Also an engineering decision - higher reliability by soldering parts to the motherboard - plus allows thinner enclosure (I said the t* word!).
Although yes, the cost of replacement of motherboard technically higher when it does go wrong Apple are also preventing users from accidentally breaking their expansion ports when 'upgrading' but stuff won't work loose during the working lifetime of the unit.
I would rather a removable part come loose and reseat it than a soldering joint fail and replace the entire motherboard. I have seen (and fixed / replaced) both.
Like the capacitors and resistors and all the myriad pieces and parts soldered to the motherboard?
If soldered parts were less reliable, every motherboard made would use all socketed parts. They don’t, in fact they generally have as FEW socketed parts as possible because each socket introduces one more failure point that doesn’t exist with soldered parts. It’s not the part that’s more or less reliable, it’s the connection. And, metal fused to metal will always be more reliable that metal pushed up REAAAAALY close to another metal.
I’d say not purchasing is the most effective way. BUT, when you vote with your dollars while everyone else votes with theirs (and purchasing the thing) you may find yourself just not purchasing anymore... which is totally fine! Apple’s never made computers for everyone, just for a profitable subset of folks.
I’d guess that most HERE upgrade to the max ram. Your average person walking into the store just gets what’s on the base model because they can walk out of the store with it then and there.
Let's not be disingenuous in our disagreements. Capacitors and resistors by their very nature must be soldered. RAM and storage, not so much. A bandwagon appeal to others only shows trends and is a logical fallacy.
The decision to solder parts is not so much based on reliability (unless you can show me a study proving that); it is based on trends, a trend which Apple started in order to differentiate their computers as thinner. Others followed. Soldering previously upgradable parts also enables manufacturers to charge more for upgrades at purchase and to create a level of predetermined obsolescence. It also forces consumers to purchase a new computer should anything fail, because the cost of a motherboard often exceeds the cost of a new computer after the production run for that model has ended.
Please tell us where you got your electrical engineering degree and then maybe we can talk, otherwise, I’ll trust Apple’s design decisions. Other PC OEMs use LPDDR3 as well, including Dell...I suppose they don’t know that DDR3L exists either.
[automerge]1591054768[/automerge]
To your latter comment, I have replied in part above. To the former I say, noone needs to be an engineer to understand or disagree with design decisions. A certain level of logic suffices for argumentation, unless of course you would like to show me your electrical engineering degree?
I am only pointing out alternatives. Many other manufacterers including HP, Lenovo, and Dell still offer models (e.g. XPS 15) for which the RAM may be upgraded by the user.
You are correct. Apple, given a choice to use higher power, slower memory could absolutely do that thing. I guess we’ll never know why they used more power efficient AND faster memory. It’s certainly a mystery to me. /s
[automerge]1591058846[/automerge]
What would be the point? There’s very little power to be saved by using DDR3L. It uses 8 times more power while in standby than LPDDR3 (though it is cheaper than the RAM Apple uses).
How much slower is DDR3 or DDR3L? How much more energy does DDR3 or DDR3L use? In real world application and performance? Please, show me the real world benefits. These are practical questions.
There are plenty of laptops using DDR memory, many of which have comparable real world run time to Apple's MacBook Pro line AND they won't drain your battery while plugged in. If Apple has such great design, why does it allow its MBP 16" in particular function in this way? It is the only manufacturer to do so.
DDR3L is not better than LPDDR3.
I never used the word "better," so the question I pose to you is, better in what way? As consumers we should not only be measuring performance and energy savings, but also the impact of designs on e-waste. If computers generate more waste when they fail, is it worth the other benefits? How much benefit is real? In what ways?
I acknowledge LPDDR3 consumes less energy. That is not my point. My point is the larger impact: real world performance and energy saving vs. ease of repair, which increases the lifespan of technology and generates less e-waste.
