iMac BTO SSD prices in perspective (horribly overpriced)

Discussion in 'iMac' started by tubeexperience, Oct 1, 2016.

  1. tubeexperience, Oct 1, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2016

    tubeexperience macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #1
    I am not sure how many of you have noticed, but Apple still charge as much for its SSD options right now in 2016 as it did in 2013. In other words, Apple hasn't lower the price of SSDs in three years!

    Looking at the build to order (BTO) options.

    For + $100, you can get upgraded to a 1TB Fusion Drive. In comparison, you can now buy a ~500GB SSD for less than $100.

    For + $200, you can get upgraded to a 256GB Flash Storage. In comparison, you can now buy a ~1TB SSD for less than $200.

    For + $500, you can get upgraded to a 512GB Flash Storage. In comparison, you can now buy a ~2TB SSD for around the same price.

    Apple's prices for its SSD options may seem reasonable in 2013, but it's NOT 2013 anymore.

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Head-to-head comparison:

    ~250 GB SSD

    Market price: ~$50

    Apple's price: +$200

    ~500 GB SSD

    Market price: ~$100

    Apple's price: +$500

    ~1 TB SSD

    Market price: ~$200

    ~2 TB SSD

    Market price: ~$500
     
  2. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #2
    You're comparing pricing for SATA SSDs to PCI-e SSDs hitting up to 2GB/s read/write.

    Regardless, I'm not arguing they're too expensive. They are. However the prices will likely be dropped after the refresh.

    It would be better to pass judgment when they're updated.
     
  3. tubeexperience, Oct 1, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2016

    tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #3
    Apple doesn't currently offers iMac with SATA SSDs, otherwise I would use that for comparison.

    Oh, did I mentioned that in 2013 Apple charges +$200 and +$600 for upgrading to 16GB RAM and 32GB RAM respectively: same price as it is now in 2016?
     
  4. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #4
    It's no secret that the Mac line is massively long in the tooth and due an update. Historically, with hardware refreshes they drop pricing for upgrades, or increase the base specs.

    Again, best to pass judgement until it's updated.
     
  5. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #5
    The iMac was already refreshed twice since. Once in 2014 and once in 2015.
     
  6. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #6
    Yep. But with the talk of ARM in the Sierra kernel, the next iteration is most likely going to be the biggest hardware update/change for a long time.

    Look, I'm not disagreeing with you. I really hate getting hosed with pricing. Even though the 27" has user-upgradable RAM, that's no excuse. Though it's worth remembering the Apple tax has always been ludicrous.

    At least let's wait until properly passing judgement, as an update is on the horizon. :)
     
  7. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #7
    Well, I guess the wait isn't very long now, but I have my doubts that Apple will be lower the price or increase the specs much. We'll see.

    I highly doubt that Apple is moving the Mac to ARM.

    More likely, Apple is merging the macOS with iOS. (similar to Microsoft has already done).

    Anyway, that's another subject matter.
     
  8. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #8
    I hope you're wrong about this! But as you said, we'll wait and see what's what.
     
  9. theluggage macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #9
    Short term - OS X on the iPad Pro would make a lot of sense as a competitor to the MS Surface Pro.

    Longer term - I wouldn't bet against ARM-based Macs, but I'm not holding my breath. It would start with the MacBook...

    As for the SSDs - yeah, they're overpriced but you do need to compare like-for-like with upmarket PCIe M.2 SSDs, not the cheap SATA ones.
     
  10. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #10
    If Apple releases iMac with SATA SSDs, I would absolutely use that for comparison.

    You have to remember that only some specific tasks (i.e. editing very high resolution videos, transferring large files) would benefit from having PCIe SSDs.

    Most users wouldn't see much benefit from having PCIe SSDs.

    We'll leave this for another topic.
     
  11. danielwsmithee macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    #11
    A better comparison would be to M.2 PCIe SSDs which is what Apple is offering. That would give you much better insight into what Apple is charging.

    Yes Apple charges a lot for upgrades always have, right now especially, but once you compare Apples to Apples it is really not that bad...

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100011693 600488413 601193224 600038493 600640786 600038487 600038491

    And yes the upgrade from SATA SSD to PCIe SSD is substantial and worth the upgrade. You are essentially quadrupling the performance of what is still the biggest bottleneck in the system.

    I expect their Flash upgrade prices to come down substantially with the update, as they just did on the iPad Pro.
     
  12. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    Exactly.

    The notion that all SSDs are the same speed (250 mb/s vs 2000 mb/s !!) is BEYOND ABSURD.

    How absurd can you (one) be to perpetuate this!!
     
  13. Zenithal macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #13
    I haven't seen a 250 MB/s SSD in years. M.2 SSD prices are falling, albeit slowly. Though outside of professionals, who's using the bandwidth available with m.2 or PCI-E at the average Joe consumer level?
     
  14. danielwsmithee macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2005
    #14
    Most Mac users...

    From an average consumer perspective I'd much rather have a machines with very fast storage, and a relatively slow processor & GPU etc. than the other way around.

    On a typical quad-core machine doing day to day activities, the processors duty cycle is extremely small even with a SATA SSDs. From a useability perspective you get the most bang for your buck by investing in fast storage.

    If you want to argue that Apple should provide SATA SSDs instead of HDDs, I'd buy that, but not instead of PCIe flash.

    I'd love to see the next iMac offer a fusion with a 1TB PCIe SSD paired with a 2TB SATA SSD based on the current prices. The thing is the only thing keeping the SATA SSDs cheaper than PCIe is economies of scale. SATA needs to just die, which will cause PCIe to drop on price very quickly.
     
  15. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #15
    SATA SSDs are obsolete. I'll never buy a clunker with one installed internally ever again, you can believe that!!

    Everyone. Everyone is.

    The speed difference is noticeable in nearly every task performed. Compare the two
     
  16. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #16
    Yup and Apple is charging 2,000 dollars for a Haswell based MBP. They sell their computers (and components) at a premium price. I don't think anyone is going to argue that point
     
  17. Taz Mangus, Oct 2, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

    Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #17
    The speed difference between SATA SSD and M.2 PCIe is about 560Mb/s vs 1.8Gb/s. The upgrade price on the SSD is cheaper as you move up to the 27" iMac line. On the $1799 512GB is $500, on the $1999 it is $400 and on the $2299 it is $200. On the 21" iMacs the 512GB SSD upgrade is $500.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 2, 2016 ---
    I would like to see the link to the <$100 500GB m.2 PCIe SSD.
     
  18. tubeexperience, Oct 2, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

    tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #18
    #1. SATA III supports up to 600MB/s.

    #2. Only when performing some specific tasks (i.e. editing 4K videos, transferring very large files) would someone benefit from a very high Sequential Read and Sequential Write rate.

    I'll give you an analogy.

    I can have a normal size water pipe connected to my house or I can have a larger pipe (4 times the capacity). The latter is great when I need to fill my swimming pool because I can fill my swimming 4 times as fast... that is until I realized that I have to pay 4 times as much for the same amount of water.

    So what are some tasks your perform that would benefit from speeds above 600MB/s?

    And what are some tasks you perform that you would benefit from speeds beyond what SATA III has to offer?

    I don't think that was ever in question.

    SATA SSDs have a huge benefit that it can take place of any hard drives.

    I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon.

    And how often do you perform tasks that SATA III speed (600MB/s) would be the limiting factor?
     
  19. Taz Mangus, Oct 2, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

    Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #19
    So now your argument is that we should not have faster disk access because you don't feel it is necessary. It is really funny how people complain when Apple is not using the latest tech and still other people complain when they do. I guess some people are not satisfied unless they have something to complain about.
     
  20. tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #20
    You are mistaken. There's a right price for everything.

    I'll give you an example. rMBP 15" still uses the very outdated Haswell processor.

    That's perfectly fine for a lot of people, but not full at price in 2016.

    If it is 25% off, I would say that it's a good price despite having a dated processor.
     
  21. Taz Mangus, Oct 2, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

    Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #21
    The right price is what people are willing to pay. It is called the free market. Apple understands that but you don't seem to.

    No one is forcing you buy Apple products. Want SATA SSD then purchase an older model iMac or go purchase another brand computer that supports SATA SSD.
     
  22. tubeexperience, Oct 2, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

    tubeexperience thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2016
    #22
    Clearly not. That's why a lot of people are refusing to buy the currently very outdated models.
     
  23. varian55zx macrumors 6502a

    varian55zx

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    One thing his thread hasn't dissuaded me from:

    buying an iMac with an internal SSD from Apple. I will be doing so on my next purchase
     
  24. Taz Mangus, Oct 2, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

    Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #24
    Me too.
     
  25. simonsi macrumors 601

    simonsi

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Location:
    Auckland
    #25
    Most companies charge what the market will stand. That (unfortunately) doesn't mean charging the lowest price that anyone is willing to pay. As long as Apple sell what they are willing to make at the prices demand, why would they go lower. If you held stock you certainly would expect them to maximise revenue for sales.
     

Share This Page