..in relation to this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1665155 vr reply: It's clear from your ongoing dialog that you don't understand Apple. Apple increasingly views computers as appliances... that are replaced, not upgraded. The new Mac Pro is an obvious step further down this path. ------- that may be true but what happens when an 'upgraded' ssd can be sold for the same cost as selling 2 iPhones? i think much of the confusion (and maybe why i keep trying to explain the position) in the other thread (though i personally can avoid another type of confusion which arose in that thread.. which i'll avoid in this one) is that it feels as if people think i'm arguing on behalf of or in defense of apple corp.. and you're arguing anti-apple in the sense that they are robbing you of the ability to prolong the life of your computers in a cheaper manner.. i get what you're saying- i promise you i do and i agree with the reasonings why that upsets you.. it upsets me too.. and i'm not at all trying to defend or justify apple's behavior.. the part i don't think i'm getting across is that i'm also arguing on the same side of the fence as you all are.. it's just that i'm saying it's actually worse than you all are making it out to be.. i'm saying apple will make even more money off you than if they didn't allow upgrades.. as in: upgrades ≠ cheaper user experience.. this nmp is entirely user upgradeable and you are going to spend more money on your computers in the next decade because of it.. again, i understand what you guys keep telling me.. but, when i read your responses, the tone of them do not correspond with the message.. meaning- your arguments towards me could be interpreted/generalized as "apple treats their customers better than how you suggest.. there's no way they would try to gouge you for the amount of money you're claiming they are" i don't feel there should be much of an "is apple good or bad" underlay in the thread at all.. because we're all arguing they're bad.. it's the degree of badness we're talking about the question (at least the one i keep asking) is explain how buying 3 computers in the next decade will be more expensive than selling the mac pro in a form which allows a user to buy and upgrade parts.. because the way i see it, apple would be doing you a favor by selling you a computer which lasts three years.. under that set up, i would spend $9g (three base models) in the next ten years on my computers and they will always be under warranty.. in an upgradeable environment, i will spend $8000 right off the bat.. (as in 2@ 6core base instead of the 3@quad config).. i'll likely be more inclined to 'invest' in larger ssds since they are 'mine' and not soldered to the computer.. there's $2000 or so.. based off my current track record of of parts blowing out of warranty, i'll be buying at least 4 new gpus (and possibly 8 depending on circumstance).. i figure i'll spend at least 1.5x $ under an upgradable scenario vs. closed workstation. do a similar exercise yourself and see what you come up with -or- how you truly foresee yourself spending in the next decade under the two scenarios. (upgradable vs. non) then also realize most of the stuff you'll be upgrading with are now ,or very soon to be, apple products.. your 1TB will no longer be different to their bottom line than a macbook air is (i bet the apple ssds will even get their own fancy nAme® soon enough).. they want to sell you parts.. they want you to upgrade this computer.. (and they cut you off after 5 years via software.. there's no need for them to use hardware as a means to force you back into the circle.. the simplest and most effective way to make hardware obsolete is via the software required to use it.) i think if we could get past this hurdle then we could steer it back towards the design of the computer and analyze it in a different light.. it's a genius design.. genius.. in more ways than one..