We may earn compensation from reviewed products. Learn about our editorial policies.
Buying an M4 Mac mini isn’t as easy as you might think.
I understand why you might think otherwise; Apple’s tiny desktop powerhouse does, after all, have far fewer configuration options than, say, a MacBook Pro. You can buy either the standard M4 version or the M4 Pro edition – then, it’s just a case of adding the amount of memory and storage you need.
Hold up – this is already confusing, isn’t it? Who needs the M4 Pro chip? And how much unified memory is too much unified memory? And do you really need loads of internal storage if it’s possible to increase it indefinitely via external SSD drives?
A case in point: I’ve realised that I don’t need the M4 Pro chip that’s in my Mac mini, and today, I’ll explain how I made that mistake – and the problems this presents Apple on a wider scale.
This isn’t a Mac mini buying guide – it’s more of a cautionary tale and an updated review of the M4 Mac mini.
What I didn’t get wrong about the M4 Mac mini
Today’s tale is actually a happy one. This is because there are a couple of things I got completely right during my initial coverage of the M4 Mac mini.
Firstly, I stand firm on my claim that it is the best thing Apple has ever done. Interestingly, I’ve not had much pushback on this (bar the occasional “but bro what about the iPhone?”). The opportunities presented by the new Mac mini for such a relatively modest outlay are simply unbelievable. If you’re of my generation or earlier, it’s hard to believe what’s capable from such a little box.
This brings me to the second thing I didn’t get wrong about the M4 Mac mini: recommending that most people buy the base model.
Seriously, it’s all you need. If you need more, you know you need more (you really do, deep down – trust me). A quick search of YouTube coverage about the base model M4 Mac mini reveals numerous stress test videos (including one from yours truly) that do nothing more than reveal scenarios most people who buy this computer will never encounter.
Think about it: how often do you run a four-camera 4K multicam Final Cut Pro project alongside a 1,000 JPEG export in Lightroom while a 200-track Logic Pro project is playing away to itself in the background?
No one does that. Ever.
Just get the base model.
What I got wrong about the M4 Mac mini
I know how annoying many people find the inevitable ‘I bought the wrong one’ follow-up videos that are made by tech creators like myself three months after shouting from the rooftops about their exciting new purchase.
Most of the time, this isn’t done on purpose. It certainly wasn’t in this case, because I thought I knew exactly what I was doing when I ordered my M4 Pro Mac mini back in November.
It cost me £2,899 and was specced up to the hilt.
As it turns out, I could have saved myself nearly £2,000 by instead ordering the standard M4 Mac mini with 24GB of unified memory (just in case) and 512GB of storage for £999. Sitting here today, I wouldn’t know any different in terms of a perceived lack of performance, headroom or future proofing.
I didn’t listen to my own advice, basically. I also had my head firmly stuck in the past. For the limited amount of production work I do these days – and my desire to slowly get back into music making – I thought I’d need as many CPU and GPU cores as possible. Oh, and 64GB of unified memory. And I might as well have ample on-board storage, so 2TB was a must. As was the £100 upgrade to 10 gigabit ethernet (mainly because Patrick Rambles did the same).
Talk about overkill.
Don’t do as I did.
Apple’s big Mac problem (or is it?)
I’d be fascinated to hear if this bothers Tim Cook and his team as much as it bothers me.
You’re probably bored of me saying, “if you know you need a lot of unified memory, you know you need a lot of unified memory” (this can be transposed to any configuration element of a new Mac). But it’s true, and it’s neatly summed up in the following comment I received on YouTube recently:
“Well yes I can think of use case for Mac Studio Ultra variant. In 2007-2010 I was working in modelling of trajectories of lifting bodies with 6 DOF models. We had 48 HP blade servers, and simulating 400,000 different scenarios took 45 days of execution. Being able to do this in less than 1 day, on say a few Mac Studio Ultra’s would have been heaven.”
Nope, I have no idea what a DOF is, either, let alone why you’d want to model the trajectories of lifting bodies – or how the two are related. But who cares? This guy knows exactly what he needs from his computer, and I’d wager he’d probably get a bit fed up with an M4 Mac mini.
The problem Apple has is that the market for people who know exactly what they need from a Mac is so small. I have absolutely no data to back this up, but my ever-reliable hunch tells me that most people who place an order for a Mac mini today probably don’t need anywhere near the amount of power with which Apple can theoretically throw at them.
So, those people head to the internet and find people like me who say “just buy the base model”. They do exactly that, and they’re happy with their purchase for many, many years.
Thus, Apple loses out on a higher ticket sale.
However, recent reports suggest that Apple is gaining market share in the PC sector. Five and a half million Macs were shipped in the first quarter of this year – a significant increase from the 4.8 million shipped during the same period last year.
There’s no breakdown of that number, so one can only speculate as to how many Mac minis were sold at the start of this year, but I’d guess that it was quite a lot. And probably an awful lot of MacBook Airs, too.
What about the Mac Studio? What about the MacBook Pro? What about the Mac Pro? Have we reached a point where Apple silicon is just too powerful?
Is this the end of the hyper-powered Mac?
Does it matter if Apple is still turning a profit and increasing its market share?
Get involved in the comments!
