Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Another SSD Thread: Why the Price Complaints?

S

SiskoKid

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jul 12, 2008
350
2
Hey, guys!

So I've been debating whether to cancel my SSD order due to the delay and get a 2TB BTO iMac instead and just get an SSD online and install it myself.

As I was researching, I've noticed a lot of people give Apple crap for the expense of the 256GB SSD drive, but the cheapest I've seen a 256GB drive that's Sata III is ~$450 (Sata II aren't that much cheaper at ~$430). After tax and shipping, you're at ~$500 which is just not that much cheaper to me. I'd also have to buy equipment that'll allow me to take my iMac apart which is additional cost and the fact that it's a rather complicated break down (for me), I'm not sure that time I save getting the iMac is enough for me to risk that.

But mainly I'm curious why people think Apple is ripping you off on the SSD drive? I think it's a rather fair price now that I've been figuring out if I want to consider cutting down on my delivery time.
 
SiskoKid said:
But mainly I'm curious why people think Apple is ripping you off on the SSD drive? I think it's a rather fair price now that I've been figuring out if I want to consider cutting down on my delivery time.
Click to expand...

The price is right for the 240G but the main reason for complain is that there is no 128G option (as for MBP) which many would prefer.
 
The price itself isn't too far off, I think the price complaints stem from the lack of upgrade options. I want an ssd to install the OS and apps, and leave everything else on the HDD. For me, that can be accomplished with a 64 or 128gb ssd which would be much more affordable. 64gb SSD's can be had for a fraction of the price of a 256 and that would suit my needs just fine.

The problem is Apple wants to shoehorn all ssd customers into an expensive 256 when many (or most) would probably rather have a cheaper 128 or 64 option.
 
mrfoof82 said:
Actually my complaint is there's no 512GB option. Yes, I would pay for it if they offered it.
Click to expand...

Apple do offer one in the Mac Pro, if you really wanted a large Apple SSD then I'm sure that you could get that to fit in place of the HDD. It will be 3.5" though not 2.5" so you wouldn't be able to have both an SSD and HDD as far as I understand. (2011 iMac has 1 slot for each not 2 x 3.5")
 
ndraves said:
Apple do offer one in the Mac Pro, if you really wanted a large Apple SSD then I'm sure that you could get that to fit in place of the HDD. It will be 3.5" though not 2.5" so you wouldn't be able to have both an SSD and HDD as far as I understand. (2011 iMac has 1 slot for each not 2 x 3.5")
Click to expand...

Apple offers a 512GB SSD in the MacBook Pros. I would know because I have one. 2.5" form factor, just like the 128GB and 256GB. There's no obvious reason as to why it's not offered in the iMac.

Mac Pro is not an option due to the fact that I don't want a 40lb aluminum box, have no need for raid, no need for more than 4 cores, and no need for PCI-E expansion cards. I ordered with the 256GB/2TB, but would've ordered a 512GB/2TB if the option existed (well, ordered, canceled for now, and will re-order after I get back from WWDC or when SSD equipped models start being delivered, whatever occurs first)
 
As others have said, the "problem" is the lack of options for smaller SSDs. I'd like the benefit of an SSD as a boot drive, but that benefit doesn't require 256GB and isn't worth £400 to me. £200 though and it'd be great, and i'd get on fine with 128GB.

So i'm now waiting for TBolt SSDs to come out, see how they perform, and maybe use one of those as an external boot drive instead. Though i'm disappointed that TBolt doesn't carry it's own power - hopefully I can use FW or USB as a power source for a TBolt drive, rather than needing an extra power brick, but we'll have to see what the manufacturers come out with.

David
 
Scuby said:
Though i'm disappointed that TBolt doesn't carry it's own power - hopefully I can use FW or USB as a power source for a TBolt drive, rather than needing an extra power brick, but we'll have to see what the manufacturers come out with.
Click to expand...

I was almost certain it can power devices up to 10W.

Thunderbolt is dual-channel, with each channel supporting 10 Gbps of bidirectional bandwidth. That’s a potential 20 Gbps of upstream and 20 Gbps of downstream bandwidth. The connection supports a daisy chain topology, and Thunderbolt also supports power over the cable, 10W to be precise. We aren't sure at this time what the breakdown on voltage/amperage is though.
Click to expand...
 
maxinc said:
Probably for the same reason they didn't offer the 128.
Click to expand...

Actually the lack of the 128GB on the iMac I can understand.

There is a huge psychological barrier for most people to be paying "more for less". Yes, SSD seek latency is fantastic which results in a very high number of IOps and results in superior transfer rates. But to the average person, it seems like a lot of money.

High end iMacs also aren't aimed at average Joe (who tends to be price-sensitive), they're aimed at power users, which is why those hardware options exist. The top-tier iMacs have been blurring the consumer/pro line for several years. Prosumer users are going to mostly want bigger SSDs, not smaller ones.

On laptops, smaller SSDs aren't as small, relatively speaking, due to the limits of how large 2.5" HDDs currently are. When you compare to 3.5" HDDs, the difference is considerable. You're going from 500-750GB to 128GB instead of from 1-2TB to 128GB. 64/128GB SSDs in an iMac is something wanted by such a minority of the customer base it's not worth offering. It's why you can get a Mercedes-Benz AMG with a stick -- if 2% of buyers bought it, that would exceed my expectations by a factor of 5.

Most people don't want to be symlinking or moving a ton of directories, which is what a small SSD will result in for most cases. Unless they implement SSD caching, which so far isn't yet an advertised feature,
 
I actually consider wasteful holding large and rarely used files like movies or family photos on a very expensive SSD. I am a web developer and use the Adobe CS4, Final Cut Studio and a few Virtual Machines, all on the SSD and I can barely use 60GB of space. The other stuff I infrequently use is way too much even for a large SSD to hold so I prefer keeping it on a cheap HDD which is mostly spun down and backed up on another cheap HDD. I can't justify 240G of ultra expensive storage.
 
Hello sisko :)

Yeah i complained too, not because of the price. Apple priced the 256Gb SSD surprisingly reasonable, unlike what they charge for RAM

So, it's not about the price, but the options. Why apple only make 256 Gb as option? Why they didnt include 64 Gb and 128Gb Ssd just like in mba or mbp. I'd be happy to take 128Gb since it has lowest $/Gb ratio at this point.

So once again, I didnt complain for the price. $600 is really a true price for 256Gb SSD. Just why they dont include 128Gb SSD for $200. That would make everyone happy

Get my meaning? I think the others mention it too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back