I think the point is that, even if you count in the “aspirational” upgrades to the Mini, you should still be gaining on the Studio with a different and smaller form factor, fewer ports, and fewer GPU cores. We want more RAM and more processing power and more ports, just like the Intel Mini, but we aren’t after studio-level performance. Sure, the chip generation is different, but not by enough to justify the price of the upgrades. And, sure, this is the “degenerate” case; many Mini purchasers won’t be aspirational, and many Studio buyers most certainly will be. But economy is still a big part of the Mini’s appeal. Not to disagree with the contrast in the discourse of the past, when the M1 was the only option, but there you genuinely were looking at two different products for two radically different groups of people. But the Studio was simply out of reach for many of those in the middle, who just needed a bit more from the Mini.
All of which is to say that it rather looks as though we’re going to have to get used to different dynamics on Apple’s upgrade pricing. Perhaps it’s just inevitable that Apple Silicon upgrades will be expensive.
The new Mac mini has just slightly different dimensions.
Width 7.7" → 7.75"
Height 1.4" → 1.41"
And the M2 Pro config is a tad heavier too, 2.6 → 2.8 lbs
I continue to be very surprised they haven’t already released an M version Studio. Moving what is one of its most expensive hardware products to more advanced, faster and better chips makes marketing sense, and would probably yield better profits.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the new Mac Studio increase in price by a couple hundred $ — especially if Apple decides to keep around the M1 Max Studio as a midrange desktop. I’m sure such a price hike would be rather unpopular with regular users. But considering the value proposition of the newly released M2 Pro mini when it’s spec’ed out, there would appear to be some room to hike the low-end Studio. (not that I’m advocating for it of course)
I’m guessing there was rounding going on before. It doesn’t seem like it would make much sense to change the tooling by those amounts for a product like the Mac mini in particular.
Indeed. Metal benchmarks just in. M2 Pro/Max are a massive upgrade over M1 Pro/Max for graphics (~34%).
Interestingly, these numbers also show that in terms of GPU performance the Max has so much going for it over the Pro (higher clock, twice the mem b/w and twice the no. of graphics cores), that an M1 Max Mac Studio will easily outperform an M2 Pro Mac mini in graphics related tasks (+23%).
I was assuming Apple will update the Mac Studio within few months to M2 Max/Ultra, and I still hope they do so. But if it ends up taking them longer (or perhaps they choose to reserve the few early M2 Ultras for the new Mac Pro), these benchmarks would indicate they’d indeed have some wiggle room.
This is the breakdown in top to bottom prices (and guessed prices for a coming Mac Pro). It’s very obvious their prices literally run right into each other to make ‘bumping-up’ your purchase decisions tighter, in US$:
0.5 - 1.9k - Mini (Standard) — 500: students price/600: everyone else
1.3 - 4.5k - Mini (Pro)
2 - 5k - Studio (Max)
4 - 8k - Studio (Ultra)
7 - 15k - Pro (Ultra Duo?)
12 - 60k - Pro (Ultra Quad?)
[obviously the Mac Pro are guesstimates.]
Mac Studio is here to stay for sure. They wouldn’t have gone to all that trouble of extra ports and special fans design etc. just to phase it out after one generation, with the chips being aimed at each machine (Mini: standard+pro / Studio: max+ultra / Mac Pro: ultra duo+ultra quad – or whatever they choose to name those in the Mac Pro!).
It’s the Mini Pro to Studio Max where there’s this large cross-over, that causes confusion on what to go for value-for-money wise. Mainly the storage upgrades cause this, but even at middle 1TB or 2TB options, the pricing on the Mini Pro is not worth it IMO, as the M1 Studio Max is almost the same price (100-300 difference, depending on precise options), at around the same CPU cores, but more GPU cores, and more ports (two extra front ones+SD), and more displays (the Mini offers a solitary 8K60 HDMI with no other displays, but the M2 Max Studio will have better than that if you wait for it).
re. new Mac timings:
IMO the M2 Studio Max is also highly likely to be released in autumn, as they’ll almost certainly have to update them to M2 Max (& Ultra) for probably the same price (recessionary times we’re in), given Apple surely realise that most people know Apple clearly have the whole M2-series chips ready to go given the MBP’s have at least the M2 Max chips, and buyers will potentially be holding off buying until the Studio is bumped.
The Mac Pro I think they’ll have to finally ship in between (c. WWDC) for the handfuls of buyers who can afford them (min. $7k, up to $60k!) with maybe an M2 Duo/Quad Ultra, as that two year ‘transition period’ is well overdue by now. Hence why they’re chucking stuff like the Mini’s and HomePod 2 out so early in the year, to give a space for everything throughout the year.
It really is … surprising … how the price structure has played out. I wouldn’t call it a good strategy. I realise this isn’t rational, but the base Studio has coloured my perception of the Pro Mini. If you factor in the 10 Gb ethernet, there is not even enough of a difference to merit a storage upgrade.
But there again, as things stand right now, the top M2 Air is exactly the same price as the bottom M2 Pro. So, perhaps Apple would rather these BTO configurations were on-ramps to higher tiers rather than cost-effective options as such; they can rely on people like me who prefer the top-end configuration over the bottom-end, if it means gaining a different form factor (fans or not, ports or not, etc). I still think it’s mean.
Concrete CPU benchmarks. This basically confirms that the Mini is geared for number crunching, and the Studio for graphics. I do think Apple needs to rethink the pricing and I expect the new Studio will open things up again, but this is easier to swallow.
On further consideration, given the tight pricing cross-over on the Mini Pro to Studio Max, unless Apple feel the macro-economic situation makes doing so unviable, IMO the Studio Max M2 is likely to see a price increase rather than stay the same, in order to make the delineation and differentiation clearer between the two.
So if wanting a desktop machine now or near future that is in the 2k to 4k pricing area, the question is whether you buy a Studio Max M1 now at known prices, or wait until the Studio Max M2 arrives at unknown prices – whenever that may be. But as said, if the MBPs have the Max M2 chip now, surely Apple must realise buyers know it already exists, and will be wondering why the Studio hasn’t got one in it, thus delaying their purchases, and making the need of adding it to the Studio sooner rather than later accordingly.
…but this is Apple, who do funny things like leave updates for over a year for no reason other than it suits them. So as ever; who knows when.
Anything is possible, but they didn’t raise the prices of the 14” and 16” MBP, right? And actually cut the price of the cheapest Apple Silicon Mac Mini, so my thought is they try to keep it the same.
I really don’t understand this desire to see a “proper” gap in pricing.
Maybe, although the prices in UK/Europe did increase, though due to exchange rates –so can’t blame Apple for that– which is a bit strange for us here in UK, as the GB£-US$ has recovered somewhat from the lows of Autumn last year, so presumably Apple are hedging themselves here in case £/€ rates lower again over next year or so during an uncertain macro-economic period.
The pricing gap is more physiological, but maybe it works for Apple to perhaps keep it tight as possible to get those buyers to spend an extra small (or large!) amount extra on a Studio?
The trouble is, for me, Apple’s close pricing killed the whole purchase. I was adamant I was going to upgrade my maxed-out 2018 Mini for a high level Mini Pro M2, but given the price is almost the same as the Studio’s, I’m highly likely just going to wait for the Studio Max M2’s to arrive instead, given the chips are already in the MBP.
Usually, I’d assume keeping the gap tight is good because it encourages upsell and that’s certainly in Apple’s interest.
However, the gap between Mac lines usually becomes really tight when you configure the lower end system for more RAM and larger flash to match the config of the higher end system. And there I would assume the profit margins are gargantuan (I mean $400 for +16GB RAM or +1TB flash, c’mon! ). So I wouldn’t be so sure Apple couldn’t make more profit by selling people grossly overpriced memory and flash upgrades. And thus, making the gap a bit larger could be better for Apple – more profit whatever the customer chooses.
Yes that’s the quandary. Apple may keep headline prices the same on the next Studio ($2k Max & $4k Ultra), until it comes to upgrades, where they slip extra hundreds on most of them. So the press report they’re the same prices, but in reality they’re not when you add your likely memory+storage upgrades to make a Studio worth the bother for you.
I haven’t checked; did they do that this year with the MBP? With the M2 mini? (I mean compared with the last models’ they replaced and their upgrade pricing.)
). So I wouldn’t be so sure Apple couldn’t make more profit by selling people grossly overpriced memory and flash upgrades. And thus, making the gap a bit larger could be better for Apple – more profit whatever the customer chooses.