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.
Why new mini not USB-C powered
- Thread starter benjai
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
USB-C would be DC powered so it needs another power supply to the plug aka wall charger. Apple wants to keep a simple clean design for Mini that plugs directly to your wall outlet. Hence no USB-C power.
Although yes I can agree if Mac Mini can be powered either by AC prongs and 140w USB-C. But maybe it will create some confusion for customers.
Although yes I can agree if Mac Mini can be powered either by AC prongs and 140w USB-C. But maybe it will create some confusion for customers.
Yet the iMac, arguably a much less flexible and more stationary computer, is DC-powered and comes with a wall wart.
Why?
You'd have to carry round an external power supply. The mini has an internal power supply. A vastly superior 155W one so it can power Thunderbolt devices etc.
…and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over that in these forums when it came out (along with the bizarre idea of having the Ethernet port on the power brick). That - including using a magnetic connector which is otherwise pointless on a desktop - seems to be pure form-over-function so that they could make the iMac impossibly thin. It’s notable that the Studio Display didn’t follow suit - nor did the M2 or, especially, the M4 Mini - so it looks like Apple have sided with the people who prefer internal power supplies on the desktop.
As has already been said - the reason that the Mini doesn’t have an external power supply is because Apple decided to go with an internal one, and a portion of customers prefer that. They could have gone for USB-C but:
- Without a battery to smooth out the spikes, it would have needed >100W of PD, ruling out most current chargers, Thunderbolt displays and docks - including the Studio Display. Don’t forget that the Mini needs 60W available just for the 5 downstream ports, and that part of the point if a desktop over a laptop is less throttling to conserve power. They’d have probably needed to bundle a suitable power brick.
- anybody who didn’t use a TB/USB-C dock or monitor would permanently lose one TB port just to connect the power brick. That’s one reason why MagSafe came back in the MBP.
So while it’s not exactly a dumb idea, it would cause as many problems as it solved, and the best argument - one wire to a Studio Display - wouldn’t work with the M4 Pro and current Studio Display.
I think the reason why iMac gets an external power supply is that it is now made as flat as an iPad and there is no way to fit the power supply part inside (or even a cord connector).
Mac Mini is not flat and can fit the right parts inside, so the format does not impose having a separate power brick.
Mac Mini is not flat and can fit the right parts inside, so the format does not impose having a separate power brick.
This is the most plausible reason in this thread. Otherwise, designing the Mac Mini to take in USB-C power and bundling it with a MacBook Pro power adapter would simplify its bill of materials.
…and annoy those of us who see the internal PSU as one of the positive features of the Mini/Studio, something that sets it apart from other Mini-PCs that come with a power brick (I’d rather have two mains cables than one cable it’s a brick in the middle… they’re a nightmare for cable routing)..
…and “waste” an expensive-to-implement Thunderbolt port that (unlike a battery powered laptop) would have to be permanently connected.
…and still require too much power (without a battery to smooth out surges) to run off most existing USB-C/Thunderbolt displays and docks - which would be the only real advantage of having USB-C power on a desktop machine.
Apple does tend to look for the bottom line - but sometimes they do also reject things because they are bad ideas.
Last I looked, Apple TV had an internal PSU.
...which is good because it means a straightforward mains cable to route & plug in, not a wall wart or a mid-cable brick.
Not a bad idea - as a separate product - but it would be its own thing, something you could hang off the back of a display to get an iMac alternative, not an alternative to a "proper" Mac Mini. Probably limited to the regular M4 if you wanted to use it with existing hubs & displays.
You can be sure that the power supplies that Apple ships with MacBooks don't cost Apple anything close to 100 dollarpounds. That's just a nice little bonus for them if you loose your charger.
They make the MacBook bricks in vast quantities - so if they could use an existing MacBook charger there may be economies of scale. Of course, they wouldn't need the internal power supply - OTOH there would be some internal changes to make the USB-C ports accept power - and ideally an extra USB-C port since it would be permanently occupied by the charger and "wasted" unless you bought a Thunderbolt hub.
One question is whether an existing power supply would provide enough power. Apple's tech specs list the maximum continuous power as 150W, another Apple page gives continuous power consumption as 65W for the M4 and 140W as the M4 Pro. I'd interpret that as the power supply being rated at 150W but the measured peak power was 65W/140W... Anyway, sounds like the biggest current PSU, 140W, would be marginal for the M4 Pro. A laptop just charges slower if its underpowered, but a Mac Mini might crash. The Studio Display maxes at 96W.... If Apple can't use a standard MacBook power supply and have to make one for the low-volume Min then that will probably reduce any savings for them. If users can't power the Mac Mini from an existing dock or USB-C/Thunderbolt display, then what's the point of wasting a USB-C port?
They also support a bunch of different voltages and protocols that the Mac mini doesn't require. It's un-needed complexity. I can be sure there's lots more components in one of those than the Mac mini PSU and it's far more expensive to manufacture.
If they've not hit all the economies of scale shipping tens of millions of MacBooks a year, then there's no hope.
My biggest concern about powering a desktop computer by the monitor without an internal battery as backup is supply consistency. One glitch, and the computer crashes. This is not an issue with a laptop equipped with an internal battery.
Eh. I've been working on desktop Macs for a long time and this isn't as much of an issue as you're making it out to be. I've had it happen a few times over many years when a circuit breaker tripped in the house or there's a power outage. I restarted when the power came back and life went on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess if you lived in a place with unreliable power supply it might be more of a factor -- or maybe you'd just invest in a UPS and carry on.
I think the g.p’s issue was not trusting a monitor or hub - designed to charge a laptop battery - to provide uninterrupted power. Not sure if that is an issue - but it’s a fair question.
As you say, if your actual mains supply is glitchy, the solution is a UPS which can also keep key peripherals like external drives going.
Considering the Mini doesn't have any internal battery I can't envisage any scenario where I'd want it powered by the USB power output of a monitor like OP suggests. Maybe I'm just more risk-averse or maybe I have a keener eye for trouble due to having been bitten by it in the past.