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

[Ctrlos]

It sucks that you can’t.

But…

- it’s been this way for years

- Even on its purchased config a Mac will last a decade

- Nobody complains you cannot upgrade your phone yourself.

 

[turbineseaplane]

- Nobody complains you cannot upgrade your phone yourself.

1. Not the same type of device in terms of normal expectations of what one can do (with a full size computer)

2. People do actually wish for an SD card slot to expand storage. It may be a smaller and quieter group, but they are out there.

 

[wanha]

Like with any other decision, there are pros and cons to such things.

In an ideal world, everything is upgradable without sacrificing performance or size or Apple's bottom line.

Unfortunately, we live in the real one and one has precious little recourse against Apple's decision, unless one is willing to wade into the waters of alternative OSes. I am not.

 

[Lift Bar]

1. Not the same type of device in terms of normal expectations of what one can do (with a full size computer)

2. People do actually wish for an SD card slot to expand storage. It may be a smaller and quieter group, but they are out there.

Just look at Apple's decision to release Final Cut Pro for iPad without the ability to edit directly from an attached SSD. As a result, users are forced to copy all their original files onto the iPad for editing, which quickly eats up storage space. This means that the initially reasonable $800 iPad suddenly skyrockets to $1,500 for 1TB or an eye-watering $1,900 for 2TB! It's an absolutely ridiculous situation that highlights Apple's strategy of pushing consumers towards ludicrously higher-priced models with usable built-in storage.

The answer is to buy AAPL instead.

 

[ADGrant]

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.

He was being rather imprecise for a Comp Sci Professor but Linux is essentially a copy of Unix. Much of the software in a Linux distro came directly from Unix such as the X Windows system, the development tools and other GNU software such as Emacs, the command line shells and some of the file systems such as ZFS. I was more surprised that he used the term emulator to describe running Linux on a virtual machine on MacOS.

 

[cmcbhi]

I started with an IBM PC so, I’m old.
over the decades, I’ve “upgrades” many Windows machines so I think I know whereof I speak.
PCs are upgradable to a point. But when a new standard for RAM comes out, it may not work with your motherboard or CPU. As time passes, your CPU isn’t as fast as it could be. Your motherboard needs a different power supply connection as does your new snazzy graphics card. Your sound card needs a different power connector so your power supply needs an upgrade.
‘Basically, the “latest and greatest CPU, motherboard RAM, graphics, sound card etc. all need to work together and the old will not necessarily work with the new. My Windows machine still looks the same as it did decades ago because I’m still using my Lain-Li Nautilus case. But I’ve replaced everything inside many times.
So, now, I just buy a new Apple machine every 5-6 years or so. It’s much less trouble (I used to enjoy putting together the bits and pieces, but now, I don’t) and everything works from the plug-in.

 

[thingstoponder]

You can’t upgrade nearly every computer in your life. Tower desktops are a niche of a niche of a niche

 

[darngooddesign]

Maybe if people looked at the 60 year history of the computer business this whole cry about "upgradeability" seems a bit weird.

Many old companies made their money by maintenance, by "upgrading" installed systems. IBM was notorious for this but they all did it. These companies sold cabinets full of racks, in which the customer paid the computer company to come out and add things or upgrade boards.

The irony is.... some of that was really not necessary. It's just how the computer companies roped in their customers to keep paying them month after month, year after year.

But the electronics industry was moving on.

Including Apple.

The original Macintosh was not internally upgradeable.

That's right: it was Steve Jobs who wanted a closed box.

And while that after a couple of years was changed and Apple embraced internal upgrades, and then jumped on the NuBus bandwagon (I had one (two?) of those), today Apple is leading the industry to switch to small, low energy consumption computers, the internals of which are all assembled with robots and no humans are intended to climb back inside.

And the industry as a whole is (slowly) leaving behind this idea of customers needing to tinker with the insides of their computers.

The day of the DIMM is over. Just like the floppy drive, the DIMM is becoming a thing of the past.

It's worth mentioning that while Apple didn't offer upgrades, you could upgrade the RAM and CPU on the original Mac 128.

 

[ader42]

I don’t care about upgradeability, Macs retain their value really well so if I want an upgrade I buy a new one and sell the old one. That said, I mostly know my requirements for the next few years when I buy, so I know if I want 1tb or 2tb, 32gb or 64gb etc. Right now I’m waiting for an M3 Ultra to replace my M1 Max.

You’re pretty old and/or poor if you think $200 is a lot of money. School kids commonly have iPhones that cost $1000.

Before I stopped working for money I was paid over $800 a day for using my Macs professionally; so in my opinion, for what they provide, Macs are very cheap. I’m not in the US, if I was then it would be even cheaper comparatively. Software usually costs me more than hardware per annum.

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Re: EU Right to Repair legislation, looks like Microsoft sees the writing on the wall as well.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/surface-service-and-repair

 

[turbineseaplane]

You’re pretty old and/or poor if you think $200 is a lot of money

Must we devolve to calling people “poor” if they find the upgrade pricing unpalatable?

The objections are not usually about the absolute dollar amount as much as the really poor value

 

[NewOldStock]

Every one forgets sometimes I think Apple makes the things from hardware to software. They see things that
compatible PC parts all randomly installed on various computer assemblers can't,or dont or not test for.
The well oiled machine and parts comes to mind. Apple has that. Comparing pc to apple or even android hold no water too me as things are all built and tested a little different to Manufactures specs.
I as fairly new user of Apple Products I get it now. I used to think wow performance and prices are so different on all manufactures specs. End of the day amount to Performance and usability of the product purchased.
Upgradeable or not I get it but a lot of products you get what you first purchase and thats how Apple does it.

 

[cmcbhi]

As far as trade-in value, I must beg to disagree.
My 2020 27” iMac, 3.6 GHz i9 Intel, Radon PRO 5700 XY w, 16 GB GDR6, 128 GB 2666 MHz DDR 4 and a 4TB SSD will bring ~ $750-1000 trade in. Cost ~ 5500.00 w/tax etc. Not THAT a ROI.
But I’m still lusting after that Studio M3 Ultra when available.

 

[PeopleWillTalk2024@gmail.]

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.

Only owned an iPhone4 just as the iPhone5 had been released - didn't care for it, an early adopter of Android and likely well over 30 devices since then.

Maybe 2 years ago on a whim entered a T-Mobile contest and won an iPad.

Due to the political climate and Apple's party contributions I thanked T-Mobile but chose not to even open it.

Offered it to a friend and they never stopped by to pick it up so it was sold on Mercari.

A site I have never been to before but had noticed in passing.

The first individual who approached me made the purchase and were very satisfied.

Fast forward and getting more on point to your subject - seeking a 2021 16 inch MacBook Pro Max M1, 64GB primarily for an audio recording project with all proceeds going to the American Cancer Society and NPR music.

To stay on budget have approached well over 200 potential sellers, endured two scams but then there was PayPal protection.

Agree wholeheartedly that the absence of the consumers ability to upgrade just puts Apple right back into the category as perceived a dozen or more years ago - elitist.

Unfortunately the only game in town when it comes to the industry standard for A/V.

Like yourself been working with Windows-based PCs since 1998.

Too many moving parts, my final investment had been a Dell XPS m1730 back when that had been the benchmark.

Since then have moved on and picked up a Pixelbook i9 with 16GB RAM, 500 GB SSD.

Don't use it all that often but I wouldn't be without it just the same.

Best success in your quest! ✌️

 

[darngooddesign]

As far as trade-in value, I must beg to disagree.
My 2020 27” iMac, 3.6 GHz i9 Intel, Radon PRO 5700 XY w, 16 GB GDR6, 128 GB 2666 MHz DDR 4 and a 4TB SSD will bring ~ $750-1000 trade in. Cost ~ 5500.00 w/tax etc. Not THAT a ROI.
But I’m still lusting after that Studio M3 Ultra when available.

I believe they were talking about resale, not trade-in value.

 

[chabig]

It's worth mentioning that while Apple didn't offer upgrades, you could upgrade the RAM and CPU on the original Mac 128.

Not without a soldering iron!

 

[DustinDev47]

Everybody hated it at first. Everybody hated the loss of all the great features that made the unibody macbook pros popular, too. Everybody hated it when Steve Jobs died, when they killed the 17" MBP one year too soon, hated the loss of a 2nd drive bay, the stupidly low ram and the stupidly high price of it, the lack of local storage to sell us cloud services instead, the loss of 32bit app compatibility, the iPad never getting a full featured macOS "pro" model, flooding the world with a hundred trillion ipods that today can't even be used with a modern mac bc who cares why, pretending to be "green" while building hardware to last a century and expecting us to dispose of it every couple few years anyway, their failure to support their own apps on prior OS's, junky cameras, defective antennas, faulty keyboards, more faulty keyboards, form over function, uninstallable photo & video codec problems, hardware that both self destructs and prevents anyone from fixing it, the loss of Boot Camp & Windows compatibility, a hundred other ways of ensuring planned/forced obsolescence, using us all as beta testers, giving us less value for more money every year, generally taking us for granted & milking us for every dime, ignoring of the same problems in the OS year in and year out while blowing billions developing half-baked products and pipe dreams that go nowhere, and changing from Apple Computer to Apple Total Entertainment or whatever they're calling themselves now.

I think that about covers most of the subjects of several million discussion posts on here. 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. Every day there's a post from someone on here who's had it, and every semester I have 240 new fresh faced students show up with brand new shiny Macbook Pro's anyway, purchased at interest, who don't know or care about any of it. As long as the cute girls use macs, and the guys that want to be with the cute girls also have them, and all the other kids who want to be like the cute girls and guys, this trend continues, and the magical money steamroller just rolls on.

Ultimately, most people just have more to worry about than the ups and downs of the company that makes one of their possessions.

I just wanted to give your post some attention. The bold part is a hard pill to swallow but so true.

 

[RedWeasel]

the development tools and other GNU software such as Emacs, the command line shells and some of the file systems such as ZFS.

GNU is explicitly not Unix either. It's a recursive acronym which means "GNU is not Unix". I'm fully aware of the differences between Linux and Unix (and systems like BSD). But I would expected a professor of computer science to be aware of those as well.

I was more surprised that he used the term emulator to describe running Linux on a virtual machine on MacOS.

Yeah that's another good point. Looking at his CV, I get the impression that he is someone who knows how to play the political games of academics well, but is not necessarily very good at computer science itself. Which is something I see quite often in people who stay purely or primarily in academia unfortunately.

 

[duncandb]

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

This has been the case for a LONG time, and there have been LOTS of complaints about it. Upgradeability is also why for the last decade I tended to recommend the 27" Intel iMacs, because it was possible to upgrade the RAM and storage after purchase. Upgradeability is also why I strongly recommend the Mac mini or Studio to people buying a desktop today, and NOT get an Apple Silicon iMac, because the screen is NOT built-in, and so people can upgrade the screen independently of the main computer. Having the screen separate is the single most important kind of upgradeability there is.

 

[picpicmac]

Must we devolve to calling people “poor” if they find the upgrade pricing unpalatable?

Agree.

The objections are not usually about the absolute dollar amount as much as the really poor value

But this I doubt.

"Value" is highly subjective. The $90 upgrade for 10GBe might be very important to someone but irrelevant to another.

I plan on buying a new Mac, Real Soon Now, and to me an upgraded internal SSD has little value. More RAM will have more value to me. But both are priced at $200 per step.

 

[Klagarde]

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.

While I do agree it is very frustrating that you need to decide how capable your new Mac should be at the time of purchase I do agree with the direction Apple took with the Mac silicon family.

Which is optimize for performance and efficiency by integrating everything in one chip. This means by definition that these can’t be upgraded like in the past. If Apple wants upgradable storage then they need to build something like an extra pci slot to do just for making it user upgradable which in this case does not make sense.

FYI, the new MacBook Pro’s have sd card slot where you can put a microscope adapter in which is flush to the port, this way you can upgrade storage by up to a tb

 

[MagicBird]

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

A. Nobody minds or they wouldn’t be selling.

B. It is no different with a Dell XPS or any other similar device.

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[star-affinity]

It's bad for the environment (if your SSD stops working you may as well throw out the whole machine), it's bad for consumers (no competition for storage and memory costs), but we accept it anyway.

While I can understand that the RAM is soldered because of the way Apple Silicon works (video memory and RAM using the same pool which actually has its benefits), I also have a hard time understanding why the storage can't be easily replacable since it also something that is susceptible to wear and tear.

But maybe there are other benefits to soldering it that I'm unaware of?

Anyway, I also think a broken SSD in a MacBook doesn't mean the whole machine is going to waste in the sense that its components can likely be recycled and reused in a good way, especially if it is handed back to Apple.

I care about upgradability in my workstations/desktops. I use an AMD Threadripper/Nvidia Workstation running Linux/windows. But, I love my 64 GB M1 Max MBP16. Unified memory is god send for some of my workflows. My RTX 4090 has only 24 GB memory and runs out of memory. But my MBP with 64 GB does just fine with GPU accessing big chunk of UInified memory. I am hoping by my next upgrade M5 MBP can support 256 GB memory. I don’t care about SSD, as I use external devices with more than 30 TB storage.

This is a good point I think. I also have a custom-built desktop computer with Windows 11 mostly used for gaming that I like to fiddle with and upgrade, but I also really like the 14" MacBook with M2 Max that I use for work. And like you say there are situations where the ”unified memory” has benefits.

 

[Mike Boreham]

Complaining about non-upgradability of computers in 2024 is a bit like the regret I feel that I can't upgrade my car as I used to in my youth...thinner head gasket, hi-lift cams, twin carbs, modify timing etc etc

Technology moves on and makes d-i-y upgrading harder and harder....but we reap the benefits.

Note I only said "a bit like" as the analogy is not perfect.

 

[darngooddesign]

Not without a soldering iron!

View attachment 2354948

Despite SJ wanting a sealed non-upgradable appliance, upgrades did exist as daughter cards. Pictured here is a 128k logic board with a 3rd party board which had 6 RAM slots, a SCSI port (this required a new back case… or a saw, LOL), and a faster processor. This expansion board clips onto the CPU and it bypasses/overrides the 128k’s CPU. Of course let’s remember that back then upgrading computers via changing or adding hardware really wasn’t all that uncommon; something quite alien to modern computer users who are used to plug and play simplicity.





Regardless, it only took a couple fo years before Apple was making Macs upgradable; the 512k was already headed in that direction with a bundle to upgrade your 512 to a 512ke. And by the time the SE rolled out, it had a PDS slot to make performance upgrades simpler. The SE (System Expansion) and Mac II happened after Jobs had been “fired”, but do you really think Apple would still be around if they didn't release the Mac II with expansion slots and removable RAM? They certainly wouldn't have become the standard in desktop publishing.

The Mac Studio has demonstrated that there is no performance penalty by having replaceable drives in the form of separate, propriety SSDs.