Gurman: M1 Pro Mac Mini 'Now Off the Table' as Apple's Focus Turns to M2 and M2 Pro Options

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

"End of discussion". No You're just confused. We're talking about a Mac Mini with an M2 Pro chip, not a "Mac Mini Pro." the Studio can definitely be as the "Mac Mini Pro", but there isn't a Studio with an M1/M2 Pro chip in it.

From your perspective, why is Apple still selling the Intel powered Mac Mini? They've had plenty of opportunities to discontinue it, yet they haven't. Why? From my perspective, it seems obvious that its waiting on its replacement. If Apple doesn't plan to release a Mac Mini with an M1/M2 Pro chip, why did they choose to start the Studio at M1 Max instead of M1 Pro?

"And on that note, I really feel like this is all about price -People want a desktop M2 Mac that is on par with Mac Studio but costs less."

A Mac Mini with an M1/M2 Pro wouldn't be as performant as a Mac Studio with an M1 Max though... People do want a cheaper option, but they would be trading a lot of GPU performance to get it.

A line-up with less options, like one without a M1/M2 Pro desktop, forces consumers to spend more to get more-than-entry-level performance, or spend less and settle for entry-level performance.

Apple will only do something in-between M1 mini and Studio if consumers in the market for an entry-level to midrange Mac buy no Mac altogether because nothing meets their budget/needs.

But if most consumers are settling for what's available now then there's no need for an M1/M2 Pro desktop.

It's far more likely than we see a true high-end Mac desktop, like an iMac Pro or Mac Pro.

Mini, MBA M2, and MBP 13" M2 is plenty for the low-end demographic while offering plenty of incentive to step up to the midrange machines.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

Is that a real question. M1 Mini starts at $699 and the Studio starts at $1999. The mini maxes out a 16gig. The Studio starts at 32gig. Why not a higher end Mini, with a M1 pro, with 32 gig for $1299?

It might be frustrating for those with a $1299 budget, who need a desktop M1 Pro with 16-32GB RAM.

But Apple wins more if it can convince the same demographic to spend $700 more and get a Mac Studio.

Furthermore, weighing margins on the ultra popular $699 M1 mini versus the total R&D costs and margins on a new $1299 M1 Pro mini, which could potentially flop, probably doesn't favour the latter.

 

[macsound1]

I can't believe anyone listens to Gurman considering his constant churn and flip flopping.

 

[Macjack]

I would love to get a M2 Pro Mac mini. It would allow me to drive two 5k displays. And, hopefully, it wouldn't be too loud. I had the Mac Studio wit M1 Max but couldn't get over the permanently audible hum of the fan. I accept to hear the system under load, but not when I just look at the Finder or read posts on MacRumors.

 

[Tagbert]

I can't believe anyone listens to Gurman considering his constant churn and flip flopping.

We need to understand that these are rumors, not official company roadmaps. The people like Gurman are are using information that they get from leakers, suppliers, and public announcements to read the tea leaves and suggest changes based on their overall knowledge of the industry. Some times they get it fully right. Sometimes the rumor was based on early concepts that didn’t pan out. Sometimes company plans change, especially dates, names, and prices.

 

[reallynotnick]

People in this thread saying this absolutely won't happen are hilarious. The Mac Mini has basically always had CPU choices, it's totally within the realm of possibility.

I'd totally buy something slotted between the Studio and M1 Mac Mini, I don't need all the GPU power but would love the extra CPU power. Be it they make an M2 Pro Mini or put the M2 Pro in the Studio and drop the entry price, I don't care.

 

[Ethosik]

I would love to get a M2 Pro Mac mini. It would allow me to drive two 5k displays. And, hopefully, it wouldn't be too loud. I had the Mac Studio wit M1 Max but couldn't get over the permanently audible hum of the fan. I accept to hear the system under load, but not when I just look at the Finder or read posts on MacRumors.

That’s my only frustrating thing with the studio. It’s not the hum of the fan. But the high pitch. My gaming PC is louder even under my desk in the corner, but it’s a low pitch deeper sound. I thought about sending my Studio back, but 95% of the time I have headphones on.

 

[EdT]

For Lightroom (I can't speak to Affinity as I don't use it) I think you should be fine with any M1 or M2 chip-based Mac available. Your bigger concern would probably be:

• Maxing out RAM for future-proofing as much as possible
• Getting a 27" or larger 5K monitor so you won't lose the screen real estate & sharpness that you're used to
• Making sure the monitor can be color-calibrated regularly
• Having enough fast connections so you can move your digital assets to your photo archive drives or NAS (external storage is so much cheaper than internal storage from Apple)

Also, do you use a single large Lightroom catalog? I create a new catalog for every assignment I shoot, so Lightroom doesn't feel like it's bogged down with thousands of images.

The monitor is probably the killer with me and a Studio. During Covid I bought a new 10 key keyboard and I have a Synology NAS at home. I really would want a 1 TB local drive just because I don’t have wired Ethernet and although my house isn’t really large I swear someone put my individual rooms in separate Faraday cages with how well Wi-Fi works -I know that’s not the case but my local Wi-Fi seems slow. One way or the other that is solvable or not an end of the world problem.

I’ve seen lots of 4K monitors but not a lot of 5k or higher color calibrated monitors, and the ones I see are around $1,000 and up. At $1600 the Apple Studio Monito might be the best match, but buying a Studio Max and the monitor puts the price of a computer at $3600. If I only needed the computer at $2,000 to $2,300 I could justify it, but adding another $1500 kills it for me.

 

[BrightDarkSky]

Exactly. Its not needed. Its not like it will be cheap enough to fit under the studio. This is apple we are talking about here, hat har harrr. There wont be enough of a performance delta to justify it either, even of the scores are better.

+++ Practically guaranteed it would start at 1899.00, 16/256 with 10 cores. Need more space? Lol pay up! And buy a keyboard and monitor!

 

[BrightDarkSky]

That's a good apple price.

Maybe you dont care about quality?***

*** What sheep would say

 

[sublunar]

There is a saying on our end: hope dies last.

The won't be an Mx Pro Mac mini, at least in the foreseable future. The sooner people get used to it, the better.

We will get an M2 Mac mini and M2 Max/Ultra in the Mac Studio.
Many would buy an M2 Pro, but who would than buy the Max? The minority. And Apple knows its calculation.

Funny thing here though, Apple could conceivably keep selling an M1 Max Mac studio once the M2 line comes out, just a small price cut and they could fill that entry level niche.

Its quite obvious to me that Apple will have trialled different CPUs in different form factors and went with the Studio, leaving an experimental M1 Pro Mini redundant.

such An M1 pro mini might have drawn as much power as the current i7 model at top speed and crucially might have meant that Apple couldn’t fit an M1 max to that model.

most importantly the Studio is likely a more profitable machine, more accessible for desktop Mac buyers while leaving room below for the mini.

 

[sublunar]

"End of discussion". No, you're just confused. We're talking about a Mac Mini with an M2 Pro chip, not a "Mac Mini Pro." the Studio can definitely be the "Mac Mini Pro", but there isn't a Studio with an M1/M2 Pro chip in it.

From your perspective, why is Apple still selling the Intel powered Mac Mini? They've had plenty of opportunities to discontinue it, yet they haven't. Why? From my perspective, it seems obvious that it is waiting on its replacement. If Apple doesn't plan to release a Mac Mini with an M1/M2 Pro chip, why did they choose to start the Studio at M1 Max instead of M1 Pro?

"And on that note, I really feel like this is all about price -People want a desktop M2 Mac that is on par with Mac Studio but costs less."

A Mac Mini with an M1/M2 Pro wouldn't be as performant as a Mac Studio with an M1 Max though... People do want a cheaper option, but they would be trading a lot of GPU performance to get it.

edit: typos

I’ve made it clear that I think Apple will be stretching the M2 to fit the gap up to the mac studio - 24gb option and 2 extra GPU cores will help there. Obviously there will be a performance gap between that and the M1 max but that’s how I think Apple will set up. Anyone wanting the extra performance at least know the option exists.

I would love to get a M2 Pro Mac mini. It would allow me to drive two 5k displays. And, hopefully, it wouldn't be too loud. I had the Mac Studio wit M1 Max but couldn't get over the permanently audible hum of the fan. I accept to hear the system under load, but not when I just look at the Finder or read posts on MacRumors.

would have been interesting but from most accounts the M1 Mini is mostly silent due to its effiency, and this should be a USP for an M2 sku. The M1 pro might have a noise profile similar to the i7 mini.

 

[ILoveCalvinCool]

Well not exactly. Again, the Studio costs $2000 and the M1 Max is too much computer for a lot of people. The high end Mac Mini serves as a midrange, because as it stands there's no midrange option for the desktops.

A maxed-out Mini is $1799, and the base Studio is $1999. That's exactly what I'd expect from the high-end version of a product line.

I'm actually laughing reading these comments from people who vehemently disagree that a Studio is just the high-end Mini (which it so very obviously is). Come on everyone, this is your "The Emperor Has No Clothes" moment. The Studio is just a more expensive and powerful Mini! You can stop praising the Emperor's beautiful clothes now.

 

[ILoveCalvinCool]

From your perspective, why is Apple still selling the Intel powered Mac Mini? They've had plenty of opportunities to discontinue it, yet they haven't. Why? From my perspective, it seems obvious that it is waiting on its replacement.

No, it's because some people still rely on Intel Macs, whether to run Windows or other software that requires it.

 

[paradox00]

No, it's because some people still rely on Intel Macs, whether to run Windows or other software that requires it.

A fair argument that (I had considered, and feel is less likely). That said, it's not incompatible with my point. We know they aren't going to maintain Intel compatibility forever. Eventually all Intel Macs will be discontinued (even if this one is being kept for compatibility now), so what replaces it then? If the answer is nothing, why don't you answer the other question I posed: why does the Mac Studio start with an M1 Max and not an M1 Pro? Why did they leave an M1 Pro sized gap in the lineup? Again, it's obvious.

 

[paradox00]

I’ve made it clear that I think Apple will be stretching the M2 to fit the gap up to the mac studio - 24gb option and 2 extra GPU cores will help there. Obviously there will be a performance gap between that and the M1 max but that’s how I think Apple will set up. Anyone wanting the extra performance at least know the option exists.

That's not filling the gap, that's temporarily being a generation ahead. The gap still remains if the Studio goes to M2 Max and Ultra...

 

[lovehateapple]

I hope this drops before Christmas! 🤞

 

[eclinton]

An M2 Mac Mini with 32GB RAM should be plenty of power.... but I doubt they'll allow that much RAM on the plain M2.

 

[Yebubbleman]

It seems needlessly insane that Apple didn't release an M1 Pro Mac mini or SOMETHING Apple Silicon based to replace the Intel mini in the lineup. Then again, if ones needs go higher than 16GB of RAM and/or require more than two Thunderbolt ports, the Mac Studio isn't a bad idea. Though, one would think that there'd at least be something in between the two for those that don't need heavy graphics, but still otherwise want the option for something Mac mini-esque with 32GB of RAM as an option and more than just two USB-C and two USB-A ports.

 

[sevoneone]

I had already accepted that the Studio WAS the pro mini.. it looks like two minis stacked.

I wonder if this is going to be true for that 27" iMac also... Studio scores two kills.

The standard Mac mini is $799.
The Mac Studio starts at $1999.
There is a massive gap right in the middle there that can be filled.

It might be frustrating for those with a $1299 budget, who need a desktop M1 Pro with 16-32GB RAM.

But Apple wins more if it can convince the same demographic to spend $700 more and get a Mac Studio.

All the evidence that Apple pushed the MacStudio upmarket is out there. There was a leaked Apple Store configurator screenshot the day before the announcement that included M1 Pro, M1 Max and M1 Max Duo (Ultra) options that were pretty spot on for what was released other than the options for the M1 Pro. The was pent up demand for pro desktops and Apple decided to squeeze that opportunity. When the M2 P/M/U chips roll around, I think we’ll see more options to entice those that remained on the fence. Whether that is an Mx Pro in a mini, Studio or iMac is to be seen. That $2500 sweet spot of the 27” iMac for a decently capable workstation and display is an odd gap for Apple to leave open for sure.

It would be like the single processor 1.8GHz G5 Power Mac released well after the first gen G5’s to cater to a lower budget.

I think you are remembering that a little bit different, but I think you are very correct. The G5 was originally released in 3 models: 1.6GHz SP, 1.8GHz SP and 2.0GHz DP. After so many G4 towers were DP for so long this was certainly to drive demand for the top configuration at the onset also. Then, just in time for Christmas and end of the year business spending, the 1.8GHz DP replaced the SP version in the lineup and all the hold outs threw their money Apple. This guy included.

 

[jr5x]

I would buy the freaking Studio, even though all I need is a Pro with 32GB & 2 TB, but I have acute hearing and am worried I'll just end up returning it if it's noisy.

I would pay 2x the price of the Studio Display for a 32" modern panel with ProMotion instead of an 8 year old panel with mediocre webcam.

Apple, I've got money to spend but you've got to step up your game.

My MBP M1 Pro 16... that's a grand slam home run. Now can you do this with your desktops?

 

[garylapointe]

The standard Mac mini is $799.
The Mac Studio starts at $1999.
There is a massive gap right in the middle there that can be filled.

No, that's not fair, let us compare apples to apples.
The studio starts with 32GB and 512GB. The mini starts with 8GB and 256GB. So let's adjust that:
It's $1099 for the Mini with 16GB and 512GB. Figure another $400 for 32GB and now those two Macs are $1999 for the Studio and $1499 for a Mini, both with 32GB and 512GB.
That's not a huge price gap.

Don't forget you've got a Studio with 10/24/16 cores while the Mini has 8/8/16 cores. For the core difference, that's $500 upgrade on the 14" Pro (for 10/24/16 from 8/14/16) so I'd expect similar costs, which was already a boost on the M1 Mini. And we're now at $1999 for a lower-end unit that doesn't have all the ports the studio has, nor does it have a Max chip with 4 times the memory bandwidth (that's actually M1 Max vs. M2 [400 vs. 100]).

I suppose you could have the option for less RAM and save some money, maybe a 24GB option ($200 less).

So I'm already spending more than the $1299 what else are you going to upgrade it with to make it more worthy?
Remember, if you're comparing it to the $1999, if you choose storage, that needs to be increase for the comparison too.

But what else would you put in that mini making it work the extra cost to make it worth going that route vs. paying the extra for the studio. Yes, you might make a great $1699 machine (at 512GB), if there were better processor options, but at the point, scrape up the other $300 and get the $1999 studio.

Personally, if I'm paying $1299 for a M1 Mini 24GB with 512GB, I can't see not going with the 32GB for growth and then I might as well as pay for the power, memory speed, and additional ports. The Studio is a way better value now that I've done the math! (I'd assumed it still would be, but this is very clear).

 

[svish]

Maybe the mini with M2 could be launched as soon as October. The version with M2 Pro could take some more time.

 

[_Spinn_]

Makes sense to start focusing more on the M2 chips now anyway.

 

[opeter]

...that's what the article is about?

Of course. It was just a reaction to a brain dump