Apple wants $600 for 1TB SSD while Samsung's 1TB m.2 sells for $229

Saying you don't have any choice but to buy Apple's SSD or a different computer is inaccurate. The enclosure does up the cost, but you can connect an external 1 TB M.2 SSD via Thunderbolt 3.

 

APPLE TAX

 

A better comparison than just an m2 drive

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Portable-SSD-Thunderbolt-MU-PB1T0B/dp/B07GBWZJFG

I feel the storage speeds should be about the same... the 860 I assume you are referring to is a bit slower

 

Thread Title: Apple wants $600 for 1TB SSD while Samsung's 1TB m.2 sells for $229

First, that is a sale price that ends tonight (see photo), in case you didn't already know that when you posted this.

Secondly, that is not even Samsung's fastest flash drive, let alone as fast as the drive in the Mac mini. Indeed, I looked at this sale yesterday and decided that I wasn't interested, even at $229.

 

That Samsung external SSD, the price will come down eventually hopefully next year.

I think Next-gen Mac Mini, the RAM might be soldered just like SSD if people continue to buy bigger SSD from the Apple website.

 

Where are you seeing this configuration? All hp's site shows is a 6th-gen i7 with 8 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD. That is not a like to like comparison. I think you are not fully appreciating the speed of the new mini, especially its SSD. It is pretty fast especially at the higher capacities. Sure there is a premium you are paying, but if you really look into what Apple are providing, I do not think the premium is as much as it looks like at first glance. The new mini would smoke the machine listed on hp's site.

 

Yep, I don't disagree with the general sentiment that Apple charges a lot for upgrades (especially the 32gb ram upgrade in the mini). But ssds in the current Apples are about as good as it gets and their ssd prices are so out of line when compared with comparable products. Now, I'd prefer less expensive, larger, and slower ssds. Since even using USB 3 they are fast enough for my needs.

 

I see it. So $1329 versus $1699. You get a 6-core 7th-gen i7 instead of 4 core 6th-gen i7, faster (likely significantly faster write) SSD, 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports instead of 1 USB-C, and the newer iGPU, plus native macOS. Sorry man, but the Slice doesn't really stack up.

 

The i7 is a three-year-old quad-core Skylake mobile processor. You're looking at comparable performance to the i3 Mac mini, which is $1,399 with 16 GB of faster RAM and a faster 512 GB SSD.

 

Apple's SSD prices are a ripoff. No question about that.

But external SSDs are pretty small and take up very little space. I've been using a Sandisk one that's barely a 3 inch square since my 2012 Mini.

If you do decide to go with the HP, also have a look at the Intel NUC. Not bad looking, small, and upgradeable.

 

My mistake. Point is still valid. The i3 is a pretty good chip that will be comparable to the i7 you are looking at. All of the other features of the mini still exist, faster SSD, better connectivity all for the same price ($1329 vs $1399). The Slice really is not a good comparison. And comparing the 1 TB versions of both i7s does come out worse for the mini than comparing the 512 GB versions, but the 1 TB mini is even faster than the 512 for write speed.

I get being upset about the price increases. I know I am, but the mini seems to be getting a bit of a bad wrap here. The SSDs are very fast and much faster than the cheaper SSDs most people are comparing them to. Are they overpriced? Yes, they most certainly are, but not as much as people are making it out to be. I have tried finding a comparable Windows machine, and I don't think I can.

 

External SSDs are not huge.
I boot MacOS on external SSD and have a backup (also external). If the Mac goes down, I can connect the external SSD to another Mac and get right back to working.
Also, that external SSD will always be with you. You can spend the money to buy 2TB now, five years later when you upgrade your computer, that 2TB SSD is still with you, so you don't have to spend on storage again.

 

Samsungs nvme ssds are just as fast as the ones Apple uses, in fact I'm certain Apple are using Samsung ssds with thier own controller.

 

No, Apple is using Toshiba's NAND chips. Samsung has nothing to do with it. I do not know about speed, I just know that they are not from Samsung.

Yes, Toshiba has semiconductor industry, for those who didn't know: https://toshiba.semicon-storage.com/us/top.html

 

Interesting, do you have anything to back up your claim? In the past Apple has used Samsung ssd.

 

Look it up on iFixit's teardown page.

--- Post Merged, Nov 18, 2018 ---

 

Just to clarify, you linked the EVO which is TLC NAND. I doubt Apple uses TLC NAND and opts for MLC NAND which is available in the 970 Pro PCIe NVME drive. $380 but usually hovers around $415-430.

 

Cool you learn something everyday I guess. That being said Apple have been known to source parts from different suppliers for example using Samsung and LG for thier LCD panels.

 

This is correct. However, the new MBP's sequential read and write speeds are less than that of the Samsung 970 Pro 1TB PCIe NVME drive, and thus the average is better than the MBP's SSD.

If the MacBook Pro refresh thread on MacRumors from this past July is accurate. Based on some earlier reports and various posts on the web, it appears Apple uses a slightly slower SSD setup in the '18 Mini than the mid-'18 MBP.

 

I disagree. The size and footprint of my desktop computer is very irrelevant to me. The Mac Mini looks beautiful, of course, but for all I care it could have been a mid sized tower if that had enabled more customizabiliy and upgrade potential.

I think most people buy the Mac Mini not due to its size, but because it happens to be the only Apple computer that isn’t outdated or comes with a display.

 

The original comparison is almost certainly comparing different types of NAND too. Yes, Apple charges a lot for storage upgrades, but there is no need to do mental gymnastics trying to exaggerate the point.