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

[sleeptodream]

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.

macOS.

 

[hajime]

I've objected and complained for many years now, but I've realised it's futile. I'll probably continue to buy an iPhone, but not a Mac, and certainly not an iPad or any other  gadgets. When I can't run macOS on my old Mac mini any longer, or any PC that is (x86 support will eventually be dropped), I'll switch to Linux (most likely Ubuntu). That's just the way it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We have to wait for Tim to be replaced to have a chance.

 

[za9ra22]

We have to wait for Tim to be replaced to have a chance.

Oh, let's see, the CEO who has made Apple the biggest company in the world in terms of valuation, has ensured a cash on hand level unheard of before in the company, and who is one of the world's acknowledged supply chain experts. Yeah, he's due for replacement real soon.

I admit I don't like many of the policies he's overseen, but for shareholders - the only people he is actually accountable to - he's about as good as it gets.

 

[chaospet]

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

I take it you haven't been in the forums much in the past decade? This has been a VERY frequent topic of discussion/complaint.

 

[boss.king]

Oh, let's see, the CEO who has made Apple the biggest company in the world in terms of valuation, has ensured a cash on hand level unheard of before in the company, and who is one of the world's acknowledged supply chain experts. Yeah, he's due for replacement real soon.

I admit I don't like many of the policies he's overseen, but for shareholders - the only people he is actually accountable to - he's about as good as it gets.

You know he's not a lich, right? He can't just continue as CEO for all of time, he's going to be replaced at some point.

 

[hajime]

I would rather Apple goes back to make user upgradable computers than continues to make "fast" and "thin" computers for youtubers to benchmark.

 

[JoEw]

If Apple didn’t charge so much to upgrade their SSDs and RAM upon order I don’t think as many people would care.

if you actually spec a MacBook Air with minimum 16GB ram and 512GB storage you’re right at MacBook Pro territory. Obviously that’s on purpose, but if you plan to keep your MacBook for 6-8 years. The MBA with a default config makes really no sense existing.

Also Apple silicon restricting to one external display is a really odd design trade off decision. I know a few people who bought an MBA with high specs and were pissed to find out their Mac is completely can’t support a standard dual monitor workflow.

When people ask me what MacBook to buy I tell them to buy a 14” MacBook Pro base M3 Pro config. Anything below that is a gimped experience IMO.

 

[PomUsTek]

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.

Oh boy. You are kind of late to the party. But if you want a serious answer, I'll attempt a quick one:

Apple has changed its approach to the use of SOC (system-on-a-chip) for various benefits. SOC systems tend to have the RAM as part of the same chip as the processor and various other parts of the system. Benefits include speed, power efficiency, and improvements in how different system components (CPU, GPU, Neural, etc) access RAM.

Apple has focused lately on extreme power efficiency. Pretty much any laptop today more than capable of what the majority of users use them for. So Apple has focused on delivering extreme battery life to users, as one of the biggest "real" benefits they can deliver. Pretty much any Apple device will deliver over 20 hours of typical usage these days. That's huge.

Apple has tailored its chips to different usages with these priorities in mind, and STILL delivers great performance at all levels. The basic chips are already at or close to the top of their performance class. The Pro chips add graphics capability, encoding capability, RAM options, and RAM efficiency to target most creative uses (photo, video, etc). Max chips provide higher-still CPU performance, massively improved graphics performance, for the most demanding production tasks... in a power-efficient laptop that lets you do heavy work on battery with performance that rivals any other laptop (and almost any desktop) drawing full power. The Ultra - doubles this, for desktops.

The internal storage is not really comparable to your external SSD because the internal storage is worlds faster. And sure, it seems pricey, and upgradeability would be nice... but there are tradeoffs in design, reliability, and thermals that have led to the current situation. It's not too bad.

 

[dmr727]

But if you want a serious answer, I'll attempt a quick one:

You had a good answer, but I'll be willing to bet the OP doesn't return to this thread. That should tell us all about this guy's intentions behind his post.

 

[za9ra22]

I would rather Apple goes back to make user upgradable computers than continues to make "fast" computers for youtubers to benchmark.

I understand that, certainly, to the point where I'd quite happily say 'me too'. But we aren't really the market Apple are building for, and the one they are building for appears to be much more profitable. It appears the proportion of customers we represent is not significant enough for them to be concerned with.

I think that's a shame. I also think it's a reflection of how the computer market has basically arrived at a point where almost any bit of hardware less than 10 years old can do just about any job most users want of it.

Not all, certainly, but most jobs for most users, and in a context where most users could happily manage with a $100 Raspberry Pi or a $200 mini PC which would make them totally happy and could be tossed away in 18 months if needed, making increasingly powerful, sophisticated and upgradable hardware when the market now is much more in operating systems and services makes insufficient sense for Apple to invest in.

 

[RSmith2023]

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.

Where have YOU been? This has been an issue/pain-point for years now and people have been complaining about it since the 1st time Apple soldered RAM to the MB of a MacBook Pro...

This is NOT new..

 

[Regulus67]

You had a good answer, but I'll be willing to bet the OP doesn't return to this thread. That should tell us all about this guy's intentions behind his post.

I have noticed this a few times lately in other threads, but missed this.
Thank you for the heads up. I forgot to check, because several people who I respect, also commented here

 

[macsimcon]

Part of it is a genuine performance reason. The transfer speed between SSD and RAM can be faster than if it was on an interface slot such as NVME.

This is the Apple lie, and is false. There are PCs with faster benchmarks than Apple’s M-series Macs, and they lack integrated memory, but still have NVMe storage on the logic board.

Quinn Nelson debunked this claim months ago.

 

[Howard2k]

Also Apple silicon restricting to one external display is a really odd design trade off decision. I know a few people who bought an MBA with high specs and were pissed to find out their Mac is completely can’t support a standard dual monitor workflow.

What percentage of MBA users would use dual external monitors do you think?

 

[TheWraith]

...and the original poster never returned.

 

[JoEw]

What percentage of MBA users would use dual external monitors do you think?

Not sure but it’s a functionality Intel based laptops and desktops have supported for well over a decade. Why segment your product line with this?

 

[hojoon0724]

It’s a trade off. You can’t upgrade it, but it’s thinner smaller what have you. I’m on the side that it is worth the trade off. But everyone has different thresholds to what’s worth the trade off and Apple would change their strategy if their margins would be affected (butterfly keyboard, touchbar, etc). Just don’t buy it and it’s a problem that will solve itself

 

[drrich2]

I'll just answer for me. If there is a clear functional need to prevent upgradability (e.g.: if system-on-a-chip offers serious performance gains, but those components have to be built together), then I may not like it, but I'm not morally offended by it.

If I don't see a clear functional need, and the design seems to be blocking competition and locking users into ridiculously over-priced upgrade options, that I strongly resent.

From what I've read, modern M series Macs need the original SSD functioning in order to boot up. Exactly how set-in-stone that is isn't clear, but it read like if that thing goes, your computer is a brick.

That matters to me. In 2017, I bought a newly released 27" 5K iMac I'd been waiting for because I wanted those fancy USB-C ports. Fast-forward to later 2023, my Fusion Drive broke down. I was about to buy a Mac Studio to replace it, but turns out a roughly $300 Samsung T7 Shield 4-TB drive plugged into a USB-C port not only gave me similar 'look and feel' performance, but Blurb book projects and Photo's huge photo library open faster than before.

Around $300 bucks and the old iMac is otherwise still going strong, sparing me buying an expensive new system I don't need yet.

If I can't boot off an external Thunderbolt drive with an M series Mac, then yeah, I'd resent that.

And I resent the upgrade charges anyway. Apple's a premium brand, I get that, but some of it's ridiculous to me.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

There are threads with people griping that Macs don't come with more than 8gb ram.

But generally, I feel the reality is that the majority of users just don't upgrade the specs in their computers. They buy what they need at the time, then replace it a couple of years later when something. better comes along or when their current model no longer meets their needs. There are plenty of professionals who just aren't tech savvy and they don't see themselves cracking open their laptop to install additional ram or replace the hard drive ever.

As an example, I can bet my last dollar that the majority of teachers in my school don't know how much ram their work laptops come with, or what the speed of the processor is, nor do they care. Tell them it has an i7 over the previous model's i5 and they will look at you with eyes glazed over. All they want to know is - is it fast? Will it lag when zooming? What's the battery life like?

For me personally, I suppose it's because I don't need the Pro models, which is why I probably won't ever feel the pinch of having to spec out a model with 64gb ram or more than 1tb of storage. I bought the base model M1 MBA in 2020 when it was first announced, and it's still working great for me more than 3 years later. If there is any bottleneck from the base 8gb ram, I have not felt it. And if I were to say, upgrade to an M3 15" MBA later this year, and decide to get more ram and storage, the amount of money I need to pay doesn't exactly work out to all that much, especially when I spread it over the next 3-4 years. People spend more on what, Taylor Swift concert tickets?

And that's probably why this isn't a hill I see myself dying on. Not saying that Apple's spec upgrades aren't expensive, but it doesn't exactly break the bank for me, and it really just doesn't annoy me enough to raise a stink over it.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Back in the days, you pretty much needed upgrades if you wanted to keep things snappy, or if you had differ requirements. Majority of users were using HDDs. SWAP was much slower. OS and app updates took a bigger toll on resources at a quicker rate. Chips didn't have a billion cores. Average users weren't doing tasks on their machines that's normal today.

Nowadays it's different. OS and app software is much better. SSDs replaced HDDs, which also makes SWAP so much faster. Chips are on God level compared to yesterday's chips. For the average user today, the user themself is the bottleneck, never truly stressing their device for many years to come.

Hardware and software is just miles better today, and outpaces the average consumer's needs even on the lower end.

For the minority who ends up needing to upgrade, tough luck, sell your machine and buy a better one. We know you got the money for it. 😅 That's the corporate mentality now.

So it's it understandable how Apple and other manufacturers can get away with it.

But it's also understandable why the word "Pro" is just considered a marketing term today.

 

[oldmacs]

I'm incredibly frustrated with it. It's bad for the environment it makes you reliant on Apple's incredibly overpriced upgrades.

I got 11 years out of my Mid 2012 MacBook Pro, only because I could upgrade it - it was only $1200. It started out as 4GB/500HDD and ended with 16GB/2TBSSD + a wifi/bluetooth upgrade and a couple of battery replacements. Still use it as a workhorse machine. I want similar milage out of my 2023 MacBook Pro M2, but ended up shelling out $5150 for it to get 32GB of ram and 4TB SSD - I don't even think I'll get as long out of it, and I worry what will happen when the battery is toast and Apple no longer offers battery service.

Sustainability in the tech world is messed up - we should be trying to get as long as possible out of our machines to reduce the frequency of producing a new machine, as that's where the environmental damage is done. I hate the idea of having to get a new machine every couple of years.

 

[Chuckeee]

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.

Golly gee. I am so glad you pointed that out. I never noticed that before and I never heard a single peek about the before now.

🤭

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Apple cares about the vast majority of people

No, they don't. If Apple cared about the vast majority of people, they'd focus much more on affordability than they do. They'd focus on software quality and stability.

OP had it right with "I want a computer that computes, not turns me into a walking credit card for an already very wealthy company"

 

[Luposian]

When Apple went to Intel, I stopped liking Apple. In fact, I kinda hated them. But, during that time, I came up with a saying (that still applies to today):

"Apple will do what Apple will do..."

I like Apple for going back to making their OWN computers (that aren't glorified Windows PC's running macOS), but never think for a moment that we actually matter to them. We are nothing more than mere dollars signs to them. However, if their coffers ran dry BECAUSE of our complaints, THEN they might change tactics, but until then... SUCK IT UP, BUTTERCUP.

 

[Chuckeee]

Yea right. It’s been a downwards spiral since Apple gave up on the idea of the G5 laptop.