Why Apple don't use NVME m2 slot for mac mini/mac studio

[ewu]

Mac Studio/Mac mini with M chip have enough space on mother board internally for nvme m2 slot.

most 2TB nvme ssd only cause 100-150 usd. and it is so easy to upgrade.
Apple website take 800 usd to upgrade to 2TB ssd and even more for 4TB ssd.

User could save huge amount of money from ssd to buy higher ram and higher CPU.

 

[MajorFubar]

User could save huge amount of money from ssd to buy higher ram and higher CPU.

And that's why they don't do it.
Can't you see that Apple have purposeful designed these computers around a proprietary architecture that deliberately confines you to their own exorbitantly-priced options-list? It wasn't by accident.

 

[leman]

Apple doesn't use standard SSDs, theirs is a proprietary system that integrates the controller in the SoC and uses system memory for cache. One can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach all day long, but the bottomline is that using aftermarket SSDs is not part of their vision (whatever one believes it means).

Maybe one day we will get some sort of custom SSD socket and the ability to replace the SSD modules (which one would probably need to buy from Apple). I am very sceptical about them allowing standard m2 SSDs slots.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Apple website take 800 usd to upgrade to 2TB ssd and even more for 4TB ssd.

You answered your own question here.

 

[mr_roboto]

Apple doesn't use standard SSDs, theirs is a proprietary system that integrates the controller in the SoC and uses system memory for cache. One can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach all day long, but the bottomline is that using aftermarket SSDs is not part of their vision (whatever one believes it means).

Maybe one day we will get some sort of custom SSD socket and the ability to replace the SSD modules (which one would probably need to buy from Apple). I am very sceptical about them allowing standard m2 SSDs slots.

I think the most important advantage of Apple's integration of controller into SoC is that it allows them to do zero-overhead full disk encryption inside the Secure Enclave, meaning sensitive key data never has to leave the Secure Enclave. They could not achieve the same level of security with an off the shelf M.2 SSD.

 

[leman]

I think the most important advantage of Apple's integration of controller into SoC is that it allows them to do zero-overhead full disk encryption inside the Secure Enclave, meaning sensitive key data never has to leave the Secure Enclave. They could not achieve the same level of security with an off the shelf M.2 SSD.

True, and there are other advantages as well:

- consistent data flush/power loss guarantees (many SSD controllers are known to cheat to improve performance and are less reliable)
- consistent data checksumming (APFS does not do data checksums, relying instead that the SSD can be trusted)
- likely lower power consumption (no separate RAM) and better endurance
- more optimization opportunities (e.g. controller and RAM compressor can work together for low-latency memory paging etc.)

Do these things justify the lack of flexibility and high prices of Apple SSDs? No idea. But that's the story.

 

[StellarVixen]

Why are people still asking this question when the answer has been obvious for quite some time now?

Total control over their platform.

 

[quarkysg]

Why are people still asking this question when the answer has been obvious for quite some time now?

Total control over their platform.

I'm pretty sure that if the NVME standards allows Apple to achieve their security objectives like what they are already doing now, Apple will gladly use it. Why spent all the engineering resources if standard of the shelf parts already achieve their design objectives. Maintaining an engineering team is never going to be cheaper than using off the shelf components.

 

[MRMSFC]

There’s two answers here, and neither are mutually exclusive.

1. The SSD controller is integrated into the SoC, with features like Secure Enclave and such handled on the processor itself. With the “SSD” just being “dumb memory”.

2. Apple charges a stupid price for storage, and they ain’t-a letting that go easily.

 

[Ethosik]

I learned long ago not to have important stuff on my internal storage. I just have applications and data required to run my system. With the rise of Thunderbolt and 10/25/40 Gbps networking, I can get great speeds and even have room for more growth. My 150TB NAS is bottlenecked by my 40Gbps setup.

 

[Queen6]

That's Apple's game to price gouge it's customers on inhouse upgrades. My solution is to buy the least amount of storage possible and utilise fast external SSD's for data. This reinforces redundancy, saves being ripped off by Apple and able to share the data with Windows counterparts.

Q-6

 

[Queen6]

I learned long ago not to have important stuff on my internal storage. I just have applications and data required to run my system. With the rise of Thunderbolt and 10/25/40 Gbps networking, I can get great speeds and even have room for more growth. My 150TB NAS is bottlenecked by my 40Gbps setup.

That's a good strategy Until Apple starts treating it's customers as customers and not consumers I'll keep buying the cheapest Mac I can get away with and put the other $$$$ into PC's...

Q-6

 

[dmccloud]

I'm pretty sure that if the NVME standards allows Apple to achieve their security objectives like what they are already doing now, Apple will gladly use it. Why spent all the engineering resources if standard of the shelf parts already achieve their design objectives. Maintaining an engineering team is never going to be cheaper than using off the shelf components.

The M.2 form factor is seperate from and independent of NVMe as a standard, as evidenced by the availability of M.2 form factor drives using NVMe, PCIe3/4/5, etc. Looking at some of the datamining that's already hit the internet regarding A17 Pro, there are multiple references to the storage being NVMe. Again, since the NVMe standard is independent from M.2, you can have an M.2 drive that doesn't support NVMe, and you could also have an integrated storage solution that uses the NVMe standard as well.

 

[ovbacon]

Mac Studio/Mac mini with M chip have enough space on mother board internally for nvme m2 slot.

most 2TB nvme ssd only cause 100-150 usd. and it is so easy to upgrade.
Apple website take 800 usd to upgrade to 2TB ssd and even more for 4TB ssd.

User could save huge amount of money from ssd to buy higher ram and higher CPU.

And that's why you simply get an external ssd...

 

[ahurst]

The M.2 form factor is seperate from and independent of NVMe as a standard, as evidenced by the availability of M.2 form factor drives using NVMe, PCIe3/4/5, etc. Looking at some of the datamining that's already hit the internet regarding A17 Pro, there are multiple references to the storage being NVMe. Again, since the NVMe standard is independent from M.2, you can have an M.2 drive that doesn't support NVMe, and you could also have an integrated storage solution that uses the NVMe standard as well.

From what I remember following the Asahi Linux project Apple’s current SSDs do use NVME, but with a number of quirks and Apple-isms that break the spec.

Here’s a direct quote from one of their project updates:

The NVMe hardware in the M1 is quite peculiar: it breaks the spec in multiple ways, requiring patches to the core NVMe support in Linux, and it also is exposed as a platform device instead of PCIe. In addition, it is managed by an ASC, the “ANS”, which needs to be brought up before NVMe can work, and that also relies on a companion “SART” driver, which is like a minimal IOMMU.

(An ASC is a coprocessor in the SoC)

Edit: Looking into it more, the differences between Apple’s NVME vs the actual spec were large enough that the upstream Linux kernel maintainers asked them to put the Apple NVME in its own separate driver instead of trying to patch the regular NVME driver to make it compatible.

 

[ondioline]

The internal storage in an ARM Mac is also a part of secure boot. All the components like the Secure Enclave and disk controller AES encryption work together to ensure the integrity of the boot chain.

You may not find that to be a compelling reason but even today there are exploits for completely bypassing stuff like LUKS encryption in Linux even with a TPM:

Mashing Enter to bypass full disk encryption with TPM, Clevis, dracut and systemd

This vulnerability allows a physically-present attacker to control the full disk encryption unlock process and gain complete access to decrypted content in some cases where a TPM, dracut and Clevis are used.

pulsesecurity.co.nz

 

[sack_peak]

Would be lovely if Apple maintains MSRP of all the SKUs while doubling RAM & SSD sizes.

Would save us a lot if NVMe M.2 slots were made available for all Macs but that's how they make money.

NVMes are approximately $100/TB. Could go higher or lower for numerous of reasons.

 

[Zest28]

Apple doesn't use standard SSDs, theirs is a proprietary system that integrates the controller in the SoC and uses system memory for cache. One can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach all day long, but the bottomline is that using aftermarket SSDs is not part of their vision (whatever one believes it means).

Maybe one day we will get some sort of custom SSD socket and the ability to replace the SSD modules (which one would probably need to buy from Apple). I am very sceptical about them allowing standard m2 SSDs slots.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Apple simply doesn't want users to upgrade SSD and RAM for $$$$$.

The 2010 MacBook Pro was the last MBP that "user-upgradable" and that was way before Apple put iPhone / iPad chips in the Mac's.

 

[sack_peak]

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Apple simply doesn't want users to upgrade SSD and RAM for $$$$$.

The 2010 MacBook Pro was the last MBP that "user-upgradable" and that was way before Apple put iPhone / iPad chips in the Mac's.

I get the non-profit reasons why Apple did not apply user upgradeable RAM. For SSDs it's different.

 

[leman]

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Apple simply doesn't want users to upgrade SSD and RAM for $$$$$.

The 2010 MacBook Pro was the last MBP that "user-upgradable" and that was way before Apple put iPhone / iPad chips in the Mac's.

Yes, and incidentally those Macs shipped with Apple–provided storage firmware that has guaranteed behavior in regards to data safety. For example, they flushed writes correctly. They also had some anti–vibrations measures in place to minimize the chance of HDD damage during a fall.

Ultimately, “Apple wants money“ is a correct story, but it’s not the whole story.

 

[darngooddesign]

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Apple simply doesn't want users to upgrade SSD and RAM for $$$$$.

The 2010 MacBook Pro was the last MBP that "user-upgradable" and that was way before Apple put iPhone / iPad chips in the Mac's.

While my 2014 MBP's RAM was soldered, its SSD wasn't.

 

[leman]

While my 2014 MBP's RAM was soldered, its SSD wasn't.

It still wasn't user-replaceable. Even the HDDs in earlier models were not user-replaceable (according to the manual at least), because — as I mentioned above — they shipped with custom Apple firmware and were not available as aftermarket purchases. You could use a third party HDD, but that could (unlikely) result in data corruption and Apple would refuse service.

 

[darngooddesign]

It still wasn't user-replaceable. Even the HDDs in earlier models were not user-replaceable (according to the manual at least), because — as I mentioned above — they shipped with custom Apple firmware and were not available as aftermarket purchases. You could use a third party HDD, but that could (unlikely) result in data corruption and Apple would refuse service.

Thats weird because I replaced the 512GB on my 2014 with a 1TB.

 

[leman]

Thats weird because I replaced the 512GB on my 2014 with a 1TB.

And I replaced mine with a third party SSD. Still, firmware incompatibility is the reason why Apple considers them non-user-replaceable.

Important difference: being able to physically replace something doesn’t mean that the manufacturer condones or supports it.

 

[ahurst]

Thats weird because I replaced the 512GB on my 2014 with a 1TB.

Don’t you need one of those special aftermarket adapters to use a regular NVMe SSD with the custom PCIe ones Apple used during that era? Or was that only for earlier models?

I have a late 2013 iMac, and even though it’s *possible* to install an NVMe SSD it requires a model-specific adapter and you need to be very careful about the specific SSD you buy to avoid sleep/wake and other phantom issues (according to the MacRumours threads I’ve read through when considering the upgrade). Apple definitely didn’t design it with upgradability in mind.