tenthousandthings

9secondkox2 said:

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Fidonet127 said:

Due to the timeline of how long Apple said they will replace Macs with ASi versions, I don’t think M1 Pro version was really designed. The mini will stay as the consumer computer, the Studio will stay as the prosumer low to medium pro computer, and the Pro will be the high end. The Studio will not cut it for someone who needs 1.5tb of memory and lots of processing power. Yes the Sudio beats some configurations of the Mac Pro. The Studio wasn’t designed in a short time. The Studio took awhile to design and announced when they were ready.  

I’m skeptical of this. 

The Studio is basically a stretch Mini. They just had to take the Mini CAD files, edit the vertical dimensions, add perforations and port cutouts, and attach a simple tapered and perforated cylinder to the bottom. 

The whole thing could have been designed, tested, and machined in a very short period of time, including the big honking fan assembly - which probably explains the numerous fan issues in the first run. 

It's a completely different logic board, completely different cooling, completely different port construction.  There's no reason to think it went through any less of a design process than any other new Apple product, which would not be "a very short period of time".  No way.

Of course those items needed to be laid out and built but it’s a known quantity. Apple was developing the Mac pro and testing likely indicated the m1 ultra or adoubled up version of that wasn’t what they wanted to share a awe as the best they could do. Somewhere in the testing process, the decision was made to not launch at wwdc. And since wwdc I planned far in advance, this gave more than enough time - in a relatively short period of time - to build a stretch Mac mini and have it ready shortly thereafter. It’s not some new avant-garde industrial design and the motherboard isn’t some feat of engineering. 

As Gurkan noted, apple planned to launch the Mac Pro at wwdc but then decided against it. 

There is no way they would have launched the studio and the pro at the same time. They just needed to buy time with a product that doesn’t have a legacy to live up to and can perform for those who need/want the power. 

It’s not bad that it’s a bit of a bridge. It’s just that apple needed to get some serious performance clout but it’s lauded machine is not ready. 

In addition to the various points others have made, your theory ignores another aspect of the Mac Studio decision, arguably the most important element—abandoning the larger iMac and/or iMac Pro. That was not something done lightly or in response to hypothetical engineering issues with the M1 Mac Pro.

Most likely, the situation was precisely the opposite of what you describe—the existence of the Mac Studio allowed Apple to put the Mac Pro on hold (for whatever reason).

When did the supply-chain rumors of a “Mini Pro” begin? The Mac Studio was already in development for production when those rumors surfaced. Also the 27" iMac rumor. My understanding is the authors of both these rumors have said everything they were seeing is accounted for by the Mac Studio and the Studio Display.

john-useless said:

Andrew, you wrote: "Because of Thunderbolt data limitations, it isn't possible to daisy chain two 5K studio displays." Do you know if it's possible to daisy-chain a lower-resolution third-party monitor to a USB-C port on the new Apple Studio Display?

I have a 27-inch Dell QHD resolution monitor, which is 2560x1440 pixels. That's the same resolution as the original Thunderbolt Display and Apple's 27-inch iMacs from the 2009 to 2013 models. (The 2014 edition of the 27-inch iMac was the first Retina 5K model at 5120x2880 pixels.)

I have an Apple Studio Display on order. I'm hoping that I'll need only connect one cable (from the Studio Display's one Thunderbolt port) to my MacBook Pro (14-inch, 2021) and that the one cable will provide the MacBook both with power and with connections to two monitors — the Studio Display and a 27-inch Dell monitor with USB-C and QHD resolution. In other words, the chain would be: 14-inch MacBook Pro <—> Thunderbolt cable <—> Apple Studio Display <—> USB-C cable <—> Dell U2721DE monitor, if that works.

Thanks for any info!

I think Andrew means that if it was possible to daisy-chain two Apple Studio Displays, then Apple would have provided a second Thunderbolt 3 port to allow that (same deal with Thunderbolt 4). He's explaining why they didn't, but even if they did, anyone trying to daisy-chain a 4K display would also run into those same data limitations. In theory, your 2560x1440 Dell would work, barely.

The three additional USB-C ports on the back are USB 3.2 Gen 2 (formerly known as USB 3.1), which can be either USB-A or USB-C. I think, by definition, they provide at least 7.5W power -- one of them is charging my phone right now. So think of them as USB-A ports -- you wouldn't plug a display into one of those. You could try it, though, before you do the following...

You'll need a powered hub to do what you want to do. The good news is that hub will be your best friend. There are several CalDigit Thunderbolt 4 hubs, but if you want Ethernet then you'll want the TS4 (in theory the TS3+ would work for your setup, but you'd need to make sure it is supported):

https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/02/16/caldigit-ts4-thunderbolt-hub-review-the-dock-of-our-dreams

I ordered online and picked it up in-store (got the last one they had) last Sunday.

This is a replacement for an old 2K Apple Thunderbolt Display. It works well for that. The camera works fine for Zoom/Teams with Center Stage turned on. Without it, it’s unusable. I’d love to see macOS provide real control over the Studio Display camera—surely, if it can do Center Stage, it can also do that?

If you’re used to the 5K iMac experience, this won’t be anything new. Or even a decent 4K. But if you’re coming from (or via), say, a MacBook Air or an older MacBook Pro, you’ll probably find the jump up to Retina 5K quite satisfying. 

Sameer Samat’s statement indicates Spotify is still paying Google its commission. 

Kuo sees and hears a lot of things from the supply chain, but putting it all together is not easy, especially when it comes to Macs, as opposed to mobile devices.

So he was hearing and seeing a lot of things that pointed to the Mac Studio, but he understandably thought that meant the Mini was getting a Pro version, which is what he predicted. Which is pretty much exactly what the Mac Studio is, except they aren't calling it the Mini, because the Mini is going to live on a separate product.

So now Kuo sits back and reflects on what he saw and heard, and he concludes the M2 Mini is not going to change form factor. However, most likely this is just him saying he's got nothing left that indicates a change in the Mini's form factor. The reality is that such a change could and certainly would use components from the MacBook line. So there might not be anything in the supply chain to indicate a change in form factor. 

My own instinct is that the fact the Studio has exactly the same footprint as the current Mini means the new Mini will change its form factor. Apple will want the Mini to be clearly differentiated from the Studio. So it will shrink in size and basically be a MacBook without the Book, as it were. It wouldn't surprise me if there were no M2 Pro version of the Mini at all. That all the rumors of a Mini Pro were based on information about the Studio...