How do you define value? If for you it’s getting the most RAM at lowest price, then yes, Apple was never about value. But the overall value proposition of their computers tends to be quite high, and with Apple Silicon it’s absolutely fantastic. You simply can’t get an ultra compact laptop with that kind of burst performance, battery, and usability for that price anywhere else.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is It Me? Why Does It Seem No One Minds Apple's new Machines Are NOT UPGRADABLE?
- Thread starter gemini62167
- Start date
-
- Tags
- non upgradable
- Sort by reaction score
How do you define value? If for you it’s getting the most RAM at lowest price, then yes, Apple was never about value. But the overall value proposition of their computers tends to be quite high, and with Apple Silicon it’s absolutely fantastic. You simply can’t get an ultra compact laptop with that kind of burst performance, battery, and usability for that price anywhere else.
*Looks down at my work X1 Carbon vs the past versions of Lenovo boxes*
This is an industry-wide change. Just saying.
This is an industry-wide change. Just saying.
Yes, but the difference is that in the PC world, there are many other options. I can point to Lenovos that do allow upgrades. And even if every OEM decided to do this, then there is Framework, etc.,
Fix Consumer Electronics
We know consumer electronics can be better for you and for the environment. Unlike most products, ours are open for you to repair and upgrade
At least in the past, I could do the same with hackintoshes, but with ARM that is much more difficult now.
Out of curiosity what is Lenovo charging for ram/storage upgrades?
Edit:
Wait! I can see that my self. Seems like Apple is charging 4-5x as much as Lenovo for upgrading the base config from 256GB to 1 TB storage (at least in Danish prices - might be different overseas).
The Lenovo I checked comes with 16 GB ram soldered in. Can’t be upgraded. But we all know that 8GB in Mac world equals 16 in windows 🙄😂
Last edited:
And for another Lenovo upgrading from 16 to 32 gb ram is available at 1/3rd of what Apple charges for upgrading from 16 to 24.
But sure. If they become inspired by Apple and solder everything in they could bump these prices. But if people see that RAM/storage is much cheaper elsewhere they will pick some other brand instead of Lenovo because it also runs windows. Basically Apple can only due this as long as they provide an ecosystem and OS that can something unique
But sure. If they become inspired by Apple and solder everything in they could bump these prices. But if people see that RAM/storage is much cheaper elsewhere they will pick some other brand instead of Lenovo because it also runs windows. Basically Apple can only due this as long as they provide an ecosystem and OS that can something unique
And, it's well worth noting, on these M-based machines (all of them) that booting from an external drive isn't possible (unlike all prior Macs) so when the internal SSD does die, the whole system is gone.
If Apple wanted to they could offer both options. We once had Fusion Drive machines with an SSD for fast access and an HDD for long-term storage; why not fusion memory?
You would have the faster soldered stuff for foreground processes and then standard DIMM memory for background ones. It would be possible to code the OS and applications to know the difference and allocate accordingly.
Apple could if they so chose engineer access to these DIMM sockets that was easy for the end user to access (like the ones on older Macbooks)
You would have the faster soldered stuff for foreground processes and then standard DIMM memory for background ones. It would be possible to code the OS and applications to know the difference and allocate accordingly.
Apple could if they so chose engineer access to these DIMM sockets that was easy for the end user to access (like the ones on older Macbooks)
If you're only seeing models "going to the grave", isn't that, by definition, excluding the ones folks upgraded themselves and are continuing to use?
One can't really accurately report on machines that aren't crossing ones radar
They have always charged premium prices.
Even with the Performa line, the machines were a better bargain with corner cutting but they were more expensive than the competition.
I consider Apple Silicon Macs to be cheaper than competition for better overall value. But that’s according to my needs. Value is a relative term.
It will be interesting to see how much of a benefit there really is once the upcoming ARMs hit Windows (like the Surface Pro 10s). The rumor is that they are just as performant as the M1s at least and maybe even the M3s. Yet they don't have an SoC.
Edited to add: my i7-13700HX RTX 4060 16" laptop (where I upgraded the RAM and added another SSD) is just as fast as most of the Apple M2 machines. So not really sure that SoCs are the advantage you think they are? Granted it is using like 10x the power...⚡
They are a better deal, in general, but as with my M1 MacBook Air, it was somewhat more expensive when fully equipped. It was more expensive than my ASUS ZenBook Pro with RTX 3050 Ti and OLED.
Well, I'mma have to disagree with you here. Apple's reliability has taken a nose dive since 2015, and that is one of the factors used to gauge value. We still have a 2014 MacBook Air running like a champ, yet 2015 MacBook is dead, 2016 MacBook Pro has been "fixed" by Apple multiple times, 2017 MacBook Pro is dead, 2019 MacBook Pro has been repaired twice.
Both the 2009 and 2011 MacBooks Pros before, lasted more than 10 years, the 2019 barely made it 3 (and I'm not alone if you check this forum).
One of the remaining iPhone users bought a new iPhone last year, already the battery barely lasts a day, while I'm still getting 3+ days out of my launch edition Zenfone 9.
Nearly all the new features of the iPhone 15, have been on friends Android phones for 3 or more years.
Edit: Ars just published this article about Linux, but it shows a drop in Mac users and increase in Windows users last year. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/linux-continues-growing-market-share-reaches-4-of-desktops/
Last edited:
Sure has
One can really "feel" the Tim Cook lemon squeezing on the product quality front
"Have we mentioned we sell Applecare+!?"
(not a coincidence I'm sure ... cut quality and start hawking warranty plans more and more)
No, you're right.
Maybe others will jump in and say otherwise but the sort of thing that would happen typically, would be you'd want to upgrade the graphics card as that would see a huge increase in performance, but you'd find your power block wasn't powerful enough or it physically wouldn't fit.
Or you'd want to upgrade to thunderbolt ports or whatever, but the BIOS needed to be upgraded, or they'd be incompatible anyway. Or you'd want to put in a new HD and find the BIOS was physically limited to a certain size.
Or you'd do loads of things and find there was still a bottleneck somewhere and as the system is limited by its slowest part, it didn't make any difference (Bus speed for instance).
I'm sure there are people who successfully managed it- and I did have limited success too- but generally you had to really be into it, start with something that could be upgraded for size, power, heat dispersal etc, and really understand what you were getting yourself into.
Very often, you'd get 6 years into a machine and find so many things had improved or changed anyway (Wifi, Bluetooth, USB, bus speed, physical RAM connectors) that spending ages to get some part of it to work better didn't really make a lot of sense and that's basically how 99% of the population ended up.
Very few people ever really want to get into their machine, and besides, newer machines are very often actually cheaper than tinkering with an old machine and everything is up to date.
You’ve definitely described it well. I remember going to lunch with the guys I worked with. We were all software engineers. Some were more into the upgrade stuff than others but it was a frequent topic. We’d go to CompUSA after lunch and work through options. The conversation often went down the path of “if I have to replace all of that I might as well buy a new machine”.
Right, but again, that is why it is great when you can upgrade on the front end and save hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Yeah maybe I won't upgrade my 32GB of RAM to 64GB before getting a new one. But it only cost me like $45 bucks to go from 16GB to 32GB because I could buy the RAM and upgrade it when I got the laptop.
And Macs used to be able to do this. I used to be able to buy from third party resellers and upgrade my RAM and HDD on my Macs.
One of the big reasons I got my M2 Mac Mini was because of its lack of after-market upgradability. Having built a number of Windows machines, I honestly got sick and tired of always having to play catch up with video cards, memory, motherboards, CPU's etc... and with how expensive all of those components have become in the past few years, having something pre-built that I knew would last at least 5 years was a no brainer.
You would expect this to some degree I think. The M1 has been with us for 3-4 years, during which time there has been steady advance in processor and system performance - as predicted by Moore's Law.
Even if the M1 set a benchmark at the time (and I don't think it did, so much as merely a bit of a skip forward), it gave everyone else a performance target to aim for. In this business, playing catchup is a rapid game, even if it requires a lot of capital investment. As such, what performative benefit was (possibly) gained from SoC advances, is now likely possible, and tomorrow certainly bettered, by prior architectures.
Where the SoC architecture does apparently create notable benefits is in energy use rather than outright performance. We tend to forget that this is actually as crucial and in many circumstances, more so. Certainly for me, and my use case, a very energy efficient system is of far more value than one which seeks out marginal performance gains.
Money.
At the end of the day, one way or another, that's the answer to every decision made by every for-profit company.
For various reasons, Apple sees non-upgradeability as more profitable than upgradeability, so here we are.
The only way this will change is if enough people jump ship and shift the profit balance. However, since most users will never upgrade their machines anyway, and there are few noteworthy alternatives from competitors, Apple will just continue doing what it does.
For the record, I do think the upgrades are overpriced, but again, money. They'll charge as much as people will bear. Welcome to capitalism.
At the end of the day, one way or another, that's the answer to every decision made by every for-profit company.
For various reasons, Apple sees non-upgradeability as more profitable than upgradeability, so here we are.
The only way this will change is if enough people jump ship and shift the profit balance. However, since most users will never upgrade their machines anyway, and there are few noteworthy alternatives from competitors, Apple will just continue doing what it does.
For the record, I do think the upgrades are overpriced, but again, money. They'll charge as much as people will bear. Welcome to capitalism.
Dunno why everyone is moaning.
Just got a new Dell 7680 from work. i9-13950HX. I could only get 32Gb RAM at the moment - not customisable. Same with the SSD. I can stick a second one in but the main one is fixed at 1TB. The worst thing? On a 16" screen I have 1920x1200 crappy IPS screen. Oh and the 1 hour battery. And the fact the sustained performance is for about 2 minutes before it overheats and throttles itself down to an Intel Atom. This costs £3500 in the UK.
So I get my 14" MBP M1 Pro. Granted it's fractionally slower for the first 2 minutes, but it can do that FOREVER on a battery still so it finishes before the Dell. And to replace it with a new 16" MBP with 36Gb of RAM and 1TB disk it's £3200 which is cheaper than the Dell. And you get a much better screen, a battery that isn't a POS. Oh and no Windows!
Just got a new Dell 7680 from work. i9-13950HX. I could only get 32Gb RAM at the moment - not customisable. Same with the SSD. I can stick a second one in but the main one is fixed at 1TB. The worst thing? On a 16" screen I have 1920x1200 crappy IPS screen. Oh and the 1 hour battery. And the fact the sustained performance is for about 2 minutes before it overheats and throttles itself down to an Intel Atom. This costs £3500 in the UK.
So I get my 14" MBP M1 Pro. Granted it's fractionally slower for the first 2 minutes, but it can do that FOREVER on a battery still so it finishes before the Dell. And to replace it with a new 16" MBP with 36Gb of RAM and 1TB disk it's £3200 which is cheaper than the Dell. And you get a much better screen, a battery that isn't a POS. Oh and no Windows!
If someone would rather spend less on a lesser windows product then that is their choice. Nobody is force to buy a Mac, Apple know what they are doing to make the most money they can by focusing on higher quality products. It’s business.
I don’t moan to VW that their Lamborghini SUVs are more expensive than their Seat SUVs.
I remember when Sony Vaio PCs were a thing, they were a nice, high quality PC brand (despite the software they ran) very comparable in price to Macs. The fact that there are no premium PC brands anymore says it all really, windows users want cheap not quality.
I don’t moan to VW that their Lamborghini SUVs are more expensive than their Seat SUVs.
I remember when Sony Vaio PCs were a thing, they were a nice, high quality PC brand (despite the software they ran) very comparable in price to Macs. The fact that there are no premium PC brands anymore says it all really, windows users want cheap not quality.