Soldered Storage: A Design Choice

[MRMSFC]

I don’t understand this. Who is prohibiting you from using cheap external drives?

This has been my solution. I just harvest drives from any suckers people I can buy cheap old laptops off and keep files I don’t immediately need on them.

What’s absolutely ridiculous (and endlessly discussed ad nauseum) is Apple’s prices for storage and RAM upgrades. I feel like there’d be a lot less bitching if they would bring their prices in line with reality.

 

[theorist9]

What’s absolutely ridiculous (and endlessly discussed ad nauseum) is Apple’s prices for storage and RAM upgrades. I feel like there’d be a lot less bitching if they would bring their prices in line with reality.

Apple is actually owned by MR, and MR has them add large upcharges for RAM and SSDs to drive site traffic. Their biggest success, though, was the pricing of the Mac Pro wheelset. That got someone a promotion.

**************

OK, a more serious response: When it comes to this pricing question, I prefer to look at the big picture....

Company: They're the world's most profitable computer company, with the highest customer satisfaction of any of them. Their pricing is expensive, but it isn't predatory, any more than that of other high-end brands, like Mercedes. Why would they voluntarily cut their profits? Indeed, wouldn't it be "absolutely ridiculous" for them to do so?

The 24 GB/4 TB 15" Air is $2500. The only way I can see them making the upgrade costs modest while maintaining profit margin would be to charge $2,100 for the 8 GB/512 GB 15" Air; then the upgrades to 24 GB and 4 TB would be only $200 each! If you want to talk about bitching.....

Plus that would be a disaster. Their pricing strategy has always been to have the higher-end variants subsidize the base variants. That way they can offer the base variants at an accessible to cost to students (which is essential to creating future generations of Apple customers), and also advertise them with a low starting price.

If somone really has an issue with pricing for the upgraded variants, there's a simple solution: Buy a maxed-out last-gen used model in mint condition with AC+. You can get one of those for about the same or less than the base pricing of the current model.

Individual product: I think it's more useful to look at the total cost of a Mac laptop, determine what it provides, and compare that to the total cost of a PC laptop that provides the same, rather than looking at individual upgrade prices. For instance, the 15" Air, upgraded to a "reasonable" 16 GB/1 TB, is pricey, no doubt; but I can't find a PC laptop in the same price range ($1,500) that offers its combination of display ppi, battery life, quietness, single-core performance (especially while on battery), trackpad, and weight/thickness. If none of that's important to you (and you're OS-agnostic), the Air's a bad value. If you need to run two external displays, the Air won't work for you. But if those are important to you, and you can live with its external display limitations, it's a better value than anything you can get in a PC, and the fact that its final price includes large upcharges for RAM and SSD is irrelevant; what matters is the total price, not the route you took to get there.

I've made many posts on these forums criticizing Apple but, while I'd rather their upgrade prices were less (like everyone else), I don't think what they are doing here is unacceptable.

 

[MRMSFC]

Apple is actually owned by MR, and MR has them add large upcharges for RAM and SSDs to drive site traffic. Their biggest success, though, was the pricing of the Mac Pro wheelset. That got someone a promotion.

**************

OK, a more serious response: When it comes to this pricing question, I prefer to look at the big picture....

Company: They're the world's most profitable computer company, with the highest customer satisfaction of any of them. Their pricing is expensive, but it isn't predatory, any more than that of other high-end brands, like Mercedes. Why would they voluntarily cut their profits? Indeed, wouldn't it be "absolutely ridiculous" for them to do so?

The 24 GB/4 TB 15" Air is $2500. The only way I can see them making the upgrade costs modest while maintaining profit margin would be to charge $2,100 for the 8 GB/512 GB 15" Air; then the upgrades to 24 GB and 4 TB would be only $200 each! If you want to talk about bitching.....

Plus that would be a disaster. Their pricing strategy has always been to have the higher-end variants subsidize the base variants. That way they can offer the base variants at an accessible to cost to students (which is essential to creating future generations of Apple customers), and also advertise them with a low starting price.

If somone really has an issue with pricing for the upgraded variants, there's a simple solution: Buy a maxed-out last-gen used model in mint condition with AC+. You can get one of those for about the same or less than the base pricing of the current model.

Individual product: I think it's more useful to look at the total cost of a Mac laptop, determine what it provides, and compare that to the total cost of a PC laptop that provides the same, rather than looking at individual upgrade prices. For instance, the 15" Air, upgraded to a "reasonable" 16 GB/1 TB, is pricey, no doubt; but I can't find a PC laptop in the same price range ($1,500) that offers its combination of display ppi, battery life, quietness, single-core performance (especially while on battery), trackpad, and weight/thickness. If none of that's important to you (and you're OS-agnostic), the Air's a bad value. If you need to run two external displays, the Air won't work for you. But if those are important to you, and you can live with its external display limitations, it's a better value than anything you can get in a PC, and the fact that its final price includes large upcharges for RAM and SSD is irrelevant; what matters is the total price, not the route you took to get there.

I've made many posts on these forums criticizing Apple but, while I'd rather their upgrade prices were less (like everyone else), I don't think what they are doing here is unacceptable.

Unacceptable? No, but annoying in the face of otherwise great products? Yes.

At the very least I’d like to see them reduce prices to stop the bellyaching. (Don’t worry about MR, we’d find something else to bitch about.)

In the case of Apple, I care more about the final product than their finances. (Which you’ve pointed out)

 

[dmccloud]

No one is prohibiting from using external. This is not the topic of this thread regarding soldered on hard drives that cannot be replaced and are 3x more expensive than other drives for the same storage. If you want to go that route you can for a cheap price, but ideally I think most would agree that having internal storage is better than a bunch of externals plugged in, especially when on the move. And not sure why you would want external over a larger internal drive that should not cost what Apple charges.

I got a 2TB M.2 Samsung 980 Pro SSD for $120 a few months ago, and put it inside an external TB enclosure. I'm able to transfer files to and from that drive fast enough to not even worry about any differences in throughput when compared to the internal drive, and I got both components for under $200 total. The external SSD is small and light enough that I can put it in my laptop bag and not worry about either its weight or bulk affecting me.

 

[theorist9]

At the very least I’d like to see them reduce prices to stop the bellyaching. (Don’t worry about MR, we’d find something else to bitch about.)

But, again, why would a company voluntarily cut their profits to 'reduce bellyaching by some MR posters', especially when, overall, they have the highest consumer satisfaction in their product class? If you were a stockholder, would you want them to do this?

 

[nmt1900]

Plain and simple: no matter what the price or specifications - soldered non-replaceable storage is planned obsolescense.

When NAND is dead, all computer is dead and Apple's only answer is motherboard replacement, which is not feasible when out of warranty. Apple just wants to sell you newer computer made in same cost-cutting way - having the exact same problem.

There's nothing surprising in being most profitable company by doing this. If they could find a way to integrate battery into a motherboard in completely non-replaceable way I bet they would do that as well as that would only increase their profitability.

 

[thenewperson]

There's nothing surprising in being most profitable company by doing this. If they could find a way to integrate battery into a motherboard in completely non-replaceable way I bet they would do that as well as that would only increase their profitability.

How would it increase their profitability?

 

[nmt1900]

Less components = more efficient assembly process -> lower costs.
Increase of "disposability" -> increase in sales of these "efficiently produced" disposable computers.
Making repair more unfeasible -> less expenses to repairs & additional push to increase sales.

Looks like "triple-win". It is quite clearly seen that current CEO got his merits from leading "sales and operations"...

 

[Unregistered 4U]

How would it increase their profitability?

It would only do so if looking through a one dimensional lens. Replaceable batteries is factored into the after sale support based on how they’re likely to need replacement well before any motherboard components do. It would actually decrease profitability if all those expected battery replacements required entire MB (including the SoC which is FAR more expensive than a simple battery) replacements.

 

[nmt1900]

It would only do so if looking through a one dimensional lens. Replaceable batteries is factored into the after sale support based on how they’re likely to need replacement well before any motherboard components do. It would actually decrease profitability if all those expected battery replacements required entire MB (including the SoC which is FAR more expensive than a simple battery) replacements.

The point here is that by making any possible component replacement financially unviable it just makes you to go and buy a whole new computer. Apple has already done almost all it can to make third-party repairs impossible. Only thing missing from the puzzle is to make it so with battery as well.

Only really modular replacement parts on Apple Silicon Macbook Pro's are external ports (excluding SD-card reader and HDMI port).

Every change is a "design choice" - but the question here is "choice driven by what?". Display angle sensor is a neat idea to make thing more compact while it works in almost similar way, but now every one needs to be calibrated separately, because no-one can guarantee that magnet attached to the hinge is orientated in same way on all assemblies. Replacing screws in keyboard with rivets is clearly cost-cutting and almost absolutely drives up profits because replacing keyboard will be much more unlikely than on pre-2012 Macbooks. They can just sell more top case assemblies - until they just won't because "device is not supported".

There's quite a lot of these changes that just show cost-cutting and profitability optimization behind them. All changes that are meant to make third-party repairs impossible serve these exact goals as well...

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The point here is that by making any possible component replacement financially unviable it just makes you to go and buy a whole new computer. Apple has already done almost all it can to make third-party repairs impossible. Only thing missing from the puzzle is to make it so with battery as well.

I was responding to someone wondering how integrating batteries would increase profitability. It wouldn’t but I think that was simply hyperbole in the first place.

Every change is a "design choice" - but the question here is "choice driven by what?"

That’s not even a question, to make money. There’s not a corporation in the world that’s not making choices based on making money. Those that don’t make good choices based on making money, aren’t around for long.

 

[theorist9]

The point here is that by making any possible component replacement financially unviable it just makes you to go and buy a whole new computer. Apple has already done almost all it can to make third-party repairs impossible. Only thing missing from the puzzle is to make it so with battery as well.

Only really modular replacement parts on Apple Silicon Macbook Pro's are external ports (excluding SD-card reader and HDMI port).

Every change is a "design choice" - but the question here is "choice driven by what?". Display angle sensor is a neat idea to make thing more compact while it works in almost similar way, but now every one needs to be calibrated separately, because no-one can guarantee that magnet attached to the hinge is orientated in same way on all assemblies. Replacing screws in keyboard with rivets is clearly cost-cutting and almost absolutely drives up profits because replacing keyboard will be much more unlikely than on pre-2012 Macbooks. They can just sell more top case assemblies - until they just won't because "device is not supported".

There's quite a lot of these changes that just show cost-cutting and profitability optimization behind them. All changes that are meant to make third-party repairs impossible serve these exact goals as well...

To the extent profitability considerations* went into making RAM and SSD's non-upgradeable (and I'm sure they did), I think that was to:
(a) force customers to pay Apple upgrade prices at the time of purchase; and
(b) reduce manufacturing costs.

However, I don't think non-repairability is a direct profit motivation for Apple, since that increases Apple's warranty costs under Apple Care. I.e., I think non-repairability is a consequence of other profit-driven decisions—like (a) and (b), above—and not a goal in and of itself.

[*Yes, there are other reasons to make the devices non-upgradeable; e.g., LPDDR RAM works more reliably if it's soldered. But I'm just talking about profitability.]

 

[quarkysg]

To the extent profitability considerations* went into making RAM and SSD's non-upgradeable (and I'm sure they did), I think that was to:
(a) force customers to pay Apple upgrade prices at the time of purchase; and
(b) reduce manufacturing costs.

I think the main reason is:
(a) Performance and power consumption wrt RAM
(b) Security, wrt SSD.

 

[theorist9]

I think the main reason is:
(a) Performance and power consumption wrt RAM
(b) Security, wrt SSD.

As I mentioned, I was speaking exclusively about profitability benefits:

[*Yes, there are other reasons to make the devices non-upgradeable; e.g., LPDDR RAM works more reliably if it's soldered. But I'm just talking about profitability.]

 

[quarkysg]

As I mentioned, I was speaking exclusively about profitability benefits:

But profitability is not the main driving force of the design decision.

Focusing just on it (profit) makes the discussion skewed.

Edit: Everything a for profit company does if for .... profit. That is the sole reason they exists.

 

[theorist9]

But profitability is not the main driving force of the design decision.

Focusing just on it makes the discussion skewed.

Nope. The discussion wasn't about what the main driving force is for design decisions. It was about the extent to which profitability influences them. You limit your ability to do deeper analyses if you restrict yourself to the main drivers.

For instance, suppose you were an epidemiologist studying a disease whose main risk factor was genetic, but you wanted to look at lifestyle risk factors (diet, exercise, weight, etc). It's as if someone told you: "No, genetics is the main risk factor, and thus you shouldn't be looking at lifestyle components." That's absurd, and is a recipe for limiting your ability to learn more about the disease.

 

[quarkysg]

Nope. The discussion wasn't about what the main driving force is for design decisions. It was about the extent to which profitability influences them. You limit your ability to do deeper analyses if you restrict yourself to the main drivers.

For instance, suppose you were an epidemiologist studying a disease whose main risk factor was genetic, but you wanted to look at lifestyle risk factors (diet, exercise, weight, etc). It's as if someone told you: "No, genetics is the main risk factor, and thus you shouldn't be looking at lifestyle components." That's absurd, and is a recipe for limiting your ability to learn more about the disease.

If that's the case, Apple could have just made a seal box with the Macs like the iPhone. That will drive maximum profitability.

 

[theorist9]

If that's the case, Apple could have just made a seal box with the Macs like the iPhone. That will drive maximum profitability.

Nope, you're misrepresenting what I wrote. I was discussing the extent to which profitability influences design decisions. None of what I wrote implies the simplistic picture you're painting.

What you're pushing is called a "straw man" fallacy:

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[quarkysg]

Nope, you're misrepresenting what I wrote. I was discussing the extent to which profitability influences design decisions. None of what I wrote implies the simplistic picture you're painting.

What you're pushing is called a "straw man" fallacy:

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How can my argument be a strawman when I pointed out that RAM and SSD designed are based on performance and security? So anything you disagree with becomes a strawman aurgement?

I think this discussion has a lot of tin-foil hat argument ... lots of conspiracy theory.

Any design decision made of course is for profit, but IMHO, it is more towards manufacturing efficiency supporting any technical design objective, and in the cases of RAM and SSD, it is because the design objective is performance and security.

And the discussion about battery is just silly. Imagine the cost to Apple to get custom battery that can be embedded instead of those they can get a boatload of from standard parts.

And you can be sure that any cost Apple eats in manufacturing will be translated into margin for the consumer to pay as a sticker price, because Apple wants it's margin for them products. If Apple price themselve out of the market, they will be out of business soon.

So, no, IMHO, Apple's design decision to make stuffs not up-gradable is not from a profit angle.

If you think this is a strawman argument, then so be it.

 

[theorist9]

How can my argument be a strawman when I pointed out that RAM and SSD designed are based on performance and security?

Let me explain it to you:

I said this:

I don't think non-repairability is a direct profit motivation for Apple, since that increases Apple's warranty costs under Apple Care. I.e., I think non-repairability is a consequence of other profit-driven decisions—like (a) and (b), above—and not a goal in and of itself.

...which you bizarrely misrepresented as meaning this:

If that's the case, Apple could have just made a seal box with the Macs like the iPhone. That will drive maximum profitability.

That's a straw man.

 

[quarkysg]

Let me explain it to you:

I said this:


...which you bizarrely misrepresented as meaning this:

That's a straw man.

Whatever you say man.