Soli

Unless you need ports that the Mac mini doesn’t offer, like the SD slots, I don’t see much of a market for this device. I want my Mac mini’s ports facing me when I look in my electronics closet so they do. And if I needed those slots I’d likely just get something specific for that need since it are dry offers plenty of USB-C and USB-A ports.

The change I wish Apple would offer is having an additional LED light in the back, but I have several other options to deal with the light facing away from me for the rare times that I need it.

like others stated, if it allowed for storage and eGPU expansion then I could see a benefit to stacking my Mac mini.

Since it looks like many are finding this to be a great solution, I’m glad that Satechi offers you a solution. 

I remember when my ideal Mac notebook was a 12" PowerBook. Then it became a 13" MacBook Pro, and has been the 15" MacBook Pro for 4 or 5 models now. When I decide to buy again it will be the 16" MacBook Pro.

I was curious about my gradual increase in size (while maintaining a notebook and not desiring a tablet) so I looked ate the specs for all my old Macs in MacTracker. It looks like weight is the primary constant. That 12" PB was 4.6 lb, the 13" MBP was 4.5", the 15" MBPs were between 4.46 and 4.02 lb, and this 16" MBP is 4.3 lb, which should be fine despite going up a little.

Thickness also came down when I went to a larger display so perhaps it's also about portability there, too, even though volume was probably still increased overall device thinner profile and lower weight.

ameldrum1 said:

Soli said:

sree said:

Guess this is the nearest we will see apple kind of accepting that the butterfly was a flawed design. Going back to the old working design with very minor changes. They probably can't talk more about the reason for dumping butterfly and going back for fear of litigation.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Not an example of post hoc fallacy. An example of logical deduction.

Can you explain why the butterfly mechanism is responsible for minute particles being stuck under keys while the scissor mechanism is more forgiving? I certainly can't, but I can see how making a key with considerable less travel and increased tolerances that disallow reasonable debris under the keys could cause them to stop working properly.

Can you explain to me the physics as to how it's not possible make a scissor keyboard mechanism not work well (despite that being something I've experienced on countless occasions with keyboards over the decades) or how a butterfly keyboard mechanism wouldn't less prone to faults if it had additional travel? I have seen zero evidence that shows that the butterfly mechanism is an inherently flawed concept and I can easily point to reasons why all the Mac notebooks I've used and owned with that keyboard are the least comfortable and least efficient physical keyboards I've used from Apple in the last 3 decades.

philboogie said:

So, is the screen 1.0" larger, or 0.6"? Inquiring minds want to know…

It looks to be 0.6" (1.54cm) wider on the diagonal, according to Apple's Tech Specs, which translates into an additional 8.47" square (54.65 cm sq).

Mike Wuerthele said:

philboogie said:

Where does it say it's a 16" laptop? Websites are comparing the previous 15" vs the new 16". But the previous model was 15.4' Is the new model 16.0"? Can anyone confirm, did Phil say this?

I think he's asking what the exact measurement is, like how we called the 13.3" and 15.4" MBPs by a simply referring to 13 and 15.

Comparing Tech Specs it does look like it's 16.0"

"13.3‑inch (diagonal) LED-backlit display with IPS technology; 2560‑by‑1600 native resolution at 227 pixels per inch with support for millions of colors"

"16‑inch (diagonal) LED‑backlit display with IPS technology; 3072‑by‑1920 native resolution at 226 pixels per inch with support for millions of colors"