as your guide and subtract for the parts Mini won't have.

So far, most of the Apple Silicon Macs have come in pretty close to the price of the Intel Macs they replace. ISTR the 16" MBP went up by $100, the entry M1 Mini went down by $100 and the biggest change was the 14" MBP vs. the "4 port" 13" MBP, which went up by $200 (and got a huge CPU update relative to the 16" so it was at least comparable to the $1999 i7).

So I'd take the current i5 Mini - $1099 - add $200 for the upgrade to 16GB RAM (likely to be the minimum for the M1 Pro) and maybe $100 "inflation" - so $1399 as the best case for the starting price (probably for a slightly knobbled "binned" M1 Pro) and, as a slightly less-best-case maybe speculate that (as with the 14" MBP) the M1 Pro is more equivalent to the i7, $200 extra, so maybe guess $1399-$1599 starting price - which, frankly, isn't too different from yours.

I really don't think Apple prices have that much to do with "bill of materials" (it's in there somewhere, but the price points are more 'what can we get away with charging for this product, and what's the next price point we can upsell them to?'). I think Apple have a huge amount of choice as to where they set their base prices and specs. Beyond the base price, though, I think the cost of BTO upgrades will be consistent across the range: it's already $200 for an 8-to-16GB RAM upgrade whether the ram in question is bog-standard DDR4 DIMMS, soldered-to-the-board LPDDR chips or supplying a complete 16GB M1 package instead of an 8GB one... which shows you how little it has to do with bill-of-materials.

 

[N1noodle]

Would be kind of cool with an imac with ultrawide screen option but its wishful thinking i know

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As a long-term, multi-gen iMac user, my primary interest in Mac Mini now is that. Assuming there is a Mac Mini MAX about to roll out, I'm going screen-less Mac this time + ultra-wide screen.

The great negative to all-in-one is, when it's time to retire any part of it, ALL of it gets retired. It can be a tremendous (relative) value when buying it new but it's a mess of waste at the end. I've got this perfectly-good screen in a slowly-dying iMac that is going to have to go when the computing guts finally, fully call it quits.

So this next Mac will separate screen from Mac. If Mini arrives with only M2, I prob wait for rumored Mac Pro Jr. If iMac conks before then, laptop and new ultra-wide becomes the desktop until then.

But that shared, a surprise from Apple rolling out an ultra-wide iMac would be interesting. I think I still go separates myself but I'd have to at least take a more serious look at that one.

 

[Joniz]

More than two monitors…

Purchase.

 

[TimB21]

Would I be able to run my 2017 iMac monitor and my LG Monitor from a Mac Mini?

 

[Fomalhaut]

Still haven't seen a guesstimate MSRP on the Mac Mini "Pro". Me thinks "Pro" gives it a $500 bounce. Minimum.

Probably more, if it has an M1 Pro, 16GB and 512GB SSD. I think $500-600 less than the equivalent MBP is about right, so starting at $1400-1500. If you upgrade the current M1 Mini to 16GB / 512GB, it costs $1100, so the Pro version could cost $300-400 more.

I bet the manufacturing cost of the M1 Pro is not $400 more than the M1 though, so Apple is making a fat profit.

 

[theluggage]

Would I be able to run my 2017 iMac monitor and my LG Monitor from a Mac Mini?

You can't directly use the 2017 iMac as a monitor for another computer.

There are some work-arounds with products like Luna Display or by using remote desktop that send the screen contents via a network connection, but there may be some lag and glitches so you might not want to use them as your only/primary screen. Might still be handy to use the iMac as a second screen, though.

 

[DFP1989]

Translation: Colors options may change, or they may stay the same. What was the value of this sentence?

Sadly just as valuable as the rest of the “article”. A bunch of rehashed rumours that anyone familiar with the current Mac lineup could have come up with.

 

[gumbyhw]

Hmmm. Buy this or wait for an iMac?

I decided on a mini plus two LG Thunderbolt monitors. The highest dpi in a non-Apple display.

 

[lowkey]

Design- we don’t know.
Colours- we don’t know.
CPU- Dont know, we hope M1Pro
Ports- don’t know so had a guess
Time- maybe sometime this year. Could be soon, could be later.

Ok, let’s put an article together with everything we know!!

Hmm, but we don’t know anything.

We need clicks!

 

[kalsta]

The power connector on the 24" iMac is magnetic, but by all accounts it attaches pretty firmly - unlike magsafe it isn't designed to pull out if someone trips on the cable.

As firmly as a standard power plug I wonder? I must head down to my local Apple store and try for myself. ?

So the connector makes sense if you think it makes sense to lose the internal PSU. I'd rather have the internal PSU...

Yes, I’m with you—happy to have a slightly larger/thicker Mac to accommodate an internal transformer.

 

[Fomalhaut]

? TOSLINK is optical, and you're just talking about standard TOSLINK connectors vs. mini-TOSLINK connectors. They're both still TOSLINK.

Note that the name "TOSLINK" is trademarked since it was created by Toshiba and incorporates the TOS in the name, so other companies just call it optical.

What I meant with my post with pictures of 3.5mm and "standard" TOSLINK connector was in answer to @Sophisticatednut , who said "I thought optical audio was basically dead as an inferior option to any 3.5 port or digital audio"

I wanted to demonstrate that TOSLINK is already "digital audio" and available on a 3.5mm (mini-TOSLINK) port, so cannot by definition be an inferior option to these.

I can see that it now no-longer supports the latest multi-channel audio standards, so is probably on its way out. For most of my usage, I just need minimum of CD-quality 44.1KHz, 16-bit stereo, and it will easily do quite a lot better these days (96KHz/24-bit I understand).

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

It really bugs me that they keep gifting desktop Mac users with USB-A ports, but refuse to put them back in my beloved MBP anymore.

Come on Apple, USB-A is far from dead, it's still one of the most common connectors, and is in no danger of dying anytime soon. It's plenty fast enough for zillions of low speed use cases, and much cheaper and simpler to implement than USB-C. I won't be entirely surprised to see it live on for another several decades, as low cost, low speed, devices will simply keep on using it.

Before anyone argues with that, ask yourself why Apple keeps putting them in desktop Macs, including the stonkingly expensive Mac Pro.

 

[Fomalhaut]

It really bugs me that they keep gifting desktop Mac users with USB-A ports, but refuse to put them back in my beloved MBP anymore.

Come on Apple, USB-A is far from dead, it's still one of the most common connectors, and is in no danger of dying anytime soon. It's plenty fast enough for zillions of low speed use cases, and much cheaper and simpler to implement than USB-C. I won't be entirely surprised to see it live on for another several decades, as low cost, low speed, devices will simply keep on using it.

Before anyone argues with that, ask yourself why Apple keeps putting them in desktop Macs, including the stonkingly expensive Mac Pro.

Part of the answer is the space they occupy, which might otherwise be occupied by a more capable port such as Thunderbolt, which provides backwards compatibility to all USB-A devices via a $3 adaptor or cable.

Laptop designs are highly optimised and every port has to "earn its keep" in the available real-estate in the chassis and on the motherboard. A USB-A connector can't do double duty as a video output, power supply or high-speed network interface, so it's already a second-class citizen

While I agree that USB-A will still be useful for many years to come, I can see Apple's point of view. USB-A is definitely an obsolescent technology, but not yet obsolete, and they have to decide whether to look forward, or look back.

Some have argued that the new MBPs are "looking back" by including an SD card slot and HDMI 2.0 port, and it's a valid point. The difference is that both SD and HDMI 2.0 are still very much current technology and (I think) will still be manufactured in new devices after USB-A is widely replaced by USB-C, which I already see happening.

It's easy and cheap to make a USB-C connector work with a USB-A device or cable, at the cost of being slightly inconvenient and somewhat ugly. I just leave USB-A to C adapters on my most used devices, but also make use of a dock that has 5 USB-A ports on it for most of my legacy peripherals.

Desktops have *a lot* more space with which to play, and are more likely to have peripherals attached than a laptop, so it makes sense to include some USB-A port for the next few years.

I still have lots of USB-A cables, but most of the stuff I've bought in the last 2-3 years has had USB-C (e.g. memory sticks, disk drives, camera connectors etc.).

 

[EugW]

I wouldn't be completely surprised if the new Mac mini has zero USB-A ports.

 

[Axemantitan]

Colors​

The ‌Mac mini‌ could feature a two-tone design instead of one single color, and it could potentially come in colors other than space gray or silver, much like the 24-inch iMac. Color options have not yet been confirmed, so Apple could just stick to the standard ‌Mac mini‌ shades.

Just so long as it's not Blue Dalmatian or Flower Power.

 

[jlc1978]

Before anyone argues with that, ask yourself why Apple keeps putting them in desktop Macs, including the stonkingly expensive Mac Pro.

Space. USB-C is about half as big and a dongle works fine. Plus USB-C is more versatile and the future.

 

[MacsRgr8]

The performance of the Pro and Max are also great for desktops. That's kind of the point of them.

The CPU part, yes. The GPU not so.
Simply put, the GPU of the M1 Max is similar to a mobile version of the GeForce 3080, which half the speef of the desktop version. It is good, not great. And there’s no way to upgrade it or use eGPU.

 

[Lammers]

Let me summarize this article.

THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.

Exactly. But rumour and speculation presented confidently as fact. "Apple is going to overhaul the design of the Mac mini" - actually no that's not known yet at all.

 

[Bug-Creator]

Simply put, the GPU of the M1 Max is similar to a mobile version of the GeForce 3080,

Sure but most don't have a discrete GPU either and M1Pro/Max have no prob competing with Intel iGPUs and for AMD you have to use a lower tier CPU to get GFX in the 1st place.

So if you want a gaming PC or a GFX/video workstation you'd go with some bigger GPU but for most "desktop" uses Apple's integrated GPU is total overkill.