New 256GB Mac Mini and 512GB MacBook Pro Have Slower SSD Speeds Than Previous Models

[Lounge vibes 05]

I've done my fair bit of research on Steve. He would be furious at the evil entity that Apple has become now

Clearly, you haven’t done enough research on him because he cost cut all the time.
People forget that Tim Cook was literally Jobs’s right-hand-man.
Sure, Ive and Jobs work together, along with all of the other heads of software and hardware, but at the end of the day it was him and Tim.
And, just to reiterate the point:
The 2006 MacBook pros had slower and less capable SuperDrives than their predecessors.
The iPhone 3G had a significantly smaller battery than the original iPhone (1400 mAh on the original versus the 3G’s 1150 mAh.
The iPod touch always got lower quality panels with worst viewing angles than the iPhone.
The 2010 13 inch MacBook Pro did not receive first generation I5 and I7 cpus while the 15 and 17 inch did.
The list literally goes on, but this is far from the first time that Apple has cost cut, and it certainly didn’t only start in 2011.

 

[matt_and_187_like_this]

I thought we already went over this with the M2 Air.
It literally does not matter for real-world use cases.
Worry more about your RAM.

Jeez, do I need really a PhD in Apple config?

It's a simple marketing trick. Focus illusion. You think this stuff matters when you focus on it, but in reality it doesn't.

Also this bs with 'consider your future needs'. That's basically insurance. Expected value of insurance vs what you pay is never in your favour.

 

[currocj]

But in real world usage, it won't make too much difference.. especially for people who are in market for low end desktop. I wouldn't mind paying $100 less as a trade off. That said, I'm excited to get my mini pro today.

Did you get the 512GB model? Because that's 2 NANDs and slower (than the 1GB model) for $1299.

 

[Natto]

Must admit, I don't entirely get this "controversy." I'm disappointed they didn't openly advertise the reduction of SSD speed, at least in the spec sheet, and I'll likely wait to get more information about this before placing an order, but it seems to be more about a supply chain management decision than purposefully wanting to deceive or mislead people. There are many things that can affect the availability of specific components of your products, if they consider that the RAM architecture isn't meaningfully impacting the overall user experience with the product, they might have decided not to commit to a specific spec. We've seen it over and over again, where, when using more than one chipset, from one supplier, people start focusing on the slight difference in performance between both components. I must admit, I'm among those who'll focus on those details, but if we get back to the launch, they managed to release a new product for a lower price point than their previous model. It kind of make sense that some performance aspect might be lower, especially since they also have the Mac Studio in their product line up that might cannibalize their sales on the higher end of the same market. To me, they simply slightly repositioned the product to make it more entry-level, which would make a lot of sense if we look at the overall history of the Mac mini and how they decided to develop the market with a full product lineup.

 

[itsboi]

I got a base M2 Pro in the meantime with 512GB to hold me off until the M3 Pros. I'm a sucker for these screens and the even 3.5gb/s and the power are overkill for my everyday usage. However now that this is coming to light, I will be considering 1tb options in the future. Kind of disappointed about the lack of transparency.

 

[Sowelu]

Many people will be receiving their higher spec’d and BTO M2 minis today and in the coming days, so it’ll be interesting to see actual SSD speed comparisons between all the various configurations (pro and non-pro).

 

[Chancha]

Jeez, do I need really a PhD in Apple config?

It's a simple marketing trick. Focus illusion. You think this stuff matters when you focus on it, but in reality it doesn't.

Also this bs with 'consider your future needs'. That's basically insurance. Expected value of insurance vs what you pay is never in your favour.

As scientific and respectable that video's testing method tries to be, the conclusion drawn is still limited. Since a majority of the time he compared between 16+256 vs 8+512 which is already a 4-way matrix without a 8+256 as a control. (he used a M1 8+256 which is null, as it had dual-NANDs). Also he concentrates in Photography centric apps and tasks which rarely stresses the system to the absolute max.

 

[Chancha]

Must admit, I don't entirely get this "controversy." I'm disappointed they didn't openly advertise the reduction of SSD speed, at least in the spec sheet, and I'll likely wait to get more information about this before placing an order, but it seems to be more about a supply chain management decision than purposefully wanting to deceive or mislead people. There are many things that can affect the availability of specific components of your products, if they consider that the RAM architecture isn't meaningfully impacting the overall user experience with the product, they might have decided not to commit to a specific spec. We've seen it over and over again, where, when using more than one chipset, from one supplier, people start focusing on the slight difference in performance between both components. I must admit, I'm among those who'll focus on those details, but if we get back to the launch, they managed to release a new product for a lower price point than their previous model. It kind of make sense that some performance aspect might be lower, especially since they also have the Mac Studio in their product line up that might cannibalize their sales on the higher end of the same market.

There wouldn't have been much controversy had Apple been open about this.

Imagine if the binned chips used in the base 14" or the Air and iMac are not disclosed, and needed rounds of real world users benchmarking and wattage metering to find out. It would have been even more outrageous. Instead we never have any argument on Apple using binned chips since this is transparent.

 

[ninethirty]

Strange is not even close. Calculated, greedy, evil are words that come to mind.

"Evil." Good lord, some of you need to try living in the real world.

 

[clintage3]

The story isn't the fact that it's slow. It's the fact that any computer manufacturer in the world is STILL offering computers with only 256GB is absolutely ridiculous. 512 should be the bare minimum and even that is pushing it. Also while you're at it... 8GB RAM IS WORTHLESS. Please stop.

 

[Dididaddy]

Did you get the 512GB model? Because that's 2 NANDs and slower (than the 1GB model) for $1299.

Yes I got the 512. I do photo editing and light video editing as hobby. I also have macbook air m2 with 256, which has slower ssd too. It doesn't bother me in any way..

 

[MilaM]

The story isn't the fact that it's slow. It's the fact that any computer manufacturer in the world is STILL offering computers with only 256GB is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree. Apple marketing is probably very proud of the 599 price point. Nevermind that the base model is essentially useless for anything but the most modest needs. Maybe it's a good machine in some corporate settings.

16 GB RAM and 1 TB is a sensible configuration. Off course that's exactly double the price of the base model.

 

[jimbobb24]

Good news for shareholders, Apple won another 20 cents per Max Mini sold.

Probably losing money. Dont single large chips cost more than two small sticks of memory

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

The story isn't the fact that it's slow. It's the fact that any computer manufacturer in the world is STILL offering computers with only 256GB is absolutely ridiculous. 512 should be the bare minimum and even that is pushing it. Also while you're at it... 8GB RAM IS WORTHLESS. Please stop.

Totally agree about the ram, 16 GB should be standard by now,but I know several people with iPhones, iPads (especially iPads) and Macs that have 64-256GB, but outside of the occasional third-party application are basically completely empty.
Between iCloud photo library, the documents and desktop folders being in iCloud by default, music streaming and movie/TV show streaming services instead of downloads, etc, there are plenty of people who barely use their storage.
Alternatively, there are those who prefer to store everything externally.
If getting the Mac mini down to $499 for education means it only has 256GB, I think that’s a fine trade-off.
Now if someone wants to talk about price gouging, we should just have a look at those iCloud storage prices…

 

[Chancha]

We got confirmation of the base 16" 512GB on the left (right is M1 Max 16")
as we all feared, same 2NAND setup as the base 14"
Out of all models, gimping the SSD on the 16" is the most disappointing since it already costs that much.

(I don't speak Portuguese, just used Youtube's auto-translate captions, hope I didn't get anything wrong)

 

[laptech]

Probably losing money. Dont single large chips cost more than two small sticks of memory

Not if it reduces the size of the PCB. Apple could save millions just by reducing the PCB size by a couple of mm. I also have no doubt buying two nand chips of smaller MB will come out being more expensive than one slightly higher MB chip. Apple would have saved multiple of millions of $$$ just by making that small but subtle change in the design of the new device.

 

[itsboi]

View attachment 2148027
We got confirmation of the base 16" 512GB on the left (right is M1 Max 16")
as we all feared, same 2NAND setup as the base 14"
Out of all models, gimping the SSD on the 16" is the most disappointing since it already costs that much.

(I don't speak Portuguese, just used Youtube's auto-translate captions, hope I didn't get anything wrong)

512GB on a $2500 laptop is kinda crazy ngl, gimping it just makes it even worse.

 

[jdelcorr]

View attachment 2148027
We got confirmation of the base 16" 512GB on the left (right is M1 Max 16")
as we all feared, same 2NAND setup as the base 14"
Out of all models, gimping the SSD on the 16" is the most disappointing since it already costs that much.

(I don't speak Portuguese, just used Youtube's auto-translate captions, hope I didn't get anything wrong)

So now we know the 16'' 512 is also affected. All we need now is to verify whether the 1 TB is also affected

 

[icemantx]

So now we know the 16' 512 is also affected. All we need now is to verify whether the 1 TB MacBook Pro is also affected

And if the processor choice on the Mac mini m2 Pro has an affect on the SSD speeds.

 

[Matrix1776]

This is reason enough to get an M2 Max. You get double the Ram, SSD (at full speed), and Processor for a grand difference. Which will just increase resell and future proofing.

That said, all the consumers that want a nice screen and fast M2 Pro chip won’t be hampered by “only” 3500MB/s. I would argue most Professionals will get 1TB+. Many serious content makers at 8TB to leave the externals at home.

 

[Chancha]

So now we know the 16' 512 is also affected. All we need now is to verify whether the 1 TB MacBook Pro is also affected

1TB is almost certainly full speed, the embargo reviewers got that and no one reported anything. We also got a few user reports of 6000MB/s+ on their 1TB.

Btw this also disapprove the theory that the full / binned M2 Pro SoC has anything to do with SSD speed, the base 16" already comes with a full M2 Pro.

 

[Chancha]

And if the processor choice on the Mac mini m2 Pro has an affect on the SSD speeds.

It will not, the better M2 Pro mini SoC BTO is matching the base 16".

 

[nvmls]

Timmy pinching strikes again?

 

[itsboi]

This is reason enough to get an M2 Max. You get double the Ram, SSD (at full speed), and Processor for a grand difference. Which will just increase resell and future proofing.

That said, all the consumers that want a nice screen and fast M2 Pro chip won’t be hampered by “only” 3500MB/s. I would argue most Professionals will get 1TB+. Many serious content makers at 8TB to leave the externals at home.

Resale values are usually slumped for the more expensive models as seen with the M1 Max models.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

doesn’t matter one bit.