Will Apple ever increase the base storage for Macs?

[jakey rolling]

I had a Power Mac 6500 with 4GB, but, granted, that thing had some bizarre upgrades in it, including a USB 1.0 port. So I can’t guarantee the 4GB hard drive was stock. (I’m assuming the USB port was added a couple years after the fact for software authentication dongles, after USB had become common. Since it had previously been used in a music education environment, the idea of authentication dongles doesn’t seem too far fetched to me.)

4GB sounds about right for the 6500. I actually was able to install a PCI USB card into my 6400 and run a Microtek USB scanner and a Lexmark laser printer on it on Mac OS 8 (can't remember if it was 8.1 or 8.5). I also was able to install an upgraded video card in the other PCI slot and replace the GeoPort (?) modem with a 10-base-t ethernet adapter to connect to a cablemodem. Managed to make that machine last until 1999 when I replaced it with a G4/400 (before they downgraded those to 350).

Man. Good times.

 

[kc9hzn]

I just came across my old 100MB Apple SCSI hard drive. No realistic way at of getting at the data on it though.

Oof, you’d have to connect SCSI to a modern adapter interface (there are ways to do this, probably involving single board computers). But the biggest pain would be in converting that data to something modern. If you’re lucky, that drive is formatted in HFS (though I doubt a 100MB drive would be formatted in MFS). Yes, that’s HFS, not HFS+. I’m not sure if modern macOS even has read support for HFS. Then there’s the matter of making sure you have the resource fork (too many applications stuck important data in the resource fork over the years*), and then converting some archaic format that hasn’t been current in over 25 years into a modern format.

* Not quite the same thing, but I’m reminded very much of the StuffIt Expander Catch-22. StuffIt Expander comes in either a binhxq file or an sit file, but you need StuffIt Expander to extract from those two formats. There IS a self extracting archive of StuffIt Expander, but self extracting archives are executables, which means that they depend on the resource fork, which is usually lost when you try to send it over the network (which is a big part of the reason why binhxq and sit even exist, they preserve the resource fork when you send data over the network).

 

[CraigJDuffy]

I have complained about this for a long time. Hard drives are cheap, Apple charges a fortune for basic storage needs. Why everyone just seemed content with hard drive sizes dropping while prices went up is beyond me. This was all happening before the pandemic when shortages were not an issue either. Just more Apple being Apple gouging wherever they can and the masses smiling and gleefully handing them money.

265 GB is plenty storage for me 🤷‍♀️

 

[CraigJDuffy]

The 256GB SSD's are probably available to Apple for a pittance. 512GB, not quite. Raising the base storage to 500GB would be charging a lot of people for storage they don't need. I've had a 256GB SSD as the only storage in my rMBP laptop (primary office machine) since 2014, and it's workable.

I imagine that eventually we might see 500GB as the base, but only if they become as cheap as 256GB SSD's.

Yeah I agree with this, I was annoyed I couldn’t get the MacBook Air in 128GB for cheaper. I have no need for storage.

 

[CraigJDuffy]

I've held back on upgrading my Early 2011 MacBook Pro (with a standard 500GB HD, now a 1TB SSD thanks to myself) for years and years, thinking Apple would provide greater storage capacities in the future - 'of course'.

Obviously, it just isn't going to happen. Apple just wants us to buy tons of iCloud storage subscriptions.

I am now contemplating a move to a nice Windows laptop that can be upgraded as my needs grow.

Get a framework laptop!

 

[pmiles]

Apple is in the business of selling hardware... if you can't upgrade anything yourself, you have to replace it entirely. Total win for Apple.

And Apple has upgraded the base storage of Macs... used to be 640KBs was all one ever needed... here it is 2022 and were crying if it's less than a terabyte. It wasn't that many years ago when a gigabyte was considered endless storage.

 

[Appletoni]

I've been astonished at how low base storage for all new Macs are continuing to be at 256GBs. I've had a 500GB hard drive in all my Macs since the 12 Macbook Pro and it's astonishing that what would be considered a small size for an M.2 drive is still the standard on a laptop over 1k.

Do you all think Apple will ever increase the base storage of just about every Mac to 512?

I have another question:

Will Apple ever increase the 8TB storage to 16TB?​

For example when buying a MacBook Pro with M2 Max or M2 Ultra?

 

[AltecX]

I've been astonished at how low base storage for all new Macs are continuing to be at 256GBs. I've had a 500GB hard drive in all my Macs since the 12 Macbook Pro and it's astonishing that what would be considered a small size for an M.2 drive is still the standard on a laptop over 1k.

Do you all think Apple will ever increase the base storage of just about every Mac to 512?

I rarely use over 150GB, for me the added cost is just wasted money.

 

[wonderings]

Apple is in the business of selling hardware... if you can't upgrade anything yourself, you have to replace it entirely. Total win for Apple.

And Apple has upgraded the base storage of Macs... used to be 640KBs was all one ever needed... here it is 2022 and were crying if it's less than a terabyte. It wasn't that many years ago when a gigabyte was considered endless storage.

Yes total win for Apple, that is what they are in it for, themselves. Again I have no issue with this, just think people still need to be propping them up as this amazing company for the end user. They make a good product, but only insomuch as to make them more money.

Base storage incrementally upgrades as tech upgrades. The price of 1TB is cheap these days, people are upset that they are paying 3X's the price for hard drive space with Apple. Are you happy paying more for less? There is no reason for Apple to raise the base level hard drive to 512 gigs or higher. Well there is a reason, and that is to make more money off the end user. They want you paying them monthly for iCloud or paying premium pricing for more hard drive space. You can go on Amazon right now and spent $30 CDN on a 1 TB SD card. Probably not the greatest quality, but if some company in Korea is making a profit on a 1 TB SD card for $30, Apple could certainly be doing better for a much much cheaper price then what we are paying now. Benefit the consumer, benefit Apple. Of course they make even more money doing what they are doing now, so consumer be damned, let Apple continue on with record profit quarters.

 

[NewUsername]

I've been astonished at how low base storage for all new Macs are continuing to be at 256GBs. I've had a 500GB hard drive in all my Macs since the 12 Macbook Pro and it's astonishing that what would be considered a small size for an M.2 drive is still the standard on a laptop over 1k.

Do you all think Apple will ever increase the base storage of just about every Mac to 512?

For the MacBook Air, 128GB became the minimum in 2013 and 256GB became the minimum in 2020, so I guess for 512GB we’ll have to wait until 2027 and 1TB will arrive in 2034.

 

[darngooddesign]

I rarely use over 150GB, for me the added cost is just wasted money.

Increasing base storage means that the cost would not increase due to the extra storage.

 

[Appletoni]

For the MacBook Air, 128GB became the minimum in 2013 and 256GB became the minimum in 2020, so I guess for 512GB we’ll have to wait until 2027 and 1TB will arrive in 2034.

That’s exactly what I’m searching for…
I would love to use a MacBook Pro 16-inch or more with M1 Ultra with so much -> RAM.

 

[NewUsername]

That’s exactly what I’m searching for…
I would love to use a MacBook Pro 16-inch or more with M1 Ultra with so much -> RAM.

For RAM on the MacBook Air, 4GB became the minimum in 2012 and 8GB in 2016, so yes, 8GB has been the minimum for a surprisingly long time. The last Mac with 4GB was the 2014 Mac mini which was retired in 2018. Unfortunately Apple doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to make 16GB standard, not even on the iMac or on the 13" MacBook Pro.

 

[Falhófnir]

They just did it in 2019, 256 -> 512 on Pro models and 128 -> 256 on other models. Considering how long they held on with 128/256 I wouldn't hold your breath for another bump in the foreseeable future.

 

[AltecX]

Increasing base storage means that the cost would not increase due to the extra storage.

I do not believe that for one moment. Apple is a business if they see reason to increase the price they will. This is a company that also artificially has locked machines out of 64-bit mode and to under 8GB RAM for no reason other than to make you pay more for a higher version.

 

[darngooddesign]

I do not believe that for one moment. Apple is a business if they see reason to increase the price they will. This is a company that also artificially has locked machines out of 64-bit mode and to under 8GB RAM for no reason other than to make you pay more for a higher version.

Apple in the past has increased base storage on computers, iPhones, and iPads without the price going up because of that. They would do it when the cost of the RAM was small enough, but the problem now is that Apple is using expensive, fast SSDs so it is less likely that they would absorb the cost.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Unlikely, and I don't think it has anything to do with the cost SSD storage but rather their rationale.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but I believe Apple looks at their entry-level Macs and considers what that customer segment actually want from a computer. High storage would normally indicate that the user works with large files or archives lots of data, therefore they will likely also want a more powerful device.

But the versatility of the entry MacBook Air, Mac mini and even iMac suggest that many users simply don't won't fill the 230-ish gb free storage, and if they were close to they would just buy an external HDD. This type of user may primarily work in a wireless and cloud-based environment where their data is stored elsewhere. They could also configure the device via BTO.

Thinking specifically about the Mac mini and Mac Pro however, there are many situations where these devices are used as servers and virtually all the computing therefore is done remotely. On-device storage would be configured after purchase through RAIDs etc.

This situation isn't too different from RAM. It's easy for people to say "Really, 8gb in 2022!?", but there are millions of users who will purchase a MBA and not use it for much more than web and emailing.

Upshot: if the user doesn't need 512gb, then Apple isn't going to waste that flash storage and would rather the customer pay 200 hundred bucks for the privilege.

 

[Analog Kid]

Increasing base storage means that the cost would not increase due to the extra storage.

By what witchcraft?

This is why these threads are so inane. This isn’t about storage. You can buy the storage size you probably want. There’s no reason to complain about a product that exists that you don’t want to buy (well, I thought that was true until the EU decided Lightning was criminal). No, what these threads are really about is wanting to kick off a discussion of price and it’s framed was “base storage is inadequate” to make it sound like it’s a design flaw by Apple rather than the consumer greed of wanting more for less.

”Will they ever”? More bait tactics. Simply say “When do people think the prices on the 1TB MBP will come down?”

 

[jakey rolling]

the problem now is that Apple is using expensive, fast SSDs so it is less likely that they would absorb the cost.

I think we've already established that what Apple is charging for those SSDs is already far above what much larger SSDs of the same quality and speed normally cost. There is a tremendous margin buffer that Apple has already built in for themselves already which already helps them weather volatile price fluctuations.

The only reason Apple does not bump up the storage on base models is to create an impetus for customers to pay Apple's highly marked-up upgrade fees during their initial purchase or face a shortened lifecycle. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fluctuating cost of the NAND flash Apple is using in their SSDs.

 

[jakey rolling]

...make it sound like it’s a design flaw by Apple rather than the consumer greed of wanting more for less.

"Consumer greed." Consumers look at what exists in the general market and sees a high-end equivalent product that is readily available for everyone else in the world, and they see that Apple is charging up to twice as much for the same thing. Further, Apple has designed their products in such a way that consumers can no longer take advantage of those other, competitively-priced alternatives. And you call it Consumer greed.

My gosh. This is so, so sad.

 

[kschendel]

You do realize that you can add all the external storage you care to imagine, at bare SSD + enclosure prices? and real world performance will be easily comparable to the builtin storage (although maybe not benchmark comparable)? If you don't like Apple's pricing for internal storage, don't pay it. I'm not seeing the problem.

 

[Analog Kid]

"Consumer greed." Consumers look at what exists in the general market and sees a high-end equivalent product that is readily available for everyone else in the world, and they see that Apple is charging up to twice as much for the same thing. Further, Apple has designed their products in such a way that consumers can no longer take advantage of those other, competitively-priced alternatives. And you call it Consumer greed.

My gosh. This is so, so sad.

Your hypothetical consumer found an equivalent product for half the price, I'm not sure what the problem is. Buy the equivalent product.

If your hypothetical consumer doesn't want to buy the half price product then it is not equivalent.

If your hypothetical consumer wants the product they value more for half the price it is sold at, then they are asking for something in exchange for nothing. That's greedy. And I think people get that on a visceral level which is why people keep trying to disguise their meaning in these "the base configuration is unreasonable" threads.

 

[antiprotest]

They don’t have to raise the base storage, they just need to start charging a leas than exhorbitant price for the upgrades.

We are stuck paying Disneyland prices for a coke, when we should be paying supermarket rates. Apple has a monopoly on RAM and SSD though, so they can charge whatever they want. And they do.

I mean $400 for 16GB of RAM or 1TB of storage is just obscene.

Maybe the EU will step in haha.

 

[Mr. Dee]

My 2015 MBP (Broadwell) originally was 128 GBs at the factory. I said no way in hell is that gonna be enough and surely chose 256 GBs at purchase. It’s kinda ridiculous that 512 is not the default in 2022. Hopefully by 2025 when I’m ready to upgrade from my M1 they will make 512 be the default.

 

[PsykX]

Obviously, it just isn't going to happen. Apple just wants us to buy tons of iCloud storage subscriptions.

I don't think so. People (like me a year ago) think iCloud storage is equivalent to internal storage. This is completely wrong. It is complementary.

I have 200 GB of iCloud storage and 256GB of internal storage. Obviously I also have a bunch of stuff that is not on iCloud, so my settings are set to "Optimize Mac storage".

This. Sucks. So. Much.

This option should not even exist, it ruins the entire experience.
Every time I open my 100MB Sketch files, nothing happens, no beach ball or anything, but the document loads in the background without me knowing... I have to guess what's happening for 15 seconds. My iMac has one of the fastest SSDs on Earth, but it has to load my files for 15s every time.

Basically, everyone should have their entire iCloud data also on their internal drive.