OP, when you ask any question of an Apple fan group that would require the group to think consumer BEFORE corporation- especially if the question requires critical thought vs. the corporation- you can't get many objective answers. A crowd would argue in favor of ANYTHING Apple would choose to do, even if the consumer in them can absolutely see steps back.
Basically, Apple did a remarkable thing with M1 Macs: they rolled out amazing specs, including incredibly fast SSD storage, even in the base specs. This established a very impressive speed benchmark. At the time, nobody argued that was too fast, overkill, "Apple should cut the speeds because it is too fast", etc. Instead, it was an incredible accomplishment. Wow! Wow! Wow!
Objective minds should see any tech benchmark as one to be at least matched- if not beaten- in future generations. No objective minds hope M3 will be slower than M2, or 8GB will be cut to 4GB or 48Megapixels will be cut to 12, etc. Tech expectations are universally BETTER, which is often measured in terms like Power, Speed, Resolution, etc. It's why there is so much buzz for M3 right now vs. arguing M2 is good enough and we need nothing more (or M2 is too fast and should be slowed down to about half the processing speed because "no one would notice" and "that is fast enough for anyone").
Unfortunately, in M2, Apple decided to make a different choice for base SSD that resulted in objective measures of HALF the speed of M1. If this was only rumored, even the most passionate Apple fans would argue "no way", "Apple would not cut any speed of anything custom Apple in half" and so on. But it is not a rumor. Apple did it. As such, Apple fans show up to defend any topic that requires assigning fault to Apple.
Basically: if Apple decides something, it is the one and only best answer for everyone... even if that something can be objectively measured and is an absolute step back... as this decision was. You would think that consumers could all remember that they are consumers (first) but that's not how fans work. Fans put the corp. above even their own self interests. If Apple wanted to HALVE speeds again in M3, the same types would argue the same supporting points. Why? Because Apple cannot be wrong.
M2 base SSD is absolutely slower than M1 base SSD. Whether that matters in
any world or not can be debated. However, a benchmark was established by an amazing speed bar set by Apple in M1 and then HALVED in M2. There was no force on Apple to halve the speed. There was no supply chain issue or crisis or <other excuse>. It very likely comes down to the M2 choice made those Macs more profitable to Apple than sticking with the same approach used in M1 (one part instead of two parts). When what is best for consumers and what maximizes profits for corp. collide, the latter usually wins. IMO, the true genius of Apple is that the very people that then endure such choices will passionately argue why the downgrade is good/fine/etc. Most other companies cannot make their customers evangelize steps back. It is a relatively unique thing about Apple Inc.
If you want to overcome the issue as a consumer, don't buy base configurations. As you add more SSD capacity to a Silicon Mac, you are generally also buying a faster SSD configuration. Some say 2TB maxes out speed, some say 4TB, none say 256GB or even 512GB... though at least 512GB overcomes the "halving" choice in M2.
If economics heavily weigh upon the decision, you can get at least 512GB to overcome the "half speed" issue and then save substantial money on exterior storage in a fast Thunderbolt enclosure. Yes, that may not be quite as nice as having it all INSIDE, but Apple charges about 3X market or more for storage💰💰💰... so again, the focus of the problem and the Apple-oriented remedy BOTH revolve around maximizing corporate profits:
- Add more SSD to overcome half speed and Apple pockets big profits on the VERY EXPENSIVE upgrades which can only be purchased from Apple.
- Don't contribute to Apple profit maximization by embracing minimal specs and pay with half speed SSD and probably too little RAM over the life of the device.
IMO, the many arguments in support of half speed SSD is not consumers thinking as consumers. Tech consumers should very rarely rationalize tech cuts in something as fundamentally important as speed. The problem here is that Apple chose to do it vs. their own established benchmark and a segment feels it MUST side with Apple no matter what.
Solve the problem by paying up for more Apple SSD (and probably at least one notch up in Apple RAM too while you are at it). If you need sizable storage and don't want to far (relatively) overpay for it, seek out much less expensive third party m.2 in a fast enclosure.
Else, step outside the walled garden and PCs still have enormous competition for RAM, SSD, etc. Where there is
much competition, much more of the money spent is buying the
product vs. adding onto the cash vault pile. Because I needed full Windows for work with some clients, I had to buy my first PC in a LONG time for "old fashioned" bootcamp. It's quite shocking to look at an 8TB upgrade from Apple being priced at $2200 and an 8GB M.2 stick being priced at $750. The same shock occurs if one needs a lot of RAM. As a long-term Apple guy who is just about everything Apple myself, I can objectively appreciate the great value of PC hardware, driven by competition. A chunk of a budget of a loaded Mac can buy a LOT of PC power.
