Mac Studio Teardown Indicates That SSD Storage May Be Upgradeable

[foliovision]

I got a sneaky suspicion, Apple doesn't want you to open the Studio ?

Guess what, computers get dusty. At least every two years (in a clean environment, more often in a dirtier environment), they need to be opened up and cleaned out properly. Even MacBooks. Of course you may be comfortable with throwing out computers (and poisoning the environment) when they get dusty, but I'm not. Quite outside of the economical considerations, I strongly opoose the rare metal and energy waste.

 

[ric22]

...but, since the introduction of T2 and M1, the SSD controller is embedded in the T2/M1 and the drive blades connect via a proprietary protocol rather than NVMe or SATA. Also, Apple control the configurator software that you now need to run on a second, USB-C-connected Mac in order to 'register' the new SSD with the SoC.

...I think the Mac Pro and Studio are the only T2 or M1-based Macs to have socketed SSDs - looks like everything that OWC produce is for pre-T2 Macs that still used NVMe (albeit with nonstandard connectors).

I agree that is a problem (of their own making) for the primary drive... there's nothing stopping Apple from accepting an ordinary second SSD in the expansion slot, though.

 

[Pezimak]

Forget about the SSD apple said its not upgrade able and you shouldn’t.
but why is no one talking about that monster of a chip oOO
View attachment 1977747

Wow that's huge. I need to look into this more but I couldn't see any way for the thermal paste to be contained. As in guides to ensure it only spreads along that strip. It must have something for that though surely?
At the moment I'd argue the MacBook Pro is more serviceable as it's easier to take apart and clean with no risk to life from an exposed PSU in the way.

 

[ric22]

Wow that's huge. I need to look into this more but I couldn't see any way for the thermal paste to be contained. As in guides to ensure it only spreads along that strip. It must have something for that though surely?
At the moment I'd argue the MacBook Pro is more serviceable as it's easier to take apart and clean with no risk to life from an exposed PSU in the way.

In the video you could see the paste had been applied to the heat sink, and there was an indent around the applicable area that stops the paste spreading beyond it.

 

[Ubele]

Because

1. Apple prices for storage/RAM.

2. Because we can.

3. User needs change, what is sufficient today may not be that way later on, student now, later Engineer for instance.

4. It used to be normal to upgrade later on, seems to me they..Apple.. did a good job moulding people.

5. My 2012 Mac Mini is still doing well after storage/RAM upgrades, but I wish the Graphics card could be updated.

6. SSD's sometimes break, so, you don't need to send your mac to Apple, just order SSD online, next day fixed.

7. Overtime SSD's and RAM gets cheaper.

All if the above. In 2012, I bought a Mac mini with a 1 TB HDD, which was enough for all my stuff. I can't remember whether SSDs were even an option for the mini then. In 2015, I bought a 2015 MacBook Pro with 256 GB of storage because it was all I could afford, although I would have preferred 1 TB. In 2017, I replaced the mini's by-then unusably slow HDD with a 2.12 TB Fusion drive for very little money. It felt like a new computer. In 2019, I bought a base-model iMac with a 2TB Fusion drive from the Refurbished store and added extra, much-cheaper RAM from Crucial. In 2020, I replaced the MBP's SSD with a 1 TB SSD from OWC for $260. It's still a good backup computer for most of what I do, although the 8 GB of RAM is limiting for some of the programs I use. Last year, I finally sold my mini because it wouldn't drive my 4K monitor at full resolution (I use the 4K monitor with my work Windows laptop now), it would no longer accept annual macOS updates, and the iMac made it redundant. It still ran all my software fine, though.

 

[Pezimak]

In the video you could see the paste had been applied to the heat sink, and there was an indent around the applicable area that stops the paste spreading beyond it.

Ah thanks, makes sense. Good to know it has that.

 

[cmaier]

Guess what, computers get dusty. At least every two years (in a clean environment, more often in a dirtier environment), they need to be opened up and cleaned out properly. Even MacBooks. Of course you may be comfortable with throwing out computers (and poisoning the environment) when they get dusty, but I'm not. Quite outside of the economical considerations, I strongly opoose the rare metal and energy waste.

I admire the authoritative tone of the nonsensical statement that “at least every two years [computers] need to be opened up and cleaned out properly.” I mean, this being the internet and all, some people might even believe it.

 

[stevec618]

I don't think you need to be an absolute fortune-teller. If you are approaching the limits of your 512GB system now (honestly, I would say if you are using more than 70%), maybe 1TB is reasonable. If 1TB is looking lean, you need 2TB and so on. If you start running out of room, look at some basic housekeeping. If that fails, get an external solution for some things (Basic USB drive, thunderbolt raid, NAS) until your next upgrade. Even if you need more than storage than you thought, it isn't like its the end of the world. If you can edit 4k video over thunderbolt external storage, it should be fast enough for most applications. It is more likely that you have some things that will survive just fine on a $99 USB 3 external drive.

But lets say all of that doesn't work for you. You bought a 1TB model and suddenly took up editing 8K video unexpectedly 6 months later. Thunderbolt isn't fast enough. Only internal drives will do for your demanding project. It is time to admit you just missed. Buy the upgraded version immediately, ahead of your regular 3-5 year upgrade schedule. Use Time Machine to clone your old system onto the new one (hopefully with faster processors to boot), then sell the old one to offset the cost. Even a 2 year old Mac still holds a lot of its retail value. Look at the difference as a mix of rental rate and a tax on your lack of foresight.

To put that in the real world, you bought a 1TB M1 Mac Mini (8 core, 16GB RAM) for $1299. Now you want to upgrade (it doesn't matter to what). Those are selling right now on ebay for $900-$1185 used. So you use the computer for a year and cash out for a loss of about $400, give or take. That isn't so bad for someone ready to buy the next and better Mac.

Really though, is it that hard to look at your current usage and take a pretty good guess at what you are likely to need in the next 3 years? How often have you been 'that wrong' unless trying something silly?

I'm fine with my set up, I just find it odd that people on the forums assume that you can choose what you need up front.

I have a 2013 MBP, which I'm pretty sure didn't have the option of an internal 6TB drive when I bought it, and if it did and given Apple's prices, would have cost the same as a small house. I didn't need that much space when I bought it, but then unexpectedly got a client who regularly sends me GBs of photos for retouching. I couldn't have known in advance I was going to get this client. Plus, my external 6TB RAID cost a fraction of what Apple would charge.

 

[cmaier]

I'm fine with my set up, I just find it odd that people on the forums assume that you can choose what you need up front.

That’s normally how life works. You buy a car, and you choose the engine and transmission you want, and don’t assume that you can cheaply swap it later. You buy an iPhone, and you choose the storage you think you’ll need. You buy a TV, and don’t assume you can replace the screen to upgrade it to 8K if you decide you’d like that. You go to a restaurant and order steak, and don’t assume the restaurant will give you a free lobster if you change your mind mid-meal and decide tonight should be seafood.

 

[3gfisch]

It's not a large CHIP, it's a large PACKAGE.
It's large because most of the area is DRAM, not the actual two M1 Ultra SOCs.

No-one is talking about this because it's an moronic thing to talk about, there is nothing interesting there. Leave clickbait to the idiots.

Yes i know its not one chip inside, it are 2 M1 Max and they are connected with a silicon interposer, so 3 silicon chips without the RAM. but any way im referring the whole thing as chip, you can also says package, SoC or whatever. It’s the smallest single part you can compare to other „chips“ like AMD or Intel (they also have more silicon chips inside for the bigger Ryzen or for intels „integrated“ GPU…) but they have not included RAM till now..
Second point is not correct, the SoC is the whole package INCLUDING RAM.

This is the most interesting part of all of the M1 magic, the performance because of the tight integration, speed and efficiency, i think.

 

[cmaier]

Yes i know its not one chip inside, it are 2 M1 Max and they are connected with a silicon interposer, so 3 silicon chips without the RAM. but any way im referring the whole thing as chip, you can also says package, SoC or whatever. It’s the smallest single part you can compare to other „chips“ like AMD or Intel (they also have more silicon chips inside for the bigger Ryzen or for intels „integrated“ GPU…) but they have not included RAM till now..
Second point is not correct, the SoC is the whole package INCLUDING RAM.

This is the most interesting part of all of the M1 magic, the performance because of the tight integration, speed and efficiency, i think.

The SoC is the die, not the package including RAM. The package including RAM is an MCM, not a SoC.

That said, people are often very loose in using the proper terminology.

 

[dandeco]

Now THIS is really good news for the electronics recycling/reselling company I work for. Maybe Apple is now wising up that they could get in trouble with the law for having the SSD soldered to the motherboard. I sure can't wait to tell my boss about this tomorrow! (Funny thing, this week I'm going to be working on a LOT of 2nd-generation MacBook Airs, and any broken ones that won't boot or have some other functionality issue I can remove the SSD from and possibly reuse it in an Air that may not have one installed. (We've stockpiled on quite a few of those SSDs, but each one we do need to wipe among installing in a MacBook Air or Pro Retina, using a Mac OS installer.)

And my boss was indeed happy to hear about this today! He figures Apple is starting to be aware of what the government wants (computers having a removable/replaceable internal storage device); Apple just kept it a secret from the general public until that initial user teardown. (Almost like the 2017 Retina 21.5" iMac and 2018 Mac Mini having user-replaceable RAM that does require quite a bit of disassembly to get to.)

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

I don't think any laptop around has upgradeable internals to 70 TB. My two laptops connect to my NAS just fine.

How fine is that connection when you're not in the same building?

 

[DeepIn2U]

There's something to that - especially since RAM price-per-MB is no longer plummeting the way it did in the 80s and 90s. If a new application comes along that needs twice as much RAM, the odds are that it will also need the latest CPU and GPU advances, too. Also, low-power LPDDR RAM only comes in surface-mount packages and just isn't upgradeable - there's no equivalent of the DDR4 DIMM stick that you can just plug in. The M1 has also turned having the RAM embedded into the SoC package with the shortest possible connection to the CPU into a performance gain.

Also, Apple are a bit mean with RAM, often low-balling the entry-level module with something like 8GB - which should be enough for "entry level" users but - if you look at the prices of RAM in the general IT market - looks a lot like false economy. Apple have always charged a ridiculous amount for their BTO RAM upgrades - most obviously when you look at the Intel Mac Mini and former iMac which took bog-standard DDR4 SODIMMs that you could get at a fraction of the price retail (i.e. a distributor was eating hot meals and sleeping indoors on the profit margin) from a third party. E.g. with my 2017 iMac I added 16BG to get 24GB for substantially less than Apple wanted for a mere 8-16GB upgrade.

The real sticking point, though, is SSD, because the flash memory in SSD is perishable - it can only be written to a limited number of times before it degrades. Although the limit is fairly huge and should be enough for it to outlast the computer under "normal" use, it is always conceivable that a software problem will prematurely "age" it. Also, the reliability comparison is often between a SSD drive and the mean-time-between-failures of a mechanical hard drive, which is a pretty low bar - nobody in their right mind would design a serious computer where you couldn't replace the hard drive.

The removable SSDs in the Studio are good news if only because it means that a failed SSD will be replaceable without a whole new logic board (as on the MacBooks) even if that has to be done by Apple.


...and Apple will need to provide a way for regular users to "register" the new SSD with the M1's controller. Apple do offer DIY SSD upgrades for the Mac Pro (at their usual reassuringly expensive prices), but you need a second Mac and Apple Configurator software to do it, so it is entirely down to Apple.

I don't think OWC have produced any SSD upgrades for Macs released since Apple switched from standard NVME interfaces to having the controller in the T2 chip (and then in the M1 SoC) - although that's kinda moot for MacBooks which switched to soldered-in SSDs about the same time.

Pssst. While I agree with most of what you stated, the big 3 all create laptops with non expandable storage.
Dell
HP
Lenovo

Only their gaming and corporate laptops and desktops all come with expandable/user replaceable storage.

Also RAM is perishable. Non volatile is the term you should be using.

Cheers.

 

[jjcs]

Not debating that but they should be distributed at different locations such as in a safety deposit box at a bank in case the primary site has some catastrophe like a fire befall it.

Indeed. Just not signing it over to Google or Amazon.

 

[jjcs]

If they do nothing in the interests of their customers then the customers won't buy. If you read the books about early Apple it was never about the money.

Woz probably thought that way. It's always "about the money". Apple positions products to benefit the bottom line. Yes, people have to be willing to buy it, but that doesn't mean Apple is cares about their interests beyond selling them something.

 

[jjcs]

Maybe if you’re in defence sector. But second tier stuff, ie finance, we run in amazon and pass all the relevant compliance audits. Just dealing with SOC 2 at the moment…

That's terrifying.

 

[jjcs]

The answer is both.

Cloud storage gives you protection against your backup failure. Backup gives you protection against cloud failure.

The answer is your own offsite backup you control, not moving data to some other company.

I don't even use Apple's cloud for my personal iPhone. I have my own system for that. One I control.

 

[name99]

I don't get this. Apple has their own flash controller on the M1.
Is the claim that
- a stick of controller-free flash (which is generally only sold to data warehouses; normal sticks come with a controller) will work and
- that Apple communicates with this stick via absolutely standard protocols, presumably NVMe?
If you look at an M1 device (at least an MBA) in System Report it will say that the SSD is connected via Apple Fabric, NOT via NVMe. Which suggests that Apple does nots speak the SSD protocol spoken by most SSD sticks.

What I'm seeing is that MECHANICALLY Apple's SSD matches a standard size. But that means *nothing* for functionality; it's like assuming an nVidia GPU will work in my Mac Pro just because I can physically plug the card into the slot...

OK, for people following this, Hector has more details here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1506022589357260801

Bottom line:
(a) YES, the things being called SSD's are NOT SSDs, they are indeed raw storage modules.
(b) they are not m.2 packages, they look similar but are not the same
(c) they speak a protocol close to, but not exactly the same as, NVMe
(d) different versions of these storage modules (based, at least, on who supplied the raw flash, possibly also on other issues) run different firmware. It's possible that if one of these is moved from a mac studio to a different mac studio such that the two elements of the pair have identical FW the pair will work; if they don't have matching FW they definitely will not work.
This is not the same thing as the claim that Apple has "locked them" so that you can't move them around; and given the extreme cluelessness displayed so far by this YouTube'r, I don't think I especially care about his future ruminations on the issue.

 

[name99]

Because

1. Apple prices for storage/RAM.

2. Because we can.

3. User needs change, what is sufficient today may not be that way later on, student now, later Engineer for instance.

4. It used to be normal to upgrade later on, seems to me they..Apple.. did a good job moulding people.

5. My 2012 Mac Mini is still doing well after storage/RAM upgrades, but I wish the Graphics card could be updated.

6. SSD's sometimes break, so, you don't need to send your mac to Apple, just order SSD online, next day fixed.

7. Overtime SSD's and RAM gets cheaper.

You do realize that if NORMAL people want more storage they attach it via USB/TB or stick in an SD card, right?
The only thing you NEED that internal SSD for is booting (and even that is somewhat technical; you CAN boot from an external drive, it's just the very first stage needs to handshake with the internal SSD).

You do also realize that eBay is a thing, and if Student has become Engineer in three years, they can sell on eBay and upgrade, right? Macs do an astonishingly good job of holding their value over time.


So basically all your outrage is focussed on the trivially rare event of "SSD dies completely, after warranty period, but before I want to replace the Mac". Yes, the two people in the world for whom this will *ever* happen feel your outrage.

 

[ric22]

Trivially rare? Two SSD failures in the whole wide world? I don't know why so many people use these boards to troll random strangers. It isn't funny, it's just sad.

 

[jjcs]

You do realize that if NORMAL people want more storage they attach it via USB/TB or stick in an SD card, right?
The only thing you NEED that internal SSD for is booting (and even that is somewhat technical; you CAN boot from an external drive, it's just the very first stage needs to handshake with the internal SSD).

You are definitely Apple's target market. BTW, what sort of performance does TB4 give you over an internal disk?

Apple is all about the margins. Drive their own costs down by integrating components and definitely not pass savings to the customers, but charge them even more. Lots of companies would probably like to go this route in this market, but might not get a pass from customers like this.

If their hardware actually matches your requirements, their prices aren't really that bad. If it doesn't, it's like the Ford Model T. The customer can have any color they want as long as its black.

 

[Danfango]

The answer is your own offsite backup you control, not moving data to some other company.

I don't even use Apple's cloud for my personal iPhone. I have my own system for that. One I control.

That’s probably the wrong answer for 99% of people.

The correct answer is iCloud and offline. Note the “and”.

I bet you don’t test your backups properly ie restore onto different hardware weekly and set your RTOs properly.

 

[Danfango]

OK, for people following this, Hector has more details here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1506022589357260801

Bottom line:
(a) YES, the things being called SSD's are NOT SSDs, they are indeed raw storage modules.
(b) they are not m.2 packages, they look similar but are not the same
(c) they speak a protocol close to, but not exactly the same as, NVMe
(d) different versions of these storage modules (based, at least, on who supplied the raw flash, possibly also on other issues) run different firmware. It's possible that if one of these is moved from a mac studio to a different mac studio such that the two elements of the pair have identical FW the pair will work; if they don't have matching FW they definitely will not work.
This is not the same thing as the claim that Apple has "locked them" so that you can't move them around; and given the extreme cluelessness displayed so far by this YouTube'r, I don't think I especially care about his future ruminations on the issue.

I feel vindicated now as I called out the point made by that YT influencer earlier as probably a poor assumption.

So far there have been a lot of whiners on the forum and youtube running stories with no objective proof with massive fan followings.

All this proves is facts no longer matter and objectivity is dead. And social media influencers are a cancer on this planet.

The studio display and Mac studio threads have been a crapfest of misinformation mostly parroting incorrect stuff by people who have never touched one from people who don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[theluggage]

Pssst. While I agree with most of what you stated, the big 3 all create laptops with non expandable storage.

...and that's never a good thing for SSD. With LPDDR RAM, there's a reason.

Also RAM is perishable. Non volatile is the term you should be using.

Not sure what your point is - "non-volatile" means "doesn't loose its data when powered off". Flash (used in SSD) is non-volatile, which is why it is . RAM is volatile.

By "perishable" (not an electronics term) I mean that while any component (like RAM) can fail, a SSD actually has a known, limited working life. Unlike RAM, Flash memory cells - because of the way they work - are known to break down after a relatively small (compared to other solid-state electronics) number of write operations.