Will Apple ever increase the base storage for Macs?

[blahbrah]

People who starts these discussion wants cheaper Macs.

So instead of framing it as the base model needs better hardware. They should just be honest and say they think a Mac with more SSD space and RAM is too expensive.

Yeah man. I mean I had planned to upgrade my 2016 MBP (thanks touchbar flicker arriving 1 year after the topcase replacement) to the M2 MBA, but once I was looking at $1400 for the machine, I was debating whether or not I should just keep the MBP in clamshell and slowly transfer over everything to my gaming desktop and use the MBP as just my mobile workstation.

Apple is free to charge whatever they want, people are free to complain and people are free to complain about the complaining.

 

[theorist9]

People who starts these discussion wants cheaper Macs.

So instead of framing it as the base model needs better hardware. They should just be honest and say they think a Mac with more SSD space and RAM is too expensive.

Yup. People should be honest and just say that. And Apple should be honest and say the reason they made the SSD non-upgradeable in the Studio was because they wanted to force people to buy OEM SSDs, so they could increase their profit margin. Honesty on both sides.

Though there is a qualitatively different kind of complaint when it comes to RAM and SSD's being non-upgradeable. A lot of people dismiss that as individuals complaining about cost—they just want to buy less expensive after-market RAM and SSDs. But that's not always the case.

E.g., I have a 2019 iMac with 32 GB RAM, which is sufficient for my current needs. But I could easily see myself using it for work, say, next year, that would require 64 GB or 128 GB RAM (since I've done such work in the past). If the RAM were non-upgradeable, when I purchased it I would have had to buy a model with 64 GB RAM (the most that was available OEM), just in case I needed it.

I.e., the complaint here isn't that non-upgradeable RAM forces me to pay more for RAM I need. It's that that non-upgradeable RAM forces me to pay for RAM I don't currently need, and may not need, just because there's a reasonable possibility I might need it.

For instance, if I were to buy a Studio (which I may do next year), I'll probably max out the RAM on it for that very reason.

 

[Abazigal]

Yup. People should be honest and just say that. And Apple should be honest and say the reason they made the SSD non-upgradeable in the Studio was because they wanted to force people to buy OEM SSDs, so they could increase their profit margin. Honesty on both sides.

I feel it’s simply a side-effect of using M1 chips. Everything is soldered together to improve performance, and the trade off is that you can’t upgrade it ever.

It’s true that Apple does stand to benefit financially from such a move, but that’s probably not their primary objective for doing so.

 

[theorist9]

I feel it’s simply a side-effect of using M1 chips. Everything is soldered together to improve performance, and the trade off is that you can’t upgrade it ever.

It’s true that Apple does stand to benefit financially from such a move, but that’s probably not their primary objective for doing so.

That's true for the RAM on all AS Macs (at least all released thus far; we don't know what they're going to do with the Mac Pro), and for the SSD's in the laptops. But it's not true for the SSD's in the Studio, which is why I picked that specific example.

The Studio's SSD is actually removable (more accurately, the flash storage portion of the SSD is removable; the controller is on the SoC). Indeed, if you have two Studios with the same size SSD, you can swap the flash storage between them. But if you have one with a larger SSD, and want to swap its flash storage into the Studio with the smaller SSD, Apple's firmware blocks this, which will prevent any Studio from being upgraded to a larger SSD. So since there is no structural barrier to upgrading the SSD, Apple has implemented a firmware barrier to prevent an upgrade. There is no technical reason to prevent this; thus their motivation here is purely financial.

See starting at 5:00 minutes in this video:

 

[Abazigal]

That's true for the RAM on all AS Macs (at least all released thus far; we don't know what they're going to do with the Mac Pro), and for the SSD's in the laptops. But it's not true for the SSD's in the Studio, which is why I picked that specific example.

The Studio's SSD is actually removable (more accurately, the flash storage portion of the SSD is removable; the controller is on the SoC). Indeed, if you have two Studios with the same size SSD, you can swap the flash storage between them. But if you have one with a larger SSD, and want to swap its flash storage into the Studio with the smaller SSD, Apple's firmware blocks this, which will prevent any Studio from being upgraded to a larger SSD. So since there is no structural barrier to upgrading the SSD, Apple has implemented a firmware barrier to prevent an upgrade. There is no technical reason to prevent this; thus their motivation here is purely financial.

See starting at 5:00 minutes in this video:

I see your Linus video, and raise you one rebuttal video by Rossman.

The TL; DR is that it’s a more lot more complex than simply swapping SSD modules.

 

[theorist9]

I see your Linus video, and raise you one rebuttal video by Rossman.

The TL; DR is that it’s a more lot more complex than simply swapping SSD modules.

How about doing the same courtesy for me that I did for you and telling me what point in the video to go to, and also summarizing what it says ? It's 15 minutes long! [And Rossman tends to ramble.] How exactly is he contradicting the Linus video?

 

[Joe The Dragon]

SSD's being non-upgradeable.

the mac pro has upgradeable storage in an user slot it needs hardware only from apple and an 2th mac to run tools to reload the system.
For the next mac pro they should have an restore / reload screen that does not need an 2th mac system to reload on new storage / have an easy full wipe function.
or at the very least let you install bigger disks at an later time.

 

[theorist9]

the mac pro has upgradeable storage in an user slot it needs hardware only from apple and an 2th mac to run tools to reload the system.
For the next mac pro they should have an restore / reload screen that does not need an 2th mac system to reload on new storage / have an easy full wipe function.
or at the very least let you install bigger disks at an later time.

Obviously I was referring to the Macs in which the SSD's are non-upgradeable, which is everything currently made except for Mac Pro, so I don't see how this reply is relevant to my post.

 

[Abazigal]

How about doing the same courtesy for me that I did for you and telling me what point in the video to go to, and also summarizing what it says ? It's 15 minutes long! [And Rossman tends to ramble.] How exactly is he contradicting the Linus video?

The part is at 7.45 min mark, and lasts for about two minutes.

Here’s also another tweet that explains it in better detail.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506022589357260801

The gist of the argument is that the M1 chip is fundamentally a very different beast from conventional computers where the processor, ram and storage are discrete parts of the PC and you can simply pull out and replace standalone parts as desired.

You can’t just assume that because the SSD can be taken out means that you should be able to swap in a ssd module from another computer (even if it’s a second Mac Studio) and expect it to work just like that.

When you take out the SSD part of an M1 Mac, you aren’t just unplugging an entire separate drive. You are removing a storage module, and the controller is a part of the M1 max chip. An analogy would be trying to replace the bad parts of your SSD drive instead while leaving the good parts in.

Standard SSDs have internal firmware that handle the communication to the motherboard. Apple purposely didn’t do this because the motherboard handles the communication directly, thus not needing a 3rd party chip on the device to do so.

There are probably many performance and optimization benefits to this. Apple is breaking boundaries that we haven’t seen in computer hardware in decades because of them not conforming to traditional designs. There are many cases of Apple’s frivolous lockouts, but this is clearly not one of them.

 

[theorist9]

The part is at 7.45 min mark, and lasts for about two minutes.

Here’s also another tweet that explains it in better detail.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506022589357260801

The gist of the argument is that the M1 chip is fundamentally a very different beast from conventional computers where the processor, ram and storage are discrete parts of the PC and you can simply pull out and replace standalone parts as desired.

You can’t just assume that because the SSD can be taken out means that you should be able to swap in a ssd module from another computer (even if it’s a second Mac Studio) and expect it to work just like that.

When you take out the SSD part of an M1 Mac, you aren’t just unplugging an entire separate drive. You are removing a storage module, and the controller is a part of the M1 max chip. An analogy would be trying to replace the bad parts of your SSD drive instead while leaving the good parts in.

Standard SSDs have internal firmware that handle the communication to the motherboard. Apple purposely didn’t do this because the motherboard handles the communication directly, thus not needing a 3rd party chip on the device to do so.

There are probably many performance and optimization benefits to this. Apple is breaking boundaries that we haven’t seen in computer hardware in decades because of them not conforming to traditional designs. There are many cases of Apple’s frivolous lockouts, but this is clearly not one of them.

That's the same thing Linus said, which I already summarized in my earlier post: "the flash storage portion of the SSD is removable; the controller is on the SoC". So there's nothing new there. Further, Linus states the fact that it's thus only the "dumb" part of the SSD that needs to be swapped out—the flash storage—means that, if anything, it should be more readily swappable, not less.

Now if there is some technical reason that controllers for different sized SSD's need to be different, such that Apple has different SoC's for each size of storage, then that would be a technical reason that the storage isn't upgradable. It would surprise me if that is the case, but I'd be willing hear otherwise from someone with expertise in this area, like a chip designer.

Further, Rossman seems to be operating under the incorrect assumption that the complaints being leveled at Apple are that it is difficult to swap the flash (it needs a DFU restore), but doable, and is thus defending it being difficult. But what Linus and others are complaining about isn't that it's difficult but doable (they'd be fine with that) but, instead, that it appears to be actively blocked by Apple.

So there's no clear point-point-point logic to what Rossman is saying—it's more free-form riffing, which is what he usually does. In some cases that works, but not here, where clarity is needed.

 

[Abazigal]

Now if there is some technical reason that controllers for different sized SSD's need to be different, such that Apple has different SoC's for each size of storage, then that would be a technical reason that the storage isn't upgradable. It would surprise me if that is the case, but I'd be willing hear otherwise from someone with expertise in this area, like a chip designer.

I am not sure what the confusion is.

You can swap the SSD in the Mac Studio but not the controller, so it stands to reason that the new SSD wouldn't work with the current Mac Studio. It doesn't seem like something that Apple is actively blocking as much as they simply aren't supporting it.

 

[theorist9]

I am not sure what the confusion is.

You can swap the SSD in the Mac Studio but not the controller, so it stands to reason that the new SSD wouldn't work with the current Mac Studio. It doesn't seem like something that Apple is actively blocking as much as they simply aren't supporting it.

There's no confusion. I addressed the issue you raised in this paragraph:

Now if there is some technical reason that controllers for different sized SSD's need to be different, such that Apple has different SoC's for each size of storage, then that would be a technical reason that the storage isn't upgradable. It would surprise me if that is the case, but I'd be willing hear otherwise from someone with expertise in this area, like a chip designer.

I.e., the controller is on the SoC. So if Apple uses the same SoC configuration for all storage sizes, that means it's using the same controller for all storage sizes. In this case there would be no technical reason the SoC that came with a 1 TB machine wouldn't work with the flash storage that came with a 2 TB machine (they use the same controller) and thus, since it doesn't work, Apple must be actively disallowing it.

OTOH, if Apple actually has different controllers on its SoC for different storage sizes*, where the controller that is activated is determined by the storage size it's designed for, then there would be a technical reason that an SoC designed to work with smaller flash storage wouldn't work with a larger one.

My guess is that the former is the case, but I'd be happy to hear from someone who has expertise in SSD controller design if it's actually more likely to be the latter.

*In the paragraph I quoted I mentioned different SoC's for each storage size, but more likely it would (in this scenario) be a single SoC with multiple controllers, where all the but the appropriate one is disabled.

 

[theluggage]

You can swap the SSD in the Mac Studio but not the controller, so it stands to reason that the new SSD wouldn't work with the current Mac Studio. It doesn't seem like something that Apple is actively blocking as much as they simply aren't supporting it.

It's hugely unlikely that there is a physical difference between the controllers - since, as others have pointed out, that would mean making multiple versions of the SoC die (not just the package, the way they do with different sizes of RAM chip soldered on, but the actual silicon chip). It will be a firmware setting.

The situation on the Mac Pro is the same - the controller is on the T2 chip, the SSD modules are "just flash" - but in that case Apple have managed to, first, offer an upgrade service and, later, a DIY upgrade kit - the wrinkle is that you have to plug in another Mac running Apple's Mac Configurator software to update the firmware.

So, no, nobody at Apple said to themselves "I know, I'll stick in a line of code that deliberately stops people upgrading the SSD just to be evil" - but they did make a deliberate decision not to make a firmware configuration tool (something that exists on pretty much every other personal computer since sometime in the 1980s) publicly available.

 

[theorist9]

It's hugely unlikely that there is a physical difference between the controllers - since, as others have pointed out, that would mean making multiple versions of the SoC die (not just the package, the way they do with different sizes of RAM chip soldered on, but the actual silicon chip). It will be a firmware setting.

The situation on the Mac Pro is the same - the controller is on the T2 chip, the SSD modules are "just flash" - but in that case Apple have managed to, first, offer an upgrade service and, later, a DIY upgrade kit - the wrinkle is that you have to plug in another Mac running Apple's Mac Configurator software to update the firmware.

So, no, nobody at Apple said to themselves "I know, I'll stick in a line of code that deliberately stops people upgrading the SSD just to be evil" - but they did make a deliberate decision not to make a firmware configuration tool (something that exists on pretty much every other personal computer since sometime in the 1980s) publicly available.

Not sure about when they began offering the upgrade service, but I believe Apple didn't offer that upgrade kit until a year after the Mac Pro came out. Perhaps one or both of these will be eventually be made available for the Studio as well. My guess would be either they won't offer either, or they'll offer the upgrade service only (since they market it as non-user-accessible).

 

[Wizec]

Yup, when NAND chips prices dropped, there was a market glut and densities went up quickly. Now? None of those are remotely true.

A NAND glut has been building since 1st quarter of ‘22 at least, getting worse by 2nd quarter, and it’s projected to get much worse in 2H22:

Press Center - Supply Chain Overstocked, NAND Flash 3Q22 Price Drop to Broaden to 8~13%, Says TrendForce | TrendForce - Market research, price trend of DRAM, NAND Flash, LEDs, TFT-LCD and green energy, PV

According to TrendForce, market oversupply intensified in 2Q22 due to lagging demand and continued NAND Flash output and process advancement. The market consensus is a disappointing 2H22 peak season for consumer electronics including notebooks, TVs, and smartphones. Material inventory levels...

www.trendforce.com

 

[Macative]

People who starts these discussion wants cheaper Macs.

So instead of framing it as the base model needs better hardware. They should just be honest and say they think a Mac with more SSD space and RAM is too expensive.

Bingo.

These people always think their usage must somehow be what the base model is supposed to be. There are BTO options for a reason. Unfortunately Apple's BTO options are the most obscenely priced things on the face of the planet, but that's the way it is.

 

[haralds]

Yes, there is also money involved, after all, this is Apple.

Are you telling me that money is "not involved" in the business decisions of Dell, Lenovo, Intel, Ssmsung, etc>?

 

[jav6454]

Are you telling me that money is "not involved" in the business decisions of Dell, Lenovo, Intel, Ssmsung, etc>?

It's always involved, but more so with Apple

 

[jav6454]

A NAND glut has been building since 1st quarter of ‘22 at least, getting worse by 2nd quarter, and it’s projected to get much worse in 2H22:

Press Center - Supply Chain Overstocked, NAND Flash 3Q22 Price Drop to Broaden to 8~13%, Says TrendForce | TrendForce - Market research, price trend of DRAM, NAND Flash, LEDs, TFT-LCD and green energy, PV

According to TrendForce, market oversupply intensified in 2Q22 due to lagging demand and continued NAND Flash output and process advancement. The market consensus is a disappointing 2H22 peak season for consumer electronics including notebooks, TVs, and smartphones. Material inventory levels...

www.trendforce.com

The thing is, not on the current standards used by Apple. Remember, not all NANDs are created equal. Same as DRAMs chips.

 

[Bobcat32]

Totally agree. Sure beats 64GB as the standard. It didn’t even seem that long ago. So glad that era is over. Just criminal imo lol

 

[kschendel]

It's [money] always involved, but more so with Apple

Surely you jest. You honestly think that Apple is more mercenary than Dell or HP? That's funny.

The mass production PC houses just do it a little differently.

 

[thadoggfather]

it sucks. got a 2tb nvme drive for $200 for my ps5.
$200 in Apple world gets me, a 0.25TB boost.

 

[theluggage]

These people always think their usage must somehow be what the base model is supposed to be. There are BTO options for a reason.

Well, sure if you want 8TB of SSD and 128GB RAM which is expensive overkill for many users. The debate is what is a reasonable starting point for the base spec of each machine, and at what point making it smaller would be "false economy". It's 2022 and 1TB of fast SSD shouldn't be an expensive indulgence.

The fuss over the M2 13" MBP is a good example of false economy: for whatever reason, Apple somehow can't use 2x128GB chips & populate both controller channels - the sensible response would be to drop the 256GB option and go to 512GB with 2x256GB, but instead they've used a single 256GB chip and effectively halved the bandwidth - even compared to the previous model 256GB 13" MBP. They've actually made the base MBP "defective by design" purely to preserve the "2019 called" base spec.

Sure, the base price is what it is because Apple factor in the extra cash they make from selling BTO options - that's the game every PC maker plays - but I think Apple crosses the line when they start downgrading aspects of performance vs. older models just to preserve their pricing structure. Also, although it's hard to do 1:1 comparisons with PCs, most PC laptops at the ~ $1200+ now come with 512GB of SSD (even when it's comparable PCIe x4).

Even with the Studio, "good design" would probably be to fill all 4 slots with the smallest economical sized modules (especially if you're not going to let users use the free slots for upgrades) to get the best performance. Fortunately Apple have drawn the line with RAM and not made 8GB M1 Pros or 16GB Max's - but they're doing the equivalent of SSDs.

Also bear in mind that not everybody (esp. outside US/UK) is able to order BTO direct from the Apple store, you're less likely to find BTO models in stock at other suppliers and certainly unlikely to see the discounts you might get on base models. Also, when shortages bite, it's the BTO models that get hit with long delivery delays.

 

[Macative]

Well, sure if you want 8TB of SSD and 128GB RAM which is expensive overkill for many users. The debate is what is a reasonable starting point for the base spec of each machine, and at what point making it smaller would be "false economy". It's 2022 and 1TB of fast SSD shouldn't be an expensive indulgence.

Who has set that standard? From what I can see, other PC manufacturers give away SSD storage because they can't get people to pay over a certain price for a PC.

If we're being honest, storage and RAM do not cost any manufacturer very much, so charging SO much more for them is entirely an artificial construct at both Apple and any other PC maker. It is not about the cost of the parts at all, and never has been. It's entirely about the value of increasing your ability with the machine.

With that as a given, the conversation is really about what is the minimum RAM/storage that the lowest tier user needs. Every machine, even the 13" MBP, has tiers of users. Some with more needs than others. Some with just different needs. Plenty of users have needs that aren't going to be pushing the swap all day long. Plenty of users have cloud servers / file servers etc. that data is stored on, not filling up a local hard drive. For as along as there are users and use cases for the base model, then the base model will stay as it is.

The only reason for Apple to increase the base model is if A) its no longer cost effective for them to provide the lower tier parts, or B) there is not user/use case for that tier.

 

[JayKay514]

They will eventually, but with shortages not right now.

Also I'm afraid that for a lot of people that 256GB is plenty (hard to believe I know), but I do have friends that really don't have a lot of stuff on their macbooks, photos and documents plus a couple of apps is basically it and I think that goes for the majority of macbook users especially taking work-macbooks (in non-artistic environments) into account.

This is true. Unless you're a pro photographer, or cutting tons of 4K / 8K footage, or doing composition with huge orchestral sample libraries, or a scientist working on massive data sets, it's really remarkable how little space most people need, relatively speaking. I'm a pro designer but these days 99% of my stuff is in the cloud via apps like Figma, and it's all vector/metadata files that take up a miniscule amount of space.