I'll try not to. I try to vote with my wallet where possible and have seriously curtailed my Apple purchases, (both hardware and software), to that end.Yep. There is absolutely no reason or need to make it smaller. I'd argue it's bigger overall if you take into account the hassle and space required of the bulky power brick. I guess I'll begrudgingly buy one still...
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.
High-End Mac Mini Said to Feature Thinner Design With 'Plexiglass' Top, Magnetic Power Port
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes - I know they can operate on a wide range of mains supplies:
- Line voltage: 100–240V AC
- Frequency: 50Hz to 60Hz, single phase
- Operating temperature: 10° to 35° C (50° to 95° F)
- Relative humidity: 5% to 90% non-condensing
- Operating altitude: tested up to 5,000 metres (16,400 feet)
Agreed. I have deff been an Apple apologist before, but I really do not understand people defending the external power supply decision. It doesn't matter that much overall, but how can anyone see it for anything other than a deliberate form-over-function decision? In terms of cost, they could have designed a power supply to fit in that form as well, there is good tech for extremely small power supplies, but probably considered it cost prohibitive. So to me it screams hubris.
That's a neat idea, but very un-Apple. Imagine Mac Nano or something, with a single TB port, designed to be hidden behind a big TB display with ports. Apple would never do it.
I currently can run my Microsoft Surface 7 from the USB-C on my Dell monitor. Not only is there enough power to run it, but it charges just fine. As well as using the monitor as a second display.
Yes, but if you dig into the specs of your monitor, as a USB-C display, you'll probably find it supports the higher levels of USB-C power delivery, because it is designed to be used as a laptop docking station. E.g. the U4320Q specs say it supports 90W power delivery (and that display has a max power consumption of 260W - which gives you some idea what power the screen uses and where that 143W may be going in the iMac).
AFAIK Apple have never supported more than 15W output over USB-C in their computers - and while they could decide to turn the new Mini into some sort of charging station... citation needed!
I ended up having a brief conversation with some OWC and then Apple engineers a while back, about this very aspect, because early OWC TB3 SSD's were "incompatible" with 2018 Mac mini's. The initial theory was that they were dropping out due to power issues, but I think the end result ended up being interference from Wifi of all things.
Anyway - both sides confirmed to me that TB3 ports by spec, deliver 15W to downstream devices.
The 100W we see quoted everywhere is unrelated to TB3. It's USB-PD, which they also support. This is why a USB-C charge cable is often not TB3 compliant, and supports just USB2.0 speeds - it has the wiring to support PD and basic data transfer but nothing else.
Technically, sure Apple could make it's Macs USB-C ports a USB-PD power source to provide up to 100W, but I don't think it's even in the realm of likely possibilities.
...and that suddenly became a problem in 2021, after two decades of happily shipping iMacs with internal PSUs around the world?
Even if that were the reason, it still comes down to penny-pinching on what is a premium priced computer.
Because your display is classified as a USB-PD "source". The laptop in that scenario is a USB-PD "sink".
It's unlikely a current generation display would ever be considered a "sink" for USB-PD because they tend to require more than 100W, and there's not that much benefit to be gained (most people don't drag a monitor around and thus wouldn't benefit from one-cable-connection like they do with a laptop).
USB-PD 2.1 was announced recently and will support up to 240W so the landscape may change in that regard, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a desktop Mac acting as a USB-PD source any time soon.
I think the biggest mistake in the article might be tagging these as "high end".
My guess this is might be "The Mini they wanted to release". Re-using the old design was probably the best option until they were ready to shift to colored units across the consumer line up.
Releasing a colorful Mac Mini before iMacs or Notebooks would just not have had the same impact.
I reckon we're going to see colorful Thunderbolt (powered) displays by the time these eventually drop. Displays are an area that Apple are extremely good at but there's been a massive gap in their product line for years.
My guess this is might be "The Mini they wanted to release". Re-using the old design was probably the best option until they were ready to shift to colored units across the consumer line up.
Releasing a colorful Mac Mini before iMacs or Notebooks would just not have had the same impact.
I reckon we're going to see colorful Thunderbolt (powered) displays by the time these eventually drop. Displays are an area that Apple are extremely good at but there's been a massive gap in their product line for years.
I think honestly the context of that is important. Every product with tiers has a "high end", even if the product itself is relatively "low end".
It's a "high end Mac mini" not a "high end Mac, that happens to be a Mac mini".
Well by the time they do get announced it'll be a year since the 1st Gen M1 Mini.
So, just the usual Apple annual chip update with a bonus of a revised chassis
Do you REALLY think a magnetic power cable is going to be some widespread problem for users? I think not. Another mountain out of a molehill. People who own higher-end machines tend to handle them carefully.
That is an important consideration - it's just a shame that (as you may remember we've discussed before) the most portable of these options so far, has a massive power brick with it - bigger and heavier than a hub that accommodates four USB-C and four USB-A ports.
The Caldigit has a 19v, 7.89A DC power input, which is 149W. Up to 60W is available for upstream, the rest runs the hub and downstream ports. But the brick is like a literal brick. It's huge.
... They may indeed update the existing M1 mini to this 'spec', but they also may not - it may end up in a iPhone-like arrangement, where the "cheaper" tiers follow a year after the "expensive" (let's not get into a discussion about what is "Pro") models.Well by the time they do get announced it'll be a year since the 1st Gen M1 Mini.
So, just the usual Apple annual chip update with a bonus of a revised chassis
This could be just a replacement for the i5/i7 "expensive" Mac mini that was not replaced by the M1.
I tend to agree here. I agree with @theluggage that it's not likely a necessary change, it's probably driven by either a desire to share components with the iMac and/or a desire for thinness, but I also don't think it's really a massive problem.
There are much bigger issues that would and do concern me about recent Macs before the location of the PSU would even factor into me considering one.
I'm concerned about there being a viable monitor option for a Mac user. The entire display market is a bunch of low end junk made for Windows where it always looks the same no matter what quality monitor you have.
The only displays with the right size and resolution are otherwise ugly garbage.
Just look at the new iMac. This is an entire computer, and there isn't even a display on the market (just a display) that comes close to matching it in build quality and appearance. The display market is a joke.
It is a great display, which is not affordable at all by 99% of the people looking to buy a Mac mini and a display from Apple. What's ridiculous about it is that it is the only display offered by Apple, at all.
Absolutely - the M1 Mini may end up being the cheap model old chassis, old CPU's - with the new version being latest chips and expansion and fancy chassis.
The fact they added 10gig ethernet as an option to the Mini M1 at all is kinda odd 5 months into production if there is a higher end version coming anytime soon. I'd think that anyone who needs that kind of network speed would hold off for a more powerful machine anyhow. That in mind, it might be next April before we get an announcement.
I'd be willing to bet a 6-pack of German beer they added that essentially just for colo and "cloud" operators.
The Venn diagram of individuals buying a bottom-tier Mac mini who also have an actual use for 10G has pretty slim overlap.
A Mac Pro is a huge box that sits on the floor, and you need a cable that goes to the monitor, then the monitor also needs a power cable.. that’s at the least, assuming wireless input devices. A small power adapter that sits on the floor connected to an iMac seems like it would be far more tidy. Of course, if you need a lot of “extras” that can go inside the Mac Pro case, then it could end up being more tidy than plugging a bunch of external devices.
Me too actually, vs my old ways which were somewhat excessive. I am still using my iPhone X, Series 4 watch and 2018 iPad and Mac.
Why can't this sh*t be powered with Macbook Pro 96w charger. Less bricks to produce.
