Is It Me? Why Does It Seem No One Minds Apple's new Machines Are NOT UPGRADABLE?

[Siliconguy]

But what can you do? The only thing you can do is not buy. Apple doesn't give a crap what we think

Exactly. And I have stopped buying Apple desktops. The midlife upgrade was and is a thing for me. The 7500 was upgraded with more RAM for System 8, as well as a new hard drive and a video card, then a G3 processor card.

In 2002 it was replaced by a Quicksilver that got more RAM, a SATA card and drive, and a USB 2 card.

The 2009 Mini got a RAM upgrade and a new hard drive. Even a 2012 mini I bought used for the stereo cabinet got a RAM upgrade and an SSD.

And my desktop Linux box recently got a CPU upgrade and a new NVME, though that was because the original died. (I thought NVME's were more reliable than hard drives. but not that one.)

And yes, my desktop is now a Linux box because I want to be able to upgrade it, not to mention I can put backup drives and such inside the case and not all over the desk.

I do have a MacBook Air, but there the points are 1) light, 2) long battery life. I don't expect it to last for a decade or two. (The Quicksilver still works.) When the Air dies or is abandoned by Apple maybe a Linux alternative will exist.

For a near Mini replacement Beelink has some interesting boxes with AMD processors with decent graphics (Unlike Intel's offering.) The GTR 7 Pro has upgradable RAM, two NVME slots, and a decent number of USB ports.

 

[Analog Kid]

Why Are There Few Complaints That None Of Apple's Consumer Level Machines Are Upgradable?

Because I don't upgrade my machines... Why would I complain about something I don't care about?

 

[Zdigital2015]

I don't even remember since when soldered RAM/SSD have become standard for MacBooks, a decade? And as @dmr727 says, there have been thousands, 10s of thousands posts about this here on MR. And, you find the same in the windows world, not every model but the higher end ones have soldered RAM/SSD ...

2012 Retina MacBook Pro 15” began soldered DRAM in the Pro line, and before that, it was the 2008 MacBook Air, the MBA has never had memory slots, ever and lost removable storage in 2018. The MBP lost removable storage in 2016. The Mac mini has alternated between the tow from 2014 onward and the iMac is a new addition from 2020 (Intel) onwards with soldered storage. Not sure where this 30 year fan has been or if they are still clinging on to their 15” non-Retina MBP, but this is hardly a new development.

 

[antiprotest]

Many people have complained, but it's such an old issue that it's not a hot topic.

 

[ThailandToo]

Apple has this all figured out and they're never going to change their approach. I would be one of the (few?) users willing to buy a new MacBook, or iMac, or Mac Studio, or Mac mini (can’t afford or justify a Mac Pro) for a couple thousand dollars if I could upgrade to a larger SSD later if needed. Since I can't, I'm sticking with my old laptop.

The profit margins are so huge for Apple that they're not going to change their strategy, as most people will either upgrade at purchase for a huge cost or just buy one with lesser storage.

Complaining won't do any good.

This is the wrong attitude. People in massive numbers yield plenty of power. The problem is all of the people who aren’t on the same page. This company is colluding, so we buyers should collude as well. Collude to not buy 8GB RAM base models, collude to not buy 256GB of SSD, and collude to say no if Apple doesn’t make them both upgradable.

People do have power. If Apple can make more money selling more Macs to buyers who want to upgrade they should and would if otherwise everyone colludes to not buy. Just create buyers collusion groups in mass. It is possible but for the weak who rather depart from their money than have desires.

 

[bousozoku]

Where have you been?

I've been hanging on to my mid-2012 quad-core i7 MacBook Pro with GeForce 650M for a very long time because the next set of MacBook Pro models had parts I couldn't replace.

I finally bought a refurbished M1 MacBook Air, fully loaded, because I couldn't upgrade it. I like refurbished units anyway, but it was quite a bit for the best of the lowest model. Getting something less expensive and needing to replace it because it wasn't enough wasn't an option.

Besides, it's so much faster than my mid-2012 machine, I should be able to go with a 2028 model next time.

 

[splifingate]

just go through the purchasing process of one of their machines on their site

Yes; I have done this; many times.

I have a double-handful of AAPL machines that allow me to insert alternate RAM/CPU/HDD, a handful of AAPL machines that I can insert (replace-with) alternate RAM/HDD, and a few that I can only change the HDD.

My current M2 Studio has a pre-defined RAM capacity, and slotted proprietary solid-state storage . . . storage for which there is no off-the-shelf alternative. I purchased what I knew to be what I understood as would satisfy my expected workloads.

I am no engineer, but--AFAIU--moving RAM and Storage closer to the CPU provides great benefit (the fruits of which, IMO, are perceptually tangible in my daily use).

*sigh*

That the Day would come that I might have to defend my opinion as an individual who holds stock in only my own ingenuity--and express nothing at the foot of the artist formerly known as "X"--is a rather depressing self-immolation

 

[ThomasJL]

Why Are There Few Complaints That None Of Apple's Consumer Level Machines Are Upgradable?

There are many people who think that Apple's astronomical financial success (under Tim Cook's so-called "leadership") means that Apple's products are better now than they ever were. They equate record high level of profits with a record high level of consumer-friendliness.

Such people are the also same ones who think that consumer-unfriendly flat design is good while consumer-friendly skeuomorphism is bad. They lack critical thinking skills.

Their lack of critical thinking skills is why they are so supportive of Tim Cook. They think Cook is doing a good job as CEO because Apple stock is preforming excellently.

 

[bousozoku]

There are many people who think that Apple's astronomical financial success (under Tim Cook's so-called "leadership") means that Apple's products are better now than they ever were. They equate record high level of profits with a record high level of consumer-friendliness.

Such people are the also same ones who think that consumer-unfriendly flat design is good while consumer-friendly skeuomorphism is bad. They lack critical thinking skills.

Their lack of critical thinking skills is why they are so supportive of Tim Cook. They think Cook is doing a good job as CEO because Apple stock is preforming excellently.

Contrast that to the mid-1990s when Apple's software was bad and they were charging US$79.99 for every major system upgrade and US$79.99 for language packs and US$59.99 for font packages.

Apple were still using their own (Cirrus Logic?) graphics hardware and there were few chances of finding a plug-in graphics card because they didn't always have a standard bus.

 

[heretiq]

Some people want extreme upgradability and some people are happy with simplicity, limited upgradability (via external devices), and predictable reliability and performance over an acceptable shelf life. The former purchase PCs and are happy with their choices. The latter purchase Apple devices with full knowledge of what they are getting and are happy with their purchase. Woe to those who purchase one and expect the benefits of the other.

 

[heretiq]

There are many people who think that Apple's astronomical financial success (under Tim Cook's so-called "leadership") means that Apple's products are better now than they ever were. They equate record high level of profits with a record high level of consumer-friendliness.

Such people are the also same ones who think that consumer-unfriendly flat design is good while consumer-friendly skeuomorphism is bad. They lack critical thinking skills.

Their lack of critical thinking skills is why they are so supportive of Tim Cook. They think Cook is doing a good job as CEO because Apple stock is preforming excellently.

Strong opinions, this person has.

 

[rm5]

No, it's not just you, because I share your frustration.

 

[jchap]

Everyone hates everything, and we just stomach as much as we can and grumble a bit while continuing to give them money to keep doing it, until one day there's just too much to accept and we start screaming and throw the photocopier down the stairwell and get escorted out by company security.

Hopefully this is not a recollection of your own story...

 

[theorist9]

Does it make sense given how Apple Silicon is constructed? Yes.

Given how they are constructed, the non-upgradeability does make sense for the RAM.

But it doesn't make sense for the SSD in their desktops—especially the Mac Studio, whose NAND chips are slotted.

Indeed, you can upgrade the NAND in the Mac Pro to 2/4/8 TB; it will just cost you more than what you would have paid if you'd upgraded at the time of purchase:

Apple 2TB SSD Upgrade Kit for Mac Pro

The SSD kit for Mac Pro enables you to upgrade the internal SSD storage capacity of yourMac Pro. Installation required. Buy now at apple.com.

www.apple.com

What also doesn't make sense is that the entire logic board of the AS Mac Pro--which I believe can simply be slid out by the consumer, as that was the case for the Intel Mac Pro—is probably not upgradeable. That box (case/fans/power supply/etc.) could last decade or more. Imagine a pro user who needs to upgrade their MP every three or four years. It would be ridiculous for Apple to force them to buy an entirely new machine each time, when all they need is a new board. Apple pays lip service to being green, but they often fail in practice.

 

[Applɘ Aꙅylum]

That's one of the areas within Apple's Walled Garden best left handled by Apple.

Enjoy strolling around the Garden.

 

[EntropyQ3]

Apple has this all figured out and they're never going to change their approach. I would be one of the (few?) users willing to buy a new MacBook, or iMac, or Mac Studio, or Mac mini (can’t afford or justify a Mac Pro) for a couple thousand dollars if I could upgrade to a larger SSD later if needed. Since I can't, I'm sticking with my old laptop.

The profit margins are so huge for Apple that they're not going to change their strategy, as most people will either upgrade at purchase for a huge cost or just buy one with lesser storage.

Complaining won't do any good.

This is the fallacy.
People simply don’t buy a Mac at all, rather than get miniscule RAM and NAND.
Some buy minimum spec.
Some bite the bullet and upgrade the Mac to the lowest they believe they can make work.
Some don’t buy a Mac at all.

And that last category is rather substantial, and are conveniently ignored in the quote above.

Even among those that do buy Macs, Apples pricing policies on RAM and storage are clearly costing them goodwill. We know we are getting skinned alive on those, and even among those that accept it, nobody likes it.

I understand that a lot of posters here are shareholders that will vigorously defend anything they believe increases Apples profitability, but the problem in this case is that Apples pricing policies for this may actually reduce profits. Apples RAM and NAND are dirt cheap. They could easily double the amount at totally negligeable cost. But that would gain them more buyers in total, and they would still get upgrade money from the category that like to have a no-worry margin in their computer purchases. And having more buyers also means more profit from Apples services. (Not to mention, less disgruntled customers.)

I think Apple are shooting themselves in the foot, by having too simplified spreadsheets in their modelling.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Why Are There Few Complaints That None Of Apple's Consumer Level Machines Are Upgradable?

Define "few." People come to these forums every day, a ridiculous amount, to complain about the RAM and storage in base models, and the price of upgrading both at purchase. As if any of this were news in 2024. These forums are overflowing with complaints.

If you don't like Apple's business model, spend your money elsewhere. Another poster earlier in this thread said that such a sentiment is "vapid." So is thinking that the supposed good ol' days still exist, when computer shoppers were just a bunch of proto anarchic tech bros. Ahh, nostalgia.

Welcome to the 21st century, where everyone is a computer shopper and Apple's business model is aimed at the mass consumer market, who would never crack open a computer to make an upgrade. Buy your upgrades at the time of purchase, or get the base spec model and turn it over sooner, or shop elsewhere.

 

[RedWeasel]

Yet, all I see when it comes to the reviews is people fawning over the many colors the iMacs come in now. Really? When did the thing's decorative compatibility become so much more than what it was meant for? Computing.

When computers became lifestyle objects for the masses. That's what pretty much all of Apple devices are, for better or worse.

I want a computer that computes, not turns me into a walking credit card for an already very wealthy company (the second most valuable company in the nation behind Microsoft at the moment).

Apple computers are not computers in the sense of compute platforms for you to, say, program your own stuff. They are computers just as a means to an end, which is primarily media consumption. In some cases maybe also media production.

 

[Sami13496]

We don’t need to convince you of anything. Please feel free to buy Windows machine and “enjoy” it. After that your next machine will be Apple even without convincing.

 

[curnalpanic]

Never heard of this before. Must be just you.

 

[theorist9]

Apple computers are not computers in the sense of compute platforms for you to, say, program your own stuff. They are computers just as a means to an end, which is primarily media consumption. In some cases maybe also media production.

I'm afraid that's inaccurate. Here are just of a few of the many counterexamples:

1) Macs are particularly popular among physical scientists like myself because they have a great UI, allow us to use our favorite programs for publishing papers and analyzing data, and also offer a native Unix interface for doing programming.

2) Check out the CS majors at the US's top colleges and universities. A lot of them are on Macs.

3) Many large enterprises, like IBM and Google, have large numbers of Mac users.

Etc., etc.

Check out this quote from Sam Rebelsky, Prof. of Computer Science at Grinnell. It's from 2016, but it's as applicable today as it was then. What part of this says "primarily media consumption"?

"However, I will note that five of the six current CS faculty use Macbook Pro laptops as their everyday computer (or at least as their laptop computers). Why do we use Macbooks? I can only speak for myself. First, Macbooks run a variant of Unix underneath, and I want to use a machine that runs Linux. Second, Macbooks provide a nicer user interface than most Linux systems; 30+ years of UI design experience does have its benefits. Third, some of the software I need to use runs only on Macs (or at least doesn’t run on Linux workstations). Whether or not I like it, I need to have access to some version of Microsoft Word and Microsoft Office in order to collaborate with people around campus and around the world."

SamR's Musings: What kind of computer should you buy? (#2)

Yes, it may be the case that most Macs are used primarily for content consumption, since that's the case with most computers. But that's entirely different from your claim, which is that they are not useful for much beyond media consumption/production.

 

[Jamie0003]

Why Are There Few Complaints That None Of Apple's Consumer Level Machines Are Upgradable?

So, I just received an email that "I've been warned" that I was going against Apple's community forums and that I would have my "privileges" suspended due to breaking their community standards, lol.

Really...

While asking why Apple Music doesn't shuffle properly, I also mentioned that I won't be buying the new iMac M3 or any of the other new machines because none of them are upgradable. You have to pay $200 per upgrade per step AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, otherwise, neither the user nor Apple can upgrade them afterward. If you don't believe me, just go through the purchasing process of one of their machines on their site, and read the statement for yourself.

Pardon me for being old, but this goes against everything I understand about computers.

I am amazed that I seldom hear any complaints from anyone that none of the new machines allow for future upgrades, neither by the user nor by Apple once the system is ordered and out the door. Their recommendation is to anticipate all the internal storage, RAM, etc., that you will need and order it as upgrades at the time of purchase. Of course, for a hefty Apple premium of $200 a step. Meaning 256G SSD to 564 will cost $200. Going from 8G RAM to 16 will cost you $200. And on and on. I bought a 2T Samsung external SSD only a few months ago for $100, so this is nuts.

Yet, all I see when it comes to the reviews is people fawning over the many colors the iMacs come in now. Really? When did the thing's decorative compatibility become so much more than what it was meant for? Computing.

Now, anyone... If you can successfully convince this thirty-plus-year Apple former fanboy why his next computer should still be an Apple, bless your tiny little heart. Because I've already found three machines made by name brand PC companies that are faster than the M3, come with 16G of RAM 1T or 2T internal SSDs, for less than the iMac M3 and did I say, they've been clocked in as far speedier than the M3?

I've had it. I don't like being rooked, nor forced into spending money unnecessarily. But it would seem over the past ten years, Apple has increasingly changed its focus from producing machines that just work, to machines that just work only if you're willing to subscribe to more and more iCloud space, Apple Music, or this or that. I want a computer that computes, not turns me into a walking credit card for an already very wealthy company (the second most valuable company in the nation behind Microsoft at the moment). As much as I don't like Windows, having worked on them for decades, I can learn to live with the increased amount of access to computing that I seem to have lost these past few years if need be.

If you want a machine that’s upgradable, don’t buy Apple devices. It’s as simple as that.

Whether Apple did it deliberately is up for debate, but it’s literally physically impossible with the m series chips due to most things being on the same die.

 

[RedWeasel]

Macs are particularly popular among physical scientists like myself because they have a great UI, allow us to use our favorite programs for publishing papers and analyzing data, and also offer a native Unix interface for doing programming.

I consider at least part of that as "media creation", but I'll give you the bit regarding data analysis. Although this is probably mostly on an ad-hoc basis, as macOS does not really make a good target run-time for automation anymore.

Regarding programming, you mention the native UNIX interface. What part of that are you actually using for doing programming? What I see mostly today in this area is people using something like VS Code to then target Linux containers as their runtime.

Yes, it may be the case that most Macs are used primarily for content consumption, since that's the case with most computers. But that's entirely different from your claim, which is that they are not useful for much beyond media consumption/production.

I did not claim that they are not useful for something beyond media consumption or production, but that they are mostly not used beyond that. And I also think they are not designed for that.

Why do we use Macbooks? I can only speak for myself. First, Macbooks run a variant of Unix underneath, and I want to use a machine that runs Linux.

I don't know Mr. Rebelsky, but conflating Linux with UNIX seems to be a bit of a disqualification, especially coming from a professor of computer science.

 

[Unami]

Is it annoying that you can’t upgrade the SSD or RAM after the fact? Yes? Does it make sense given how Apple Silicon is constructed? Yes.

Why does a soldered SSD make sense? It's not faster than SSDs in a slot, nor is it needed on the Mac Studio where it's not soldered (but also prohibited from being user upgradeable). It might make more sense with the RAM, although the M1 worked just fine with the RAM on seperate chips (which are now integrated in the SiP - but it's still kind of doubtful if that really gives an advantage)

 

[leman]

While asking why Apple Music doesn't shuffle properly, I also mentioned that I won't be buying the new iMac M3 or any of the other new machines because none of them are upgradable. You have to pay $200 per upgrade per step AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE, otherwise, neither the user nor Apple can upgrade them afterward. If you don't believe me, just go through the purchasing process of one of their machines on their site, and read the statement for yourself.

Pardon me for being old, but this goes against everything I understand about computers.

Good morning! Macs have been sold as non-upgradeable computers since 2012 if I remember correctly and Apple started using soldered on or non-standard parts in them in 2016. I really wonder how it took you 10 years to notice this.

There have been plenty discussions about this, but the quick summary is that only a very small (albeit vocal) group of users cares about it. Most of us care about other things.