Lawsuit incoming, you shrewd ****s
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Mac Studio Storage Not User-Upgradeable Due to Software Block [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
well congrats on identifying a security-meassure that has existed in many non-apple business-notebooks for years... it would be odd if you could just take out the ssd of someones computer and read it by putting it into another computer, wouldn't it?
Yep. Expandability is only for the most expensive model. Maybe this one too someday if we decide to make a product.
I just realised another thing. On my M1 MBP there is no PCI bus. The SSD seems to be directly connected to the SOC via something different. The ARM architecture works without the PCI bus needed for an NVME SSD so it is quite normal that Apple does not use NVME in the case of M1 Macs.
I think we need to think differently about the hardware of M1 machines and forget the old PC paradigm. Also an ARM computer does not have BIOS/UEFI as we know it. It has a simple bootstrap that then loads the needed firmware from the SSD. Again this is not how PCs work. It is a new world with new technologies and we should not assume our old knowledge applies. So instead of making a big fuss perhaps we should try to find out how these new technologies work.
But then again these forums seem to be frequented by many millenial snowflakes who feel entitled to claim and want things because they just can. And that results in a lot of negativity here. Perhaps before screaming your entitlement from the roofs, perhaps first try to understand the technological underpinnings of this new ARM world.
I think we need to think differently about the hardware of M1 machines and forget the old PC paradigm. Also an ARM computer does not have BIOS/UEFI as we know it. It has a simple bootstrap that then loads the needed firmware from the SSD. Again this is not how PCs work. It is a new world with new technologies and we should not assume our old knowledge applies. So instead of making a big fuss perhaps we should try to find out how these new technologies work.
But then again these forums seem to be frequented by many millenial snowflakes who feel entitled to claim and want things because they just can. And that results in a lot of negativity here. Perhaps before screaming your entitlement from the roofs, perhaps first try to understand the technological underpinnings of this new ARM world.
Wait… so there is quite a big possibility that the second slot is just there for the maxed out configuration because maybe 8TB just physically wont‘t fit onto one module and the usage of such modules just offers better economies of scale? Of course this is only enabled by the fact, that apple can double the raw nand-chips while still controlling them from the central controller within the M1 chip, otherwise you‘d be setting up a raid 0. Would mean that even if a second nand-module can be integrated with the system, getting hold of one might not be easy.
There will be, it's called the M3 iMac Pro for $7999 once the Mac Studio is
I'm 90% serious on this. Apple hasn't updated (ok a few minor spec bumps) the first iteration of their "towers" in like a decade..? And also why sell two parts for $2000 and $1600, if you can combine them, save some on the supply chain and sell it for $3500..?
Why do you want to sue Apple for providing replaceable / upgradable memory modules? Doesn't make any sense.
Of course, the M1 chips do use PCIe. How do you think they could provide Thunderbolt without PCIe? Irecommend having a look in IOREG, there is a lot of PCIe going on. And it even is involved in communication with the flash modules, but in a very different way than usually. Good read on this:
It won't be easy as Apple went on to change the connector slightly (by the tweet thread posted earlier).
Unless there are massive benefits to this (might be, as M1s like to swap due to seemingly undersized but rapid ram) it's a dick move.
So, first, Hector is an expert (they're project lead of Asahi Linux, so there are few people outside Apple on the planet who know as much about how ARM Macs boot as they do), and their thread is worth reading.
That said, I disagree with their SSD/flash distinction. An "SSD" is really just a bunch of flash chips with a controller that coordinates them (including allocating them smartly, etc.). In Apple's case, that controller is on the M1 itself, so the module you insert is really just the flash chips, and isn't a full SSD of its own. But the end result is an "SSD" nonetheless.
There is PCIe; it's how Thunderbolt works, for example. (Really, Thunderbolt devices are just external PCIe cards.) But the flash storage is not connected through PCIe.
That way, they get lower latency, and also leave more PCIe lanes for other things (such as the very lane-hungry Thunderbolt).
Apple does use NVMe, just not through PCIe.
Yeah. Apple's boot mechanism is quite different. They do, however, still use EFI's GPT partition table (not, say, Apple Partition Map).
They do use a device tree that's somewhat inspired by how the PowerPC OpenFirmware Macs used to work.
Even if this story were accurate (it's not; you can DFU-restore your Mac and then use the new storage), I don't see what you would sue over. "This undocumented feature cannot be used in the way I expected it to, which annoys me, even though the vendor never claimed it existed in the first place."
Because 90% of people have no interest in learning how things actually work, they'd sooner jump on the "greedy, cost-cutting Apple" bandwagon without spending even a nanosecond on critical thinking.
I don't reckon it will be legit until Apple offer a variant with a case that has external access to the port. To much hassle for everyone to pull the machines apart. I now kind of expect the Mac Pro will more or less use the innards of a Studio as a starting point - and then build on the connectivity in a fancier, taller, case.
SolidStateDrives, these modules are just SolidState and for all it's worth Apple could just memory map them and go for a completely different type of computer.
Sure you can say it's nitpicking, but IMO it is important to keep that detail in mind instead of just going "oh they are kinda similar, so it's really all the same".
That exposed power supply that you have to remove to get to the other components, really is so dumb and ****ing dangerous from Apple.
My guess is that that stupid **** is the actual reason Apple has blocked the upgrade-ability, because you really don't want idiots having to remove unshielded power supplies from devices to upgrade.
My guess is that that stupid **** is the actual reason Apple has blocked the upgrade-ability, because you really don't want idiots having to remove unshielded power supplies from devices to upgrade.
This take is so bad that there have been actual laws passed to contradict it.
Do you seriously think that that’s what I was referring to? Your interpretation doesn’t make sense
I don't think there's a clear distinction between flash modules and an "SSD" beyond "a bunch of modules with a common controller", and to me, Apple's approach fits that bill.
You can upgrade the MacPro. Apple offers an upgrade kit
Maybe something similar will come for the studio.
the jumping to conclusions and irate statements on this thread based on the ignorance and jumping to conclusions of a YouTube is embarrassing.
he did it wrong.
he did it wrong.
I think the distinction is that with the mac pro and mac studio, a display was released alongside it - to go with that computer. The Mac mini is kind of a 'floater': No display released with it, so they could never call it a 'modular' system at the time of release.
They won't offer official upgrade kits for mainstream users due to the power supply being in the way for legal reasons.
If they provide upgrade / replacement kits to end users, it will be through the self-service repair store where people are responsible themselves for what they are doing.