Other World Computing Releases Aftermarket SSD Upgrade for Retina MacBook Pro

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 14, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Other World Computing has released a 480GB aftermarket SSD upgrade for the Retina MacBook Pro. However, while OWC's upgrades for the MacBook Air are very price-competitive with the storage upgrades available at the Apple Online Store, the 480GB Aura Pro 6G is less clear-cut.

    In its blog post announcing the release, OWC notes that "when introduced this past June, the MacBook Pro with Retina display base model offered a 256GB SSD configuration with no upgrade option." While this used to be true, at the beginning of this month, Apple expanded the custom configuration options for the Retina MacBook Pro. Now, users can upgrade the base model with either 512 or 768GB of storage.

    The 512GB upgrade costs $500 from Apple, while OWC offers the 480GB SSD for $579.99. Though it appears to be more expensive, the OWC upgrade does allow users to keep the 256GB drive that comes in the notebook by default. For purchasers ordering the Mercury Aura Pro before September 30, OWC will include the $60 OWC Envoy Pro for free, an external USB 3.0 enclosure for the SSD drive from the Retina MacBook Pro. This gives users a very speedy (and very small) external drive.

    Article Link: Other World Computing Releases Aftermarket SSD Upgrade for Retina MacBook Pro
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #2
    ha, and iFixit said the rMBP wasn't upgradeable at all!
     
  3. macrumors regular

    mattkidd

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Location:
    United Kingdom England Northants
    #3
    tempted too buy this upgrade must say, the 256 is not enough; though $580 seriously! Hmm
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    #4
    The RAM because it is soldered and battery because it is glued are the two items that are the pain. iFixit's guide shows it is easy to remove the SSD.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    #5
    At that price? No thanks. I would rather buy a crucial m4 512gb SSD for $400 and connect it to a thunderbolt adapter.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    #6
    Why would anyone buy this? I've nuked an SSD in my MacBook Air before and that's precisely why I bought AppleCare for the rMBP…

    What kind of warranty does it have? I doubt it's as convenient to replace as going to the Genius Bar by any measure, and that means your machine is going down for days
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #7
    3 Year warranty and it takes someone with average intelligence and the correct screwdriver about 5 minutes to replace the SSD in the rMBP. :rolleyes:

    Don't forget the $100 cost of that adapter.
     
  8. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Location:
    Alligators, Oranges and Hurricanes.
    #8
    Finally!

    I figured this upgrade would come along, seeing that its the only thing I can upgrade on my rMBP. I give it a few months for the price to drop. SSD prices are around a buck per gig these days. USB 3 hasn't let me down. Though mountain lion seems forget the external HDD's are attached when coming back from sleep mode.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    #9
    A 960GB would be better

    Getting to keep the 256GB SSD has some value, but I think what a lot of people want (at least what I want) is to have a replacement that's a better value for the 768GB option.

    It would be nice if OWC could develop a 750GB or 960GB option (2 x 480). If it's competitive with the $1000 that Apple is charging, it would be a plus.

    For a lot of people with a large photo collection (let alone video), 500GB is pushing it if you don't want to rely on external storage. If you can have a larger internal storage option, the rMBP can easily replace a Mac Pro for almost everything. It's nearly as fast on Geekbench as a 3.33ghz hexacore Mac Pro and the real world benchmarks say it is basically the same. But if you need to rely on large amounts of external storage, you're tethered to that...
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #10
    At the time, it wasn't.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    iRobby

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL USA
    #11
    I'm hoping my MacBook Pro Retina base model coming next Monday w/ 256GB is enough contrary to OWCwebsite saying they have received many reports that the 256GB is not enough from Retina customers.

    I based not upgrading on the fact that I currently use 74.5 GB out of 232GB on my 2005 Dell desktop

    I'm hoping that the Apple software isn't huge and and fills up over 1/2 of the drive before I add music and other files.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    iMacFarlane

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Location:
    Phaselocking Psychos somewhere on Pandora
    #12
    The Apple software is not huge. The OS and iLife together weighs in at 20-30GB, depending on your installation.
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    Diode

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #13
    Perhaps because at ~ $1000 people are no longer budget conscious and would prefer Apple just do it? Even if it was a $100+ savings. The few that would opt for it probably wouldn't make the development / expense investment worth it. Could be wrong though.

    I suspect as flash prices drop and Apple continues to maintain the $1000 upgrade until the next refresh - this will change.
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #14
    I was hoping for at least 768 GB to compete w/ Apple. I have a pretty big iPhoto library as well as iTunes. Plus, I use Boot Camp, so I need some space for Windows as well.

    For external storage, I kinda wish this had a TB port. That thing would scream, and be portable to boot (no pun intended).
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    striker33

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    #15
    Why would anyone want to put super fast storage modules into a crappy USB 3 enclosure?

    Thunderbolt or GTFO.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #16
    The Apple SSD can read/write ~450MB/s, USB 3.0 can theoretically do 600MB/s (although probably less in practice).
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    iRobby

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL USA
    #17
    My installation? I thought it was preinstalled.
     
  18. ZipZap, Aug 14, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2012

    macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    #18
    Because for warranty purposes you cannot sell the original SSD that came with the rMBP.

    I had the same issue with my MBA. Had to keep the original drive in case I needed service.

    Now that drive is in an Aura USB 3.0 enclosure and it makes a great portable drive.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    #19
    Does that make the OWC faster or slower?
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #20
    OWC says they can get 500MB/s from theirs, which is a nice little upgrade, but it's hard to say until an outside is review is done.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    #21
    That's true.
     
  22. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    #22
    Am I the only one who thinks the Envoy Pro looks very sleek? I was hoping it would fit a 2.5"... :(
     
  23. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    #23
    Is 500MB/s not fast enough for you?
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    theBB

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    #24
    If you are trying to pick between MacPro and Macbook, and if it really comes down to whether you have enough internal storage, MacPro is tethered to the plug anyways, so having to carry an external drive for some tasks does not sound like a deal breaker.
     
  25. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #25
    Because Thunderbolt is incredibly expensive, and USB 3 is plenty fast for this purpose.
     

Share This Page