Even if a rmbp was easy to open, every part except for the SSD is soldered to the motherboard. The SSD uses a non-standard port, so there are only a couple drives that are compatible.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Any reason why Apple made the rMBP sealed?
- Thread starter Johnny Steps
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even if a rmbp was easy to open, every part except for the SSD is soldered to the motherboard. The SSD uses a non-standard port, so there are only a couple drives that are compatible.
Because when you need more ram or want to upgrade to an SSD, they want you to buy a new computer. They don't make money if you buy those parts off Amazon and change it yourself.
explanation 1: I think Apple vision is that Thunderbolt is the way to improve your computer. So instead of swapping a new SATA SSD in your rMBP, you should hook up a new SSD drive with Thunderbolt. The only problem is, Thunderbolt devices are very expensive.
explanation 2: Apple wants laptop to be as thin as possible, even sacrificing upgradability.
Apple got it right in the 2008 Macbook....one cover to flip off and the battery and HDD is sitting right there. Remove a few screws and you have your Ram upgrade.
I think Apple's argument for the sealed machines would be this. Batteries: Our batteries are good enough you shouldn't need a new one anytime soon. Ram: Soldered Ram is more reliable, just buy what you need at the start. Hard drive: Use peripherals if you need more.
They don't want people tinkering around inside the machines. They can build them smaller and with higher profit margins by sealing them. Nonupgradability insures people will purchase a new machine earlier, as well.
I think they also gave the consumer a chance to vote with their wallet by offering both types at the same time in 2012. Though it was a little unfair as the older style didn't get the retina upgrade.
I'd prefer the older Unibody design with the retina display. Keep the optical drive bay around for a second hard drive.
I think Apple's argument for the sealed machines would be this. Batteries: Our batteries are good enough you shouldn't need a new one anytime soon. Ram: Soldered Ram is more reliable, just buy what you need at the start. Hard drive: Use peripherals if you need more.
They don't want people tinkering around inside the machines. They can build them smaller and with higher profit margins by sealing them. Nonupgradability insures people will purchase a new machine earlier, as well.
I think they also gave the consumer a chance to vote with their wallet by offering both types at the same time in 2012. Though it was a little unfair as the older style didn't get the retina upgrade.
I'd prefer the older Unibody design with the retina display. Keep the optical drive bay around for a second hard drive.
This "craze", I believe, was started by Apple, and many people don't especially like it. There's nothing wrong with the thickness of the PowerBook or 1st generation Macbook Pro.
I bought a Dell and an Air in 2011, and your numbers are off. Three years ago, a Macbook Air cost $1299, or about $1500 with Applecare. That Macbook Air can be found for $639 on Amazon, probably less if you go through ebay. Then you have to consider fees. You've lost almost 2/3 of the value, and you're looking at about $500 in your pocket, not $1000.
Then, you should look at the cost of a Dell in 2011. The Vostro 3450 is a business class computer, with niceties like a backlit keyboard and on-site warranty standard(!). You could get one for $500, and there's one for sale on ebay for $250, maybe closer to $200 after sellers fees and whatnot. That's still a great ROI, and much much better than the Mac.
TL
R; A Mac in 2011 costs $1500, and can be sold for $500, meaning you lost $1000. A Dell in 2011 costs $500 and can be sold for $200, meaning you lost $300. $300 < $1000, ergo a Dell is a smarter investment if you just need a generic computer for generic computing.If you consider that you can pump 16gb of RAM and an SSD into the Dell, and buy a new 10 hour battery, all for less than $300, you've now spend a total of $800, which is still less than the value lost on the mac, and about 1/2 the cost of a Mac. But after 3 years you can have a Dell that's like now, or an old mac that can't be upgraded.
Its a mistake to view the differences purely by the hardware price. choosing between the two involves an OS choice, and a wider platform choice for those bought into the Apple iOS platform too.
Yes OSX upgrades are now "free" but they are costed into Apple revenues - and if you want to put Windows onto Mac hardware to remove the difference in this comparison, that is further cost on the Mac side.
Viewed as an integrated stacker platform is how Apple know its user-base views it in the majority of cases.
Yes OSX upgrades are now "free" but they are costed into Apple revenues - and if you want to put Windows onto Mac hardware to remove the difference in this comparison, that is further cost on the Mac side.
Viewed as an integrated stacker platform is how Apple know its user-base views it in the majority of cases.
I have the feeling that there are more people who like it then those who don't
Personally, I will gladly forfeit any upgradeability if it means that my machine is more mobile without sacrificing performance.
all the parts inside are now soldered in such as the battery, RAM, PCI-e flash storage hard drive, etc.
FWIW, both the PCI-e flash storage and batteries can be removed. The only thing soldered in is the RAM, which Apple has been doing since 2008 with the MacBook Airs.
The battery is held in by adhesive, and since you can only get replacement batteries from Apple, I don't see why you'd want to personally remove the battery instead of letting Apple replace it (and the top case of your rMBP) for $199.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+15-Inch+Retina+Display+Late+2013+Teardown/18696
It's annoying, but it's where tech is going to. With profit margins dwindling for computers, manufacturers can't rely on you upgrading your computer once every 4-6 years anymore. You either build your computer to break (dell/hp) or you build your computer non-upgradable
My Late-2009 White Macbook would be a dead machine if it wasn't upgradeable. Thanks to 8GB RAM and a SSD it's still a decent performer. I wonder if my rMBP will last until 2018 without RAM upgrades...
It seems to me that Apple has decided to let down the pro market and turn entirely "prosumer".
It remains to be seen what impact the non-upgradeable and non-repairable nature of retina MBPs will have on sales to audio and video professionals (I am a tech support engineer in the pro audio world, as well as a musician/producer myself).
There is also an amount of greed: when I bought my Macbook Pro in early 2012 (it's a late 2011 model), I saved many hundreds of pounds but getting it with only 4 GB RAM and a spinning drive, and upgrading to 16 GB RAM and an SSD via Crucial and Samsung. I would have accepted paying a little more to get all this from Apple, but I think the difference would have been like around £800, or something crazy like that (and they did not even support 16 GB RAM officially but only 8). The difference was disproportionate.
I'm sorry, I very much enjoy Mac OS but I think hardware wise, Macs are very bad value. Well not all of them, the Mini is great, and even the new dustbin Mac Pro may be decent value considering the awesome graphics, but the laptop models are like "trophy computers", like something to show off rather than use where you pay for the label.
Especially in light of the fact that some of them are totally unreliable, including my own (graphics chip failures).
I'm not denying though, that they are ALSO great to use... when they work. I may even end up getting a retina MBP myself one day, but considering my past experience with the 2011 model and their non-repairable nature I would need Apple Care, and to consider the Apple laptop replacement a recurring two or three yearly event, a bit like getting the new mobile phone from the network company, and at the price MBPs are, this just does not feel right and is offputting.
Oh, and in Europe, warranties are normally 2 years. To me, the fact that Apple's warranty is 1 year only says something about what they think about their own hardware.
It remains to be seen what impact the non-upgradeable and non-repairable nature of retina MBPs will have on sales to audio and video professionals (I am a tech support engineer in the pro audio world, as well as a musician/producer myself).
There is also an amount of greed: when I bought my Macbook Pro in early 2012 (it's a late 2011 model), I saved many hundreds of pounds but getting it with only 4 GB RAM and a spinning drive, and upgrading to 16 GB RAM and an SSD via Crucial and Samsung. I would have accepted paying a little more to get all this from Apple, but I think the difference would have been like around £800, or something crazy like that (and they did not even support 16 GB RAM officially but only 8). The difference was disproportionate.
I'm sorry, I very much enjoy Mac OS but I think hardware wise, Macs are very bad value. Well not all of them, the Mini is great, and even the new dustbin Mac Pro may be decent value considering the awesome graphics, but the laptop models are like "trophy computers", like something to show off rather than use where you pay for the label.
Especially in light of the fact that some of them are totally unreliable, including my own (graphics chip failures).
I'm not denying though, that they are ALSO great to use... when they work. I may even end up getting a retina MBP myself one day, but considering my past experience with the 2011 model and their non-repairable nature I would need Apple Care, and to consider the Apple laptop replacement a recurring two or three yearly event, a bit like getting the new mobile phone from the network company, and at the price MBPs are, this just does not feel right and is offputting.
Oh, and in Europe, warranties are normally 2 years. To me, the fact that Apple's warranty is 1 year only says something about what they think about their own hardware.
Last edited:
I'm doubtful that 8GB of RAM is going to be a bottleneck for your rMBP four years from now.
Even if you end up using all of that RAM and start paging, I'd guess that the speed of the PCIe SSD would make it a lot less impactful than the impact of paging to the much slower spinning HDDs.
Ah, ok. That's still a ton more MB/s than the stock drive in your Late 2009 white MacBook!
Ah, ok. That's still a ton more MB/s than the stock drive in your Late 2009 white MacBook!
Yep... if RAM proves not being a bottleneck within 2 years, maybe I'll upgrade to one of these 500GB/1TB Transcend SSDs which seem to be faster than the stock one.
We'll Apple must know something about consumers behavior that they are doing this. It's almost as if they are daring you to switch to an alternate platform. Most media professionals won't (can't) and that's why Apple is asking people to pay upfront and pay often. Higher specs paid up front and hardware replaced often help Apple's numbers.
Just my curiosity - why are Macs so strongly associated with media professionals? I don't really see why, say, a video editor would prefer a MBP over a proper workstation laptop. does Windows lack good software for media work? Personally, I'd always recommend Windows for heavily specialized workflows, e.g. when using a single application/application suite.
I guess you are from the UK because you used £800 in your post.
We also get the 2 year warranty that the rest of Europe gets.
See here.
Barney
There are loads of reasons.
For movie and picture professionals, which is NOT my area of expertise at all, there is I believe a claimed superiority for Apple machines in reproducing colours more accurately. There is, definitely, the advantage of consistency using a more limited range of Mac models and a smaller selection of screens, compared to the bewildering array of possibilities on PC, be it in terms of monitors or graphics cards. That being said, a PC can be excellently configured for this work (and for any work).
For audio professionals, which is my area of expertise, there is in my opinion NO technical advantage at all to using a Mac. Apart from Logic Pro, the biggest players in the DAW market are cross platform (Steinberg's Nuendo and Cubase, Avid/Digidesign Pro Tools). A few less used programs are Mac only (Digital Performer) or PC only (Samplitude, Sonar). The youths tend to use Ableton Live! or sometimes Reason, and Presonus Studio One and Cockos Reaper are making inroads at all levels. All these are cross-platform. There are of course many others that come and go or struggle through the years.
There is no technical advantage with Macs, and in fact, while they are more consistent, if a Mac has a problem there is often less flexibility in troubleshooting it (for instance, if your graphics card conflicts with an audio card the PC will give you more choices in replacing the graphics card).
However, most people at user level consider there is a workflow advantage with Macs: they are easier to use, less problems overall, so one can focus on the job in hand. I would tend to agree with that, subjectively. But only just.
There is also the fact, perhaps, that Apple is a US company and perhaps has an affinity with Avid who are huge in the movie editing industry, and who have bought Digidesign, also a US company, who still are the standard in music recording studios with their Pro Tools software (even though almost everyone despises them because of their poor customer service). PCs also come from American companies obviously, and they are all made in China anyway, but what I mean is, Apple is ONE US company who controls its OS and hardware, and it's easy for a company like Avid to work with a company like Apple. As opposed, to, say, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Dell, and whoever else. Something about company cultures being alike.
The big thing with Pro Tools is that as most commercial studios rely on it as their first choice workstation, there are still many of their customers who also use it on their home setups, and it's easy to load their sessions at the big studios. They are the "standard". And, in my opinion, as exciting as Microsoft Word.
I believe that Pro Tools is only the standard in commercial studios and with people of a certain age. The future does not belong to them, for many reasons that it would take too long to develop here. Pro Tools is still widespread because of market inertia, but Logic is already giving Pro Tools a big run for its money in terms of user base, and Steinberg's DAWs (Cubase and Nuendo) are very well established (and were a pioneer), and with potential to develop nicely. The increasing power of computers has already forced Avid to make native versions of Pro Tools (that do not rely on proprietary DSP cards), so increasingly Pro Tools has to compete where the others are.
Unlike Pro Tools Logic Pro is NOT cross platform, and for Apple it's a huge foot in the door in this market. It was perhaps a consideration when they dropped PC support after buying Emagic (although it's not the one they put forward at the time). People who like Logic MUST use a Mac. So there you have a big pool of media people who will use Macs.
Same thing with Final Cut Pro, which is seriously awesome considering how cheap it has become.
There is also snobbery. Macs are a fashion statement that says "I am part of this club". They are a badge. I'm sorry, I like them and use them, but this is true.
Personally I use both platforms in fact, and support both.
This also goes with the fact that Macs are expensive, and easier to justify as an investment for people who make money using them (i.e., professionals).
To put my reply in perspective, my fields of expertise are music and professional audio, not movie editing or video. Because I do some tech support work for a market-leading company in professional audio, I get to hear about ALL the DAW programs and I sometimes have to test things on all of them. And I get a good feel of what percentage of users use Pro Tools, Logic or Cubase. Because I'm the person they come to when they have interoperability issues with my company's products.
----------
I live in the UK yes. I know that Apple have this thing about 1 year and then 2 and then they mention 6 to, I think, complain. But the fact is, they are not like European companies who do not differentiate at all between the first and second year of warranty (in the EU territory, because EU companies give one year warranties in the US, at least the ones I know of).
Media Professionals =/= tech guru. They know their area of specialization really well but they're often just like the general public when it comes to understanding computers. Their mindset still largely overlaps with Apple's ethos: looks nice, simple to use with minimal tinkering. Obviously those points themselves could be argued, but nonetheless, Apple as a brand has positioned itself as the de-facto standard for those qualities.
As a switcher in 2005, I think apple had a pretty compelling argument, video editing on a mac was an amazing breath of fresh air coming from breakout boxes and special hardware setups for editing on a PC. The OS had way more fit and finish than XP, the Powermac tower looked way nicer than the default beige box without being some tacky neon light gaming tower.
As for now, I think both sides have great options. My personal taste is for the mbp, but by and large the productivity and effectiveness of a computer is up to the user sitting in front of it. I know super talented people using either.
In addition to what's already been observed - media professionals are overwhelmingly arts/ humanities graduates who are commonly stereotyped as not handy with technology/ tools/ DIY stuff. Apple's ecosystem "just works" - so has a lot of cache with folks in media businesses.