Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.
On the positive side, I tried the second NAND and this came off no problem. Increasing the hot air to 430 degrees C worked nicely. All pads intact. I'm not sure if I lost a resistor on the right or not though, they are so tiny I can't even be sure through the microscope!
View attachment 2379956
(It looks even worse here than in reality with the reflections...)

I presume there aren't any valid configurations for 'left chip only' for this Mini model? 😂

So if I want to save it I have my work cut out with the relife pad repair kit. I can see small copper bits under each pad. Perhaps I can do one a day for a month or so! Presume no-one has the schematic of which of the 110 pins are actually used?
Lucky, NAND0 (UN000) is fully in tact, so you can use a single NAND... But only for a single 128GB config. Unfortunately repairing ripped pads that utilize via-in-pad like these is pretty difficult, if not practically impossible without a microscope and very precise equipment. But now you see why I say to practice underfilled chip removal on a junk board first... Usually on the second attempt you get it right, as seen here.

There's also the possibility of getting some junk iCloud locked board, transferring over your M1 SoC, SEP EEPROM, and WiFi chip, then upgrading that board... But that is a lot of work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6 and foft
So single NAND 128GB is possible. For that I guess I'd need a completely blank 128GB one rather than putting back the 2nd one that I just took off, since its not blank so it won't restore without getting one of those NAND image flashing devices right?
 
So single NAND 128GB is possible. For that I guess I'd need a completely blank 128GB one rather than putting back the 2nd one that I just took off, since its not blank so it won't restore without getting one of those NAND image flashing devices right?
Yeah, you'd need to use either a blank NAND, or flash it with the correct firmware for a single 128GB config for that specific NAND model.
 
On the positive side, I tried the second NAND and this came off no problem. Increasing the hot air to 430 degrees C worked nicely. All pads intact. I'm not sure if I lost a resistor on the right or not though, they are so tiny I can't even be sure through the microscope!
View attachment 2379956
(It looks even worse here than in reality with the reflections...)

I presume there aren't any valid configurations for 'left chip only' for this Mini model? 😂

So if I want to save it I have my work cut out with the relife pad repair kit. I can see small copper bits under each pad. Perhaps I can do one a day for a month or so! Presume no-one has the schematic of which of the 110 pins are actually used?
This mirrors my experience too - I destroyed the first nand completely and the second one partially before jacking it all the way up to 430 F and removing the rest of the second pad easily. Damn that under-reporting hot air station!
 
On the positive side, I tried the second NAND and this came off no problem. Increasing the hot air to 430 degrees C worked nicely. All pads intact. I'm not sure if I lost a resistor on the right or not though, they are so tiny I can't even be sure through the microscope!
View attachment 2379956
(It looks even worse here than in reality with the reflections...)

I presume there aren't any valid configurations for 'left chip only' for this Mini model? 😂

So if I want to save it I have my work cut out with the relife pad repair kit. I can see small copper bits under each pad. Perhaps I can do one a day for a month or so! Presume no-one has the schematic of which of the 110 pins are actually used?
So, it turns out repairing the damaged pads is actually not that hard... I recently was sent this one in by someone to attempt to repair, and found that it’s actually quite simple. Just use a soldering iron to get a little bit of solder on the tiny via still remaining in the pad, as shown, and then you can simply solder on a freshly reballed set of NANDs. The small bit of solder provides enough of a contact point that the respective solder ball will be properly soldered to the via. The one in this instance worked for me first try!

BCC74246-0D63-4BCF-A993-35D30B9471B5.jpeg
 
I'd gladly pay you $100-$200 to upgrade my currently 1 TB MacBook pro 16" M1 Max, which is running out of storage.
Just the nands will already be like 200$ for 2tb. And for 4/8 it will be even more since you need 8 nands and it will be more work because of the components that have to be placed. I dont know if anyone here would do the work, but it will be like 400+ dollar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
Just the nands will already be like 200$ for 2tb. And for 4/8 it will be even more since you need 8 nands and it will be more work because of the components that have to be placed. I dont know if anyone here would do the work, but it will be like 400+ dollar.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! According to the other engineering experts here at the MacRumors Forums, Apple’s expense for those components is only ~$20, which they charge $200.


Surely, even a small operation can get that done for $160, maybe $240 tops. What kind of scam are you trying to pull?

😉😉😆
 
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! According to the other engineering experts here at the MacRumors Forums, Apple’s expense for those components is only ~$20, which they charge $200.


Surely, even a small operation can get that done for $160, maybe $240 tops. What kind of scam are you trying to pull?

😉😉😆

So, you look at RAM prices estimates and think that NAND (and a model that are not in any way common) are in any way related?
 
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! According to the other engineering experts here at the MacRumors Forums, Apple’s expense for those components is only ~$20, which they charge $200.


Surely, even a small operation can get that done for $160, maybe $240 tops. What kind of scam are you trying to pull?

😉😉😆
Okay than just wait for dosdude telling you the same.. You are showing some threads about ram upgrades. If you do the nand upgrade to 2tb on the m1 pro 13 the nands cost only 100 dollar because you only need 2. For your mac the 2tb configuration uses 4 nands and the 4 and 8tb configuration uses 8nands, thats why its so expensive. Stop calling me a scammer just because you dont know anything about the nand upgrades. I didnt even made an offer for you, so why should I lie? This is way to much work to do it for 200 dollars (+200 for the nands :))
 
So, you look at RAM prices estimates and think that NAND (and a model that are not in any way common) are in any way related?
Okay than just wait for dosdude telling you the same.. You are showing some threads about ram upgrades. If you do the nand upgrade to 2tb on the m1 pro 13 the nands cost only 100 dollar because you only need 2. For your mac the 2tb configuration uses 4 nands and the 4 and 8tb configuration uses 8nands, thats why its so expensive. Stop calling me a scammer just because you dont know anything about the nand upgrades. I didnt even made an offer for you, so why should I lie? This is way to much work to do it for 200 dollars (+200 for the nands :))
Um… It was humor.
😉😉😆
Would /s have been somehow more obvious?
 
How is telling false information humor?
@MacCheetah3 was being sarcastic, delivering an over-the-top reaction to mock, not you, but people in another thread who accuse Apple of overcharging for upgrades with exaggerated claims of how cheap Apple is being*. He indicated that he was kidding, that people weren't supposed to take his post or the information within seriously, with the emojis at the end.

*which actually I still feel can be a valid criticism of Apple for certain RAM/SSD configurations and he linked to posts on RAM upgrades rather than SSD, but both my points here are less relevant to his post which was just for humor

===============

More to relevant to the thread, I'm curious about the costs here. I'm not very familiar with the market on aliexpress, I see KICM223, KICM227, 229 modules for about $30-80 each, corresponding to their capacity**. I take it your figure of $200 is assuming about $50 for 4 KICM229 512GB modules because that's the only configuration an Apple MacBook Pro accepts to get to 2TB? Do I have that right? I have to admit I'm a little confused by @dosdude1's chart that the 1TB has either a single TB module or 3 256GB? That shouldn't work right? That's not 1TB? Are these possible configs or what Apple ships with?

**I'm likewise confused by Kioxa's SSD naming schemes, like it seems like KICM223 is 1 TB, 229 is 512GB, and 227 is 256 GB, but that's not in any particular order I can make out. Is there a sense to it that I'm missing? I haven't even looked at the non-Kioxa modules.

As you can tell I'm not very familiar with SSD components. I'm not interested in trying to repeat what you guys are doing here, but I'm just trying to get my bearings in understanding the nuts and bolts of this thread because I think it's very cool.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
@MacCheetah3 was being sarcastic, delivering an over-the-top reaction to mock, not you, but people in another thread who accuse Apple of overcharging for upgrades with exaggerated claims of how cheap Apple is being*. He indicated that he was kidding, that people weren't supposed to take his post or the information within seriously, with the emojis at the end.

*which actually I still feel can be a valid criticism of Apple for certain RAM/SSD configurations and he linked to posts on RAM upgrades rather than SSD, but both my points here are less relevant to his post which was just for humor

===============

More to relevant to the thread, I'm curious about the costs here. I'm not very familiar with the market on aliexpress, I see KICM223, KICM227, 229 modules for about $30-80 each, corresponding to their capacity**. I take it your figure of $200 is assuming about $50 for 4 KICM229 512GB modules because that's the only configuration an Apple MacBook Pro accepts to get to 2TB? Do I have that right? I have to admit I'm a little confused by @dosdude1's chart that the 1TB has either a single TB module or 3 256GB? That shouldn't work right? That's not 1TB? Are these possible configs or what Apple ships with?

**I'm likewise confused by Kioxa's SSD naming schemes, like it seems like KICM223 is 1 TB, 229 is 512GB, and 227 is 256 GB, but that's not in any particular order I can make out. Is there a sense to it that I'm missing? I haven't even looked at the non-Kioxa modules.

As you can tell I'm not very familiar with SSD components. I'm not interested in trying to repeat what you guys are doing here, but I'm just trying to get my bearings in understanding the nuts and bolts of this thread because I think it's very cool.
You are right, the 512gb nand is around 50 dollar which makes the nand costs 200 dollar for the 2tb configuration. So if we want 4tb and need 8x512gb it will be around 400 dollar JUST for the nands. And with 8tb even a little more.

The kicm 233 and kicm227 are both 256gb, so the 1tb configuration has 4 256gb nands. I dont know why thoose 2 different named 256gb nands exist but I already have seen 512gb configuration using a kicm233 and kicm227 nands combined. And the kicm233 always seems to be the #1 nand.

I dont know if the names have some special meaning, maybe dosdude knows something more here.
 
  • Love
Reactions: crazy dave
@MacCheetah3 was being sarcastic, delivering an over-the-top reaction to mock, not you, but people in another thread who accuse Apple of overcharging for upgrades with exaggerated claims of how cheap Apple is being*. He indicated that he was kidding, that people weren't supposed to take his post or the information within seriously, with the emojis at the end.
Thanks.
:)

*which actually I still feel can be a valid criticism of Apple for certain RAM/SSD configurations and he linked to posts on RAM upgrades rather than SSD, but both my points here are less relevant to his post which was just for humor
That fact didn’t elude me. I felt the fact Apple does $200 increments (even exponentially) in both RAM and SSD upgrades makes it relevant enough. (Someone did the per GB charge math, but I’m too lazy to look it up or do it myself at the moment.)

I’m also not entirely dismissing the complaints. I feel it would be economical for Apple to decrease the upgrade prices a little (e.g., to $150 increments). Furthermore, I see storage needs (realistically) increasing far more often than RAM. So, something like the SSD daughter cards found in the Mac Studio, except intended to be user replaceable, would be an objectively beneficial after purchase upgrade option — which is the general idea of why I check-in on this thread from time to time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazy dave
You are right, the 512gb nand is around 50 dollar which makes the nand costs 200 dollar for the 2tb configuration. So if we want 4tb and need 8x512gb it will be around 400 dollar JUST for the nands. And with 8tb even a little more.

The kicm 233 and kicm227 are both 256gb, so the 1tb configuration has 4 256gb nands. I dont know why thoose 2 different named 256gb nands exist but I already have seen 512gb configuration using a kicm233 and kicm227 nands combined. And the kicm233 always seems to be the #1 nand.

I dont know if the names have some special meaning, maybe dosdude knows something more here.
The KICM233 is actually slightly larger than 256GB, with a capacity of 320GB. This is used to provide an ample amount of extra space to be used as spare, that can be used if bad blocks accumulate elsewhere. Any 4-NAND 1TB or two-NAND 512GB config will require use of the KICM233 in NAND0 position.

The same is true for a dual-NAND 256GB config or 4-NAND 512GB config. These use a KICM232 160GB NAND in position 0, and the rest KICM225.
 
Last edited:
As expected, using the same methods needed on machines with onboard soldered NANDs, upgrading the storage on the removable NAND modules of the Mac Studio is also possible. The only issue you run into here is that in order to upgrade past 2TB, two of these NAND modules are needed. Locating a second one is not exactly easy, as these modules are not readily available or easy to come by. But still definitely glad it is possible!

IMG_3841.JPGIMG_3842.JPGIMG_3844.JPG
 
Thanks.
:)


That fact didn’t elude me. I felt the fact Apple does $200 increments (even exponentially) in both RAM and SSD upgrades makes it relevant enough. (Someone did the per GB charge math, but I’m too lazy to look it up or do it myself at the moment.)

I’m also not entirely dismissing the complaints. I feel it would be economical for Apple to decrease the upgrade prices a little (e.g., to $150 increments). Furthermore, I see storage needs (realistically) increasing far more often than RAM. So, something like the SSD daughter cards found in the Mac Studio, except intended to be user replaceable, would be an objectively beneficial after purchase upgrade option — which is the general idea of why I check-in on this thread from time to time.
Yeah they could definitely use the slotted SSD modules across more of their lineup. I'm not sure the Z-height difference between the slotted and soldered SSD, but I suspect it is minimal. @dosdude1 and @gilles_polysoft might know if it is minimal enough that it could be used across all M-series products including the new ultra thin iPad Pro or the MB Air.

A couple of other things to keep in mind are that: 1) Apple has to ship laptops with SSDs, so the difference in costs for them isn't $200 + labor and 2) Relatedly, Apple doesn't pay market prices for SSDs, they buy in bulk in advance lowering their prices (to be fair this cuts both ways as it also means that if prices fall, they don't reap the benefit until the next big order). Basically let's assume Apple ships the 1TB MacBook Pro with 4 256 modules, the difference in cost for Apple between shipping that and 4 512 modules is $80 on the open market and probably less depending on what prices Apple is paying. There is also no difference in labor, they both require the installation of 4 modules. They charge us $400 to upgrade from 1TB to 2TB.

There IS a difference in logistics though one of their own making. By soldering the SSD, they have to maintain lots of different BTO lines, which along with soldered RAM can create a combinatorial nightmare especially for the lower volume, higher cost products. This increases costs, especially for BTO over "standard" models. The soldered RAM is necessary, the soldered SSD, except for maybe Z-height, less so. There is more to say on why Apple does this, but this post is already long enough and my main point is that switching to their slotted SSDs would result in some benefits to Apple including parts of their own logistics chain. While it would probably be a net negative for Apple's profits, it wouldn't be all bad news basically.

That said, posts in this thread and a couple of others have shown that the charge of planned obsolescence for soldered SSDs is vastly overblown. The modules Apple are buying and their controller means that, unless you get a lemon, a standard, even pro, user isn't likely to exceed their write capacity in the lifetime of the device ... and then some.

Another issue is that Apple chooses a base spec and while it is reasonable at first, sticks with it for waaaaaaay too long. Whether by design or not, once the clamor gets loud enough is when they finally move from that base spec. I suspect we'll see such a move with the upcoming M4 Macs judging by the new iPads.

In short, Apple really could do better here. And while I've focused on SSD upgrades, some of this applies to RAM base/upgrades too. Though there is a difference there, especially as we get into higher cost Maxes and Ultras, where the memory controller means standard LPDDR memory is functioning as very high bandwidth GPU memory which ... well when one sees what GPU makers charge for GDDR VRAM, Apple looks downright generous. It all depends on whether or not one is comparing to CPU or GPU memory prices and how relevant that is to the user and the device.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gilles_polysoft
Yeah they could definitely use the slotted SSD modules across more of their lineup. I'm not sure the Z-height difference between the slotted and soldered SSD, but I suspect it is minimal. @dosdude1 and @gilles_polysoft might know if it is minimal enough that it could be used across all M-series products including the new ultra thin iPad Pro or the MB Air.
The logic boards on a stick (MBA and iMac) implementations are very tight so it is likely that there isn’t sufficient space but there is sufficient room in all of the other Macs. I don’t know about the iPads.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crazy dave
Yeah they could definitely use the slotted SSD modules across more of their lineup. I'm not sure the Z-height difference between the slotted and soldered SSD, but I suspect it is minimal. @dosdude1 and @gilles_polysoft might know if it is minimal enough that it could be used across all M-series products including the new ultra thin iPad Pro or the MB Air.

The logic boards on a stick (MBA and iMac) implementations are very tight so it is likely that there isn’t sufficient space but there is sufficient room in all of the other Macs. I don’t know about the iPads.

Hello,
there's no need to worry about the thickness of the NANDs on any apple silicon mac, at least for now.
Any thickness can be soldered on any board.

The thickness of BGA110 and BGA315 NANDs varies from 0.02 inches (thin) to 0.04 inches (thick), while other components, especially selfs, are usually 0.09

KICM225 (128GB, thin) :
IMG_5256.jpeg

KICM232 (160GB, middle) :
IMG_5255.jpeg

KICM223 (1TB, thick)
IMG_5257.jpeg


The height of the selfs and capacitors in relation to the plane of the board is 0.09 inches, while NANDs are much lower, so this is not a concern, even in M3 MacBook airs.


IMG_5258.jpegIMG_5260.jpeg
 
Hello,
there's no need to worry about the thickness of the NANDs on any apple silicon mac, at least for now.
Any thickness can be soldered on any board.

The thickness of BGA110 and BGA315 NANDs varies from 0.02 inches (thin) to 0.04 inches (thick), while other components, especially selfs, are usually 0.09

KICM225 (128GB, thin) :
View attachment 2391707

KICM232 (160GB, middle) :
View attachment 2391705

KICM223 (1TB, thick)
View attachment 2391706


The height of the selfs and capacitors in relation to the plane of the board is 0.09 inches, while NANDs are much lower, so this is not a concern, even in M3 MacBook airs.


View attachment 2391708View attachment 2391710
The issue is not about the size of NAND chips but about a new potential replaceable NAND daughter card and associated connector. Your measurements showed that soldered chips fit onto the motherboard but we sort of already knew that already. The speculation was about using replaceable SSR mini cards like those used in the Mac Pro and Mac Studio in other Mac products
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crazy dave
Hello,
there's no need to worry about the thickness of the NANDs on any apple silicon mac, at least for now.
Any thickness can be soldered on any board.

The thickness of BGA110 and BGA315 NANDs varies from 0.02 inches (thin) to 0.04 inches (thick), while other components, especially selfs, are usually 0.09

KICM225 (128GB, thin) :
View attachment 2391707

KICM232 (160GB, middle) :
View attachment 2391705

KICM223 (1TB, thick)
View attachment 2391706


The height of the selfs and capacitors in relation to the plane of the board is 0.09 inches, while NANDs are much lower, so this is not a concern, even in M3 MacBook airs.


View attachment 2391708View attachment 2391710

The issue is not about the size of NAND chips but about the potential daughter card and associated connector. Your measurements showed that soldered chips fit onto the motherboard but we sort of already knew that already
Aye as @Chuckeee said I was curious if the slotted SSD system that Apple uses on the Mac Pro and Studio could fit on the logic board or chassis of the MB Air or iPad Pro or iMac, basically where the device is thin or otherwise doesn't have a lot room. Basically do they have to solder the SSD down for those devices due to space constraints or could they use the slotted SSD modules for them despite those space constraints?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
The issue is not about the size of NAND chips but about a new potential replaceable NAND daughter card and associated connector. Your measurements showed that soldered chips fit onto the motherboard but we sort of already knew that already. The speculation was about using replaceable SSR mini cards like those used in the Mac Pro and Mac Studio in other Mac products

Aye as @Chuckeee said I was curious if the slotted SSD system that Apple uses on the Mac Pro and Studio could fit on the logic board or chassis of the MB Air or iPad Pro or iMac, basically where the device is thin or otherwise doesn't have a lot room. Basically do they have to solder the SSD down for those devices due to space constraints or could they use the slotted SSD modules for them despite those space constraints?

Sorry both crazy dave and Chuckeee for my misreading...

Are you asking if it's technically possible to fit a daughter card system even in the iPad Pro ?

Of course the answer is yes !
Microsoft does integrate a 2230 connector and a trapdoor in the Surface Pro 11...
Apple could do the same !
The NAND systems that Apple has been using since any Intel Mac with T2 chips, and furthermore since the M1, require less space on the logic board than an M.2 SSD, whether soldered on the logic board or on a daughterboard, because it doesn't need RAM or an SSD controller.

Technically, if Apple's management had decided that it was important to build machines that could be upgraded after sale, they might well have decided to do so.

What's the difference between a soldered NAND logic board and a logic board with NAND on daughter boards?
The connector... only the connector.
A NAND daughterboard is nothing more than the components that are otherwise soldered to the motherboard, where they take up the exact same area, which, again, is less than a comparable M.2 SSD because Apple "avoids" the needs of a SSD controller and ram thanks to its SOC architecture.

Apple only uses regular PCIe data and clock signal between the Mx SOC and the NANDs, which is robust and well-known, there is no additional PCIe signal registers in the "daughterboards" models.

The Apple SSD daughterboard connector, in its current implementations from the 2017 iMac Pro through to the Mac Pro M2s, has roughly the same dimensions equivalent to an M.2 connector : around 1.2 inches by 0.4 inches.
Less than 0.5 sq in.

So what would it have costed to make all apple computers upgradable, from any Mac mini to the M2 Mac Pro, and from the MacBook air to the 16" MacBook Pro ? add 1x 0.5 sq in connector.

Thickness isn't a problem: the equivalent M.2 connectors in the PC world are 3mm thick, and the M.2 daughterboards don't protrude from the motherboard, but are simply cut out of the surface of the logic board, like it has been done in the A1708 - 2016-2017 13" MacBook Pro 2TB.

Apple just doesn't want do to it...

Let's remember that the only models for which Apple made NAND daughterboard systems are :
  • the iMac Pro (2017)
  • the Mac Pro (2019 and M2)
  • the Mac Studio (2022 M1 and 2023 M2)
  • and let's not forget the iMac 2020 20,1 and 20,2, which are a kind of Frankenstein: the 256GB to 2TB versions have only NAND soldered on the motherboard, while the 4TB and 8TB configurations use both NAND soldered on the motherboard AND 1 NAND on the daughter board...
Of all of those systems, the only two which are half-way interchangeable are the iMac Pro 2017 and the Mac Pro 2019 : the Mac Pro 2019 SSD work in the 2017 iMac Pro (the opposite isn't true).

Mac Studio M1 and M2 boards are not interchangeables (one use BGA110, the other BGA315).
The Mac Pro M2 use boards which are longer that don't fit Mac Studio M1 and M2.

All that is a total mess.

Apple doesn't care about upgradability, this is not a question for them. They build systems for them to be sold, but they don't care about upgradability.

Had Apple a real desire to make upgradeable machines, they would do so.

They could have taken 0.5 square inches out from the place taken by the touchbar (when there was one), from the speakers, or from the forcetouch trackpad, and used that surface to add 1 connector to "consumer" machines like 13" and 15" MacBook Air, iMac, and Mac mini, and made them upgradable by customer to 2TB.
But they didn't.

They could have taken 1 square inches out from the surface taken by the touchbar (when there was one), from the speakers, or from the forcetouch trackpad, and used that size to add 2 connectors to "pro" machines like 14" and 16" MacBook Pro and Mac mini Pro, and made them upgradable by customer to 8TB.
But they didn't.

They could have made a "M2-like" connector ecosystem, and sell the NAND cards at a reasonnable price.
But They didn't.

They could make any Mac Model accept any "PCIe" BGA110 or BGA315 NAND daughterboard, but they didn't.
You can only use AppleConfigurator to restore the NANDs that were an original "BOM" configuration.
 
Last edited:
I have a good seller from aliexpress who sells them to me privately for 129 dollar (shippment to germany inclusive). He also sells the 2tb configuration for the m1 for 110 dollar. I can give you (and of course everyone else who needs) the contacts if you want.
Hi, can you send me contacts to seller these kicm 223 please ?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.